Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Reader Polls' started by Hellbilly, Jul 10, 2006.
Day Of The Dead
Whoa! I just nioticed this is for the 90's version of Night! Scratch my vote off. I go with Day easily.
Because some people care about more than just gore. This movie pissed me off/annoyed me to no end. I hated Bub. I hated everyone in the movie. I've seen it on sale for cheap and still can't bring myself to buy it. So the Night remake wins by default. Plus it was a pretty good movie, not great but pretty enjoyable. The original blows both of these movies out of the water though.
Are you kidding me with this poll? You can't beat the original Romero zombie movies.
What a lot of people may not realize is that Romero wrote Night '90. Tom Savini directed as a competant rookie, but the story played off the mass's familiarality with the original perfectly. A meaner, more gritty film. Not fantastic, but far above average remake standards.
Day of the Dead, however, is a superb, multi-leveled film. Yes, it is fairly slow, and yes, it is mainly comprised of angry, unlikable people shouting and cursing.
But if you were in the last group of people left on Earth, would you be angry?
Yeah, I'd be angry, but I wouldn't enjoy watching a film about it. Just my $.02
Well, the idea that you wouldn't enjoy it is a completely valid argument. The film isn't exactly viewer-friendly. I do, however, find the strong female lead to be anything but dull - She brings some sensibility to the hierachy. Laurie Cardille, I believe her name is, is a fantastic actress, and her reactions to the other characters' over-reactions fuel the film.
That's another thing; the over-reactions. Some people say that the screaming when screaming isn't necessary gives the film a sense of, "Trying too hard" or "Being stupid," but I believe it gives the film the bitter edge it is trying to achieve. It's not a nice film, perhaps not as much for its time, but it was after Dawn and Night in the series, and in comparison is quite harsh. Let's look at Night for a moment.
Night was not a nice film. In 1968, it was a horrid blasphemy. What this nobody director was saying was "Our society is on the brink of self-destruction. We have racism and bitter anger between brothers, and one day we're going to wake up and it's not going to be okay anymore." Besides taking a page straight out of voodoo exploitation, labeling himself as inherent trash, he made many points about culture. He had rednecks enjoying themselves while shooting human[oid]s, he had a group of strangers huddled around mass media for dear life, when its reports were simply incorrect, and then he had said rednecks killing the strongest surviving member - a black man. Oh, and the black man punches a white man. When I recently showed the film to a friend, he asked why they ended on such a positive note (besides the personal aspect), with the problem apparently being eradicated. I told him, "Because if you have all these taboo things going down, in 1968, if you end civilization, you've gone too far."
After Dawn (which I could go into further, and which I feel is a superior film to Night), we were getting into the late 70s, and the peak of the exploitation era, so in another 8 years, we got Day - A stark, empty, grisly film, which in addition to showing my personal favorite barrage of gore effects in history, had about 3 likable characters - 2 of whom are pretty inconsequential to most of the developmental dialogue. So perhaps Day is an inferior film, but by almost any other director it would be a masterpiece. You don't have to like it. George didn't want everybody to like it.
The reason the lead female (Cardille) is dull because she doesn't have any plot to her character. What exactly is she working on? Why does she dismiss Dr. Logan's theories? Other than Logan, what the hell are they even working on? Ambiguous? Nah, just crappy writing/plot.
Yep...I think the "That's the way people would be in real life" is a bit of a copout. You can tell a compelling story with compelling characters and still be nihilistic...Romero did so in NIGHT. DAY has grown on me through the years, though, and I finally purchased it during this last DDD sale. I will never like it as much as the previous two films [I think NIGHT is the best of the trilogy] but I no longer dislike it, I just try and appreciate it for what it is--and it does have by far the best effects of the three [though I think NIGHT's zombies are scarier because they look like regular people--but that kind of thing would not have worked by the third film.]
So I have to vote for DAY. I like the NIGHT remake okay....it's an interesting variation on a theme, and has some good effects, but the movie is actually pretty tame. I really got the idea that they remade NIGHT mainly for financial/legal reasons, not because they really had a passion to make the movie. It's still okay, though---I own it and watch it on occasion.
Without a doubt Day, a great film that shows what containment can do to civilized humans and the never ending battle of military versus science. Plus the gore was great.
As far as the characters not being likable, thats wven better, I loved Rhodes, he was such a bastard, it was great to see him get his comeuppence. NotLD_90 was a nice re visit with a strong modern female lead, rather than hysterical Barbara 68, but it does not match the isolation of Day.
Personally I think Day of the Dead is a bit overrated. Therefore I had to go with the 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead.
Day of the Dead. But damn, it was close.
Savini's remake was very well done, but Romero's Day of the Dead gets my vote. Thumbs up most of all for Savini's masterful f/x, the claustrophobic setting, the atmospheric caves, and the scene stealing from Joe Pilato as Captain Rhodes.
Night Of The Living Dead '90 by a thread.
With the exception of every other zombie film made by Mr. Romero, Day of the Dead is what all other zombie films should aspire to.
I have both movies on DVD, but had to go with Day of The Dead, simply because of Romero. Tom Savini did a really good job remaking Night Of The Living Dead.
Day has some good gore, but the film itself isn't very good, imo. Looking passed the blood and guts the setting is just awful, and the plot not convincing (not helped by some hystronics). It never lives up to its own opening sequence.
But yeah, the gore is good.
Night of the Living Dead was a reasonable remake. Not terrific, but fun nonetheless. I went with that - it's certainly the film I'd revisit sooner.
Day is lumpy, wooden and misses soooo many chances.......but Night is a worthess piece of shit, aside from the last few minutes.
Day has the Bub factor, but I really like the Night remake so I went with that.
This is a tough choice, just because I'm not crazy about either film, though I own both. I like DAY better than I used to, but still consider it the weakest of the series. NIGHT has some fun gags and cool zombie makeup, but it's a pretty tame remake when it comes to gore, which is pretty sad since the original NIGHT was one of the first films to really bring explicit gore to the screen in a realistic manner [I know BLOOD FEAST was first, but it's so cheap looking that it doesn't have the same impact.]
Almost too close to call---NIGHT is my all-time favorite horror film, so I guess I should vote against a weak remake of it, but I probably enjoy watching the NIGHT remake more as an entire movie than I do DAY, where I like certain scenes and sequences, but don't have much interest in what's going on during the times when the zombies are offscreen. But the NIGHT remake is good mainly because the original story is so good, not so much because the remake itself is worthy.
I guess I have to go with the purist vote and vote for DAY, even with its flaws. But I really could go either way with this one, and I'm probably voting for DAY more because I've seen it [well, the parts I like] more recently.