Zombie Movie Review (5) of the Day: Diary of the Dead (10/23/11)

"The problem isn't that people are waking up dead, it's that the dead are waking up..."

Ok. I know I’ve been doing these as "review of the day" and I plan on going to “review of the week” once I do all the really famous/big movie franchises/ Romero's and then once I run out of movies maybe once a month or something—point being I know I already did a review this morning but I also skipped a few days this week, plus this is one of my all time favorites in the Romero Zombie series.

So here we are: 2007, almost 40 years since the original Night of the Living Dead. Romero has pumped out five zombie movies (if you count the Night remake) as well as a few other films, such as the original Crazies (aka Code Name Trixie). Diary of the Dead is a fantasic film all around.

George Romero loves his movies and his fan base so he wanted to do something for this new increasing second generation of Romero fans like me that thanks to their parents has been scarred and/or inspired in one way or another because of Night, Dawn, and Day. So Romero gave us as his thanks for support, the love letter to the generation 2 Romero fans, Diary of the Dead.

This film is shot in the style of found footage. For all you non-movie buffs out there, found footage is a type of filming where it is implied that it all really happened and someone was there to record it and find it. Some famous examples of this are The Blaire Witch Project and Cloverfield. This genre was started with the very controversial movie Cannibal Holocaust (http://thecinemasnob.com/2011/04/12/cannibal-holocaust.aspx). It is filmed via first person perspective with hand-held cameras. Many people do not really like or appreciate this genre but if done well it can be quite good such as is the case of Diary. In addition, Diary was never trying to further scare you by implying that the events really happened or anything like that. Diary was done in this style because Romero wanted to do something new and different and once again, make something that was a tribute and a nod to his original trilogy but at the same time appealing to the new generation. In my opinion it worked. This truly is a love letter to people like me. Some of the original fans did not think it was very good nor had that old Romero feel but as i said that was not the point.

This truly is at the very least the most scary and frightening of all of his six zombie movies (again, seven counting Night remake). Night was terrifying but won't scare many 20 + year olds these days, Dawn was campy and full of action, Day was a gore fest and as such is certainly the most gory, gross and bloody of all his films. However, Diary does indeed deserve a place in the genre of horror. With the found-footage camera angles and lighting it has a very surreal, claustrophobic feel to it. It is dark physically and metaphorically, morbid, and leaves one feeling angry/ashamed of humanity and asks some very existential questions.

This film is a reboot to the classic series, a retelling in the modern era and Diary goes back to the Night of the Living Dead, Day 1/Patient Zero feel. It is the beginning of the outbreak, there are no answers, no one knows exactly what is going on or what to do and of course, this is a universe where the original Romero movie never happened. Which means the Return of the Living Dead movies never happened, Resident Evil never happened, etc. Point? No one has seen a zombie before.

This time the cast are college students who happen to be film majors and their old film professor who in my opinion is one of the best characters. The main group of characters we follow are: Jason, the camera man for most of the movie and conflicted persona, Debra, Jason's girlfriend, Tony, Tracey, Elliot, Gordo, Mary, and Andrew Maxwell, the professor.

The movie opens with all of them shooting Jason's Mummy horror movie, which he cuts to explain to Ridley (the mummy), that he is moving too fast—dead things don't move fast. Dead things are slow, otherwise you'd snap your ankles off (foreshadowing? of course it is) Which is right from the mouth of Romero and that line makes all us true Romero zombie fans basically jizz our pants when he says that. During their break, they hear strange reports on the radio of what is going on and like all college students, naturally decide to get the heck out of dodge and return to the safety of their homes and families. They go to the University of Pittsburgh (oh I'm sorry...I should have mentioned this in my first review: all of Romero's movies take place in Pennsylvania, his home state but only the original 3 and the Night remake were shot in PN, his reboots are shot in Canada).

Anyway, they take Mary's RV and all head off to drop people off along the way to their homes except for a few who don't live in PN and are just along for the ride since the world is ending and there is safety in numbers. Tony lives in NY and Tracey lives in Texas. She has her own little camera too and so some of the movie comes from her perspective.

Things start to get real and intense as they drive down the road and run over a few zombies. At this point not all of them are convinced they are dead people and emotions go crazy as they freak out about whether or not they killed some people.

They then end up needing to go to a nearby hospital when a member their group is injured. I am not saying who it is or how they are hurt—watch the movie for that. No spoilers here. Debra finds another camera in the hospital so we get another viewpoint. We get all these multiple cameras edited together because, like I said, they are film majors and eventually Jason ends up getting access to a computer and begins to edit the footage and post it online to help others survive. A moral dilemma rises out of this between Jason and Debra. She thinks he is being crazy for sticking with his camera throughout this ordeal. One of the criticisms of found-footage movies: it is not realistic to keep a heavy camera with you and filming while a witch or a monster is chasing you, however Jason fixes this problem by explaining why he is doing this. He is saving lives by giving everyone access to the truth so that maybe others will learn to survive by watching how they have survived.

They make several more stops along the way and end up at Ridley's mansion that he boasts is like a fortes complete with panic room. It invariably ends with the remaining members of the group securing themselves into the panic room and then cuts to a clip Debra found of once again, rednecks having fun shooting up zombies and she asks the audience if we are worth saving.

I feel it is a very powerful and deep movie as well as disturbing. I do not think there is as much as an underlying theme in this one as with the previous ones. This time the theme is in your face: Humanity: worth saving/surviving? There are a few minor undertones however: 1) it is suggested thru out the film that the media cannot be trusted and that the huge media corps are lying to the public about what is truly going on as if covering up zombies will save people. We all know it will get more people killed. This is one of the reasons why Jason is so adamant and passionate about recording everything. He wants to get the unbiased objective truth to the masses to help them. This ties in with mini theme 2: technology, a lot of debate goes on about the evils and goods of the internet and other techs. In Diary, when the shit hits the fan and everyone runs, all that is left is the internet, bloggers, and hackers keeping the information flow going.

I give Diary of the Dead 4.75 (4 3/4) stars out of 5, and the only reason it isn't 5 is because Dawn is almost always seen as Romero's finest Zombie film which I agree. I gave Dawn 5 out of 5 and if it is the best then none of his other films can be better than or equal to Dawn. However, I will say this: Diary of the Dead is my favorite out of the 7 Romero zombie movies and it is certainly the most terrifying out of all of them.

Fun facts: This movie is so a love letter to horror and zombie fans: all the news reports on radio/TV that are in Diary are voiced by well-known people in the horror/zombie genre. This includes Wes Craven, Stephen King, Simon Pegg, Quentin Taratino, and Guillermo del Toro. In addition, at one point, one of the TV/radio broadcasts is actually a cameo of one of the TV broadcasts from the original Night of the Living Dead. I challenge you to pick out all of these. Other cameo's: Romero makes a cameo as a police chief in the film; Nicotero plays a zombie surgeon and does the make-up and effects. Boyd Banks plays the only white guy with a group of black survivalists run by an ex national guard member is seen in Land of the Dead as the Butcher Zombie. He is also a Zombie in Dawn of the Dead 2004 remake but that film has no continuity with Romero's universes. In addition, another National Guard member who appears in Diary reprises that character in Survival of the Dead (which will be my next review) and is seen for a few seconds as a soldier in Land of the Dead as well. Also it is possible that Romero was partially inspired by the movie The Zombie Diaries which came a year or two before Diary of the Dead. It is of course found-footage format and in my opinion on of the greatest zombie movies of all time and I have seen many zombie movies. However, it is really, really disturbing. Don’t worry, I’ll be doing a review of that one as well eventually.

Zombie Movie Review (4) of the Day: Night of the Living Dead 1990 (10/23/11)

"There's another one for the fire"

So here we are 22 years later since the original Night of the Living Dead. This '90 version is a remake but it is not one of those remakes by other people, oh no. This movie is also done by George Romero and John Russo but it was directed by the great Tom Savini. Like I said it has been over 2 decades, everyone involved has a great deal more experience under their belts, effects and technology have improved, and they finally have the budget they always wanted for the original.

So is it better? Worse? About the same? This can be a loaded and philosophical question. I mean most times even if the guys that do a remake do it well, the original fan base gets passed at them for messing with their cult classic. However, that danger does not exist here as the same exact people did the remake with the same exact screenplay.

The movie opens with a nice opening credit sequence where we will see Romero's as well as his wife Christine who helped produce it (they met on the set of Dawn and fell in love), Russo, and Savini, about a hundred times to overcompensate for the lack of copyrighting faux pas back in the day.

Savini wanted to do an updated movie with better effects and relevance to the modern era but he wanted it to stay true to the original. How to do this? Well they decided: let's do the movie like we never saw or made the original. That being said, it is pretty much a faithful shot for shot remake.

However, certain things obviously changed to make it more relevant for the time. The racial tension between Ben and Cooper is still present only it has more of a subtle undertone. The main difference in characters is that Barbara is now a stronger, cool headed, fully fleshed out, lead character rather than the catatonic she was in the original. This being mostly a result of the sexual revolution and let me tell you something: I fecking love Barbara in this. She is wonderful. Once again, like the last Ben, the actor just walked on, did a smashing performance and was signed on right there and then. The makeup is certainly better. I mean the original did not even have any make up. However, the makeup is also more realistic than Savini's job in Day. That is what five more years experience, effects updates, and a bigger budget will give you.
There are also subtle differences in the film. At the end a new broadcast confirms my original suspicion that it is late August as the broadcast states it is the 23rd. In addition, this time, Johnny and Barbara are visiting the grave of their mother rather than their father.

I also love this ending. I will not give anything away but what i will say is that it is different and it is still fantastic. The rednecks are back are more in your face than ever before in a Romero movie and Barbara watching them have fun killing the undead, makes the observation that "we're them and they're us" Which is really philosophical. This is why I love these films: there are always existential overtones! Anyway, the question is again asked: are we worth saving? Are we any better? That is the thing about zombies. It's more of a Jaws kind of movie than a Freddy, Jason, etc movie, the villain is not evil, zombies don't kill for fun, they kill, like the shark in Jaws, for food, they are hungry. And with the small exception of Bub, they don't know any better. The real monsters and villains of these films are the other people.

Anyway, so in 1969 we had very prevalent racism. And in 1990? Well....HIV/AIDS. A new virus is sweeping the world over; there are a lot of rumors, propaganda and misinformation going on. People are terrified that if they just touch you, you will be infected. When really, they are not that threatening, as Barbara points out about the zombies, "they are so slow, we could just walk right by them" suggesting, people with AIDS are not to be feared so much. Unless their fluids get into your fluids, and in fact, the real people to watch out for are the ones who want to kill them on site and have a good time while doing it!

So is the remake better? Overall yes! The original is still a great film with great messages and an ironic ending. However, in the remake, the acting is better, the make-up is better, the effects are better, the zombies are more convincing, and it still has a dark uncomfortable feel to it, claustrophobic almost and surreal. It is effective as a horror and it was done with fans in mind. The great lines of "they're dead, they're all messed up", "another one for the fire", and "They're coming to get you Barbara" are still in the remake.

And as a side note fun fact, towards the end a guy that grabs Barbara is played by none other than Greg Nicotero. Nicotero, as I mention in Day, is one of the many followers of Savini and who would go on to have his own huge effects company and end up doing the makeup/effects for several future Romero movies and is currently doing work for The Walking Dead.

Overall, I give this film a bump up from 3 out 5 for the original to 4.5 (4 1/2) out of 5.

Zombie Movie Review (3) of the Day: Day of the Dead (10/22/11)

"Herwo, Aunt Awreesha"

Today we end the original George Romero Zombie Trilogy with Day of the Dead. In 1968 he brought us into the night, in 1978 he took us thru the dawn, and now, in 1985, he brings us "into the darkest day of horror the world has ever known" (as the trailer puts it). The reasoning behind this was simple. He made a film in the late 60's and late 70's so why not make one in the late 80's? This was so he could make each film socio-politically relevant to the times and have some deep messages in them. In the 80’s there was lack of faith in government and in the economy, as things seemed to start to fall apart.

The movie takes place pretty much the day after the end of Dawn. Although we have no way of knowing this for sure, in the beginning of Day, we see the main character looking at a calendar and it is the day before Halloween and Dawn took place over about a month and a half beginning in the second week of September. This means that this movie is more of a Halloween themed movie than the last two. This idea was inspired by of course Halloween the film.

Once again, we have Tom Savini doing the make-up and effects. He is not in the movie this time but that hardly matters as he is at his best. We meet our protagonists and main group in the opening shot. The main character Sarah (doctor) is played by Bill "Chilly Billy" Cardille's daughter. Bill Cardille played himself as the reporter in the original Night of the Living Dead. Just a little fun fact. Our other main heroes are John, the copter pilot, William McDermott, the radio techie, and Private Miguel Salazar who is Sarah's boyfriend and the only soldier in Day of the Dead that is not a bad person (like the Scottish soldier in 28 Days Later)...although, Miguel is still unstable like the rest of them. The other characters are another doctor, several soldier, Logan, the mad scientist, and Rhodes, the epitome of the person you love to hate. He takes being an asshole to a completely new level. I would not say he is evil per se, but clearly, the zombie apocalypse has taken a toll on him just like all the others. The other important character is Bub, probably the most beloved central zombie character of all time. Bub is a smart zombie, and as Howard Sherman (Bub) said, "a smart zombie is pretty much as smart as a dumb dog".

This time our group is located in an underground bunker. They have been taking the chopper out looking for survivors but to no avail. Tensions rise between the scientists + civilians and the soldiers. The soldiers have lost more people and they think that the science team’s mission is pointless (finding a cure, immunity, or a way to control the dead. And they do have a point.

We find out that Bub holds a lot of promise, as he appears to have more memory than the average zombie does. Bub is clearly the exception to the rule. However, Logan also easily trains him to him as a father and not as a free meal. But the soldiers think it is all stupid.

Things get really bad when they find out Logan has been feeding the dead soldiers to Bub and that is when the climax of the film really hits.

Since they were shooting and pretty much living underground in this bunker for most of the duration of making the film, a lot of the cast and crew became depressed and lethargic and so Romero called up a doctor to come down and give everyone shots of Vitamin D.

Also, they had so many zombies in this movie, more than they ever had in Night or Dawn or probably even combined, that they put a call out to anyone in the area who wanted to be a zombie. Of course, they ended up with way more zombies than they needs (as you will see in the film). In fact, some of the zombies are actually famous people. Look for the fisherman zombie; he is played by the dean of Carnegie at the time. Another zombie is Chef Brockett from Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood (also filmed in PN)

Day of the Dead is also the most degusting, bloody, and gory Romero movie up to this point and since then. Tom Savini was truly at his peak. An interesting fact, this is where Greg Nicotero really got his start in him make-up career by studying under Savini who loves to teach people the tricks of the trade. Nicotero, whose most early films were John Carpenter films, also has a cameo in Day. His later Romero movie cameos are very small roles but in Day, he plays Pvt. Johnson.

Day has many socio-political themes going on. The main theme, being a group of people hiding in an underground place away from their problems and the truth, during the Reagan Era. In addition, the movie brings back a couple of themes found in Night, one being on racism. Most of the soldiers are bigots except funny enough, Rhodes—the person you are meant to hate. Also, the theme of two groups of people with different ideas about what to do and in the end neither is really more right or more wrong. This film also has a lot of zombie action involving lots of gore while the zombies eat people. Furthermore, this film has a signature Romero Ironic ending and let me tell you it is fantastic. Esp., if you have followed the trilogy. You will love the ending to Day of the Dead. Trust me. I will not spoil it for you. I am sure if you want it spoiled, you can find the clip on YouTube but I suggest watching the movie.

So how do I rate Day of the Dead? Well Dawn is the best, but Day comes pretty close. It has less camp and action and more gore and claustrophobia. I give Day of the Dead 4 out of 5 stars

Music & Philosophy Blog 2

Ok, so I've been thinking about how to go about defining concepts that are a bit harder than simply dog or chair like art, music, etc. and here's what i've come up with, i touched briefly on how i feel about defining things in my extended Philosophy of Art paper which you can view at My papers/essays link on my main blog page. This blog may seem irrevevant at times or just a big tangent but bear with me.

To start with God: now in most cultures, God (or god or gods/goddesses) typically are simply summed up with three terms: omnipotent (all powerful), omniscent (all knowing), and omnipresent (everywhere simultaniously). Now, logically what this means is the God in most cases (esp in Judeo/Christan/Islamic terms) is infinite and limitless. Now there is a problem with defininf infinite concepts because language is finite and therefore no matter what, when you try to describe an infinite concept with finite language you are essentially limiting it and therefore the true message will not get across. for example refering to God as He, he, She, or she. Such is the problem with language: we don't always have the right words. This can also be said of absract concepts such as truth, beauty, freedom, justice, etc. The problem with refering to God comes into play with these terms because for the most part they are all subjective and have different meanings for different people and unless you are a Kantian and/or a Platonist/Neo-Plantonist,  there really is no objective concept of Truth, Beauty, Freedom, or Justice. and even if you do follow Kant or Plato, both of them still agree that as a single physical person, one will not truly know the full nature and objective meaning of these concepts. Therefore it can be difficult to define things like Music, Art, Dance, Literature, etc. You will end up limiting them and not taking into account all possibilites that exist or that may one day come along.

That being said, I also don't think it is a good idea to not have any base definition for these things either. I don't like the idea of opening floodgates so that anything can be anything. Definitons are important to an extent. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm not one of thsoe people who needs a label and classification for all things to feel safer and more comfortable with the world. This is something we all do to an extent as to not feel like we live in a world of chaos and uncertainties. However as I said, definitons are useful and helpful and they do weed out certain ridiculous or bad examples of a concept to be classified as such. For example. an iguana is not a cow. In the first place, an iguana isn't even a mammal so it fails even at the basic neccesities for being a cow.

Which bring me to my next point, once again, tangetn alert. I'm about to use zombies as a way to explain how to define music, Art, or art in general.:

Now at it's core a zombie follows certain things. Even before the days of George Romero who set the standard for the modern zombie, zombies were almost always previously dead things. I admit at times there were movies and books that had zombies as simply living people under hypnosis who did the bidding of the "zombie king" , the one who did the voodoo. But even if they were dead this figure was refered to as the zombie king. One, could look at these people in a trance as metaphorical zombies. the same way when parents say their kids are zombies in the morning. These parents do not actually mean their kids are zombies, undead, or being controlled by anyone. They know full well their kids are not among the walking dead.
So at our basis, zombies are dead that are somehow acting not dead. This is clear if we look at the synomyms for zombies: the living dead, the undead, the walking dead. See? Dead. Dead, dead, dead. Zombies are dead. More this, only the brain is typically functional. This means zombies don't need any of thewir other organs, which is why if you shoot or stab them in the chest or stomach they are not phased. it is the brain that still drives them and the only way to kill a zombie is to damage or remove the brain. now we all agree on this. But many many people have a tendency to label movies like 28 days later, evil dead, or i am legend as zombie movies. this is false. you can argue it anyway you want but in the end it comes down to whether they are dead or not. not only that but the writers of these movies usually clearly state their creatures are not zombies. out of those three films i listed, the only one that comes close to being zombies is the evil dead becuase in fact, the creatures are dead. but i nwill be going into a deeper argument about this in another post on debunking pseudozombie movies pretty much unrelated to this post but will recap and continue the specific discussion on the nature of zombies.

Anyway my point is if we don't somewhat close off definitons to at least not let in some things i feel we may be in trouble or else vampires could technically be zombies, cell phones could be works of art, computer system sounds of a laptop booting up could be music, etc.

Zombie Movie Review (2) of the Day: Dawn of the Dead (1978)

"When there's no more room in Hell, the dead shall walk the Earth."

This is arguably not only George Romero's greatest zombie movie (out of his 6 to date) but also his greatest film of all time. Fans of Romero young and old love this movie. Even Romero says that this is favorite of his movies and one of his best. It is also his longest zombie movie.

For a little background, this movie, uncut, is about 2 hours and 15 minutes with the cut being 2 h, 5m. There is also the British release, which is edited differently than the American release. This version was released under the title of Zombi, which brings in the Zombi movie series, which is very confusing with so many unofficial sequels, but we will get into that when i do that series which will not be for a while.

Dawn of the Dead wasn't going for as much of a horror/claustrophobic feel like he did with N.o.t.L.D., instead he wanted something a bit more campy with more action or as Romero put it comic book-y and it is. In fact, a graphic novelization of the movie was released with the film.

The movie takes place a few weeks after Night. For a time frame, if you notice carefully in Night, you will see a calendar on the wall with the month of August showing and Barbara references how the days are still too long and that Day Lights Saving Time should be earlier in the year than it is, anyway just a little trivia. So now, it is like the second week of September. It appears the living have been doing a good job of containing this epidemics. It has been a few weeks and the TV news is still running.

That is where we come in and meet one of our main characters: Fran, a TV news techie. Her boyfriend Steven is the news chopper pilot and they plan to steal the chopper and get the fuck out of dodge while there is still some sort of order and there is still a chance to get away. They plan to leave with their friend in the SWAT team, Roger, who we cut to in the next scene. SWAT is working with the National Guard to kill zombies who people in the projects have not killed for some reason (religious beliefs, grief, etc) Roger ends up befriending, Peter and tells him about his plan to leave.

They get in the chopper and end up flying over the farm towns we saw in Night and we see the "good ole' boys" having a great time still working with the local police and national guard to try and get ahead of this thing. They don't seem too worried or concerned with the fact the dead are rising. This is another social more` that Romero focuses on how human beings are the real monsters seeing how we are killing for fun having a good time while the world around them is coming to an end. This theme is repeated in several of his films. Romero clearly has no tolerance for intolerant people. there are themes of equality and themes against racism throughout his films.

They decide to set down in a mall, which in 1968 or 1978 (depending on when you think the trilogy takes place) is a new thing. They decide they could take it easy and hide out in the mall for a few months, which is what they do. Conveniently in this mall, there is a grocery store, gun emporium, and the power is still running which is explained by the power plant the powers the mall being nuclear. Anyway, the point being is this mall has everything they need in an apocalyptic world: food, weapons, medical supplies, and safety. To protect themselves, they put up all the security doors over the mall doors with are thick glass that these zombies have trouble breaking. To increase security even more they take semi trucks from the nearby parking lot and drive one in front of every main entrance into the mall. Once they get into the gun store, they then take out all the undead inside the mall.

Tensions rise after they have been there for so long. In addition, trouble brews once large gangs of raiding, marauding bikers turn up and see the helicopter on the roof. As Peter says, they are a professional army. They end up breaking into the mall letting all the zombies in as well. They end up leaving the mall in the chopper to go to a destination unknown.

Overall, it is a fantastic film. The acting is great as well as the chemistry between characters. Though Night started the genre, this movie set the standard. One of the lead raiders is played by Tom Savini who is known as the king of gore in makeup. He did the make up for dawn and for day, was a pioneer in his field, has taught, and inspired many makeup/special effects artists. The main theme of this film is anti-capitalism. The characters reference how zombies are sill drawn to the mall because it meant something to them--it was an important place. And Tom Savini even said in the documentary “Zombiemania!” that if you go to any mall today you will sure enough see zombies (i.e. consumers) walking around the mall. The film is fun done well and despite the zombies being blue/gray and the blood looking like bright red paint that defies the laws of biology and physics, it is still done well. The only really the effects aren't better is that this is still in the 70's and the people like Savini and George are learning more and more but they certainly revolutionize their fields. I give this movie a fun and entertaining 5 out of 5 stars.

BAD!!!!! Zombie Movies Reviewed(1.5) already been done

Hello all these are some fun Zombie movie reviews of movies I won't be doing personally because A) they've already been done for me and B) I could not do a better job. these are hilarious and fun. Enjoy! (Also C: All these movies really really suck!!! Have fun!)

Burial Grounds: Nights of Terror: http://thecinemasnob.com/2009/08/05/burial-ground-nights-of-terror.aspx
(i may at one point review this myself as i have seen it before)

Zombi Flesh Eaters 3/Zombie 4: After Death: http://thecinemasnob.com/2009/08/08/zombie-4-after-death.aspx

Zombie Lake: http://thecinemasnob.com/2009/08/09/zombie-lake.aspx

Zombie 5: Killing Birds: http://thecinemasnob.com/2009/08/13/zombie-5-killing-birds.aspx

Zombie 6: Monster House: http://thecinemasnob.com/2009/08/19/zombie-6-monster-hunter.aspx

Nudist Colony of the Dead: http://thecinemasnob.com/2010/01/21/nudist-colony-of-the-dead.aspx

The Astro-Zombies: http://thecinemasnob.com/2010/03/02/the-astrozombies.aspx

Curse of the Cannibal Confederates: http://thecinemasnob.com/2010/04/21/curse-of-the-cannibal-confederates.aspx

Redneck Zombies: http://thecinemasnob.com/2010/07/29/redneck-zombies.aspx

Zombi 7/Zombie 90: Extreme Pestilence: http://thecinemasnob.com/2010/12/08/zombi-7-aka-zombie-90-extreme-pestilence.aspx

Zombie Nation: http://blip.tv/OLPresents/olp-zombie-nation-2837732

Battle of the Bone: http://diamandahagan.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/03-04-battle-of-the-bone-review/

Zombie Movie Review (1) of the Day: Night of the Living Dead (1968)

"...Yeah they're dead. They're... ...all messed up..."

So I'm starting to get the hang of blogging and I plan to add even more sections and move the old one's around to where they belong like making my pages into posts. There are so many zombie movies to get thru. i won't being doing all of them unless i get a request for one i have refused to watch or acknowledge as being good or a true zombie movie. This review will be a bit longer than most because it is the back-story to the modern zombie. Anyway, let us begin with where it all started:

Before 1968, nothing that involved zombies involved the zombies we know today. Mostly these movies were about magical/voodoo zombies, which either were the risen dead forced to do the bidding of the one who raised them or people under deep hypnosis. They never really ate anyone but would often kill people if ordered to. Then George Romero came along with his 1968 movie that started it all Night of the Flesh Eaters. I’m sorry what? You say you heard it called Night of the Living Dead, not Flesh Eaters? You say that night of the flesh eaters is a different movie? You are right! Romero originally was going to call his movie night of the flesh eaters but found out that this already existed, so at the last minute they changed the title card that also cut off the copyright symbol and so Night of the Living Dead had no copyright.

This was Romero's first movie and it was him and nine other people that brought it together. Co-writing the movie was John Russo who went on to do his own zombie movie series. Also working with them was Bill Hinzman who played the first zombie on screen, did some of the lighting, and would go on to make a parallel tangent movie called Flesh Eater and also be the cinematographer for another parallel Romeroverse movie called Children of the Living Dead Needless to say the 10 of them had barely any money so the movie really had no budget. That being said, the film is fantasic if you take that into perspective.

The film starts out with Johnny and his sister Barbara bringing flowers to their father’s grave which is quite a long drive from home. Johnny teases Barbara about being scared and then in irony is attacked and killed. Barbara runs into a nearby house and soon Ben (the protagonist) enters the scene. He has come from the nearby city and has seen some horrific stuff. Ben decides the safest thing to do is to board up the windows and doors to keep the things out, not realizing that the noise generated by all that will end up drawing even more zombies towards the house. We later meet the rest of the cast: the young couple: Tom and Judy, and the Coopers (Harry and Helen) and their daughter Karen who is injured. Cooper thinks the safest thing to do is go into the cellar and board up the one door and this causes a rivalry between Ben and Cooper. In the end, both are equal parts right and wrong about their ideas. I am not going to sum up the whole movie because I do not want to spoil anything.

The movie has some very hard-hitting messages some on purpose and some purely accidental ones. Romero and the other nine mostly talked about the Vietnam War (in fact Tom Savini who will later be a great part of Romero movies, was a freshman film student inspired by the Man with a Thousand Faces to do make-up and effects, wanted to work on NOTLD but ended up in Vietnam) and tried to put some allegorical stuff into the movie about pointless wars, unknown enemies, and people being forced into fighting situations, surrounded by death. The unintentional message is centered on racism and power struggles. Ben is black and the antagonist (who is not the zombies) is a man by the name of Mr. Cooper who is white. Ben tells Cooper off, states that he is the boss of the upstairs portion of the house, and is not going to take orders from Cooper. This movie bear in mind was released the same year that Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated. So intentional or not, people found symbolism in the movie the ending is also a twist and very ironic which Romero is known for but I am not going to give that away.

In the end, I give this movie 3 out of 5 stars. If you ignore the bad effects due to a lack of funding it is a fantastic movie. Moreover, if you think about just how successful it was and still is, despite their being pretty much no budget it is surprising how great it is. It could have been a lot worse. The acting is phenomenal except for Barbra who has hardly any lines, the plot is great, the idea behind it is interesting and revolutionary in its day seeing how it created a new genre of horror, and it has soci-political redeeming value.