How have the old movies held up in your opinion?

[Mike70]

Neil got me thinking about this. Anyone re-examine one of the movies and find that after years on years, they hated/loved it? I still watch Day quite a bit. I've not watched Night 68 in awhile nor the remake. Dawn is a movie I watch in pieces now. Diary and Survival...I'm still meh about. Land of the Dead. Opinions now that over 15 years are in the rearview?

[beat_truck]

Night 68 is a little cringe worthy due to it's crudeness, but I still love it. Dawn and Day, I still feel the same about. Actually, I probably like Day more than ever. Still like Night '90 just as much as the first time I saw it. It was the first zombie movie I ever saw, so it has a special place for me. Land was a huge disappointment when I first saw it. Now it is just meh. It is OK, and I can take it or leave it. Diary is also meh, just like it was when I first saw it. I haven't watched it in a while, though. Survival was crap when it came out, and I assume I would still think it's crap. I think I only watched it once.

[shootemindehead]

The only classic one that doesn't work completely (and, to be honest, it never really did for me) is 'Dawn of the Dead'. It's still a film I visit regularly though. But, it's clunky and sooooo 70's, I feel like it's disco night. It's dated horribly and the kids I know think it's trash. Ironic, enjoyable trash. But still trash nonetheless. But, ya know, when I first saw it in the late 80's, it was dated too. Strangely enough, the soundtrack is something I listen to more and more these days. I stick it on on YouTube while I work and it mixes in with other stuff from the same period. 'Night of the Living Dead' is what it is and I've always taken it on its own terms and always will. But I am more and more replacing it with the 1990 remake, even though it feels like a cheap TV movie at times. I'd love it, though, if Savini could get all the elements together and conjure up a Director's Cut of sorts, because the MPAA gutted that picture. It's so tame in its present form it's like a PG-13. 'Day of the Dead' is still completely relevant and hasn't aged at all for me. Although, it's probably my favourite film, if I was pushed to say I had a favourite film. So there's a bias there. It's THE greatest zombie flick ever made, as far as I am concerned, and the tone of it has never been matched in any other "zombie media". Everything about it is bang on. It's especially funny to show 'Day of the Dead' to virgins though. Because, before they see it, they go on about "brains" and think it's going to be a dumb zombie movie, like 'Evil Dead' or 'Return of the Living Dead'. It's always gas when it gets to certain parts and they STFU and look shocked. Savini's effects are still top tier (never been bettered) and when the red stuff starts flowing all the preconceptions people had go out the window. By the end, they're like "fuck me, what did I just watch?". 'Land of the Dead' (christ is it 15 years?) I consider to be a lesser Romero film, but still part of the quad. So, if I have a marathon on a random weekend (anyone else do that?), it gets included. It has major flaws, but they all do in various ways. However, it's a four film saga now, as I see it, beginning with one of the Nights and ending with Land. In any case, the classic trilogy will be in my collection in some form or other until I'm dead myself. I consider them an essential part of any movie collection. They're as essential as 'Jaws', 'Star Wars', 'The Godfather' or 'The Exorcist' to me, if any film can really be called "essential". 'Diary of the Dead' and 'Survival of the Dead' I will never watch again. I tried very hard to make excuses for Diary, but in the end I just had to honest with myself. It's rubbish. Survival I watched once. I will never repeat the experience. I consider those two movies a failed reboot, and to this day I'd love to have sat George down and asked him to reconsider the whole idea, because even the synopsis doesn't work.

[JDP]

It's a four film saga, starting with Night and obviously ending with Day Dawn was the most ambitious of Romero's zombie efforts. The movie is an "epic" by itself. One reason why Day does not look as "dated" as Dawn is because it is a more "constricted" movie. There's only three settings: the abandoned "dead city" at the start of the movie (which is a brief sequence), the old storage bunker base (where the bulk of the movie takes place), and a beach somewhere (just the brief ending sequence.) As a result, Day is almost "timeless". It can almost happen at any time, unlike Dawn and its extremely obvious and blatant "seventies" feel and look throughout the whole movie (which is also part of its great quaint charm; example: Flyboy: "What the hell is it?" Roger: "It looks like a shopping center, one of those big, indoor malls" LOL! Lines like that can only come from 60s-70s films, when the nowadays ubiquitous indoor shopping mall was still not "the norm". This is one of the reasons why film critics and historians also usually prefer Dawn over Day. It's a great "time capsule" of that era, combined with Romero's between-the-lines "social commentary".) Another reason is that Day also benefited from more advanced make-up and special effects and a bigger budget than Dawn. Land was OK, but it already shows signs of a declining Romero. There's several conflicting points with the previous movies, whereas there were none in the original trilogy (except for the fact that Doc Logan SHOULD have come back as a zombie, as he was not shot in the head.) Diary was not that bad. Not Romero's best, but certainly not his worst. It is better than Survival. This last one was Romero at his worst. And what he was preparing next (that whole "zombies racing cars" nonsense) looks like it was going to be in the same vein. Thankfully, that project was not finished.

[MinionZombie]

My opinions on Night/Dawn/Day haven't really changed much ... I suppose my appreciation of Night has grown since I first saw it (at a time when I was much more drawn to Dawn and Day), although Dawn and Day are my favourites of Romero's zombie flicks. I loved Land when I first saw it, and perhaps I have dropped down to a "strong liking" of Land now as there are some problems with it, however I always felt that the film would in time become a part of the first three as intended. For many/most of us Night/Dawn/Day had always been there, unlike Land which was the new kid on the block, and the twenty year gap since Day certainly made Land stick out a bit in terms of production. I've always been - and still am - a big fan of Land. Diary - yeah ... I really forced myself to like this one when I first saw it (I went ot the cinema on day one of its release, like second or third showing of that first day, and it was me and three other people, one of whom left mid-way, the other two went to demand their money back). I like parts of it, but the found footage format was already over-done in 2007, and Romero kind of felt a bit 'out of time' in trying to tackle the media issues of an entirely different generation. The inconsistent presentation of the film doesn't help either (e.g. it's found footage, but then you have clunky bits of music or atmospheric tones inserted, with the droning narrator trying to explain a reason for it). There's a very good idea in there somewhere, but this wasn't it. Weirdly, some of the ideas were ahead of their time. Webcasting and so on hadn't really taken off yet, so if Romero had been able to make the movie somewhere a few years down the track (or especially now), he would have had so much to be inspired by. Survival - I actually wrote a defence of this movie in issue #8 of Exploitation Nation, which can be purchased through Amazon in either paperback or digital formats: UK Link: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Exploitatio...9647321&sr=8-1 US Link: https://www.amazon.com/Exploitation-...9647389&sr=8-4 Elsewhere - check your local Amazons. The movie certainly has some issues (the few mismatched comedy moments), but especially with the passage of time, the movie has become increasingly relevant and works loads better than Diary.

[beat_truck]

The only classic one that doesn't work completely (and, to be honest, it never really did for me) is 'Dawn of the Dead'. It's still a film I visit regularly though. But, it's clunky and sooooo 70's, I feel like it's disco night. It's dated horribly and the kids I know think it's trash. Ironic, enjoyable trash. But still trash nonetheless. But, ya know, when I first saw it in the late 80's, it was dated too. Strangely enough, the soundtrack is something I listen to more and more these days. I stick it on on YouTube while I work and it mixes in with other stuff from the same period. 'Night of the Living Dead' is what it is and I've always taken it on its own terms and always will. But I am more and more replacing it with the 1990 remake, even though it feels like a cheap TV movie at times. I'd love it, though, if Savini could get all the elements together and conjure up a Director's Cut of sorts, because the MPAA gutted that picture. It's so tame in its present form it's like a PG-13. 'Day of the Dead' is still completely relevant and hasn't aged at all for me. Although, it's probably my favourite film, if I was pushed to say I had a favourite film. So there's a bias there. It's THE greatest zombie flick ever made, as far as I am concerned, and the tone of it has never been matched in any other "zombie media". Everything about it is bang on. It's especially funny to show 'Day of the Dead' to virgins though. Because, before they see it, they go on about "brains" and think it's going to be a dumb zombie movie, like 'Evil Dead' or 'Return of the Living Dead'. It's always gas when it gets to certain parts and they STFU and look shocked. Savini's effects are still top tier (never been bettered) and when the red stuff starts flowing all the preconceptions people had go out the window. By the end, they're like "fuck me, what did I just watch?". 'Land of the Dead' (christ is it 15 years?) I consider to be a lesser Romero film, but still part of the quad. So, if I have a marathon on a random weekend (anyone else do that?), it gets included. It has major flaws, but they all do in various ways. However, it's a four film saga now, as I see it, beginning with one of the Nights and ending with Land. In any case, the classic trilogy will be in my collection in some form or other until I'm dead myself. I consider them an essential part of any movie collection. They're as essential as 'Jaws', 'Star Wars', 'The Godfather' or 'The Exorcist' to me, if any film can really be called "essential". 'Diary of the Dead' and 'Survival of the Dead' I will never watch again. I tried very hard to make excuses for Diary, but in the end I just had to honest with myself. It's rubbish. Survival I watched once. I will never repeat the experience. I consider those two movies a failed reboot, and to this day I'd love to have sat George down and asked him to reconsider the whole idea, because even the synopsis doesn't work. I actually really like the cheesy 70s feel of Dawn, but that's just me. Unless Savini has some footage that we haven't seen yet, there isn't really that much out there to make a Director's cut of Night 90 worth releasing. I have the workprint of the movie, and there is literally about 10 seconds of extra gore, and a couple snippets of extra dialogue. Day really does get better with every viewing.

[shootemindehead]

Well, I didn't say its 70's feel was "wrong" or anything. But it is dated because of it. It's a problem with a lot of end of the decade 70's movies though. It isn't so much pronounced pre 77 I don't think. As far as Night 90 is concerned, I don't know how much footage ended up getting cut, either by Savini himself or at the demand of the MPAA. There's the headshot that everyone's familiar with, but I think there's other stuff too. But yeh, it's probably an impossible task anyway and what we have we'll always have. The 90's were a shit time for horror movies though. Everything was watered down or cut to ribbons, either before it got to the cinema or when it came out on video. It was even worse this side of the Atlantic. You wouldn't believe the amount of cuts 'Dawn of the Dead' had on video over here, for instance.

[MinionZombie]

You wouldn't believe the amount of cuts 'Dawn of the Dead' had on video over here, for instance. I remember that the "Director's Cut" (the extended Cannes cut), which was released in the late 1990s, had 8 seconds of cuts - see here: https://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=47 Quite helpfully though, the BBFC has a report about the censorship history of Dawn here: https://www.bbfc.co.uk/case-studies/dawn-dead Some highlights: The examiners unanimously disliked the film, whilst at the same time acknowledged that Romero had displayed some technical flair in creating pace and atmosphere. ... One examiner felt so strongly that the film glorified violence that he excluded himself from any further screenings or discussions surrounding the work. 1) Oh, how gracious of them! 2) Wimp. One thing that all the examiners and James Ferman agreed on was that the 125 minute submitted version would have be cut before being released to the general public. Ferman stated that the film featured violence perpetrated against people which was “to a degree never before passed by the Board” and subsequently issued a cuts list that amounted to approximately 55 separate cuts (two minutes 17 seconds). These included images of zombie dismemberment, the machine gunning of a child zombie, a sword cutting open a zombie’s head and most infamously, a slow motion shot of a zombie’s head exploding. Ferman loved his scissors. The following month a cut version of the film was re-submitted for re-examination and this time another team of examiners viewed the film. All of the examiners still disliked the film and some were convinced that cutting was not the solution to alleviating the possible desensitising effect that the film might have on vulnerable audiences. Despite this view, the suggestion of further extensive cuts was made and the film was once again seen by James Ferman, who subsequently issued a further one minute 29 seconds of cuts to more scenes of gory detail. At this point the distributor (Target International Pictures) was worried that the film would not be ready in time to be screened at the London Film Festival, so James Ferman suggested that the BBFC’s in-house editor create a version that would be acceptable within the guidelines of the X certificate. So at this point they were up to a total of 3:46 of cuts! In September 1979 Ferman wrote to the distributor exclaiming that “a tour de force of virtuoso editing has transformed this potential reject from a disgusting and desensitising wallow in the ghoulish details of violence and horror to a strong, but more conventional action piece…The cutting is not only skilful, but creative, and I think it has actually improved a number of the sequences by making the audience notice the emotions of the characters and the horror of the situation instead of being deadened by blood and gore”. The sheer arrogance of Ferman, who fancied himself a filmmaker (he was indeed a documentarian for a while, but took the BBFC job in 1975 as filmmaking wasn't paying enough, so it seems), was a common thread of his time at the BBFC. He loved to re-edit other people's work and proclaim how marvellous a job they'd done. I mean, the gall to say your butchered version is superior to that of the professional filmmaker ... Ferman didn't half need a slap. When the work was first submitted for classification for video in 1989 it arrived in its post-BBFC censored version, now clocking in at 120 minutes 20 seconds. However, under the Video Recordings Act 1984 (VRA) , the film was to be subjected to another 12 seconds of cuts to scenes of zombie dismemberment and cannibalism. So, on VHS, the cuts totalled 3:58!!! In 1997 Dawn Of The Dead was picked up by a new distributor (BMG) who took the decision to submit the film in its original uncensored state, with a running time of 139 minutes. This time the BBFC only insisted on six seconds of cuts. However, it was in 2003 that the film was finally passed at 18 uncut by the BBFC, with the examiners feeling that under the 2000 BBFC Guidelines it was impossible to justify cutting the work – the film contained no material that was unprecedented and that it had in many ways been surpassed by more recent 18 rated horror films such as 28 Days Later and House Of 1,000 Corpses. 2004 saw the release of Zack Snyder’s remake of Romero’s Dawn Of The Dead, which proved to be an altogether more gruesome and graphic affair. However, the BBFC still passed the film 18 uncut. That 1997 release was when I hopped aboard the Dawn of the Dead train. There seems to be some confusion. Movie-Censorship say 8 seconds, BBFC say 6 seconds (which is always what I'd heard). Otherwise all other cuts were waived, and it was finally released totally uncut in 2003.

[shootemindehead]

Yeah, I've read through that a while ago. That site is interesting for seeing the submissions of films for censorship throughout the years in Britain. Ferman and his lot at the BBFC were some crowd though. They really believed that they had the say over what the proles should be allowed to watch. He seemed to be an ok individual, from interviews, but he was imbued with that classist, conservative, mindset that assumed that they "knew best" and the great unwashed should be controlled, lest they get any ideas above their station. He was the most censorious head the BBFC ever had and considering who came before him and the times involved, that's saying something. As far as 'Dawn of the Dead' was concerned, I remember it when it was called "Zombies - Dawn of the Dead' (why it was given that title in the UK and Ireland, I don't know). But when I saw it on video later as just 'Dawn of the Dead', it had nearly everything cut from it. Every single head shot was gone, for example. It was interesting, all the same. But compared to 'Day of the Dead', which passed with minimal cuts, it was like watching an episode of 'The Banana Bunch'. In my video watching teens, I was always perplexed at how the BBFC could gut 'Dawn of the Dead', but let the harder 'Day of the Dead' go through relatively unscathed. As you say, Ferman fancied himself as a bit of a film maker and failing at that, found himself at the BBFC, where he could exercise a lot of power. I'd say he over exercised to a great degree and by the 90's had run his course by a wide margin. Thankfully, the BBFC are a lot more measured in their approach. But that has a lot to do with the internet and the fact that punters can just buy any film they want online and have shipped to their door, uncut and unmolested. Money talks and it said to the likes of the BBFC that an overly stringent conservative policy of censoring movies wasn't going to...er..."cut it" in the 21st century. Nowadays, we have the likes of Arrow video releasing 'Zombie Flesh Eaters' on Blu Ray. That would have been unheard of during Ferman's time. In fact a company like Arrow Video would have been unheard of. It wouldn't have survived a week.

[MinionZombie]

Indeed, although nowadays there's still cutting going on at the BBFC - but it's "category cuts" - the option made available to distributors when, usually, their PG-13 film is a smidge too much for a 12A. You often find Bond movies getting little snips to a scene or two (e.g. neck cracking sounds diminished or removed, a knife slice reduced etc). Category cuts are quite common these days and it's all about the distributors wanting that extra bit of cashola by having a trimmed 12A instead of a 15 uncut certificate. Outright banning or censorship isn't really a thing, but you still find instances where certain films are still getting cut - I Spit On Your Grave (original and remake), for instance. Although it's interesting to see how the amount of cuts to the original movie has gradually reduced over the years. However, some cuts are achieved not by trimming the run time, but by "re-framing" the scene or cutting bits out and then "lengthening" (i.e. slowing down) the shots on either side of it. There were some examples of that in the version of the ISOYG remake that the BBFC passed cut. The slowing down effect looks rubbish and disorienting. First time I saw that I was wondering what the hell was going on, then I read up on it. Kinda silly, really - it's simple to view all these films, as you say, uncut online or to import them. And, when you think about it, considering what you can see online (be it YouTube type video sites, or just porn in general), these old movies are positively quaint by comparison. Of course, some would then argue that's a reason to impose Internet censorship or some kind of regulation - but the government recently attempted that idiotic idea, wasted a load of time and taxpayer money, and kicked it into the long grass when it was pointed out that it's probably not a good idea to have a 'porn pass' linking viewed material to individual citizens. The politicians said "oh, that'd never get linked up and leaked online" ... coming from the sort of people who regularly expose government secrets by having papers falling out of folders, or leaving laptops on trains etc. Morons. They just don't 'get' the Internet, or that little thing called "parental responsibility". ... Anyway, getting off-topic here ... Looking at Day of the Dead on the BBFC website: https://www.bbfc.co.uk/case-studies/...%80%A6day-dead After cuts were made Day Of The Dead was given an ’18′ certificate, and the same cut version was released on video at ’18′ later that same year. Cuts were waived for an ’18′ certificate video release in 1996, and the film remains at ’18′ today. That 1996 VHS release is the way I first saw the film, so I've never seen Day censored (which is nice). The original BBFC submission report can be read here: https://www.bbfc.co.uk/sites/default...yOfTheDead.pdf The arm amputation, the shovel decapitation, various deaths in the finale, and Captain Rhodes' death were all targets for trims.

[shootemindehead]

^ Re: 'Day of the Dead', I first saw it on video in the 80's, with all the trims and later I saw the uncut version. As far as I recall, two things stood out. Rickles death seemed slightly longer and more disturbing and there's a scene where a zombie bites into someone's fingers. Frankly the latter scene looks stupid as the fingers are clearly rubber. It's actually a cut I agree with, but not on the grounds that the BBFC cut it in 1985. I'd cut it, simply because it looks silly.

[JDP]

...and there's a scene where a zombie bites into someone's fingers. During Rickles' death, the fingers of the hand he is holding the gun with get bitten off. Is that what you were thinking of?

[shootemindehead]

Probably. The zombie bites into fingers that stretch and rip. They clearly have no bones. It's one of the poorest effects in the movie.

[EvilNed]

This place is pretty dead except for when someone starts posting about the original trilogy and then everyone turns up to share their two cents.

[beat_truck]

This place is pretty dead except for when someone starts posting about the original trilogy and then everyone turns up to share their two cents. Well, maybe if they'd put out some new zombie related material that was worth watching and discussing, that might change. Most of what gets released is dreck and isn't worth the time or effort.