A brief aside from my Week of the Living Dead now (don’t worry, it will return later today, with my review of Diary of the Dead) for the regular monthly update…
What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…?
I was supposed to watch two of these this month, but by giving myself over to Romero for a week I scuppered my own carefully-spaced plans. Nonetheless, I did add tick off one more from the list: ’50s noir chiller The Night of the Hunter. That’s one destined for my year-end top 10, I feel.
Two months left, still four films to go. So much for a neat one-per-month, but at least it’s not an unachievable goal.
#84a Dr. Who and the Daleks (1965)
#85 G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)
#86 Fast & Furious (2009)
#87 Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (2009)
#88 Lady of Deceit, aka Born to Kill (1947)
#89 Shanghai Noon (2000)
#90 Shanghai Knights (2003)
#91 The Night of the Hunter (1955)
#92 The Tale of Zatoichi, aka Zatôichi monogatari (1962)
#93 Night of the Living Dead (1968)
#93a Toy Story of Terror! (2013)
#94 Dawn of the Dead (1978)
#95 Day of the Dead (1985)
#96 Land of the Dead: Director’s Cut (2005)
#97 Diary of the Dead (2007)
#98 Survival of the Dead (2009)
It’s been an horrific month all round — in terms of viewing content, rather than viewing numbers. Kicking the month off was the godawful G.I. Joe, followed by the little-better fourth Fast & Furious film. After some quality asides, it was into the intentionally horrific: Nights of the Hunter and the Living Dead, the rest of Romero’s zombie cycle, and a brief aside from some family-friendly frights in Toy Story of Terror! I may not have given myself over to 31 days of horror as some people have (it seemed to be all over Letterboxd, anyway), but there was a definite spooky theme to this month’s watching.
That theme carried me to my most successful October ever, and the second-best month of 2013 too (just pipping September’s 13, but a few shy of March’s all-time-second-best 17). It’s also the best-ever end-of-October total for a year in which I didn’t make it to #100 in September. Which is a bit like when a film has the highest-grossing opening weekend for a mid-size 3D release in a non-summer month, or whatever other hoops they have things jump through just to be able to claim it’s “record breaking” these days. That said, having only reached 100 in September twice out of six years, that makes it my third-best end-of-October tally ever.
That tally being 98 means that, with just two months of the year left, I also have only two films left until #100. I think even I can manage an average of one film per month. In fact, my year-to-date average is 9.8 films per month. If I can maintain that, I’d be looking at a total of 118 — not far off the over-120 final totals of my two best years. My viewing often tails off a bit once I pass the 100-films barrier, though, so realistically I’ll be happy with a number closer to 110.
But, hey, we’ll see — as well as my usual viewing, and my toddling-along NOW TV subscription, there are multiple high-profile summer season Blu-ray releases yet. I even bought World War Z, which I said I wasn’t going to do, thanks to a Sainsbury’s exclusive bonus disc. I struggle to resist a good exclusive disc (The Wolverine, which has an extended cut on the 3D release but a Sainsbury’s-exclusive bonus disc only with the 2D release, is killing me), and those Sainsbury’s ones do tend to sell out.
5 Best George A. Romero Zombie Films
I normally avoid just doing a “rank something there are five of” list for this, but I’ve been rather busy with my Week of the Living Dead during the entire time I’d normally be pondering and constructing the usual list-of-five for this post. Besides which, my theme is always inspired by something in the month’s viewing, and it’s pretty clear what dominates this month.
- Dawn of the Dead
The top two are separated by a hair’s breadth; if I could, I might even give them a joint number one. This certainly wasn’t my favourite of the two after initial viewing (I say as much in my review), but with a few more days’ reflection, I feel like I’ve seen Night, whereas Dawn feels like it will merit revisiting sooner. - Night of the Living Dead
After so many decades, cheap movies usually look even cheaper and terribly dated. Not so Night of the Living Dead, which, technical elements and fashion choices aside, could have been made last week. Few people can claim to have spawned a whole genre, but this is where Romero did. - Land of the Dead
Returning to something successful after 20 years is undoubtedly a poisoned chalice: your fans are excited you’re back, but can you ever live up to those expectations? For many, Land did not. I think that does it a disservice. Romero’s chameleon-like directorial skills create a very ’00s movie, but still with the trademark Romero social commentary. - Day of the Dead
I like a quotable cult special-effects-fest as much as the next man, and there’s far more to Day than just that, but I didn’t feel it as much as I did with the other films. Not a bad picture, just a half-step behind the one above for me. - Diary of the Dead
Diary’s Blu-ray cover proudly boasts four-star reviews from Empire and Starburst, but went down less well with the public. You can see how many stars I gave it later, but suffice to say although I did like it, it’s still the least of the initial five ‘Dead’ films.
Of course, there’s still one other…
- Survival of the Dead
By the time you read this, I’ll have watched Survival of the Dead; at the time of writing, I hadn’t. Consensus seems to be its easily the worst of the series, a misguided failed cash-grab. I’m sure my full review will let you know my thoughts.
Is placing Land above Day tantamount to sacrilege? Is Survival actually surprisingly good and I should have waited to include it? Your thoughts are welcomed, dear readers.
Next month on 100 Films in a Year…
…I reach #100!
I mean, probably. I probably will. I’d have to watch either just one film or no films not to. Though I have gone a whole month without a single new film before now…
And also! Doctor Who is 50. You think that’s not to do with films? Think again, mister! I’ve got a couple of posts lined up to mark the occasion.
Happy times and places.
The fourth 
The second half is more familiar Toy Story stomping ground — indeed, if there’s one bum note, it’s that the villain and his ‘plot’ are almost a rehash of 
Apparently Toy Story of Terror! spent two years in development. While that might seem excessive for a mere under-half-hour animation, the time and effort have paid off handsomely: the result is a thoroughly entertaining short — and one that actually embraces its seasonal theme, rather than forcing it in as an afterthought. Terrific.
While the first three ‘Dead’ films (or “the original trilogy”, to put it in 
and then a desire for revenge, when he sees the glittering lights of the city in the distance. Lead he does, corralling the other zombies into a slow march towards their target.
In the world of the humans, meanwhile, we also have an oppressed majority: the slum dwellers. Attempts at revolution there are soundly ignored, with the rich quietly taking the opposition out as ‘trash’ whenever able (which, I guess, is whenever they want). The people are controlled by drink, drugs, gambling, prostitution, and any other cheap entertainment you can imagine, all secretly managed from on-high to keep the general populace docile. And those entertainments are getting increasingly extreme, too: the zombie-on-zombie cage fights previously used cat or dog meat as motivation, but now they throw in Asia Argento. Again, Romero is holding a mirror up to present-day America, where the illusion of a ‘free society’ with easy social mobility is supported by the mega-rich in order to keep the poor down. It takes the zombie invasion for anything to change, which may be a case of Romero “following the story” rather than reflecting a political reality — who’s going to invade the US?
Those commenters that do acknowledge these facets claim Romero’s just not as subtle as he used to be, which is also poppycock: Dawn’s criticism of consumerism is as blatant as anything listed here — perhaps even more so, because you can just watch Land as a near-future science-fiction humans-vs-humans-vs-zombies action flick, whereas I think Dawn’s ‘subtext’ is unmissable.
If you want to see people getting ripped apart by zombies with their guts spilling out everywhere, in traditional Romero style, then… seriously, what’s wrong with you people?! But, erm, you should be satiated.
Threequels, eh — who’d make ’em? It used to be received wisdom that sequels were poor, with only a few exceptions. That’s less often the case these days — indeed, it’s almost de rigueur that the first film in a potential franchise will exist to establish the world in preparation for a superior sequel. But how many great third films are there? There are some good ones, it’s true, but are there any that are the best film in their series? If there are, they’re certainly outweighed by the number that couldn’t live up to the quality of the two preceding parts.
The same is true in Day’s criticism of science, especially vivisection. According to Romero (in the booklet that accompanies Arrow’s Blu-ray), he didn’t set out specifically to tackle that controversial area of scientific research. Instead, he developed a “next logical step” for what scientists would do to the undead. Of course, it’s horrific and criticism is implicit. Thankfully, Romero isn’t painting all science as bad: the lead character, our de facto hero, is also a scientist; but she’s not really interested in the vile work of her colleague, dubbed ‘Frankenstein’ by the soldiers.
Bub salutes the Captain, an instinctive reaction the same as his shaving. That it leads to an ironic repetition at the film’s climax is perhaps satire, or perhaps just another cool moment. You have to hand it to Romero and co, though: it’s a great villain’s death scene.
There’s probably an in-depth piece to be written on the evolving gender politics of the ‘Dead’ films, which I’m sure must reflect changes in society. Here, we have an unequivocal female lead, a scientist and voice of reason amongst the madness of both sides. She stands up for herself against the men, who belittle her as much as possible. Actress Lori Cardille has commented that she wanted to develop the woman’s role in these films, even beyond that of Fran in Dawn, who she saw as little more involved than the useless females of Night. Of course, as I noted last time, the role of Fran is considerably more involved and competent than that of Barbra or Judy, so it’s interesting that Cardille felt there was work still to be done. Not that she’s necessarily wrong; and the way the men treat her character in Day suggests that someone having a similar reflection on this film, nearly 30 years on, would find room for continued improvement.
Romero’s critical stance evidenced here. I don’t even object to it being a bleak film, with little sense of hope for the future of humanity; in fact, there’s a lot to commend in that.
Dawn of the Dead is the 
Romero has said he considers his zombie movies to be about the time they were made; a little snapshot of the world (or the US, at least) at the time. Thus consumerism is only one of Dawn’s targets, albeit the easiest to spot. Romero was ahead of his time here: gigantic out-of-town malls of this type were, apparently, new propositions at the time the film was made, and the one that stars here was amongst the country’s largest (it still exists, I believe, but now it’s considered a little’un). It’s not just the zombies who are critiqued either. Our protagonists choose to stay in the mall because it apparently has everything they could ever need, even though it also has the constant threat of the undead. On their first trip out for supplies, they’re as interested in expensive watches as food and tools. As time goes on it only gets worse: they turn their little attic apartment bit into a chic pad, with stylish chairs and all the mod-cons. In a world where the apocalypse has happened, they’re not fighting for their very survival, they’re living the high life. They even ‘rob’ the mall’s bank, “just in case” money is still worth something.
The men, meanwhile, help shape a commentary on society’s desensitisation to violence. There’s disgust early on at having to shoot these human-like creatures in the head to get rid of them, but so unrelenting is such a task that it becomes everyday. This and the consumerism thread come together in the final act, when a gang of bikers invade the mall: declaring that the place is their possession, one of our ‘heroes’ has become so used to killing the living dead that he now has no trouble opening fire on the plain ol’ living.
I also don’t hold much truck with that “the effects are bad” waffle. I mean, really, what do you expect? The film’s 35 years old! And y’know what, it’s not that bad. OK, the zombie’s skin tone is a little blatant — special effects maestro Tom Savini has said he was aiming for grey but it registered as rather blue on film. Then the blood is a vibrant red — well, loads of older films have that garish red blood, what of it? In fact, it was specifically requested by Romero, who wanted a comic-book-y colour to match what he saw as a comic-book tone to the violence. Then there’s all the flesh-eating gore, which is by turns heightened to the point of silliness and gorily realistic — the stuff with the guts towards the end… Savini was a war photographer in Vietnam and that in part inspired his effects work. You want to argue with a guy who’s seen the real thing that his work doesn’t look as ‘realistic’ as some post-millennial computer nerd’s hyper-CG version of things?
I have to say, the more I think and write about Dawn, the more I come to like it. It’s not really perfect — the biker climax comes almost out of nowhere, and I’m not convinced they were the most effective way to explore an ending. Perhaps this is where the “snapshot of the times” idea begins to fall down: distanced from the time in question, how resonant are those themes? Is that why modern viewers, coming to the film for the first time, miss them? (That’s not to discount the fact that most modern genre film viewers aren’t looking for grown-up viewing, but kids’ movie-style brightly-coloured action — with added gore and swearing to prove it’s actually for adults, despite the lack of adult thought or consideration required. Ironically, these once-B-movie cheap horror/thrillers are now, thanks to their political undertones, more suited to the art house crowd. I see why so many venerate ’70s cinema.) But (to get back to this paragraph’s point) there’s so much in Dawn, so much more than either a zombie kill-fest or a criticism of consumerism, that thoughtful reflection — and, I’m sure, future re-watches — are only to its benefit.
Immediately after viewing, I’d say I didn’t like Dawn as much as Night. Though it has many qualities I admire, it also felt a little less focused and more sprawling. The first I found tense and chilling — a Horror movie, albeit one with observable dramatic and thriller-ish elements. Dawn is, at heart, a Drama — it’s about the people in this situation, that situation happening to be an extreme horror one. But on reflection, the bits I was less sure of pale behind the things it does right.
Helmed by acclaimed director Nicholas Ray (
On the plus side, Bernard Herrmann’s score is unequivocally excellent, particularly the pulsating opening theme and the insistent action climax.
1956: global superstar Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams) comes to England to star opposite Laurence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh) in his latest directorial effort, 
The supporting cast is a veritable who’s who of recognisable British faces, stars of screens both big and small. Barely a speaking part goes by without an actor you’re certain to recognise. I’d list them but, honestly, there are far, far too many. Despite Marilyn coming with a hefty entourage, Williams is the only American in the cast, meaning American accents are lumbered (to varying degrees of success) upon Zoe Wanamaker, Toby Jones, Dougray Scott, and Dominic Cooper. Hey, of course Dominic Cooper’s in it — is it even legal to make a mid-budget British movie without him now?
If you don’t know that name then you must be a young whippersnapper, because otherwise Ray Harryhausen needs no introduction.
Sometimes they’re a bit jerky, maybe, and the inevitable issues of scale show they’re models fighting or interacting with actors on set… but for all that they’re still not significantly less realistic than so many modern computer-based techniques, and they carry a charm and obvious level of skill that said renderings usually lack.
One thing I always wonder about ‘specialist’ documentaries is, do they have crossover appeal? Will someone with no interest in Harryhausen, or even in Cinema, get something out of this? Probably not, I guess. But that’s not a bad thing per se, because this is an informative overview of a man’s influential body of work that deserves all the appreciation it can muster. Even if, like me, you’re not that familiar with said work, this is a film that will show you why you should be.
This came in for quite a bit of stick on release — how dare they re-make a British classic, etc etc. It didn’t help matters that one of the stars, Edward Norton, was apparently forced to appear against his will as part of his contract with the studio.
and while Edward Norton’s performance is hardly remarkable, it doesn’t smack too much of being phoned in.
