Frustration Of The Dead

[xopher]

I've been reading various comments and interviews, even on dedicated Romero sites, that just frusterate me to no end. People who knock the style and acting in George's movies seem to me to posess a complete lack of understanding of GAR's style. I don't see most of the actors in Romero's films as being bad. And I do not see the ruggedness of the films as being amateurish. I see the actors as representatives of real people. The first thing that literally freaked me out about Night Of The Living Dead was the fact that I did not know these actors. Had they been "Big Name" actors and actresses, it would have been like someone slapping me in the face and saying, "It's pretend!" No, these were unknown characters, in my mind, native to this story. It made them real within the story. And as for the ruggedness of the films, that feels to me like a way expressing the chaotic, unpolished reality of the situation. If you watch Bruiser, or Monkey Shines, or even Land Of The Dead, you can see that Romero knows how to direct a polished, clean cut Hollywood style film. I like the rough underbudget Romero. Forgive my ranting, but I really like my GAR films.

[VegoTheUnholy]

i agree with you, but just like music with differant age groups your always going to have some people that dont like the way someone portrays there vision. also for some reason people that dont like something are more likely to talk about it then someone that likes it. personally GAR RULES, and if there is an out break i hope the ones that dont like it get it first. :sneaky:

[Chakobsa]

The thing about Romero's films is that they seem to me to almost always defy convention. Consider NOTLD for example, the film must have seemed shocking indeed to an audience unused to seeing a black leading man, not to mention cannibalism, matricide with a trowel and other assorted postmortem mayhem.:skull:. It's a testament to his vision as a film maker that folk like us spend our time watching these movies over and over and dicussing their minutiae on forums like this one.

[EvilNed]

While I think it's good that the film features unknown cast, I also think that definetly not all of the actors are that good. Especially in Day of the Dead, where there are some good and bad actors which means that the film has uneven acting, which can be even worse than bad acting.

It's especially bad in Romero films, because they are more than simple zombie flicks. They're more focused on the situation and the people than the zombies. Eurotrash films usually just feature the zombies and some 1 dimensional characters. But Romero tries to include at least as much character into his films, which is why acting is important. And sadly, the acting in his films isn't actually that great.

Altough I think the main actors in Dawn did a terrific job, especially Ken Foree, the actors in Day delivered an uneven job.

[Danny]

i like poor directing anyway, maybe thats why im a blair witch fan:lol:
but i know people put down films cus theyve all gotta have bullet time and kung fu and explosions nowadays, it sucks.

[Brubaker]

I've been reading various comments and interviews, even on dedicated Romero sites, that just frusterate me to no end. People who knock the style and acting in George's movies seem to me to posess a complete lack of understanding of GAR's style. I don't see most of the actors in Romero's films as being bad. And I do not see the ruggedness of the films as being amateurish. I see the actors as representatives of real people. The first thing that literally freaked me out about Night Of The Living Dead was the fact that I did not know these actors. Had they been "Big Name" actors and actresses, it would have been like someone slapping me in the face and saying, "It's pretend!" No, these were unknown characters, in my mind, native to this story. It made them real within the story. And as for the ruggedness of the films, that feels to me like a way expressing the chaotic, unpolished reality of the situation. If you watch Bruiser, or Monkey Shines, or even Land Of The Dead, you can see that Romero knows how to direct a polished, clean cut Hollywood style film. I like the rough underbudget Romero. Forgive my ranting, but I really like my GAR films.

Whether they are good or bad actors, I don't think most of the Dead film actors are embarrassed about the movies they were in or the work they did in them. Sure, some of these people may be journeymen in the acting profession but they worked for the roles they were chosen to fill. Joe Pilato sizzled. He made Rhodes jump right off the screen. Pilato doesn't have to apologize to some knuckleheads who give him a bad review for overacting. Who else from the 80's horror/action scene was going to play that character? Jesse Ventura? Roddy Piper? As for Dennis Hopper, he is hardly a bad actor. People who review Land may dog him because they think he is old or washed up but he didn't need to do Land for him to have had a decent career. You know, if Ken Foree had not played Peter then who else would have been available? Carl Weathers? ;)

[Cody]

i like poor directing anyway, maybe thats why im a blair witch fan:lol:
but i know people put down films cus theyve all gotta have bullet time and kung fu and explosions nowadays, it sucks.

I also liked blair witch hellsing

[Danny]

but screw that god aweful second one, there wasnt even a book of shadows mentioned in the film!:barf:

[rikimaru]

i dont really agree with the term bad acting because in real life people are compleatly unpredictable in a general sense espeshally when your following only a small group. People i think are "bad actors" are people who simply dont act at all you know dry unemotional. Over acting is compleatly acceptable in my eyes because over acting is exactly what people do in real situations. When somthing bad happens people usually freak out bigtime scream run yell etc etc etc. I tend not to judge actors as much as most people because i think if i could feesably see a person in that sitatuion might act the way portreyed i think its fine.

so basicly what im saying is i hate under acting and dont mind over acting so much.

[hseiken]

I agree about casting unknowns in horror flicks because if you see Tom Cruise being chased by a zombie, you're like "Dude, the scientologist is being chased by a zombie...hahahaha!"...the whole 'stardom' works against horror movies, in my opinion. Granted the unknowns need to be decent actors, but between the original trilogy, Dawn was the first time I saw Ken Foree (though I saw him in other flicks later), the only bad actor in any of the movies was Flyboy. Hell, the scene that broke his role altogether might have even been George's direction itself (the scene while refueling the chopper and he runs full force with a hammer and does some weird maneuver knocking him and the zombie down...that was just like, "Um...why are you dead still? And why would you hit the zombie with your armpit instead of the hammer?"). Beyond that, though, his facial expressions and line delivery seemed way too forced, unless he was going for the typical 'chip on the shoulder delivery of simple comments' guy we've all known. In that case, he's spot on...but it still seems forced. He was the real downer of the movie for me, other than the fact that his character was quite an idiot.

Sorry for any bad grammer..my brain pukes out my ideas and I don't think in complete sentences.