|
Post by Demon-Sixx on Aug 16, 2008 9:05:49 GMT -5
It's a good movie but dawn is far superior. the thing i love about romeros work is that it was'nt as polished as most the films being pumped from the hollywood machine. special effects are great, but a lower budget makes for more creative thinking. Carpenter proved this with Halloween. He made one of the most influencial horror flicks of all time on a budget of $300,000. Hardly any blood or special effects were used. It's all to do with the way he Shot the film, long tracking shots etc. Romero has the great skill of fast editing and multiple angle shots. Land was ok though...7/10 [glow=red,2,300]I think the film was saved by the connections it had to previous films.[/glow] I agree. I wouldnt imagine it would have sold as well if "George A. Romero" was taken from the title.
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Aug 16, 2008 9:10:23 GMT -5
"special effects are great, but a lower budget makes for more creative thinking. "
Personally Bad effects ruin the film for me. I prefer modern and high budget films. While I appreciate Low-budget films because they are much harder to make, Many of them have bad acting, bad effects and are almost unwatchable to me .
"it was'nt as polished as most the films being pumped from the hollywood machine"
You can't deny the fact that Most of the really good films in the world nowadays come from Hollywood.
I think the greatest mistake Romero made is that he didn't make another Big- Studio film after Land and gone Independent. The low budget did "Diary of the Dead" no favors. You can it see in the acting ,weak gore effects among other aspects.
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Aug 16, 2008 9:15:13 GMT -5
A lot of the modern high budget movies have terrible CGI effects that cost loads & loads of money to create.
I'll always prefer mechanical & make-up effects over them even if they are cheesy because there's something more personal about it. Not to mention it has that DIY ethic to it instead of CGI, where I picture some guys sitting in a chair that weren't even on set of the movie adding in their effects.
Land had some cool effects but the CGI was apparent & terrible.
|
|
|
Post by Demon-Sixx on Aug 16, 2008 9:18:37 GMT -5
A lot of the modern high budget movies have terrible CGI effects that cost loads & loads of money to create. I'll always prefer mechanical & make-up effects over them even if they are cheesy because there's something more personal about it. Not to mention it has that DIY ethic to it instead of CGI, where I picture some guys sitting in a chair that weren't even on set of the movie adding in their effects. Land had some cool effects but the CGI was apparent & terrible. yes, i have to agree that CGI in Land was rather apparent and left a lot to be desired. no more so than when headless zombies severed head flips over and takes a chunk out of that soldiers shoulder.
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Aug 16, 2008 9:22:38 GMT -5
I think the CGI was not apparent at all in Land of the Dead. I couldn't even notice when it was CGI. In contrast, Diary of the Dead CGI was really bad, probably because Low Budget = bad effects .
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Aug 17, 2008 20:50:38 GMT -5
The CGI in Land was not as apparent, but you could still tell it was there.
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Aug 17, 2008 20:55:45 GMT -5
A lot of the modern high budget movies have terrible CGI effects that cost loads & loads of money to create. I'll always prefer mechanical & make-up effects over them even if they are cheesy because there's something more personal about it. Not to mention it has that DIY ethic to it instead of CGI, where I picture some guys sitting in a chair that weren't even on set of the movie adding in their effects. Land had some cool effects but the CGI was apparent & terrible. yes, i have to agree that CGI in Land was rather apparent and left a lot to be desired. no more so than when headless zombies severed head flips over and takes a chunk out of that soldiers shoulder. Yeah that part was very obvious with priest zombie. Also when Cholo shoots the zombie in the face with his spear gun in the junkyard when he's dumping some of Kaufman's "garbage." The CGI effects in Diary were even worse...especially the exploding eyes. Haha wow.
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Aug 17, 2008 21:00:54 GMT -5
The electrocuted zombie was rather obvious.
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Aug 18, 2008 1:40:53 GMT -5
"yes, i have to agree that CGI in Land was rather apparent and left a lot to be desired. no more so than when headless zombies severed head flips over and takes a chunk out of that soldiers shoulder."
It was the best part of the movie.
|
|
|
Post by Demon-Sixx on Aug 18, 2008 7:01:48 GMT -5
"yes, i have to agree that CGI in Land was rather apparent and left a lot to be desired. no more so than when headless zombies severed head flips over and takes a chunk out of that soldiers shoulder." It was the best part of the movie. Dont get me wrong, i found that scene very entertaining ;D
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Aug 18, 2008 9:17:37 GMT -5
It was a cool concept but executed very poorly.
Laughably bad.
|
|
|
Post by rogueslayer on Aug 18, 2008 16:47:47 GMT -5
Low Budget = bad effects . You sure about that man? I think some the slasher films and zombie films back then have better effects than anything created today. Atleast in terms of gore.
|
|
|
Post by rogueslayer on Aug 18, 2008 16:59:53 GMT -5
You can't deny the fact that Most of the really good films in the world nowadays come from Hollywood. Actually yes....yes I can. All Hollywood is releasing mostly now in days is garbage horror remakes. The only remakes out in the last ten years that have honestly had any substance...and it's only because there was actual talent associated with them...are Dawn of the Dead, Hills Have Eyes and Halloween. That's it. Everything else has just been really atrocious or somewhat mediocre ripoffs with the name of a previous success tacked on for the sake of marketing. I think the greatest mistake Romero made is that he didn't make another Big- Studio film after Land and gone Independent. The low budget did "Diary of the Dead" no favors. You can it see in the acting ,weak gore effects among other aspects. Acting was always bad in the dead films and a film will always became dated no matter what. I believe it was the writing that was really lacking in Diary.....seriously lot of scenarios were questionable...
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Aug 18, 2008 18:40:54 GMT -5
Well, sorry to disagree but the new Halloween was an atrocious rip off. Most people don't like the new THHE film, I enjoyed it. The 04 Dawn was a good flick, I really don't consider it a complete remake. It's more of a film that was inspired by another.
I think that what Omer was hitting on is that you don't have Italy, Germany and other foreign nations making "great" horror films anymore. Not that they really did in the first place. I think the best foreign horror these days comes out of Japan, good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by rogueslayer on Aug 18, 2008 18:52:36 GMT -5
I think that what Omer was hitting on is that you don't have Italy, Germany and other foreign nations making "great" horror films anymore. Not that they really did in the first place. I think the best foreign horror these days comes out of Japan, good stuff. Please Foreign horror films are better than anything U.S. has been spewing for the last 10 years. Heres a few: Descent 28 Days Later Pan's Labyrinth The Orphanage REC Cube Hell Shaun of the Dead while not a horror film was able to completely capture the Romero vibe. Considering its a comedy.....thats pretty pathetic.
|
|