Day versus Land

[Gemini]

I've been watching the Dead movies in reverse order and interestingly after seeing Day again I have a new respect for Land. After all, Day was not very popular upon its release, much like Land, and it took years for it to evolve into a cult classic, much like I expect Land will.

People like to hate on Land and talk about the "commando" zombies, but Bub actually tracked down Rhodes and executed him with a semiautomatic weapon in Day! I think people are so averse to the intelligent zombie concept in Land because Big Daddy was a poorly acted role, and that is a shame.

But Romero has advanced the idea of the living dead as more than monsters and injected more and more humanity into their role with each passing film, why would Land be any different? In that regard GAR stuck true to his roots. He also did not sacrifice one iota in the gore/splatter department with the unrated version of Land perhaps the most brutal of his films.

I have never read the original script of Day but I believe GAR had envisioned zombie armies and the domestication of the creatures; had Day been filmed true to its original script would it be seen as the laughing stock that some of you see Land as? And how can you laud the original Day script but hate on Land for incorporating many of the same elements?

Thoughts? Are people really as down on Land as the impression I get? Any other reasons why Land is so terrible?

About Diary ...I don't know...I don't even feel it should be mentioned with the others.

[EvilNed]

I definetly don't hate Land. But I can see why some people have a problem with it.

My main gripe with it would probably be that Riley, the main character, is kinda boring. He's to perfect, almost. Too calm, too collected and too expressionless. Since the film almost weighs on his shoulders, he drags it down with it. All the secondary characters are great. Cholo, Charlie, Kaufman etc. etc., they are all great.

Also, another thing with the original trilogy is that they all have a very present soundtrack, but in Land the music is almost ambient only. Again, it's too "calm".

Overall, the film might be a bit too "calm" sometimes. I wouldn't say that Dawn or Day are the best paced of films, but Lands pace can just be somewhat dull sometimes. I don't mind Big Daddy at all. I wouldn't have minded if he took a slice out of some extra or something like that, but I just don't mind him. He's cool with me.

[AcesandEights]

Big Daddy was a poorly acted role...

All that really needs to be said, from my point of view, though I'd include he was poorly realized in the script, as well.

RAAAARGH!

[Andy]

http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=15195

I Aint typing all that out again.

[bassman]

As said before me, I think Land's two biggest problems are acting and time constraints. Other than that, I think it earns it's place among the original trilogy. It is the least of the four films but it still deserves to be part of the four films. Diary is a whole other beast, though...

The smart zombie is just something that most haters fall back on. They fail to realize that smart zombies have been in Romero's films since day one. Anyone that actually pays attention to Dawn knows that it's got many "smart" zombies. Even a gun totting zombie, so the argument against BD and Bub is just stretching...

[JDFP]

I won't go as far as saying that "LAND" is the worst zombie flick ever, like some people (ahem) do, Mattei and Fraggaso have this award as far as zombie flicks along with an absolutely atrocious film called "Shatter Dead" that makes "LAND" look like an Academy Award/BAFTA/Cannes winning masterpiece, but I think "LAND" is utter and complete shit -- and is made all the worse because it's by Romero. I've said it a million times and will say it agan, "DIARY" for all its flaws, is far more entertaining to me than "LAND". Saying it's a better movie is subjective opinionated conjecture but I can pop "DIARY" in for a night of drinking the Beast (Milwaukee's Best) and enjoying it before passing out.


The only interest in comparing "DAY" to "LAND" is to compare a great work of film-making with a lousy film. As far as "DAY'S" original script, I didn't like it at all. I think the budgetary constraints helped Romero create a better film than he originally envisioned. He kept the meat and potatoes, the necessary crux of a great story, while throwing out all the garnishing that helped to ruin "LAND". Hell, maybe if Romero's budget for "LAND" had been slashed in half he could have made a better film as well (of course people will disagree with me on this because they would argue that "DIARY" -- in their opinion -- wasn't a good film while I enjoyed it). I'll probably come pert near damn near close to being graciously attacked for saying it, but I'm just going to have to say from reading "DAY'S" original script years ago, I think the filmed "DAY" works much better and if the film had been shot as originally scripted it would have sucked like "LAND" did.

Not only Romero, but most films are better by throwing out all the excess (LOTR and the original Star Wars trilogy aside) and just telling a damn good story without worrying about silly CGI and over-the-top F/X (here's looking at you, Michael "let's blow lots of shit up!" Bay).

j.p.

[Trin]

I've been watching the Dead movies in reverse order and interestingly after seeing Day again I have a new respect for Land. After all, Day was not very popular upon its release, much like Land, and it took years for it to evolve into a cult classic, much like I expect Land will.
Clock's been ticking long enough. Land has been out for 5 years now. It didn't take Day that long for GAR fans to come around so why don't we all stop hoping the same thing will happen to Land.

And let's look hard at what caused Day to be scorned. It wasn't Dawn. It wasn't upbeat. The characters didn't mesh well. There was nothing to root for. None of those things is a systemic problem to Day. It's all in contrast to Dawn. View the movie on its own merits and it comes out differently. And after some time that's exactly what people did.

Let's look at what are the common gripes about Land. Big Daddy. The money issue. The river crossing. The length of the movie. The scarcity of zombies. The odd powerbase that kept Kaufman on top. Those problems are systemic to Land. Viewers don't overcome those problems by viewing the movie repeatedly or isolated from the others. In fact, take away the other movies and Land is worse.

Just for the record... I'm mostly a Land hater, but Big Daddy didn't ruin Land for me. Nor did the whole intelligent zombies thing. It was the disjointed and nonsensical setting and plot that killed me. I LOVED a ton of things about Land, but I can't excuse the idiots being idiots. And I cannot help but believe that Land was Romero's last shot at making the "Ultimate Zombie Masterpiece" as the poster on my wall declares. And it coulda been. It shoulda been. But it wasn't.

As for the Original Day Script - read it. It's utter ridiculous, but good to see what a bullet we all dodged.

[sandrock74]

Clock's been ticking long enough. Land has been out for 5 years now. It didn't take Day that long for GAR fans to come around so why don't we all stop hoping the same thing will happen to Land.


Sorry, I have to disagree with this statement. When this very site was new on the fairly young internet back in the day, Day of the Dead was treated like a rented mule. Most seemed to outright hate it. That would have been like.....what, over a dozen years after Day was released? (Five years after Day's release was only 1990, long before the internet was around for us fanboys to express our dissatisfaction about things.)

I still say that Land will be viewed better the longer it's around; same as what happened with Day.

[blind2d]

I thought Land was fine for what it was... which is maybe not the reason most people see a Romero flick, but a good zombie flick? It totally was. Better than most, anyway. So take heart in that! And yeah, the protagonist dude seemed to be... a weak character, but maybe George was just trying something new, eh? Liked the skateboard cameo and Simon Pegg cameo... Dennis Hopper is King... there are lots of good things. Music was lacking, and some of the characters, but other than that... Savini's cameo... Hey... this is full of cameos! That's pretty cool... Meh, I'll always prefer Day over land personally, but it's not a bad film in itself. It has its flaws, like any movie. Pretty Boy was straight-up Tank Girl awesome, though.

[fulci fan]

The problem I had with Land was the feeling I got when watching it. It felt like the zombies were not even there. I also thought Ugene Clark was the wrong guy for the Big Daddy part.

Has anyone pointed out to Romero in an interview that most fans do not like his newer zombie films?

[Trin]

Sorry, I have to disagree with this statement. When this very site was new on the fairly young internet back in the day, Day of the Dead was treated like a rented mule. Most seemed to outright hate it. That would have been like.....what, over a dozen years after Day was released? (Five years after Day's release was only 1990, long before the internet was around for us fanboys to express our dissatisfaction about things.)

I still say that Land will be viewed better the longer it's around; same as what happened with Day.I don't know. I think the Internet and sites like this should accelerate any Land acceptance that is forthcoming. If it took Day a dozen years then Land shoulda taken less than 5. The ability to discuss and dissect should push acceptance or refusal toward whatever level point it's gonna reach.

The only thing time is gonna do is dull people's senses to how bad it was. If Land gains acceptance under those terms than that's a hollow victory.

Personally, I think Day increased in fan approval because Dawn appears cheesier and cheesier with each passing year. Day is timeless by comparison. For all we talk about Dawn being the best of the series, I don't think people realize how big a movie Dawn was in 1978-79. It was THE SHIT. But it didn't age as well. Nowadays we all kinda groan when we see the mall or the clothes or whatever.

That may be good news for Land. It is more timeless than Dawn. Maybe a bit less so than Day. But the thing just doesn't stand on its own legs very well. The plot was ho hum and full of confusion. The intelligent zombies were largely not understood by general horror audiences.

I will say this, and I've said it before. Land may gain the same level of acceptance as Day in general horror audiences. But in general horror audiences Day is still a whole bunch of forgettable meh.

[bassman]

I will say this, and I've said it before. Land may gain the same level of acceptance as Day in general horror audiences. But in general horror audiences Day is still a whole bunch of forgettable meh.

Surprisingly the two are very closely rated on IMDB. Day is at 7.0 while Land is at 6.5.

[AcesandEights]

Has anyone pointed out to Romero in an interview that most fans do not like his newer zombie films?

So he can pull a Lucas-like evasion of reality? Plus, to be fair, filmmakers to a degree have to keep making films to fulfill their own vision.

Now, I'd like to hear what some people have to say about what some of the great creative minds have done when faced with the reality of their vision, realized, failing the majority of their fans. That'd be an interesting bit of comparative research. How did the fanbase react and change? What were the longlasting effects for the artist/creator, the fans, the genre of the particular medium etc.?

[bassman]

I don't think Romero would give a shit if someone told him his newer films weren't good. He seems like the kind of guy that is just glad to still be doing what he loves at his elder age.

[Mike70]

Personally, I think Day increased in fan approval because Dawn appears cheesier and cheesier with each passing year. Day is timeless by comparison. For all we talk about Dawn being the best of the series, I don't think people realize how big a movie Dawn was in 1978-79. It was THE SHIT. But it didn't age as well. Nowadays we all kinda groan when we see the mall or the clothes or whatever.


dude, get out of my head.:D

i couldn't agree more with the above. day remains a constant among my fav films, while dawn recedes further and further back as time goes by. i grew up loving dawn but when i attempt to watch it now, it just looks so cheesy and amateurish that i find it very hard to take seriously. the only things that really save it from the rubbish heap are the characters and that the movie has real soul to it.

---------- Post added at 12:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 AM ----------




As for the Original Day Script - read it. It's utter ridiculous, but good to see what a bullet we all dodged.

another thing i totally agree with. ridiculous is a perfect word for it. the whole thing was retarded almost beyond words. after i spent the time reading the original script (on here), i remember thinking, "thank goodness that didn't get made."

[Danny]

how do you do a "vs" for these movies? aside from zombies they are completely different movies. One is about control, paranoia and cabin fever, the other is about greed corruption and social classes. They dont compare, dya and dawn sure, but land is far too different. its like comparing resident evil and 28 days later. theyve both got hissing raptor sick people in it but nothing else in common.

[Mike70]

how do you do a "vs" for these movies? aside from zombies they are completely different movies. One is about control, paranoia and cabin fever, the other is about greed corruption and social classes. They dont compare, dya and dawn sure, but land is far too different. its like comparing resident evil and 28 days later. theyve both got hissing raptor sick people in it but nothing else in common.

i wondered that same thing. though i think what the OP was getting at is whether opinions of land will sweeten over time like they did with day. that isn't a vs. situation at all.

[Danny]

Personally, I think Day increased in fan approval because Dawn appears cheesier and cheesier with each passing year. Day is timeless by comparison. For all we talk about Dawn being the best of the series, I don't think people realize how big a movie Dawn was in 1978-79. It was THE SHIT. But it didn't age as well. Nowadays we all kinda groan when we see the mall or the clothes or whatever.

That may be good news for Land. It is more timeless than Dawn. Maybe a bit less so than Day. But the thing just doesn't stand on its own legs very well. The plot was ho hum and full of confusion. The intelligent zombies were largely not understood by general horror audiences.

I will say this, and I've said it before. Land may gain the same level of acceptance as Day in general horror audiences. But in general horror audiences Day is still a whole bunch of forgettable meh.

word dude. in 60 years we could all show our grandkids dawn and they will all just laugh at how wank it is, day on the other hand only has one major difference with land, its grainy look from how it was filmed. and as ive said before thats not denigrating to a horror film, in fact for most 80's horror flicks its quite the opposite, see ring as a fine example.

---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------


i wondered that same thing. though i think what the OP was getting at is whether opinions of land will sweeten over time like they did with day. that isn't a vs. situation at all.

that or a director thing, but in that case i should start a john landis thread because there was a supernatural bit in blues brothers as well as american werewolf in london:D


-if you dont remember what i mean shame on you:

P1KZKZs-2YM

[Mike70]

word dude. in 60 years we could all show our grandkids dawn and they will all just laugh at how wank it is,

no need to wait 60 years, there are already tons of people who think it is wank. dawn has not aged well and, in all likelihood, will continue not to age well.

[Legion2213]

Dawn has cult status, Land doesn't. That counts for a lot.

Another few decades and Land will still be considered garbage, Dawn will be considered with warmth/fondness. Dawn also has charm.


.

[Danny]

no need to wait 60 years, there are already tons of people who think it is wank. dawn has not aged well and, in all likelihood, will continue not to age well.

aye, but thats by people who will watch it and go "this is stupid, there blue!, george romero ripped off james cameron!!!!1!!!!!"

but at least they watch it and decide.

right now theres people who will NOT watch a film if its black and white and like 60 years old. sometime for the general populous thats gonna be the same for pre turn of the century analogue filmed movies too, its a sad fact but one i predict, jaded, cynical guy with no faith in people that i am:D

[RustyHicks]

I agree, Dawn has attained a cult status, but really hasn't aged well. I showed the film
to my niece and nephew back in 1995 and they laughed their butts off because they thought it was so cheesy, but to me Dawn will always remain special.
Day is now a cult classic as well, although it took a long while to get up there, as for
Land, who know, it may achieve that status or it may not. I personally don't favour the film, some of the characters, were a little too unbelieveable for my taste and that Big Daddy guy, poorly acted, just got on my nerves, trying to be like Bub. With Bub, you kind of felt sorry for him, with Big Daddy you wanted to shoot him in the head more than once.
I think Diary will actually rise above Land.

[Trin]

another thing i totally agree with. ridiculous is a perfect word for it. the whole thing was retarded almost beyond words. after i spent the time reading the original script (on here), i remember thinking, "thank goodness that didn't get made."
I'm glad to hear someone agree with this. I'm usually alone in this opinion. The more common opinion is, "I wish GAR would get the chance to make Day according to the original script." And I say, HELL NO!! I can only think those people are speaking from sentimental motives and have not really thought through that script. Or maybe they didn't even read it. Seriously, cowboy quick draw zombies? Walking human bomb? Gratuitous scenes of indulgence? Training zombies to attack anything not wearing certain colored vests? Wow.

[Mike70]

right now theres people who will NOT watch a film if its black and white and like 60 years old. sometime for the general populous thats gonna be the same for pre turn of the century analogue filmed movies too, its a sad fact but one i predict, jaded, cynical guy with no faith in people that i am:D

that is sad because those folks are missing out some great flicks. the films made in 30s and 40s, particularly the horror stuff, are among some of the finest movies ever done.

[blind2d]

So true, Mike. But, unfortunately, the generations now... most don't hold for that sort of thing, being content with uppity remakes and shoddy-storied, special-effecty chasms of soul. Ah... I don't know. Maybe there will be a big renaissance in the near future...

[bd2999]

Day suffered more from not being Dawn than anything else. It did end up with more people liking it, but I am not sure Land will end up with quite the same following. I do not know of many fans of the series that disliked Day, it might have been the least favorite for them of the three, but they did not hate it.

Land was a decent enough movie, if bland. It was better than Diary for sure but I just found Land to be very bland. Big Daddy was a bit annoying, just because Bub needed training for who knows how long to bring his memories out to the forefront and never really led other zombies around. As others I though Riley was bit of a extremly bland character. The others were not as bad overall and the gore was fine. I like Day better but that has to do with the more gritty style. As a rule I just usually like the general feel of movies shot in the 80's or 70's even if it is a bit grainy. It fits some movies.

[rongravy]

My only problem with Land wasn't that they, and especially BD, were too intelligent. It was how the guy acted the part, which was not very well. He sounded constipated. I also didn't like Riley's disfigured buddy. He was kind of annoying and I wanted him dead. Other than that, I thought it was more than decent enough.
It almost seems like the Dead trilogy is treated like the original Star Wars Trilogy and Land and Diary are the Phantom Menace's of the new batch.
I'd think more of Diary as The Clone movie and Land the Sith movie.
I haven't seen one that sucked enough to be the Menace of it all...

And yeah, when my kids saw Dawn they laughed their asses off at the fashion of the time. Who cares, I can't wait to show them how retarded their shit is when they get older.

[MaximusIncredulous]

The biggest problems I had with Land was the makeup, giving the zombies a "fresh" look for the most part and the rushed feel the zombie attacks had. Both those issues sucked alot of the horror out of the phenomenon that was experienced in the earlier films.

[Trin]

Land would be better if:

1) Hordes of undead ringed the city, pounding on fences and walls day and night, moaning to the point people are frayed, and causing difficulties for the scavengers to get in and out. Literally a sea of zombies.

2) Cholo points the guns at the defenses (walls and fences holding back the zombies) instead of the tower. If he doesn't get what he wants he'll topple the city from the outside.

3) Big Daddy can be intelligent, but he is a catalyst for the other zombies, not the sole intelligent zombie. For example, when they come to the plywood Big Daddy should stand confused looking at it and the butcher zombie figures out to chop at it. So what BD teaches them is that they can learn and think and then they each run with it in their own way. As opposed to BD doing all the thinking for them. Wouldn't that be far scarier? All the zombies infecting each other with the realization that they can think?

4) The zombies breach the city some other way. Some way that doesn't require the city be ignorant and the zombies be superhuman. Maybe they figure out how to dam the river or close the river locks or lower the bridges or something. Or figure out how to short out the electric fences. Something that takes actual intelligence that the humans would reasonably discount as beyond them.

[Danny]

Land would be better if:

1) Hordes of undead ringed the city, pounding on fences and walls day and night, moaning to the point people are frayed, and causing difficulties for the scavengers to get in and out. Literally a sea of zombies.

2) Cholo points the guns at the defenses (walls and fences holding back the zombies) instead of the tower. If he doesn't get what he wants he'll topple the city from the outside.

3) Big Daddy can be intelligent, but he is a catalyst for the other zombies, not the sole intelligent zombie. For example, when they come to the plywood Big Daddy should stand confused looking at it and the butcher zombie figures out to chop at it. So what BD teaches them is that they can learn and think and then they each run with it in their own way. As opposed to BD doing all the thinking for them. Wouldn't that be far scarier? All the zombies infecting each other with the realization that they can think?

4) The zombies breach the city some other way. Some way that doesn't require the city be ignorant and the zombies be superhuman. Maybe they figure out how to dam the river or close the river locks or lower the bridges or something. Or figure out how to short out the electric fences. Something that takes actual intelligence that the humans would reasonably discount as beyond them.

i dont think that would make things better honestly, your first point seems like you just want the same scenario as the 3 films that preceded it, honestly a 4th film about stuck in a place with no visible escape would have been completely eyerolling. for your second point i dont think kaufman would have cared if the city fell, he'd have a contingency to further secure the tower, cholo was targeting his tower, his safehouse. when that towers blown so i kaufman.
As for your 3rd and 4th points i can see what you mean adn there good points but you would just get pages on here of "NOW ONE, LIKE BUB, I COULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD, BUT ALL OF THEM LEARNING THINGS AGAIN?, THATS SHIT":lol:

[fulci fan]

My only problem with Land wasn't that they, and especially BD, were too intelligent. It was how the guy acted the part, which was not very well. He sounded constipated. I also didn't like Riley's disfigured buddy. He was kind of annoying and I wanted him dead. Other than that, I thought it was more than decent enough.
It almost seems like the Dead trilogy is treated like the original Star Wars Trilogy and Land and Diary are the Phantom Menace's of the new batch.
I'd think more of Diary as The Clone movie and Land the Sith movie.
I haven't seen one that sucked enough to be the Menace of it all...

And yeah, when my kids saw Dawn they laughed their asses off at the fashion of the time. Who cares, I can't wait to show them how retarded their shit is when they get older.

I agree about Big Daddy. The other problem I have with him is his movements. They aren't "dead" looking. He walks and moves like he would every day. The only difference is: he has zombie makeup on.

Howard Sherman seemed like he had to learn every movement over again like a baby (says so on the interview).
I don't know what the hell was running through Ugene's head. :annoyed:

[darth los]

All that really needs to be said, from my point of view, though I'd include he was poorly realized in the script, as well.

RAAAARGH!

Although one has to wonder. Was it poor acting or the direction/insistence of GAr that the character be played this way? Or both.

:cool:

[bassman]

Although one has to wonder. Was it poor acting or the direction/insistence of GAr that the character be played this way? Or both.


I've always wondered if Romero was the one to hire Clark. Wasn't Big Daddy a Mexican in the script? Instead they hired a black man. That's not a problem, but did that have something to do with studio pushing for it to be closely related to Night?(black protagonist/black zombie protagonist)

I imagine Romero was the one to hire Clark, but I just can't see him being 100% okay with Clark's performance. Especially after the greatness that was Bub. Maybe time constraints played a part in not getting a solid performance?

I also seem to remember hearing/reading somewhere that BD's walk was a big problem during filming and editing. They kept trying to get it to a certain point but Clark just couldn't handle it. Anyone know anything about this? I can't remember if it was on the dvd, an interview, or rumor...

[Trin]

your first point seems like you just want the same scenario as the 3 films that preceded it, honestly a 4th film about stuck in a place with no visible escape would have been completely eyerolling.
As opposed to them ACTING like they were stuck in a place with no visible escape? I mean, what's the difference between the people stuck in Day/Dawn and the people stuck in Land?? At least with a wall of zombies outside there would've been some justification for the entire populace behaving like stepping outside the walls was certain death.

If they had a visible escape why was Mulligan still there? Why was he watching his son get sicker and sicker? Everyone here knows that Mulligan and 5 good men could've gone off and started their own Fiddler's Green easily enough in the world we saw. Yet he acted like he was trapped.


for your second point i dont think kaufman would have cared if the city fell, he'd have a contingency to further secure the tower, cholo was targeting his tower, his safehouse. when that towers blown so i kaufman.
Cholo targeted the tower because there was nothing else to target. You could blow away the walls and it wouldn't hurt the city since there was nothing attacking it. Kaufman wasn't dumb enough to believe his tower was impregnable if the rest of the city was fallen.

But let me add one point to address a problem that you've hit on - Kaufman would have to show some reliance on the people under his rule and some extravagence toward the people keeping him ruling. We have to assume those things were happening, but it'd be better to see evidence of it. That would also make Land better.


As for your 3rd and 4th points i can see what you mean adn there good points but you would just get pages on here of "NOW ONE, LIKE BUB, I COULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD, BUT ALL OF THEM LEARNING THINGS AGAIN?, THATS SHIT":lol:
I will admit that I like the zombies to be within a certain baseline min/max capability range. I don't like the individual outlier like Bub and BD without some serious justification. I would rather have the baseline capability change/expand over time then get the unexplained rogue zombie that is just a super-zombie.

And, yeah, we'd get an explosion of those kinds of topics. And I'd happily argue in every one em. lol :p

[darth los]

I've always wondered if Romero was the one to hire Clark. Wasn't Big Daddy a Mexican in the script? Instead they hired a black man.

Perhaps GAr didn't want the NAACP up his ass? After all, I don't recall seeing another Black Face in the entire film. (Am i wrong?).

:cool:

[fulci fan]

The butler guy that kaufman shoots. :)

They should have just got Ugene drunk. He would have put on a better performance.

[bassman]

The butler guy that kaufman shoots. :)


I'm pretty sure Kaufman shoots a white guy. One of his partners.

He does have a black butler, though. He's in the extra scene in the unrated cut and also at the end.

"Ya got tha fuckin keeeeyysss!" Always liked the way Kaufman delivers that line...

[fulci fan]

I'm pretty sure Kaufman shoots a white guy. One of his partners.

He does have a black butler, though. He's in the extra scene in the unrated cut and also at the end.

"Ya got tha fuckin keeeeyysss!" Always liked the way Kaufman delivers that line...

I thought Dennis the menace was really annoying in Land. It seemed like he thought he was hot shit.

[bassman]

I thought Dennis the menace was really annoying in Land. It seemed like he thought he was hot shit.

I think he's supposed to seem that way. That's the way I took it, anyway. He's the untouchable antagonist with everything but ultimately loses it all before kicking the bucket...

[fulci fan]

Yeah but if you look at it as if you were working on the movie, I think he would come off as an arrogant actor.

[bassman]

ah, I see what you're saying.

I don't know, though. He seems like a fun guy in the behind the scenes footage. Besides....he's Dennis motha-fuckin Hopper. He can do what he wants. :p

Too bad he's currently on the way out. :(

[fulci fan]

Too bad