With the pending release of Survival of the Dead, we will have now seen George A. Romero's version of the Star Wars trilogy, but with zombies. Nobody questions the original trilogy (Night, Dawn and Day) are the pinnacle by which all zombie movies are judged. Dawn alone is one of the best horror movies of all time. But what of this new trilogy? Do we horror fans turn into geeky fan boy bashers when it comes to Romero's new take on his creation?Think about how this so closely resembles that "other" trilogy.
The new zombie movies had:
1.) Big name actors (more so in Land than in Diary)
2.) Tons of CGI effects (CGI zombies, gore and splatter)
3.) Gimmicky film device (SOV, hand held camera shakiness)
4.) Special effects and big budget excess (both flicks)
5.) Lots of references to the previous films (both flicks)
And Land (2005), Diary (2007) and Survival of (2009) have all come out 2 years after each other.
So let's get into the thread of the week. Which film did you like better or do you think was better? Which one sucked monkey balls?
Land of the Dead or Diary of the Dead?
Will Survival of the Dead be better or worse than these 2 previous films?
the jaded viewer says: OK, the hype Land of the Dead receive was insane back in 2005. I mean it was Romero's first zombie flick since Day. And though it had its flaws, I dug it. I dug the characters, the setting and the zombies. And the satire is in plain sight no matter how obvious. It's about classism, the rich vs the poor, the haves and the have-nots. The fact the status quo somehow remained intact in the middle of a post apocalyptic world.
My gripes for Diary of the Dead can be found in my review. To sum it up I had problems with the 1st person camera thingy, the characters sucked, lack of splatter and gore and the nerve of George to explain to me about what he was satirizing in a voiceover.
Winner: Land of the Dead!
OK now it's your turn. Which movie did you think was better? And what are your thoughts of Survival? Will it be better? worse? the same?
Posts
