Are Romero's recent films......

[DubiousComforts]

According to Chris Romero, there was actually very little "studio interference". Yeah, right. Universal, that stalwart of cutting-edge cinema, just happens to release two big-budget zombie movies based on Romero's works within a 14-month time frame. I'm sure there was very little "interference" on their part given the amount of $$$ involved. What about the decision to film in Toronto over Pittsburgh? How much more expensive can Pittsburgh really be?

[axlish]

I've heard Mr. Romero state on several different occasions that he had no complaints about Universal with Land of the Dead (check the Deadpit interview, among others). Land is his movie, and it came out they way he wanted it to. The only thing I have heard him say regarding shortcomings of Land that were out of his control was the time schedule (which is standard for any film with studio backing and a budget of any decent size). He had to finish by a certain date, and that is was curtailed his efforts if anything, but he still had no complaints.

[SRP76]

I think it's just the same as with anything else: some stories are better than others. And the more recent ones just aren't that good. Everything looks great at first, even if it isn't. Someone once said, "ooh, Jason in space! That'll be cool!". As it turns out, the idea is far, far from cool. It's stupid.

[Doc]

With the exception of Lucas, it's the audience. People today don't want thoughtful films. They want "Fast and The Furious", "300", or mindless sh*t like that. To be honest I would have been like that....if The original Night hadn't saved me. It's not that the directors have lost their edge. It's that most audiences don't care to use their minds or get their money's worth at the cinema anymore. I know what you mean my best friend favorite films are Stranger Than Fiction, every Inuyasha movie, Read or Die, AVP, Spider-Man 1, 2 and 3, Fantastic Four, and Bridge to Terabithia, 300, Ghost Rider so on and so forth.......although I have recently showed him the original Dawn and couldn't take his eyes of it.....

[DubiousComforts]

I've heard Mr. Romero state on several different occasions that he had no complaints about Universal with Land of the Dead (check the Deadpit interview, among others). Land is his movie, and it came out they way he wanted it to. With all due respect, what do you expect him to say if he wants to continue working with Universal? I'll bet that everyone had great things to say about Walter Reade/Continental in 1968, too, before they were forced to sue them several years later. I've been wondering......Why is it that directors like Romero, Dario, Carpenter, and heck even non-horror directors like Lucas and Coppola for some reason have lately been making bad films? Lately? All of the directors listed have been making bad films for 20-30 years! The Fog, for example, is his most overrated piece of crap yet John Carpenter followed it up with a brilliant work, The Thing. However, The Fog was an independent film and a big hit when it was released theatrically while The Thing was a studio movie and huge flop. There were no expectations for The Fog while Universal was obviously hoping for another Alien with The Thing. I really miss Argento's crazy visual style. His last films are too "normal" (I'm talking about "Non ho sonno", "Il cartaio" and "Ti piace Hitchcock?"; I haven't seen "La Terza Madre" yet). I found "Jenifer" quite good, though. I agree with you. The weirdness of his early efforts hooked me on Argento; if anything, his recent films lack identity and could have been made by anyone. However, I don't agree that any episodes of the ironically-titled Masters of Horror have been all that great, except for Miike's Imprint which is difficult to sit through. Miike seldom disappoints, though his career has been more varied than any other horror director so perhaps that's the key. To be honest I would have been like that....if The original Night hadn't saved me. You are wise beyond your years.

[jim102016]

If all of them are making bad films, then I think it's the audience rather than the filmmakers. Is Carpenters films really all that different in directing style as they were back in the 80's? His 80's films are more... 80'ish, but that's easily explainable. I was real disappointed with 'Escape From LA' when I saw it. Putting the "80-'ish" aside, it just wasn't on the same level as 'Escape from New York'. Again putting aside Kurt Russell and Carpenter who were decades removed from the original, it was an excuse to make money rather than an effort to put out a good film. With the remake mechanism on full throttle in Hollywood, one has to seriously wonder if the whole town has just become lazy or if they've all lost their mojo. As far as GAR, I don't think he's gone far off the mark over the years.

[Doc]

. You are wise beyond your years. Not quiet I still watch some mindless sh*t of today. Although I don't think of them as art or masterpieces, I just watch them for entertainment is all.

[clanglee]

The Fog, for example, is his most overrated piece of crap yet John Carpenter followed it up with a brilliant work, The Thing. However, The Fog was an independent film and a big hit when it was released theatrically while The Thing was a studio movie and huge flop. There were no expectations for The Fog while Universal was obviously hoping for another Alien with The Thing. I Oh come on, The Fog is an awesome movie. Some of the best atmosphere in any horror movie. Reminded me of a revamped universal monster movie. Granted the end sucked, but the rest of the movie was great!! The remake however. . . . shudder. . . .

[DubiousComforts]

Oh come on, The Fog is an awesome movie. Some of the best atmosphere in any horror movie. Reminded me of a revamped universal monster movie. Granted the end sucked, but the rest of the movie was great!! The remake however. . . . shudder. . . . Well, we agree about the remake. But The Fog is a weak Carpenter entry even when compared to the other low budget films released by Avco Embassy at that time. The Howling, Phantasm, Dead & Buried--all of them had tons of atmosphere, not to mention bigger pay-offs for the viewer. Fog just ain't scary in comparison, and I don't understand why the movie is considered a classic. Plus, Carpenter didn't utilize Adrienne Barboob to her fullest potential. Not quiet I still watch some mindless sh*t of today. We all do, or else we're accused of not giving said mindless piece o' crap "a chance." Don't feel too badly, though--my generation still has a lot of apologizing to do for E.T. before we can complain about the youth of today.

[Minerva_Zombi]

Romero has not lost his touch. Bruiser was really good, Land was really good, and Im not sure about Diary yet cuz I havent seen it. But, Dario i'll agree on. To me his latest stuff (verything after Trauma) is just not... odd. Tenebrae, Deep Red, Suspirira... I love those movies because it leaves an odd vibe with me. And they're unique. I dunno. Theres just something about the older stuff that is nostalgic. Maybe the newer stuff isn't as good to us because we can't get over the nostalgia of the older stuff.

[MinionZombie]

I was real disappointed with 'Escape From LA' when I saw it. Putting the "80-'ish" aside, it just wasn't on the same level as 'Escape from New York'. Again putting aside Kurt Russell and Carpenter who were decades removed from the original, it was an excuse to make money rather than an effort to put out a good film. With the remake mechanism on full throttle in Hollywood, one has to seriously wonder if the whole town has just become lazy or if they've all lost their mojo. As far as GAR, I don't think he's gone far off the mark over the years. Romero seems to really be the only one out of the main set of horror auteurs who has mostly stuck to his guns, which is why he's had such a tough time getting films made...although he seems to be finding things easier again now, which is good. Escape From LA was just NY all over again, almost the exact same movie...just not as good...still, it had Kurt Russell in it being awesome as Snake Plissken...who is also awesome...at least that's something. I think Raimi is still definitely firing on all cylinders too, he's just doing different movies to The Evil Dead, which isn't his only remit. I think he's done a superb job with the Spider-Man films, which are right up there are in the top area of superhero movies I say. It's just that his more recent films don't call for the 'look' of Evil Dead or his earlier films so much, although you can see it creeping in here and there, especially in Spider-Man 2, there's several moments which are pure Raimi...but like he himself has said, it's not about putting his own crazy eye over something that just won't fit, it's about getting what is best for the style and story. Speaking of the genre legends, roll on "My Name Is Bruce", saw the trailer recently and it looks like a blast.

[Trin]

IMO the problem is that the studios have become very calculated in how to make money. They've learned that they can make more money by seeing what brought in the most and turning out that same film over and over again then they can by taking risks and possibly making one great movie at the expense of a dozen duds. For that reason we'll see Spiderman 15 if Spiderman 14 does well. The audiences haven't changed. Audiences don't know what they want and never have. In 1968 audiences didn't know they wanted Night until after it hit. Pandering to audience feedback will never produce the next great movie. But it will produce consistent profits. I don't consider Land to be Romero's best, but I also agree that Universal and the filming conditions that Griff posted are half to blame. The rest of the blame goes on the script. I applaud the fact that Romero has stuck to his film maker roots and is still trying to take risks. I think Land was a risk that didn't work. I'd gladly see any Romero failed risks he cares to offer up over a Dawn'04 sure thing. The fact that Romero immediately turned around and started independent work on Diary is evidence of his dissatifaction over how he left the genre with Land and how he felt about the studio influence.

[Arcades057]

Yeah, right. Universal, that stalwart of cutting-edge cinema, just happens to release two big-budget zombie movies based on Romero's works within a 14-month time frame. I'm sure there was very little "interference" on their part given the amount of $$$ involved. What about the decision to film in Toronto over Pittsburgh? How much more expensive can Pittsburgh really be? Well.....given George's less than stellar record at the box office, I wouldn't blame them one bit for keeping track of what he was doing with their money. Several million dollars worth of their money. Oh, is that right, Mr. Know-It-All? Please see this post for some possible reasons why you might be WRONG. And hey, good directors are like good musicians: they all tend to end up sucking sooner or later. ...only DIARY OF THE DEAD sees Romero back at the top of his game, again. He had full creative control. He simply had to work around what he was given. And, he'd never been given a more substantial budget in his career. What you posted didn't at all look like "studio interference" to me. It looked like he was demanding more than they were willing to give him, or more than they were capable of giving him. There's a difference.

[C5NOTLD]

With all due respect, what do you expect him to say if he wants to continue working with Universal? I'll bet that everyone had great things to say about Walter Reade/Continental in 1968, too, before they were forced to sue them several years later. Lately? All of the directors listed have been making bad films for 20-30 years! The Fog, for example, is his most overrated piece of crap yet John Carpenter followed it up with a brilliant work, The Thing. However, The Fog was an independent film and a big hit when it was released theatrically while The Thing was a studio movie and huge flop. There were no expectations for The Fog while Universal was obviously hoping for another Alien with The Thing. I agree with you. The weirdness of his early efforts hooked me on Argento; if anything, his recent films lack identity and could have been made by anyone. However, I don't agree that any episodes of the ironically-titled Masters of Horror have been all that great, except for Miike's Imprint which is difficult to sit through. Miike seldom disappoints, though his career has been more varied than any other horror director so perhaps that's the key. You are wise beyond your years. They might have had great things to say in 68 about Continental but if the relationship had been even a little good Romero would have used them again for his next film (s) and he didn't. A lot of the problems with the films start with the script. Not that great stories typically turn into not that great movies. As for John Carpenter, I have to disagree. The Fog has always been one of my favorites and even Big Trouble in Little China was a film that performed poorly at the box office yet it's a great film that's achieved a cult status today. I've always enjoyed Romero films but I pin point it back to around The Dark Half/Monkey shines when Romero's films started to slip for me. And Bruiser was just outright painful to sit through. Story, story, story..If you don't have a half way decent script it's hard to turn something good out. With a decent script in the future both Romero and Carpenter could still do some great work due to their talent.

[bassman]

They might have had great things to say in 68 about Continental but if the relationship had been even a little good Romero would have used them again for his next film (s) and he didn't. A lot of the problems with the films start with the script. Not that great stories typically turn into not that great movies. As for John Carpenter, I have to disagree. The Fog has always been one of my favorites and even Big Trouble in Little China was a film that performed poorly at the box office yet it's a great film that's achieved a cult status today. I've always enjoyed Romero films but I pin point it back to around The Dark Half/Monkey shines when Romero's films started to slip for me. And Bruiser was just outright painful to sit through. Story, story, story..If you don't have a half way decent script it's hard to turn something good out. With a decent script in the future both Romero and Carpenter could still do some great work due to their talent. What's wrong with The Dark Half and Monkey Shines? Both are good movies, imo. Bruiser wasn't great, but it wasn't horrible, either. I often get the feeling that too many people want him to make Night or Dawn over and over again for the rest of his career/life....