darth los
05-Nov-2007, 07:16 PM
I didn't see much mention of this version of "NOTLD" so I'm posting this for anyone who might come across it and be interested.
In 1998 a "New" version of "NOTLD" was created and released. Of course such releases have become common practice lately, dating back to "Close Encounters" in the early 80's and the complete re-thinking of the most recent "Exorcist" film. But in this case, rather than uncovering new "never before seen footage" as most expanded editions do, this version promised new footage conceived and shot by the original author of the screenplay, John Russo, and a new score in full stereo.
I'm not a big fan of revisionist film-making--if the changes are noticeable it affects the experience of the movie, if they're not, then why bother? But I don't have a problem with messing with a movie as an alternative experience, like the "green zombie" colorized version of "NOTLD"--if the original was that good (example: the original Star Wars) there's not much you could do to it that will erase that success. The changes to the original re-released films like "The Abyss" and "Terminator 2" didn't really affect the overall experience much, they were more or less like "extended mixes" of a pop song rather than "re-mixes." Less is more, but if you're a fan more can be a fun alternative.
Here, the case is different, a serious "re-thinking" of a revered and classic (albeit low-budget) film. It's obvious that the motivating factor behind such an unusual move (was there really something "missing" from the movie originally?) must be money--yet to read the accompanying materials with the DVD package certainly makes a case that the new concept was done with a lot of love. In other words, it worked well on paper and appeals to the curious film fan, certainly.
Then, of course, you watch the damn movie, and understand--within 30 seconds you realize the concept wasn't viable, at least not with the budget and talent gathered for this project.
I'm glad I saw it, I'll say that, because I'm a fan of film both good and bad, especially THIS film which was already good and bad, and sometimes seeing something truly terrible teaches more about how a good movie is created than seeing a "revered classic" that is flawless. The 30th Anniversary edition of "NOTLD" points out several things that are wrong with movies today, and movies in general: 1)over-foleying of sound f/x. I know it keeps foley artist's employed, and the technology is there,but we don't really need to hear ants hiccup, the way movies are today. 2)Always use real actors, no matter what your budget. The use of the new soundtrack composer in a pivotal role was a serious error: he looks like the uglier brother of Edward Norton in "American History X" and can't act. 3) A soundtrack shouldn't stand out. Here, the new music sounds like little more than demo patterns on a cheap Casio keyboard someone left running. Simple themes repeat over and over until you want to cry out "Uncle," or turn the power off, and the composer, with due respect, needs to learn that soundtrack music shouldn't be "songs," but atmosphere. The effect here is of watching a silent film with your stereo playing in the background. The bursts of the original score only highlight how miscalculated the new score is. 4)Showing is better than telling. It was scarier when we didn't know the history of the first zombie we see, or even that he was a zombie at all, and it's redundant to show zombies eating flesh so early in the film, while the radio broadcast is informing us that people are being cannibalized. It's no longer scary, it's dull, and this movie was dull enough already--if it was going to be re-thought, care should have been taken to improve the dull "talky" moments in between zombie attacks.
In the final analysis, this "new" version (that's several years old now) has a couple of moments of good gore and make-up, but nothing worth checking out. The music is obnoxious, obtrusive and cheap, as well as the new scenes which do not in any way fit in with the old ones. And the new "slant" that the book-end scenes with the preacher give to the film push the "When hell is full the dead will walk the earth" theory over the "radiation created the zombies" theory. It's a whole other movie, and not one I'm interested in. I never cared why the zombies were around in the first place and adding "God's judgment" into the mix ruins the "fun," frankly.
This "new" version has probably been forgotten already, and that's a good thing, but for some reason I still give the creators a nod of respect for trying something different, even if they failed miserably.
The person who posted this review is obviously not a fan of gar's work. The misquote "When hell is full the dead will walk the earth" gives them away. That said i thought it was an interesting read to see how an "outsider" viewed this turd. One thing i believe they're dead wrong on is that the original film was boring. They complain about how there were too many talking scenes in between zombie attacks. Another telltale sign of their non fandom. As most of us know, Gar's dead films are not really about the zombies at all. They're about human nature and the conflict that ensues. Gar uses the gouls as a vehichle to suit his satirical purposes. No doubt they play a prominent role in the films, but they are not nescesarily the centerpiece.
However, i did agree with them on the god awful soundtrack and the apparent contradictions in theory as to why the plauge came about. Each of the dead trilogy had it's overiding theory as to why the dead were rising. In night it was the radiation from the venus probe. In dawn the curse/voodoo mysticism angle was mentioned and in Day a more scintific angle was pursued suggesting a virus. In night 30th the two theories of radiation and god's judgement horribly clashed and seemed off, imo. Not to say that more than one theory can't exist though.
Any thoughts on the article?
In 1998 a "New" version of "NOTLD" was created and released. Of course such releases have become common practice lately, dating back to "Close Encounters" in the early 80's and the complete re-thinking of the most recent "Exorcist" film. But in this case, rather than uncovering new "never before seen footage" as most expanded editions do, this version promised new footage conceived and shot by the original author of the screenplay, John Russo, and a new score in full stereo.
I'm not a big fan of revisionist film-making--if the changes are noticeable it affects the experience of the movie, if they're not, then why bother? But I don't have a problem with messing with a movie as an alternative experience, like the "green zombie" colorized version of "NOTLD"--if the original was that good (example: the original Star Wars) there's not much you could do to it that will erase that success. The changes to the original re-released films like "The Abyss" and "Terminator 2" didn't really affect the overall experience much, they were more or less like "extended mixes" of a pop song rather than "re-mixes." Less is more, but if you're a fan more can be a fun alternative.
Here, the case is different, a serious "re-thinking" of a revered and classic (albeit low-budget) film. It's obvious that the motivating factor behind such an unusual move (was there really something "missing" from the movie originally?) must be money--yet to read the accompanying materials with the DVD package certainly makes a case that the new concept was done with a lot of love. In other words, it worked well on paper and appeals to the curious film fan, certainly.
Then, of course, you watch the damn movie, and understand--within 30 seconds you realize the concept wasn't viable, at least not with the budget and talent gathered for this project.
I'm glad I saw it, I'll say that, because I'm a fan of film both good and bad, especially THIS film which was already good and bad, and sometimes seeing something truly terrible teaches more about how a good movie is created than seeing a "revered classic" that is flawless. The 30th Anniversary edition of "NOTLD" points out several things that are wrong with movies today, and movies in general: 1)over-foleying of sound f/x. I know it keeps foley artist's employed, and the technology is there,but we don't really need to hear ants hiccup, the way movies are today. 2)Always use real actors, no matter what your budget. The use of the new soundtrack composer in a pivotal role was a serious error: he looks like the uglier brother of Edward Norton in "American History X" and can't act. 3) A soundtrack shouldn't stand out. Here, the new music sounds like little more than demo patterns on a cheap Casio keyboard someone left running. Simple themes repeat over and over until you want to cry out "Uncle," or turn the power off, and the composer, with due respect, needs to learn that soundtrack music shouldn't be "songs," but atmosphere. The effect here is of watching a silent film with your stereo playing in the background. The bursts of the original score only highlight how miscalculated the new score is. 4)Showing is better than telling. It was scarier when we didn't know the history of the first zombie we see, or even that he was a zombie at all, and it's redundant to show zombies eating flesh so early in the film, while the radio broadcast is informing us that people are being cannibalized. It's no longer scary, it's dull, and this movie was dull enough already--if it was going to be re-thought, care should have been taken to improve the dull "talky" moments in between zombie attacks.
In the final analysis, this "new" version (that's several years old now) has a couple of moments of good gore and make-up, but nothing worth checking out. The music is obnoxious, obtrusive and cheap, as well as the new scenes which do not in any way fit in with the old ones. And the new "slant" that the book-end scenes with the preacher give to the film push the "When hell is full the dead will walk the earth" theory over the "radiation created the zombies" theory. It's a whole other movie, and not one I'm interested in. I never cared why the zombies were around in the first place and adding "God's judgment" into the mix ruins the "fun," frankly.
This "new" version has probably been forgotten already, and that's a good thing, but for some reason I still give the creators a nod of respect for trying something different, even if they failed miserably.
The person who posted this review is obviously not a fan of gar's work. The misquote "When hell is full the dead will walk the earth" gives them away. That said i thought it was an interesting read to see how an "outsider" viewed this turd. One thing i believe they're dead wrong on is that the original film was boring. They complain about how there were too many talking scenes in between zombie attacks. Another telltale sign of their non fandom. As most of us know, Gar's dead films are not really about the zombies at all. They're about human nature and the conflict that ensues. Gar uses the gouls as a vehichle to suit his satirical purposes. No doubt they play a prominent role in the films, but they are not nescesarily the centerpiece.
However, i did agree with them on the god awful soundtrack and the apparent contradictions in theory as to why the plauge came about. Each of the dead trilogy had it's overiding theory as to why the dead were rising. In night it was the radiation from the venus probe. In dawn the curse/voodoo mysticism angle was mentioned and in Day a more scintific angle was pursued suggesting a virus. In night 30th the two theories of radiation and god's judgement horribly clashed and seemed off, imo. Not to say that more than one theory can't exist though.
Any thoughts on the article?