London to Brighton, best described in the plot synopsis already on this site, is a blatant stab at controversy, trying to demonstrate an edgy and gritty feel to it's writing and characters. Unfortunately the film falls short simply because none of the characters are interesting or compelling enough to really warrant any care for their plight. It feels as though the most extreme situation were created simply for shock value, and to add gravitas, a 12 year old girl. She's no Natalie Portman in Leon, but her performance echoes a desperate attempt at emulation. By all means a honest film, it just falls short due to pretty dire casting and no "flesh" on the bones of the plot. A shame, and a wasted opportunity, but still an entertaining film, just falls short of it's potential.
Reviews
10 Reviews
London to Brighton
(2006)
Just because the subject matter is controversial...doesn't make it good!
1 September 2008
Hostel: Part II
(2007)
Short but sweet - the review I mean...
21 January 2008
Hostel Part 2 is one of the few movies I think that surpasses its predecessor. A more fleshed out (excuse the pun) story emerges in what we all know is just a torture movie...so give it a break if you are watching for some deep ulterior motive, this isn't Bladerunner nor is it meant to be, this is pure shlockfest, metal and meat grinding gore and violence together in a blender that'd make George Romero squirm. Some great effects from Greg Nicotero and a passable, believable and easily digestible plot line....its only fault is its obvious twists in character but otherwise this movie is well made, dark, intense and overall a jolly good laugh if you tape over your wedding video with it and don't tell your wife before she invites the family around to watch it. Get out the popcorn, wipe off the edge of your seat for maximum grip and have a laugh...don't take it for anything that it's not meant to be!
Robotix
(1990 Video)
Erm....
5 September 2006
This is a great movie for the kids, with quite a deeply involving plot line but done in such a garish and immature way that it'll totally suck the little ones in and give them plenty for the imagination to work on.
The plot really isn't that important, but for summary it deals with the two warring tribes that humans are caught between on the remote planet on which they crashed. The tribes were long extinct aside from those who were lucky enough to be contained in stasis tubes for the three million year period after their planet was ravaged by a Nova star. Incarnated into giant machines by the planet's central computer system, the two tribes continued to war over ownership issues of said computer and thusly our human heroes are split into two factions respectively.
SO yeah, good film for the kids, would make an excellent live action movie!!¬
The plot really isn't that important, but for summary it deals with the two warring tribes that humans are caught between on the remote planet on which they crashed. The tribes were long extinct aside from those who were lucky enough to be contained in stasis tubes for the three million year period after their planet was ravaged by a Nova star. Incarnated into giant machines by the planet's central computer system, the two tribes continued to war over ownership issues of said computer and thusly our human heroes are split into two factions respectively.
SO yeah, good film for the kids, would make an excellent live action movie!!¬
Land of the Dead
(2005)
Very hard to decide...
28 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Being a huge Romero fan, seeing this movie can only warrant an in-depth review which I probably don't have time to write, but here goes.
If you don't know the plot, or general ethos of LOTD then you should probably check out other reviews posted here. Its all there, so I have nothing new to add.
What this movie DOES benefit from is a strong lead character in the form of Simon baker, and a great supporting cast from Asia Argento, Dennis Hopper and the like.
The plot is deep, but one gets the feeling that it wasn't explored to its potential...the heavy political undertones are there (who am I kidding, they're not undertones, they're in-your-face!!) and all the gore you'd expect from a Romero movie.
What lets the movie down however, is the sometimes hammy delivery of Hopper, the very annoying CGI effects that were subtly put in the movie to tone down the gore, and pretty much any sign of John Leguizamo and his cocky, snidey character. Not a touch on Rhodes...not even close to Harry Cooper - there's no depth to his character and his actions often seem the work of an insane person, rather than a disjointed and irrational man at the end of his tether.
On to the CGI...well...there are a lot of "arrow through the head" shots which were digitally enhanced, and a lot of head shots which were also CGI'd. I hated them and they stuck out like a sore thumb. The priest zombie gag lets down the whole film...it was terrible. Some of the atmospheric work done by the CGI team is EXCELLENT and very praiseworthy, but the gore that isn't even there looks out of place and doesn't give the viewer a feel of "how did they do that?!?" However there are some lovely gory moments throughout, but what really marrs these moments are the endless "zombie walks in front of camera at just the right moment" elements which were CGI'd onto most of the "feasting" shots. Its really annoying as its the equivalent of the camera panning away just at the juicy bit.
There are some truly stomach churning moments however, the emaciated zombies look GREAT and the zombie music band at the beginning are very creepy indeed. There's an eyeball ripping scene and a face torn off effect in the movie and they are very cool to watch, although a little far-fetched. The gunshots/squib effects are excellently done and most of it comes off very well.
Towards the end of the movie there's a small feasting scene whereby the Dead Reckoning crew pull up to find most people have been eaten - the camera lingers on the crowd from a distance and you can hear the terrified and pained sceams of the people as they're being eaten, this is truly a dark and scary moment in the movie and probably could have done with a little more coverage.
Big Daddy is a pain in the neck. His incessant howling and screaming is annoying and doens't give the audience a sense of respect for his "plight" as a zombie. I guess although he was meant to be one of the smarter ones he still came off as stupid and not even scary. It would have been nice to see him feast down on someone to show us that even though he's developing emotion and intelligence he's still a flesh hungry monster.
The cheek zombie girl is lovely...I'd marry her...dead or undead. I could think of a few cool uses for that hole in her face too. Haha.
Overall however, its an excellent movie to watch, its a worthy addition to the genre and Romero has always proved that he can still add something new to the subject. He's a god of horror and such a lovable character that its hard not to praise his work simply on the praise that HE has received.
What really makes the movie worth while is hard to find, but its there...its enjoyable and dark and there's some really nice visual candy to enjoy, but overall - this movie is so Romero that its almost great by default. Its just a shame the public attitude towards extreme gore in movies is too "conservative" - otherwise there was so much more potential to reach, that it almost echoes the issues that Day of the Dead had back in 1985.
If you don't know the plot, or general ethos of LOTD then you should probably check out other reviews posted here. Its all there, so I have nothing new to add.
What this movie DOES benefit from is a strong lead character in the form of Simon baker, and a great supporting cast from Asia Argento, Dennis Hopper and the like.
The plot is deep, but one gets the feeling that it wasn't explored to its potential...the heavy political undertones are there (who am I kidding, they're not undertones, they're in-your-face!!) and all the gore you'd expect from a Romero movie.
What lets the movie down however, is the sometimes hammy delivery of Hopper, the very annoying CGI effects that were subtly put in the movie to tone down the gore, and pretty much any sign of John Leguizamo and his cocky, snidey character. Not a touch on Rhodes...not even close to Harry Cooper - there's no depth to his character and his actions often seem the work of an insane person, rather than a disjointed and irrational man at the end of his tether.
On to the CGI...well...there are a lot of "arrow through the head" shots which were digitally enhanced, and a lot of head shots which were also CGI'd. I hated them and they stuck out like a sore thumb. The priest zombie gag lets down the whole film...it was terrible. Some of the atmospheric work done by the CGI team is EXCELLENT and very praiseworthy, but the gore that isn't even there looks out of place and doesn't give the viewer a feel of "how did they do that?!?" However there are some lovely gory moments throughout, but what really marrs these moments are the endless "zombie walks in front of camera at just the right moment" elements which were CGI'd onto most of the "feasting" shots. Its really annoying as its the equivalent of the camera panning away just at the juicy bit.
There are some truly stomach churning moments however, the emaciated zombies look GREAT and the zombie music band at the beginning are very creepy indeed. There's an eyeball ripping scene and a face torn off effect in the movie and they are very cool to watch, although a little far-fetched. The gunshots/squib effects are excellently done and most of it comes off very well.
Towards the end of the movie there's a small feasting scene whereby the Dead Reckoning crew pull up to find most people have been eaten - the camera lingers on the crowd from a distance and you can hear the terrified and pained sceams of the people as they're being eaten, this is truly a dark and scary moment in the movie and probably could have done with a little more coverage.
Big Daddy is a pain in the neck. His incessant howling and screaming is annoying and doens't give the audience a sense of respect for his "plight" as a zombie. I guess although he was meant to be one of the smarter ones he still came off as stupid and not even scary. It would have been nice to see him feast down on someone to show us that even though he's developing emotion and intelligence he's still a flesh hungry monster.
The cheek zombie girl is lovely...I'd marry her...dead or undead. I could think of a few cool uses for that hole in her face too. Haha.
Overall however, its an excellent movie to watch, its a worthy addition to the genre and Romero has always proved that he can still add something new to the subject. He's a god of horror and such a lovable character that its hard not to praise his work simply on the praise that HE has received.
What really makes the movie worth while is hard to find, but its there...its enjoyable and dark and there's some really nice visual candy to enjoy, but overall - this movie is so Romero that its almost great by default. Its just a shame the public attitude towards extreme gore in movies is too "conservative" - otherwise there was so much more potential to reach, that it almost echoes the issues that Day of the Dead had back in 1985.
Dawn of the Dead
(2004)
Another remake....
31 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
another 48 million for Universal Studios.
Great stuff, if you like that sort of thing. Unfortunately, I don't. Hollywood has churned out yet another popcorn movie, a rehash of an idea first done by George Romero in 1978. My main problem with remakes is that they are very rarely done to express some sort of artistic license. The majority of remakes, sequels and spin offs that have come out of Hollywood in the last five or so years have all been sub-par, boring and formulaic, especially in the horror genre (Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Freddy Vs Jason etc).
Dawn of the Dead is no exception. Here we get two hours of non-stop gore, sex, violence and bad language. A zombie apocalypse has wiped out the world and our heroes are trapped inside a shopping mall whilst a zombie army gathers outside waiting to eat their flesh and nibble on their nobbles. Great.
What made this film strong was the special effects, fast pacing, and comical lines. What made this film completely weak in every respect was that it is a remake of a really decent original horror film that has been dumbed down to include special effects, fast pacing, and comical lines.
First let me get this off my chest; I know its sometimes frowned upon to look at a remake of a film and judge it as being bad simply on the basis of the original, well, that is the curse of the remake. If you are stupid enough to rehash an idea that someone has already done you are bound to get criticised because people will ALWAYS compare, and that is what I am about to do. (may be very very insignificant spoilers here)
First off, the remake decided to put different characters (fine) in an almost completely different situation (not so fine) with completely different style zombies (fine, i guess) and see what happens. The result is a bunch of poorly written under-developed generic characters performing ridiculous dialogue in a ridiculously stupid situation.
The original Dawn put four characters, who we learnt about from their actions and way of dealing with things, in a shopping mall, surrounded by SLOW zombies, shuffling about consuming material items in a barracaded shopping mall. What made the original believable and scary was the fact that even though the zombies were slow, and the four characters had almost no problem with dealing with them, the living dead were still overtaking the living. We learnt that the human race had morality issues with the dead and were hesitant in killing them (think of Miguelito from the original dawn). The original showed a nightmare situation where beaurocrats held up the human's survival, even though they had a better than average chance of sorting the problem out. That in itself is a social commentary on how the human race is too inept to work together to deal with a common threat. The remake does not have that, instead we get insanely violent zombies running around, tearing flesh from people's arms who then almost immediately turn into zombies. There is no time for any sort of analysis in this movie, its all about headshots, tearing flesh and running endlessly from zombie infestation to zombie infestation.
Also, we don't ever really get a chance to be scared by these so called zombies, they run around screaming and looking like variants of 28 Days Later (the filmography even changes to look like that film in the later half). They aren't terrifying, there's just a lot of them, covered in blood, screaming. Obviously Romero's stark commentary is missing from the movie, we don't ever see the zombies interact with the shopping mall, they're just outside it. What this remake has done is removed the zombies from the shopping mall, removed the characters from the shopping mall, and just thrown it together for a bunch of cheap shocks and scares that don't mean anything.
This movie is poor. It doesn't deserve the recognition it is getting, because it is hardly worth watching. I have seen a thousand action movies and this one just fits perfectly into the generic formular that has dogged Hollywood movies since day one. When a film is remade, it is supposed to be retold, updated for the times. This film is just a case of a wolf in sheep's clothing, on the outside it promises to deliver all the shocks, scares and rollercoaster emotion of the original, and instead gives us two hours of boring CGI effect and lots of running around using the F-Word. Great, if you like that sort of thing.
Obviously fans of the original will see this movie, and so will all the consumers out there who swallow this **** day in and day out. It makes me angry, but not as angry as knowing that what could have potentially been a really, really great updated version of the original has now turned into an insanely inept clarification of what I have always thought about Hollywood movies.
Great stuff, if you like that sort of thing. Unfortunately, I don't. Hollywood has churned out yet another popcorn movie, a rehash of an idea first done by George Romero in 1978. My main problem with remakes is that they are very rarely done to express some sort of artistic license. The majority of remakes, sequels and spin offs that have come out of Hollywood in the last five or so years have all been sub-par, boring and formulaic, especially in the horror genre (Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Freddy Vs Jason etc).
Dawn of the Dead is no exception. Here we get two hours of non-stop gore, sex, violence and bad language. A zombie apocalypse has wiped out the world and our heroes are trapped inside a shopping mall whilst a zombie army gathers outside waiting to eat their flesh and nibble on their nobbles. Great.
What made this film strong was the special effects, fast pacing, and comical lines. What made this film completely weak in every respect was that it is a remake of a really decent original horror film that has been dumbed down to include special effects, fast pacing, and comical lines.
First let me get this off my chest; I know its sometimes frowned upon to look at a remake of a film and judge it as being bad simply on the basis of the original, well, that is the curse of the remake. If you are stupid enough to rehash an idea that someone has already done you are bound to get criticised because people will ALWAYS compare, and that is what I am about to do. (may be very very insignificant spoilers here)
First off, the remake decided to put different characters (fine) in an almost completely different situation (not so fine) with completely different style zombies (fine, i guess) and see what happens. The result is a bunch of poorly written under-developed generic characters performing ridiculous dialogue in a ridiculously stupid situation.
The original Dawn put four characters, who we learnt about from their actions and way of dealing with things, in a shopping mall, surrounded by SLOW zombies, shuffling about consuming material items in a barracaded shopping mall. What made the original believable and scary was the fact that even though the zombies were slow, and the four characters had almost no problem with dealing with them, the living dead were still overtaking the living. We learnt that the human race had morality issues with the dead and were hesitant in killing them (think of Miguelito from the original dawn). The original showed a nightmare situation where beaurocrats held up the human's survival, even though they had a better than average chance of sorting the problem out. That in itself is a social commentary on how the human race is too inept to work together to deal with a common threat. The remake does not have that, instead we get insanely violent zombies running around, tearing flesh from people's arms who then almost immediately turn into zombies. There is no time for any sort of analysis in this movie, its all about headshots, tearing flesh and running endlessly from zombie infestation to zombie infestation.
Also, we don't ever really get a chance to be scared by these so called zombies, they run around screaming and looking like variants of 28 Days Later (the filmography even changes to look like that film in the later half). They aren't terrifying, there's just a lot of them, covered in blood, screaming. Obviously Romero's stark commentary is missing from the movie, we don't ever see the zombies interact with the shopping mall, they're just outside it. What this remake has done is removed the zombies from the shopping mall, removed the characters from the shopping mall, and just thrown it together for a bunch of cheap shocks and scares that don't mean anything.
This movie is poor. It doesn't deserve the recognition it is getting, because it is hardly worth watching. I have seen a thousand action movies and this one just fits perfectly into the generic formular that has dogged Hollywood movies since day one. When a film is remade, it is supposed to be retold, updated for the times. This film is just a case of a wolf in sheep's clothing, on the outside it promises to deliver all the shocks, scares and rollercoaster emotion of the original, and instead gives us two hours of boring CGI effect and lots of running around using the F-Word. Great, if you like that sort of thing.
Obviously fans of the original will see this movie, and so will all the consumers out there who swallow this **** day in and day out. It makes me angry, but not as angry as knowing that what could have potentially been a really, really great updated version of the original has now turned into an insanely inept clarification of what I have always thought about Hollywood movies.
We Were Soldiers
(2002)
Lame, until Barry pepper shows up.
2 November 2003
I'll take it for granted that you've read the plot outline so I'll just give you my low down on how this film came out.
What starts off as yet another advert for American nationalism quickly turns into a Platoon clone, trying to mimick the inherrent violence seen in Oliver Stone's classic war movie.
It all seems a little bit too cheesy with two dimensional characters, obvious dialogue ("my baby boy was born today..." BANG!! "arghhh"). This film really doesn't hide any of the more obvious war movie cliches and it all seems to be going down hill.
Thats until Barry Pepper shows up, playing Galloway, a war photographer caught in the middle of the most brutal battle. His performance sets the screen on fire, the same way he did in the Green Mile and Saving Private Ryan. This is one truly talented actor. He puts Gibson to shame, and shadows all of the movie's cheesier moments and perfects the atmosphere with his unique brand of emotion that seems to jump out of the screen and inject itself into one's soul.
So what should have been a terrible rendition of a vietnam war movie actually turns into an emotional rollercoaster due to this one man's efforts. But sometimes I think even he isn't enough to save what is ultimately a generic and deliberately over the top movie that plays for shock tactics and not for realism.
Watch Platoon instead if you haven't seen it.
What starts off as yet another advert for American nationalism quickly turns into a Platoon clone, trying to mimick the inherrent violence seen in Oliver Stone's classic war movie.
It all seems a little bit too cheesy with two dimensional characters, obvious dialogue ("my baby boy was born today..." BANG!! "arghhh"). This film really doesn't hide any of the more obvious war movie cliches and it all seems to be going down hill.
Thats until Barry Pepper shows up, playing Galloway, a war photographer caught in the middle of the most brutal battle. His performance sets the screen on fire, the same way he did in the Green Mile and Saving Private Ryan. This is one truly talented actor. He puts Gibson to shame, and shadows all of the movie's cheesier moments and perfects the atmosphere with his unique brand of emotion that seems to jump out of the screen and inject itself into one's soul.
So what should have been a terrible rendition of a vietnam war movie actually turns into an emotional rollercoaster due to this one man's efforts. But sometimes I think even he isn't enough to save what is ultimately a generic and deliberately over the top movie that plays for shock tactics and not for realism.
Watch Platoon instead if you haven't seen it.
28 Days Later
(2002)
a masterpiece of british cinema
21 July 2003
well what can I say?? this film has been met with many mixed reviews, and here's my two pennies worth.
I'll take it for granted that you know the plot, so here's my justification on why this is such a great movie:
this film has the most intense underlying political commentary since Dawn of the Dead, the whole country eats itself up from the inside out, consumed by everything around it. Selfish, unabiding, terrifying. The film dictates something in all of us, rage. This time manifested in the "infected." The humans in this film have a harder time dealing with their own personal issues and the abuse of power around them than the actual "threat" that the movie concentrates on. Romero-esque cynicism is totally in place here, which boils us down to believing that we really wouldn't be able to deal with an outbreak of this kind. 28 days later takes the very notion of our pent up aggression, the way we are constantly faced with fear in our every day lives, and uses it totally against us. Terrifying. The film isolates us from all the things we take for granted, TV, Radio, electricity, water, etc, and boils down society to animal instinct, battling for survival at all costs.
The cinematography is first class, filmed entirely on DVCAM, with the "infected" being shown only in 16,000 fps (this gives the shakey "not-quite-sure-what-just-happened" feeling to things, which if you think carefully about it, is exactly the way violent/intense situations play out in the human memory). The long, drawn out shots of Jim walking through central london add tension to every second that you watch it (also notice that when Jim falls foul to the very rage he is trying to avoid, and the camera work adjusts accordingly.).
The characters are strong, unfortunately though Hannah was painfully miscast. Although a pretty and cool looking young lady, her acting skills leave a lot to be desired, and she really lets some of the film down. Selena is the embodiment of the "ripley-esque" female lead that we all know and love, while Jim is warm, funny and manic at the same time. Hannah's father (Gleeson) is amazing as the cuddly, friendly father who will protect his daughter at all costs.
I'd hate to sit here and write something like "the only people who didn't like this film are the ones who didn't get it" because that would be pushing this film into a catagory that it doesn't deserve. it is totally accessible to all, if you want violence, gore and terror then 28 days later doesn't fail on that. But unfortunately this film seems to be criticised because many people want answers to what they consider to be plot holes. To them I say: fill in the gaps yourself. The main reason I love this movie is because it stimulated my mind in a way that i haven't experienced since watching the Romero trilogy for the first time. This film is there to make you consider what YOU would do should such an infection start out, its there to let you fill in the blanks on what really happened in the 28 days leading up to Jim waking from the coma. its there to make you ask questions about the infected and to justify their actions in your OWN way. Don't leave it all up to Boyle or Garland, where's the fun in that? If you want answers watch a brain dead hollywood cannon fodder movie, because they have a nasty habit of making their audiences feel dumb.
28 days later is a movie that respects intellectualism, it wants you to question things and to question yourself because that is whats going to make you come back to it time and time again.
part of me truly believes that if an epidemic similar to this film DID break out, 28 days later wouldn't be too far from the truth.
I'll take it for granted that you know the plot, so here's my justification on why this is such a great movie:
this film has the most intense underlying political commentary since Dawn of the Dead, the whole country eats itself up from the inside out, consumed by everything around it. Selfish, unabiding, terrifying. The film dictates something in all of us, rage. This time manifested in the "infected." The humans in this film have a harder time dealing with their own personal issues and the abuse of power around them than the actual "threat" that the movie concentrates on. Romero-esque cynicism is totally in place here, which boils us down to believing that we really wouldn't be able to deal with an outbreak of this kind. 28 days later takes the very notion of our pent up aggression, the way we are constantly faced with fear in our every day lives, and uses it totally against us. Terrifying. The film isolates us from all the things we take for granted, TV, Radio, electricity, water, etc, and boils down society to animal instinct, battling for survival at all costs.
The cinematography is first class, filmed entirely on DVCAM, with the "infected" being shown only in 16,000 fps (this gives the shakey "not-quite-sure-what-just-happened" feeling to things, which if you think carefully about it, is exactly the way violent/intense situations play out in the human memory). The long, drawn out shots of Jim walking through central london add tension to every second that you watch it (also notice that when Jim falls foul to the very rage he is trying to avoid, and the camera work adjusts accordingly.).
The characters are strong, unfortunately though Hannah was painfully miscast. Although a pretty and cool looking young lady, her acting skills leave a lot to be desired, and she really lets some of the film down. Selena is the embodiment of the "ripley-esque" female lead that we all know and love, while Jim is warm, funny and manic at the same time. Hannah's father (Gleeson) is amazing as the cuddly, friendly father who will protect his daughter at all costs.
I'd hate to sit here and write something like "the only people who didn't like this film are the ones who didn't get it" because that would be pushing this film into a catagory that it doesn't deserve. it is totally accessible to all, if you want violence, gore and terror then 28 days later doesn't fail on that. But unfortunately this film seems to be criticised because many people want answers to what they consider to be plot holes. To them I say: fill in the gaps yourself. The main reason I love this movie is because it stimulated my mind in a way that i haven't experienced since watching the Romero trilogy for the first time. This film is there to make you consider what YOU would do should such an infection start out, its there to let you fill in the blanks on what really happened in the 28 days leading up to Jim waking from the coma. its there to make you ask questions about the infected and to justify their actions in your OWN way. Don't leave it all up to Boyle or Garland, where's the fun in that? If you want answers watch a brain dead hollywood cannon fodder movie, because they have a nasty habit of making their audiences feel dumb.
28 days later is a movie that respects intellectualism, it wants you to question things and to question yourself because that is whats going to make you come back to it time and time again.
part of me truly believes that if an epidemic similar to this film DID break out, 28 days later wouldn't be too far from the truth.
Class of 1999
(1990)
Its not that bad!!
14 March 2002
If you've grown up with trashy no brainer films like this one and Lesters even poorer effort Commando, you'll love this. Its cheesy, over the top and light hearted enough to make for a great bored night in with illegal substances. The acting is hammy, the direction poor, but what saves this film is the exact things that make is a catastrophy. I mean, don't be expecting "Its a Wonderful Life" or "The Green Mile" when you watch this. Just expect a nice straight forward action flick about psychotic robot teachers. Everything about this film is great, its intense, dark and fun. Its not surprising to see people here have ripped it apart, but with a name like Class of 1999, what did you expect??
Summary: watch it for a giggle, its really not that bad.
Summary: watch it for a giggle, its really not that bad.
Knightriders
(1981)
Arthurian legend comes to life.
14 January 2002
The Arthurian legend comes to life. What we all hoped for in a utopian society devoid of comericialisation is here, shining through the darkest horizon of today's popular youth culture. The sheer romance and spirit of this film is remarkable, much like Romero's other works but in other ways completely different, the film brings hope to the disenchanted rather than adopting the usual cynical "we can't change anything so lets conform" attitude of today's society. King William (Ed Harris) is the founder and leader of a group of travelling knights, swapping the horses for motorcycles and allowing the public to get a glimpse on their way of life through jousting tournaments. Marred by the public's dependence on sex and violence the group find themselves crushed by commercial pressure. The audiences want to see blood, and the tragedy of it all lies in their ignorance to Billy's intense dream. it all starts to fall apart when they receive interest from big promoters and their potential as a sellable source of entertainment is recognised.
Romero truly shines through here and the only criticism I can possibly think of this near perfect film lies in the era it was filmed and set it. Had this film been made in the 70's it would have looked a lot better, or even in the 90's, however the 80's was awful for films in general and it comes as no surprise that this film was practically shelved. On the plus side it also proves that the 80's didn't just produce Friday the 13th movies, and that someone had an idea good enough to really make a film like this work.
Tom Savini, Gary Lahti, Amy Ingersoll, Chris Romero and in particular Brother Blue all give startling performances. The love and care that went into this film is outstanding.
However, I must stress ten-fold that if you want to see blood and guts, and don't really care for the dozens of underlying plot lines that revolve in this film to just watch something else. You have to be prepared to try to understand what Romero is trying to show us, and what the film meant in the relevant decade (and still mean today).
This is a truly amazing film that will make you laugh, cry and cheer. Its not only worth watching but is a keeper for sure.
Romero truly shines through here and the only criticism I can possibly think of this near perfect film lies in the era it was filmed and set it. Had this film been made in the 70's it would have looked a lot better, or even in the 90's, however the 80's was awful for films in general and it comes as no surprise that this film was practically shelved. On the plus side it also proves that the 80's didn't just produce Friday the 13th movies, and that someone had an idea good enough to really make a film like this work.
Tom Savini, Gary Lahti, Amy Ingersoll, Chris Romero and in particular Brother Blue all give startling performances. The love and care that went into this film is outstanding.
However, I must stress ten-fold that if you want to see blood and guts, and don't really care for the dozens of underlying plot lines that revolve in this film to just watch something else. You have to be prepared to try to understand what Romero is trying to show us, and what the film meant in the relevant decade (and still mean today).
This is a truly amazing film that will make you laugh, cry and cheer. Its not only worth watching but is a keeper for sure.
Night of the Living Dead
(1968)
I'm preparing to give you a frank and honest opinion of this movie.
9 December 2001
OK, so one day in 1968, George Romero makes what can only be described as the best horror film ever made. 30 years later, the crew who succeeded in getting nowhere try to remake a few tit bits in the vain hope that they can pull in a bit more cash off Romero's back. In the process they manage to totally betray and ruin Romero's apocalyptic vision, and totally take away the dry satire of a world gone mad. NOTLD was never about zombies to me, it was always about the ineptitude of the human race and their inability to deal with a common enemy, instead using each other as scapgoats. Well this version is about zombies. The tacked on scenes stick out like "well i don't know what" (to quote one of the less moronic statements from the new characters) and the acting is simply atrocious. The directing of the new scenes not only gets undermimed by the original film, but totally shown up by it. You would have thought that 30 years down the line they would have learnt how to string a few infantile shots together and at the same time be able to deliver a line without sounding like they are improvising. But no! While Romero himself went off to create the most amazingly intelligent films, these people, obviously stuck in the past, run back to their old franchise just to be embarrassed by Romero's footage in spectacular fashion. The new music has, to me, turned the film into a 90's slasher flick, not making it eerie, but rather cheesy and sad. The seemingly silent cinema story telling of the original has been insulted with a bizarre arse-fest of cheap keyboard effects. Even more insulting, was the supposed "long awaited sequel" that Russo financed off the back of this film, completely ignoring Romero's Dead trilogy and trying to claim it as his own! If I was Romero, I'd slap him down like the girl he is.
Tell Your Friends