I made the mistake of seeing Romero's 1978 Dawn of the Dead. I felt sick and dirty afterwards. And terribly terribly depressed that anyone would make such a movie.nightwalker wrote:I never cared much for NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (in any of its incarnations).
Inquiring minds want to know! Is it Frankie or Drac for you?
I was very unimpressed with "Dawn of the Dead." The only Romero film I like is "Martin," and I may like it for the "wrong" reasons from Romero's point of view. (I really liked the character of Cuda, the old man who believes in vampires.)
"Dawn of the Dead" was like a video game movie. The "heroes" go around and shoot down everybody, and unlike "The Wild Bunch" or "Straw Dogs," the violence doesn't mean anything. Also, the plot comes to a screeching halt in the middle of "Dawn" and Romero has to bring in the motorcycle gang to get things going again.
"Dawn of the Dead" was like a video game movie. The "heroes" go around and shoot down everybody, and unlike "The Wild Bunch" or "Straw Dogs," the violence doesn't mean anything. Also, the plot comes to a screeching halt in the middle of "Dawn" and Romero has to bring in the motorcycle gang to get things going again.
Yep, me too. Have you ever seen the movie "Shadow of the Vampire?" It's about the making of "Nosferatu. A little hard to believe, but if you can suspend your disbelief for a while, enjoyably creepy.dfordoom wrote:For me, and it's a very personal choice, the ultimate Dracula was Klaus Kinski in Herzog's Nosferatu. He was, as a vampire should be, genuinely alien.
Tracey
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. "~~Wilde
As to Frankenstein vs. Dracula in general, for me, the horror of Frankenstein lies in the fact that he can't help be what he is...and he knows it. Doomed to spend a lifetime inside a body made of rotting corpses. If he was ignorant of his fate, it wouldn't be as chilling.
Dracula's more straight-up scary, but I find literary vamps scarier than movie ones. My imagination is far better at frightening me. Read The Vampire Tapes, Stokers Dracula and 'Salem's Lot as a kid (14 or so) and had nightmares for months afterwards.
Tracey
Dracula's more straight-up scary, but I find literary vamps scarier than movie ones. My imagination is far better at frightening me. Read The Vampire Tapes, Stokers Dracula and 'Salem's Lot as a kid (14 or so) and had nightmares for months afterwards.
Tracey
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. "~~Wilde
To me there is ONE Dracula (Bela Lugosi) and ONE Frankensteins' monster (Boris Karloff). All the others are imitations, wanna-bes, and copy-cats.
Between the two, they both have their goods and bads. Actually you feel pity for both of them, Frank because of the hatred and fear he finds directed even from his creator, from the moment he rises off the table , not to mention anyone outside of the castle. Dracula because of his eternal loneliness. They also have sympathetic forces at work for them - Frank his kindness (at first) to the little girl (but even at that, he is unaware he is doing wrong), and Drac when he sees the lady he could love if not for circumstances.
And of course, at the other end of the spectrum is the fear and hatred for each of them for the deeds they do, as well as the wish to end both of them. These ideas are also the premise for The Mummy, King Kong, and Mighty Joe Young.
It's not possible for me to make a choice between Frank and Drac, because their stories run on such parallel lines, and both are so well-played by the two actors involved. So, I'd have to say a tie wins it.
Anne
Between the two, they both have their goods and bads. Actually you feel pity for both of them, Frank because of the hatred and fear he finds directed even from his creator, from the moment he rises off the table , not to mention anyone outside of the castle. Dracula because of his eternal loneliness. They also have sympathetic forces at work for them - Frank his kindness (at first) to the little girl (but even at that, he is unaware he is doing wrong), and Drac when he sees the lady he could love if not for circumstances.
And of course, at the other end of the spectrum is the fear and hatred for each of them for the deeds they do, as well as the wish to end both of them. These ideas are also the premise for The Mummy, King Kong, and Mighty Joe Young.
It's not possible for me to make a choice between Frank and Drac, because their stories run on such parallel lines, and both are so well-played by the two actors involved. So, I'd have to say a tie wins it.
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
-
nightwalker
- Posts: 122
- Joined: April 29th, 2007, 7:43 pm
This subject has come up before, even on the "mother ship", and probably will again, but I think that the reason many modern day horror films don't fly with us here has a lot to do with why we love movies in the first place.
I've done a bit of reading on that thread here and was struck by how many people commented that they viewed movies as an escape of one kind or another from the real world, whether because they were lonely or otherwise disenchanted with (or possibly even disenfranchised by) it.
Horror and sci-fi movies used to be as valid a way as any other genre to communicate or even just to tell a good story, but now any idiot who can wear a hockey mask or carry an axe (or both) can have his own movie.
"Torture porn" may have something to say, but I know that I certainly don't care to hear it. There's enough genuine sickness in the world as it is without having to have it get "in my face" when I'm looking for some entertainment by watching a movie.
The classic monsters are classic because they speak to us on much deeper levels than merely that of surface level cheap scares. Pages have been written about the Frankenstein Monster's alienation from society and often-times killing out of ignorance (such as the little girl Maria, in the 1931 film with Karloff) or in self-defence against a mob of "monsters" easily as horrific as he was (such as just prior to the mock-crucifixion scene in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN).
THE WOLF MAN and DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE speak to the dual nature in all of us, or, put in religious or spiritual terms, the "fallen" or "sin" nature vs. the "spiritual" nature as described by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament.
Many of the screen's other classic monsters wreak havoc because they were first "sinned against" (such as KONG, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, etc.).
In any case, whether one agrees with this analysis or not, I think it's fair to say that these older films had something to say about the human condition and that certain standards of thought and behavior were a given, so that, even in lower budget films where the object might have more obviously been to make a buck, this still held true.
On the few occasions when I have seen a recent film (of any genre), I do not feel much of a connection with it, as though it weren't really made for me.
I think there exists a great chasm between most of today's standards and assumptions about life's essentials and those of just a few years ago when many of these films were made, and I think that is why I sense a sort of disconnection for many of us here (at least, based on what I've read) between today's films and those of yesteryear.
I've done a bit of reading on that thread here and was struck by how many people commented that they viewed movies as an escape of one kind or another from the real world, whether because they were lonely or otherwise disenchanted with (or possibly even disenfranchised by) it.
Horror and sci-fi movies used to be as valid a way as any other genre to communicate or even just to tell a good story, but now any idiot who can wear a hockey mask or carry an axe (or both) can have his own movie.
"Torture porn" may have something to say, but I know that I certainly don't care to hear it. There's enough genuine sickness in the world as it is without having to have it get "in my face" when I'm looking for some entertainment by watching a movie.
The classic monsters are classic because they speak to us on much deeper levels than merely that of surface level cheap scares. Pages have been written about the Frankenstein Monster's alienation from society and often-times killing out of ignorance (such as the little girl Maria, in the 1931 film with Karloff) or in self-defence against a mob of "monsters" easily as horrific as he was (such as just prior to the mock-crucifixion scene in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN).
THE WOLF MAN and DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE speak to the dual nature in all of us, or, put in religious or spiritual terms, the "fallen" or "sin" nature vs. the "spiritual" nature as described by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament.
Many of the screen's other classic monsters wreak havoc because they were first "sinned against" (such as KONG, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, etc.).
In any case, whether one agrees with this analysis or not, I think it's fair to say that these older films had something to say about the human condition and that certain standards of thought and behavior were a given, so that, even in lower budget films where the object might have more obviously been to make a buck, this still held true.
On the few occasions when I have seen a recent film (of any genre), I do not feel much of a connection with it, as though it weren't really made for me.
I think there exists a great chasm between most of today's standards and assumptions about life's essentials and those of just a few years ago when many of these films were made, and I think that is why I sense a sort of disconnection for many of us here (at least, based on what I've read) between today's films and those of yesteryear.
-
Mr. Arkadin
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm
Nightwalker, I agree with your post which makes me wonder why you never cared for Night of the Living Dead. I am not a fan of any of the sequels, but I do feel that NOTLD falls into the original concept of horror film as a mirror of the nature of man.
The people in the house are a microcosm of mankind and even race relations. Unlike the zombies outside who are united in concept of working together, the humans fight amongst themselves and power plays for dominace ensue. The quiet man and his girlfriend are repesentave of those who will go with the flow and do not want to be deeply involved. The parents who stay in the basement are killed by their own child and Ben who fought with them over everything does indeed retreat there after all. Ben, the only human (and the only African American in the film) left, is shot by white hunters and thrown on a pile of zombie corpses to burn.
While NOTLD was definitely the precursor to modern horror and gore (just as Psycho is) and was cheaply made and shot, I would not call it a simple film or untrue to the original roots of horror which always places mankind in the position of the true monster. Also, there is not really much gore in this film or unsightly scenes. All of the real scenes are interplay between humans who although in mortal danger, cannot get along and work together for their own good--much like society today.
The people in the house are a microcosm of mankind and even race relations. Unlike the zombies outside who are united in concept of working together, the humans fight amongst themselves and power plays for dominace ensue. The quiet man and his girlfriend are repesentave of those who will go with the flow and do not want to be deeply involved. The parents who stay in the basement are killed by their own child and Ben who fought with them over everything does indeed retreat there after all. Ben, the only human (and the only African American in the film) left, is shot by white hunters and thrown on a pile of zombie corpses to burn.
While NOTLD was definitely the precursor to modern horror and gore (just as Psycho is) and was cheaply made and shot, I would not call it a simple film or untrue to the original roots of horror which always places mankind in the position of the true monster. Also, there is not really much gore in this film or unsightly scenes. All of the real scenes are interplay between humans who although in mortal danger, cannot get along and work together for their own good--much like society today.
I think "Night of the Living Dead" begins very strongly, with the scene in the cemetery, the chase to the house, and the securing of the house. However, the movie went off the rails for me when they turned on TV and sat around watching it. That scene was an iceberg that tore a fatal hole in the mood and pace of the film, and the movie never recovered, in my view.
Similarly in "Dawn of the Dead," the movie stopped for me when the people made the mall zombie-free. There was no tension, no suspense any more, until Romero had this motorcycle gang turn up out of the blue to breach the mall and get the zombies back into play.
That's why I like "Martin" best of Romero's films. There the plot holds together, and there is no moment where the horror film stuff stops so the director can put forward his satirical message.
Frankly, I tend to like the work of Wes Craven more than Romero, although Craven can make stinkers ("The Serpent and the Rainbow.") Craven, in "Last House on the Left," "Hills Have Eyes," and "Nightmare on Elm Street," is just a better storyteller.
Similarly in "Dawn of the Dead," the movie stopped for me when the people made the mall zombie-free. There was no tension, no suspense any more, until Romero had this motorcycle gang turn up out of the blue to breach the mall and get the zombies back into play.
That's why I like "Martin" best of Romero's films. There the plot holds together, and there is no moment where the horror film stuff stops so the director can put forward his satirical message.
Frankly, I tend to like the work of Wes Craven more than Romero, although Craven can make stinkers ("The Serpent and the Rainbow.") Craven, in "Last House on the Left," "Hills Have Eyes," and "Nightmare on Elm Street," is just a better storyteller.
-
nightwalker
- Posts: 122
- Joined: April 29th, 2007, 7:43 pm
Arkadin,
I agree with the points you made about NOTLD and would concur with you that, of the original three films, it's the best made and had the most points to make about the nature of man, society etc.
I think my problem with it lies more in what it says and not so much in how it says it, though it is humorous to recall that this film was once considered the "high-water" mark of gore in films. Although there are a few "gross" scenes in it, the film is far more restrained in terms of what it actually shows than the others in the trilogy, not to mention most films of this genre today.
At any rate, it's this film's pessimism that I don't care for on the whole, rather than its stylistics.
I can't say the same for the others in the original trilogy or their more recent remakes (though LAND OF THE DEAD had its moments).
Mike, I can't comment on MARTIN as I've not seen it. But I would agree with you that, based on what I have seen, Craven does seem to have a more polished style than Romero. However, I feel that he also too often seems to feel the need to "go for the gross-out" (as Stephen King put it) in his films.
I don't mind seeing the monster (as, for instance, in the widely debated NIGHT OF THE DEMON/CURSE OF THE DEMON regarding the demon's appearance in the film), but I guess I still feel that less is more, and that
"in your face" graphic violence, torture and other mayhem actually insults my intelligence, as filmmakers more and more these days seem to feel the need to spell things out and can't rely on my imagination as a film viewer to provide the shocks (as opposed to, say, Val Lewton's RKO films from the 1940s, just to name one example).
I agree with the points you made about NOTLD and would concur with you that, of the original three films, it's the best made and had the most points to make about the nature of man, society etc.
I think my problem with it lies more in what it says and not so much in how it says it, though it is humorous to recall that this film was once considered the "high-water" mark of gore in films. Although there are a few "gross" scenes in it, the film is far more restrained in terms of what it actually shows than the others in the trilogy, not to mention most films of this genre today.
At any rate, it's this film's pessimism that I don't care for on the whole, rather than its stylistics.
I can't say the same for the others in the original trilogy or their more recent remakes (though LAND OF THE DEAD had its moments).
Mike, I can't comment on MARTIN as I've not seen it. But I would agree with you that, based on what I have seen, Craven does seem to have a more polished style than Romero. However, I feel that he also too often seems to feel the need to "go for the gross-out" (as Stephen King put it) in his films.
I don't mind seeing the monster (as, for instance, in the widely debated NIGHT OF THE DEMON/CURSE OF THE DEMON regarding the demon's appearance in the film), but I guess I still feel that less is more, and that
"in your face" graphic violence, torture and other mayhem actually insults my intelligence, as filmmakers more and more these days seem to feel the need to spell things out and can't rely on my imagination as a film viewer to provide the shocks (as opposed to, say, Val Lewton's RKO films from the 1940s, just to name one example).
I don't think anyone mentioned a certain Frankenstein Monster in various films. But I'll vote for Glenn Strange. he made a great Frankenstein. He also played in 100's of westerns.
vallo
vallo
"We're all forgotten sooner or later. But not films. That's all the memorial we should need or hope for."
-Burt Lancaster
-Burt Lancaster
-
cinemalover
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:57 am
- Location: Seattle, Washington
vallo,
Good point about Glenn Strange. I could never view him behind Miss Kitty's bar as Sam in Gunsmoke without secretly hoping he'd show up for work one day in the Frankenstein Monster's make-up. I wonder how Matt would have handled that? I mean the Monster's shuffle wasn't that much different than Chester's!
Good point about Glenn Strange. I could never view him behind Miss Kitty's bar as Sam in Gunsmoke without secretly hoping he'd show up for work one day in the Frankenstein Monster's make-up. I wonder how Matt would have handled that? I mean the Monster's shuffle wasn't that much different than Chester's!
Chris
The only bad movie is no movie at all.
The only bad movie is no movie at all.
-
nightwalker
- Posts: 122
- Joined: April 29th, 2007, 7:43 pm