Film: The Crazies (2010)

[TheDeceased]

He's a low budget horror director who made a franchise out of his first big hit, either due to the inability to conceive another idea (that is worthy of making) or due to the misguided notion that there actually is a "Gone with the Wind of zombie films". Sequels to movies that profit will always be approved.

I can't watch anything on youtube cause I'm on a really slow connection.

I don't need to pull my head out of anything. Really obvious attempts at social commentary in otherwise poorly made horror films are not what I would describe as the finest of the genre/all cinema since then. That was what I was disputing.

He is absurdly over-rated, though.

Ed Wood attempted to make social commentary in his films as well. (Yes, I am comparing George Romero to Ed Wood.) The guy makes fairly crappy zombie films. There is nothing particularly deep or meaningful about them as far as I'm concerned.

Post some words, rather than a link to a video. Hell, write some words. If his films are indeed deeply satirical and full of social commentary then give me an example. One decent example from one film. Cause I don't see it.

 

[lostpunk5545]

He is known for his zombie films, most popular for, he has made many others.

Note: Do not tell people to do perverted things to your netherparts in this forum.Kthks

Once again, what films do you enjoy in the horror genre?

 

[TheDeceased]

edit

Um, yeah. No thanks.

I'll translate that to you don't have one decent example and that frustrates you.

Sorry about that.

Anyway,

Once again, what films do you enjoy in the horror genre?

I like some Hitchcock (Strangers on a Train/ Rear Window/ etc.), early Argento (Suspiria/ Tenebrae/ etc), William Friedkin (Bug/ The Exorcist), David Cronenberg (Dead Ringers, The Fly, etc), David Lynch (Lost Highway/ Eraserhead).

I also liked Scorsese's first attempt at the genre 'Shutter Island', the first Nightmare on Elm Street (even Wes Craven had enough sense to only be involved in a couple of the sequels), the first Hellraiser (Clive Barker also didn't stick around to make sequel after sequel).

In fact, the only people who do make a never ending string of sequels are people like Lloyd Kaufman - a man who also likes to attempt to cram some meaning into his gore flicks.

If you need any more examples, let me know.

 

[AmorRoark]

There were a lot of holes in this plot & extreme suspended belief. It didn't really bother me though... because it's a zombie movie. I'm not expecting an Academy Award winning script etc. I got out of it what I was expecting. Thoroughly entertained.

 

[lostpunk5545]

Or I was drunk and thought it was funny to insult you. This is a really poor argumentative point, I know; I could list a few examples I enjoy, but there's not much point, because you're set in your little 'hate Romero' mind set.

But that's cool, everyone's different, we all enjoy different things for different reasons.

Kudos to you, and your highly evolved movie enjoying skills!

Also I realise it's really poor form to ask you to elucidate your argument and then give you nothing in return. What can I say? I'm a jerk.

 

[lostpunk5545]

Hey TheDeceased, thanks for elucidating. I'm heading out and won't be home until after work tomorrow but I'll fill you in then what I get out of some of the dead movies in regards to social commentary.

Sorry for the personal insult, I was drunk (no excuse, but such is life).

 

[TheDeceased]

No worries. I wasn't offended.

 

[tribal girl]

In fact, the only people who do make a never ending string of sequels are people like Lloyd Kaufman - a man who also likes to attempt to cram some meaning into his gore flicks.

Nice taste in horror, but are you for real with the above comment?. :D

I've always had a soft spot for Troma films, but I wouldn't put the words 'meaning' and 'Troma' together in a million years. :D

 

[jpgrdnr]

It was a pretty decent horror/gore flick if your a fan of the genre.

 

[TheDeceased]

I've always had a soft spot for Troma films, but I wouldn't put the words 'meaning' and 'Troma' together in a million years.

Neither would I upon watching most of their films. There are, however, apparently many satirical moments in various Troma flicks. I read an interview with Kaufman where he crapped on about the meaning of his films for ages. My god he's an idiot.

 

[EFC18]

I actually enjoyed this film, but I adore Romero and he can pretty much shit on my face and I'd still love him. I'd consider it enjoyably different to the original - a bit like the 2004 "re-imagining" of Dawn of the Dead.
4 stars

 

[axl blaze]

sorry to jump on you, Deceased, I think you are a very smart movie-goer but sometimes your differing opinion on movies than mine utterly shocks me. however, I am a fan boy through and through.

I will point out a summarized social commentary of a couple of Romero's zombie movies. this is an easy feat for someone like me.

first, the original Night of the Living Dead spoke in underlying forms about the turbulent times of the 60s and the racial tension that also accompanied that decade. Romero cast a black man as his lead role, and was one of the first directors to do so.

the original Dawn of the Dead is a little bit more easy to ascertain with the social satire. it was made in the mid 1970s when gigantic malls were popping up all over the United States. most of this film is shot in one of those malls with a character in the film even saying how people look like zombies when they're shopping, or that the zombies are flocking to the mall because this place meant something in their former life.

Day of the Dead essentially was about the incompetance of the military, as was his original version of the Crazies.

Land of the Dead explored the disparity between the classes, the rich and poor, to even the extent of the zombie apocalypse.

my favorite non-zombie Romero movie is Creepshow, a bunch of horror shorts he did with Stephen King.

I could go on... but that is the tip of the iceberg for my Romero knowledge

 

[TheDeceased]

Thanks for the response, I genuinely appreciate it. But rather than summarizing each film, can you go into more detail. Maybe with Night of the Living Dead. The "he cast a black actor in a lead role!" argument is the most common thing I hear in defense of Romero but, I don't know, it's commendable and probably an important move in terms of paving the way for future non-racist casting decisions and the inclusion of African Americans in future cinema, but I don't see how it's particularly meaningful to simply cast someone who has darker skin. How did he tackle racism/ racial tension in the film, rather than in pre-prod?

Also don't you think that a zombie film is somewhat of a stupid forum to make serious commentary about shopping malls/ military incompetence/ social hierarchies?

Next Romero film: in a land filled with zombies, communism competes with the virus, spreading across cities throughout the world. A small team of loyal Americans must fight to maintain democracy while blowing undead brain-eating zombies heads off with a shotgun.

You could quite easily make some half-assed commentary in the above film about the fear of communism, personifying the threat as the monsters etc but would that be an accomplishment or just a distraction from an otherwise mediocre film?

I understand that he's attempted to make something meaningful, but he just doesn't do it for me.

the original Dawn of the Dead is a little bit more easy to ascertain with the social satire. it was made in the mid 1970s when gigantic malls were popping up all over the United States. most of this film is shot in one of those malls with a character in the film even saying how people look like zombies when they're shopping, or that the zombies are flocking to the mall because this place meant something in their former life.

"Shoppers are like zombies," doesn't come across to me as a significant observation in cinema. It's obvious (and slightly comical) like something that most screenwriters would come up with in their first draft. I see the attempts at satire here, I just don't think they're very successful. Comments like this are kind of ridiculous:

I adore Romero and he can pretty much shit on my face and I'd still love him

George Romero revolutionized the horror genre, and no one like him has been able to capture social satire/commentary as fine as he has since then.

 

[grimble crumble]

gave it a 3, I mean it was exactley what you thought it would be right? your typical zombie type movie including the token government fuck up. a couple of parts that were scary, a couple that were cheezy, nothing new here.

 

[axl blaze]

Thanks for the response, I genuinely appreciate it. But rather than summarizing each film, can you go into more detail. Maybe with Night of the Living Dead. The "he cast a black actor in a lead role!" argument is the most common thing I hear in defense of Romero but, I don't know, it's commendable and probably an important move in terms of paving the way for future non-racist casting decisions and the inclusion of African Americans in future cinema, but I don't see how it's particularly meaningful to simply cast someone who has darker skin. How did he tackle racism/ racial tension in the film, rather than in pre-prod?

as much as I would love to write a dissertation on the social commentary of Romero films, I am not back in Filmography 101 and you are not my professor. 4 - 5 sentences will have to suffice for you, or you could *gasp* watch the movies before you make deductions on why Romero is not to be coveted as a director.

and casting the first black lead role is as big of a deal as it sounds. it appears as if you are from the UK or Australia, so you might not understand the progressive reprocussions that this act cements. in American film and popular culture, it is a very big deal.

Also don't you think that a zombie film is somewhat of a stupid forum to make serious commentary about shopping malls/ military incompetence/ social hierarchies?

absolutley not! any horror fan worth his salt will tell you that the horror genre is built for social commentary. through this genre, the commentary can ring even more true in a ghastly sense, nihilistic, and most importantly - fun! in fact, you can turn a blind eye (like you and so many others) and not even realize the commentary until your third or fourth viewing.

Next Romero film: in a land filled with zombies, communism competes with the virus, spreading across cities throughout the world. A small team of loyal Americans must fight to maintain democracy while blowing undead brain-eating zombies heads off with a shotgun.

you got me here. this is a funny anecdote I would see this movie though.

I don't know if you dislike all directors that are popular with cult fans (Sergio Leone, George A Romero, or Quentin Tarantino sans Inglourious) so I am guessing you are more on the mainstream side?

 

[tribal girl]

and casting the first black lead role is as big of a deal as it sounds. it appears as if you are from the UK or Australia, so you might not understand the progressive reprocussions that this act cements. in American film and popular culture, it is a very big deal.

I can both appreciate, and understand the importance something like that would have on the world of cinema. God, even on the world itself. But just because something has a strong message, doesn't automatically make it a great piece of work. I guess it's all empathetic, and pertains to how strongly you relate to certain characters and themes. And although it still resonates in today's society, it was probably more of a big deal at the time than it is now. No doubt a whole lot more than anybody of this generation could even begin to grasp.

That being said, I for one could never truly fall in love with NOTLD. I mean, on one hand, you have this obvious comment on racism which is really poignant (particularly at the end). But on the other, you have this stereotypical image of a fainting woman at the first sight of danger. That always annoyed the hell out of me, and I could never really get passed it.

Not sure what my argument here is, if any. I suppose what I'm saying is that I can kinda see it from both sides. I can appreciate something which I don't really have love for, but it's all pretty subjective stuff. As is anything.

 

[lostpunk5545]

Sorry, never got back to you The Deceased, busy with work and Uni. Axl gave a nice short summary of the prevalent points in the films. I think you jump on Romero a little heavily, his point first and foremost is to make interesting horror films, the commentary is just something he adds because he obviously if disatisfied with the world he lives in and this comes out in his scripts.

Furthering on Night of the Living dead and the film being about racial tensions, which while never thrown out there in blatant terms such as using the word nigger, the tension between the protagonist and antagonist is almost palpaple. The white guy isn't happy with a black guy telling him what to do and I think a lot of the black guy's problems (anger issues) are hinted at stemming from having to deal with racial profiling pre-zombie apocalyspe. The ending I also find quite chilling:

(spoiler)

NSFW:

The posse of guys that turn up at the end shoot the black protagonist dead without even trying to ascertain whether he is a zombie.

This is a common theme in Romero films, that a horiffic event freeing people from the shackles of the law will result in a lot of people reverting to the kind of life they think is right, and letting their prejudices and desires boil out. Take the bikers in Dawn of the Dead.

I also think a theme Axl didn't mention in Day of the Dead is the uneasiness people feel towards things like science that they don't understand. On the counter point to this is the scientists not letting things like morality come into their empirical world. Such as the cruel way the scientist is teaching the zombie to have human reactions again. I'm not sure Romero intended it to be taken in this way but you could draw parallels to animal research.

 

[TheDeceased]

as much as I would love to write a dissertation on the social commentary of Romero films, I am not back in Filmography 101 and you are not my professor. 4 - 5 sentences will have to suffice for you, or you could *gasp* watch the movies before you make deductions on why Romero is not to be coveted as a director.

I have seen most of his films. And the only reason I asked you to elaborate is because you practically said that you would with your "I could go on"/ "tip of the iceberg" comments. Maybe I misunderstood you... or maybe the tip is the iceberg.

and casting the first black lead role is as big of a deal as it sounds. it appears as if you are from the UK or Australia, so you might not understand the progressive reprocussions that this act cements. in American film and popular culture, it is a very big deal.

I did say that it was a significant moment in cinema history in terms of casting but I don't think that makes the film any more meaningful. See Obama.

I don't know if you dislike all directors that are popular with cult fans (Sergio Leone, George A Romero, or Quentin Tarantino sans Inglourious) so I am guessing you are more on the mainstream side?

Tarantino isn't a cult film-maker. He's too popular to qualify.

I like: Todd Solondz (probably my favourite director), Jim Jarmusch, David Lynch, Darren Aronofsky, Wes Anderson, etc.

The fact that I don't like Romero doesn't mean I only like mainstream films.

 

[tambourine-man]

I did say that it was a significant moment in cinema history in terms of casting but I don't think that makes the film any more meaningful. See Obama.

lol :D

I think I'd have to agree with Deceased's general comments in this thread. Romero's fun an' all, but there's really a limited amount of social commentary in his films. What satire is in there (and calling it 'satire' is probably a stretch), is fairly blunt and obvious in its delivery. Without wanting to sound like a snob, I think it generally lacks the sophistication or 'cleverness' that's required for satire to be achieved.

That said, I make those comments with the hindrance of hindsight. Had I saw Romero's films when they were first screened, when their content might have held greater social significance, I might have a different opinion now.

 

[axl blaze]

That being said, I for one could never truly fall in love with NOTLD. I mean, on one hand, you have this obvious comment on racism which is really poignant (particularly at the end). But on the other, you have this stereotypical image of a fainting woman at the first sight of danger. That always annoyed the hell out of me, and I could never really get passed it.

I agree with you! and I never breached this point (see: tip of iceberg) but the original NOTLD the female lead was essentially voiceless and actionless. AGAIN to signify the role of women in the late 1950s. as a firm believer in all things of the power of women, it was disburbing. but so was the ending concerning the black man.

have you seen the remake by Tom Savini (horror special FX genius)? he does a pretty good job with the movie in the 90s and you will see a difference between the original female lead role and the new one. Sigourney Weaver has done a lot for women in sci-fi horror movies.

you like all the directors I like, the Deceased. I just suppose zombie movies are not for movie snobs but shall only be reserved for horror movie hipsters like me