I don't know what's wrong with me and George A.Romero's Zombie filmmaking. I am aware that back then it was groundbreaking and gory for the time thanks to its first entry "Night of the Living Dead". But for the love of me, I can't see any other reasons aside from its own legacy to receive such an undying praise.
I am aware of its social commentary, particularly in this one with themes of consumerism and abortion. I praise and enjoy very much the make-up (although not as much in this movie with its "blue zombies") and practical effects most of the time. But between the odd choices of music, the inconsistent scene cuts that don't match up, the awful acting of both characters and zombies (most of them fall before you can hear the shot) and the lingering over actors reactions; I can't help but feel this movie looks like a low-budget film that should have come out even earlier than when it did.
I enjoy and love many early 80s and late 70s horror movies like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers(1978)", "The Omen(1976)", "Alien(1979)" and "The Fog(1980)" to give some that came out around the same time. While these might not feature zombies particularly, they feature an infestation or horde attack of some supernatural nature where ordinary characters have to survive it.
I understand it is an independent film without a big budget for the time, but from there to be considered one of the greatest OF ALL TIME. I feel it is a bit overrated for its own good. Perhaps it was trying to pay homage or recapture the same feel or experience of its groundbreaking predecessor, but in a time where horror movies were peaking and were going to peak even more in the 1980s; it felt like a regression to B-Horror formula that clashes in contrast with the new wave of horror of John Carpenter, Sam Raimi and Wes Craven amongst many others.
I honestly believe should this movie be edited out some of its scenes and added a better soundtrack, it could end up being a very entertaining short movie. And this taking into account its relevance to the zombie genre, the overall horror movie genre and the independent films out there.
IN CONCLUSION, overall it has a good entertainment value and things to say that back then may have been groundbreaking. There are a lot of great sequences and dialogue but they are needles in a haystack of elongated scenes that if shortened would improve its general pacing. I understand how a movie could have been groundbreaking at the time of release considering others that came before it, but I can't help to feel like with the case of George A. Romero's entries, after NOTLD, they don't bring many new additions to the genre. Perhaps it's because his movies have shaped the genre and served as main inspiration for future zombie movies that came after it, but that doesn't exempts them from not having to try harder in all the aspects of a movie.
I am aware of its social commentary, particularly in this one with themes of consumerism and abortion. I praise and enjoy very much the make-up (although not as much in this movie with its "blue zombies") and practical effects most of the time. But between the odd choices of music, the inconsistent scene cuts that don't match up, the awful acting of both characters and zombies (most of them fall before you can hear the shot) and the lingering over actors reactions; I can't help but feel this movie looks like a low-budget film that should have come out even earlier than when it did.
I enjoy and love many early 80s and late 70s horror movies like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers(1978)", "The Omen(1976)", "Alien(1979)" and "The Fog(1980)" to give some that came out around the same time. While these might not feature zombies particularly, they feature an infestation or horde attack of some supernatural nature where ordinary characters have to survive it.
I understand it is an independent film without a big budget for the time, but from there to be considered one of the greatest OF ALL TIME. I feel it is a bit overrated for its own good. Perhaps it was trying to pay homage or recapture the same feel or experience of its groundbreaking predecessor, but in a time where horror movies were peaking and were going to peak even more in the 1980s; it felt like a regression to B-Horror formula that clashes in contrast with the new wave of horror of John Carpenter, Sam Raimi and Wes Craven amongst many others.
I honestly believe should this movie be edited out some of its scenes and added a better soundtrack, it could end up being a very entertaining short movie. And this taking into account its relevance to the zombie genre, the overall horror movie genre and the independent films out there.
IN CONCLUSION, overall it has a good entertainment value and things to say that back then may have been groundbreaking. There are a lot of great sequences and dialogue but they are needles in a haystack of elongated scenes that if shortened would improve its general pacing. I understand how a movie could have been groundbreaking at the time of release considering others that came before it, but I can't help to feel like with the case of George A. Romero's entries, after NOTLD, they don't bring many new additions to the genre. Perhaps it's because his movies have shaped the genre and served as main inspiration for future zombie movies that came after it, but that doesn't exempts them from not having to try harder in all the aspects of a movie.