well, i thought i had a convert...

[Mike70]

a friend of mine, who knows nothing about post-apoc film, has been getting interested in the subject and asked me to bring a couple of movies over for him to check out. he didn't necessarily ask for a romero film but, well you know.

big decision here and keep in mind, this guy knows nothing about romero or about post-apoc movies - nothing. he barely even knew who romero is. so after some thought i decided to go with 28 days later and land of the dead. both are well made and accessible to someone who isn't already a fan.

score on both counts. he enjoyed both and wanted me to bring over a couple more. here's where the problem starts, the next two i took were day of the dead and dawn. both flopped massively. his reaction to day was, "is anything going to happen in this movie besides talking?" he did like the ending but thought the whole thing was lame. then dawn became a total deal breaker. he laughed his ass off at it and thought that while it had a great story and some interesting characters, it was a poorly made, almost amateurish movie with the worst makeup effects imaginable.

needless to say, he isn't interested in seeing anymore.

different strokes - he loves phish with a passion and i'd like to take phish, all their records and live recordings, then shoot them into the sun to rid the world of that pap.

[krakenslayer]

a friend of mine, who knows nothing about post-apoc film, has been getting interested in the subject and asked me to bring a couple of movies over for him to check out. he didn't necessarily ask for a romero film but, well you know.

big decision here and keep in mind, this guy knows nothing about romero or about post-apoc movies - nothing. he barely even knew who romero is. so after some thought i decided to go with 28 days later and land of the dead. both are well made and accessible to someone who isn't already a fan.

score on both counts. he enjoyed both and wanted me to bring over a couple more. here's where the problem starts, the next two i took were day of the dead and dawn. both flopped massively. his reaction to day was, "is anything going to happen in this movie besides talking?" he did like the ending but thought the whole thing was lame. then dawn became a total deal breaker. he laughed his ass off at it and thought that while it had a great story and some interesting characters, it was a poorly made, almost amateurish movie with the worst makeup effects imaginable.

needless to say, he isn't interested in seeing anymore.

different strokes - he loves phish with a passion and i'd like to take phish, all their records and live recordings, then shoot them into the sun to rid the world of that pap.

Honestly, I think that the Dead films are best watched in order of release. Start 'em off with Night of the Living Dead - it's the closest to being a "traditional" horror movie, so they're likely to "get" it, and it really is quite eerie. Night will accustom them to the "creakiness" of old 60s and 70s low budget movies, plus black and white films have a tendency to be judged under different criteria - instead of being compared to polished modern Hollywood films, most people tend to judge them in terms of it being "good for an old movie", so they will usually be less harsh against it in their own mind.

By the time they see Dawn, the bright colours and "upbeat apocalypse" atmosphere will seem like a breath of fresh air. The cheesy effects will still raise an eyebrow, but they'll be seen in the context of how much more advanced and extreme they are compared to Night. Tell them its okay to laugh at Dawn, the film is supposed to be a blast and is very far from serious. Then they can put the corniness behind them and get into the story, characters and message.

This order lets the new convert see Day as the huge technical improvement that it was. The bleaker atmosphere will probably depress a little, but Day feels more like a "modern film" (albeit a slow one), so it will hold their attention.

If you can go through all of that, then show them Land of the Dead. And if their reaction to Land is: "It's okay, but not as good as the first three", then you know you've succeeded in creating a true Romero nut. :lol:

[Mike70]

By the time they see Dawn, the bright colours and "upbeat apocalypse" atmosphere will seem like a breath of fresh air. The cheesy effects will still raise an eyebrow, but they'll be seen in the context of how much more advanced and extreme they are compared to Night. Tell them its okay to laugh at Dawn, the film is supposed to be a blast and is very far from serious. Then they can put the corniness behind them and get into the story, characters and message.



i went with land because it is a modern, well made flick with great effects and is more accessible to a non-horror nut. i've never been concerned with the time flow of the films because they are pretty well isolated from each other. also, i've known this guy since i was 6, so i tried to pick a couple of first films i knew he'd probably dig. he is a professional photographer and is very, very into the way shots look in movies. night isn't something that he would find visually appealing, so i never even considered it.

to be honest, i think that most people who didn't grow up with dawn and are used to slick looking movies, would probably class it as a piece of rubbish. the only thing that saves dawn from being my least fav of them all is the story and the characters.

again, let's be brutally honest - the zombie makeup in dawn is horrid. take a close look at the zombies that have patches of skin showing, in some places their lips are still nice and red, the makeup disappears around their eyes. i could go on and on.

dawn is a film that because of its flaws requires a huge amount of imagination to enjoy. i'm not saying that people who don't like it are lacking in imagination, such a statement would be ridiculous, but that most people's imaginations don't turn to such dark subjects as readily as others.

to add one further thing: i'm not bashing dawn, so no one should get their panties in a twist. no movie or, in fact, any work of man is above criticism.

[Skippy911sc]

He would probably really like the remake of Dawn. How old is your friend...is he the MTV generation that needs stuff happening every second to enjoy a film (nothing wrong with that)? I like the psychological aspect of the films the slow pace leading up to a big finish. My kids are the must have action all the time crowd. I even have issues watching stuff like that...think Bourne Ultimatum.

[Mike70]

He would probably really like the remake of Dawn. How old is your friend...is he the MTV generation that needs stuff happening every second to enjoy a film (nothing wrong with that)? I like the psychological aspect of the films the slow pace leading up to a big finish. My kids are the must have action all the time crowd. I even have issues watching stuff like that...think Bourne Ultimatum.

he's the same age that i am. his taste in movies goes more towards drama than anything.

i'm not a fan of action movies in general. i don't really want to sit through any film that is paced like a track meet. besides horror/scifi, my movie interests mainly center around john cassavetes and bergman.

[krakenslayer]

i went with land because it is a modern, well made flick with great effects and is more accessible to a non-horror nut. i've never been concerned with the time flow of the films because they are pretty well isolated from each other. also, i've known this guy since i was 6, so i tried to pick a couple of first films i knew he'd probably dig. he is a professional photographer and is very, very into the way shots look in movies. night isn't something that he would find visually appealing, so i never even considered it.

Are you kidding? Some of the shots in Night are absolutely stunning. Of all Romero's films with the exception of Creepshow, it's probably the most beautifully shot.

It's not in your face, though, it's subtle. Think about the shot where Ben clubs the zombie in the doorway, and as it falls away it reveals three more emerging from the darkness behind it. Think about the early scenes in the farmhouse, with the stark minimalist lighting. Think about the shot where Barbara opens the music box and the mirrors within it rotate, creating numerous reflections of her face (but not the camera). Think about the nightmarish scene where the daughter murders Helen. Night is by far the most stylish of all the Dead films.


Bergman.

The Seventh Seal = win!

[Mike70]

Are you kidding? Some of the shots in Night are absolutely stunning. Of all Romero's films with the exception of Creepshow, it's probably the most beautifully shot.


The Seventh Seal = win!

i'd agree but like i said, i've known this dude for 33 years and i didn't think he'd go for it.


the seventh seal is cool but i'm more into "winter light", "hour of the wolf", and "wild strawberries."

[Eyebiter]

Day of the Dead is usually to hard core for newbies or the squeamish. Too much anger, craziness, and gore for your average movie viewer.

I'd recommend any of the following: Six String Samurai, Damnation Alley, Soylent Green, or The Omega Man.

There are some other good PAW films that are probably too twisted for your friend to enjoy. Hardware, A Boy and His Dog, Radioactive Dreams, or Quiet Earth are worth watching.

[Mr.G]

In response to Mike70, I respect your opinion but the reasons you describe above make it an awesome movie to me. It was made 31 years ago with a tight budget and a bunch of guys who just wanted to make a movie. I wish we still had that type of story, characters, & plot in horror movies today.

[MoonSylver]

No offense to said friend, but I just don't get people who can't look past a films limitations, be it budget, era it was made in, whatever, to see what's going ON in the movie, what's beneath the surface.


his reaction to day was, "is anything going to happen in this movie besides talking?" he did like the ending but thought the whole thing was lame. then dawn became a total deal breaker. he laughed his ass off at it and thought that while it had a great story and some interesting characters, it was a poorly made, almost amateurish movie with the worst makeup effects imaginable.

This=I don't get it + :annoyed::annoyed::annoyed::annoyed::annoyed:

[Mike70]

No offense to said friend, but I just don't get people who can't look past a films limitations, be it budget, era it was made in, whatever, to see what's going ON in the movie, what's beneath the surface.



This=I don't get it + :annoyed::annoyed::annoyed::annoyed::annoyed:

as i said above, i can understand his criticisms of dawn but i can't understand why the shit makeup and a few other things would be a deal buster.

i guess part of it might be that most of us saw dawn when were young and didn't really notice or care about such things. we were kids and we sat back and enjoyed the ride. a lot of adults can't do that (hell in certain situations, i know i can't anymore). as grownups we are constantly picking things apart and focusing on shit that really shouldn't matter as to whether a film is good or not. for instance, as i've gotten older, i've become extremely intolerant of scientific idiocy in movies. i can let go some things but others i'm like "wtf, do they think the audience is made up of 4 year olds." and i'm done with the film.

[blind2d]

Ah, yes. I remember the first time I saw Dawn (I was 16). Captivated, truly immersed in the story and Romero's world. I doubt I would have that same reaction even now, just four short years later, if I had to see it for the first time. Still love it with all my heart, of course.
Some people are good with some movies, some aren't. That's just the way it goes. Ditto on Soylent Green. That's a movie I feel anyone could enjoy.

[Trin]

I saw a quote flying around the email chains recently which I will poorly transcribe here:

"Everyone has a movie they love so much that they cannot watch it with another human being because no one else will get it enough, enjoy it enough, appreciate it enough, etc. It just becomes a horribly maddening experience for all parties and often turns into a friendship killing argument."

That's Dawn and Day for me. I stopped trying to convert people many, many years ago.

[Danny]

honestly if someone liked land id show em day first, then if they dug it, night to see where it came from, youve got to be a romero fan to enjoy dawn, lets face it in general viewing terms its not aged well. to you or me thats part of the charm but to most its very off putting and i would save it for last, if they can be eased in by the sort of timeless day which doesn't really seem to be in a certain timeframe to the original they should dig dawn, if they dont dig day or night then dawns a certain thumbs down.

[Mr.G]

I saw a quote flying around the email chains recently which I will poorly transcribe here:

"Everyone has a movie they love so much that they cannot watch it with another human being because no one else will get it enough, enjoy it enough, appreciate it enough, etc. It just becomes a horribly maddening experience for all parties and often turns into a friendship killing argument."

That's Dawn and Day for me. I stopped trying to convert people many, many years ago.

This is SO true. I would love to add to your virtual reputation....I won't watch Dawn with people who have never seen it. It's a movie I pop in every month or so and take away something new each time.

Nothing is as great as watching a movie for the first time and knowing it's one of your classics!

[Philly_SWAT]

Think about the shot where Ben clubs the zombie in the doorway, and as it falls away it reveals three more emerging from the darkness behind it.
I think that is one of the best shots ever captured on film! Glad to see others noticed it as well.

[strayrider]

I think that is one of the best shots ever captured on film! Glad to see others noticed it as well.

While that particular sequence did not make the movie per se it certainly established a hopeless feeling of impending doom.

While I understand why Mike's friend laughed at Dawn due to its lack of "slickness" I also vividly recall my first viewing of the film when it premiered on the big screen. This was in the late 70s, of course, and movie goers had yet to become jaded with all of today's dazzling SFX and digital clarity.

No one laughed at the movie. In fact quite early on people were getting up and walking out of the theater -- not because they thought the movie sucked. They could not handle the gore. Heck, when Wooley blew that dude's head to pieces half a dozen got up and walked out (probably scarred for life lol).

Despite its limitations and flaws I believe Dawn set the high bar for every subsequent horror film. It is definitely a classic and should be viewed as such.

:D

-stray-

[SymphonicX]

no accounting for lack of taste eh?!

who the fuck are phish?