This is the last time I will dwell on DOTD. I just need to make a few comments regarding some things Roger Ebert said in one of his reviews and then I will move on.
After watching DOTD (2004) I went out to rent DOTD (1979) because I wasn't sure if I had ever seen it. I didn't. And I'm glad I never did. It was insufferable to have to sit through the entire thing. I noted that on the cover of the movie Roger Ebert was quoted as saying "The best horror movie of all-time!"---WHAT??? A few days later a friend of mine sent me a review he read HERE. I was stunned but I guess I didn't expect an old fukktard like R.Ebert to change his mind after all these years.
Hollywood has grown more skillful and less daring over the years.---I guess this would be true if he considers the making of a bad movie daring, which is exactly what DOTD 1979 was.
But it lacks the mordant humor of the Romero version.---Negative Ebert. You are wrong in two ways. The first way is that the original was not funny. The second way is that the new version is hella funny. What is he thinking???
Although both films are mostly set inside a shopping mall, only Romero uses that as an occasion for satirical jabs at a consumer society.---I guess I was distracted by how ass bad the original movie was to really notice that there was an actual "message."
These new-issue zombies run fast, unlike the earlier ones, who lurched along. They also seem smarter, and make decisions faster.---Does this guy even realize WHY zombies move faster now? With the advent of video games zombies in new movies do move faster. It really wasn't until Resident Evil and 28 Days Later that zombies moved fast. And rightly so. Zombies should move fast. It's scarier that way. I noticed when the zombies moved slower that it was easier to get away, making for a less exciting movie. Characters could easily stroll through a room full of these slow moving zombies. And if one came near you all you have to do is push it away and it will stumble back and fall. Oh and as for them being smarter---I don't think so. And I seem to recall in the 1979 version one of the zombies put his foot in the door to keep it from closing. That seems pretty fukking smart to me.
Unlike the tight little group of survivors in "28 Days Later," this one expands to the point where we don't much care about some of the characters (the blonde with the red lipstick, for example).---The group may be slightly bigger but it does not expand to the point that you don't care about what happens to them. Honestly, the only one he can point to is the girl with the "blonde hair and red lipstick." But just because he can pinpoint a single character does not mean he should utter generalized statements about all the characters as a whole. I cared about what happenbed to everyone. Which is more than I can say for the holy 1979 version, in which I didn't give scrap about any of the characters.
My only complaint is that its plot flatlines compared to the 1979 version, which was trickier, wittier and smarter.---NO NO NO!!!
I'm done now. No more DOTD talk from me.
After watching DOTD (2004) I went out to rent DOTD (1979) because I wasn't sure if I had ever seen it. I didn't. And I'm glad I never did. It was insufferable to have to sit through the entire thing. I noted that on the cover of the movie Roger Ebert was quoted as saying "The best horror movie of all-time!"---WHAT??? A few days later a friend of mine sent me a review he read HERE. I was stunned but I guess I didn't expect an old fukktard like R.Ebert to change his mind after all these years.
Hollywood has grown more skillful and less daring over the years.---I guess this would be true if he considers the making of a bad movie daring, which is exactly what DOTD 1979 was.
But it lacks the mordant humor of the Romero version.---Negative Ebert. You are wrong in two ways. The first way is that the original was not funny. The second way is that the new version is hella funny. What is he thinking???
Although both films are mostly set inside a shopping mall, only Romero uses that as an occasion for satirical jabs at a consumer society.---I guess I was distracted by how ass bad the original movie was to really notice that there was an actual "message."
These new-issue zombies run fast, unlike the earlier ones, who lurched along. They also seem smarter, and make decisions faster.---Does this guy even realize WHY zombies move faster now? With the advent of video games zombies in new movies do move faster. It really wasn't until Resident Evil and 28 Days Later that zombies moved fast. And rightly so. Zombies should move fast. It's scarier that way. I noticed when the zombies moved slower that it was easier to get away, making for a less exciting movie. Characters could easily stroll through a room full of these slow moving zombies. And if one came near you all you have to do is push it away and it will stumble back and fall. Oh and as for them being smarter---I don't think so. And I seem to recall in the 1979 version one of the zombies put his foot in the door to keep it from closing. That seems pretty fukking smart to me.
Unlike the tight little group of survivors in "28 Days Later," this one expands to the point where we don't much care about some of the characters (the blonde with the red lipstick, for example).---The group may be slightly bigger but it does not expand to the point that you don't care about what happens to them. Honestly, the only one he can point to is the girl with the "blonde hair and red lipstick." But just because he can pinpoint a single character does not mean he should utter generalized statements about all the characters as a whole. I cared about what happenbed to everyone. Which is more than I can say for the holy 1979 version, in which I didn't give scrap about any of the characters.
My only complaint is that its plot flatlines compared to the 1979 version, which was trickier, wittier and smarter.---NO NO NO!!!
I'm done now. No more DOTD talk from me.
VIEW 25 of 74 COMMENTS
The quote was from inside my head.