10.09.2008

Night Of The Living Dead (1968, 1990, & 2006)


DIRECTED BY
George A. Romero (1968)
Tom Savini (1990)
Jeff Broadstreet (2006)

STARRING
Duane Jones/Tony Todd/Joshua DesRoces - Ben
Judith O'Dea/Patricia Tallman/Brianna Brown - Barbara
Karl Hardman/Tom Towles/Greg Travis - Harry/Henry Cooper
Keith Wayne/William Butler/Max Williams - Tom
Marilyn Eastman/McKee Anderson/Johanna Black - Helen/Hellie Cooper
Julia Ridley/Kate Finnerman/Cristin Michele - Judy
Russell Streiner/Bill Mosley/Ken Ward - Johnny
Gerald Tovar, Jr. - Sid Haig (2006)
Adam Chambers - Owen (2006)

Genre - Horror/Zombies

Running Time - 96 Minutes/90 Minutes/80 Minutes

Score -
4 Howls Outta 4 (1968)
4 Howls Outta 4 (1990)
0.5 Howls Outta 4 (2006)



The zombie flick has been the most beloved sub-genre of horror for many years next to the slasher flick. It's history is rich in the roots of the real world and the reel world as well. Apparently the whole zombie concept originated in Haiti, where slaves from Africa began to practice their spiritual rituals of vodou. It was believed that a vodou priest had the ability to reanimate the dead. These reanimated people were called zombi, and they were believed to have slow mannerisms, low intelligence, and the lack of willpower to fight against the person who had control over them. These zombi were never really dead people, but rather people who were drugged and were acting out in a comatose state. Haiti suffered through many battles, especially with the French for hundreds of years until the United States stepped in and occupied the land in 1915 to much hostility.

American soldiers returned to the United States with stories of the vodou, or voodoo, practice and the idea of zombi, or zombies. Of course, many American writers began to impliment these things into their stories, especially William Seabrook [who wrote The Magic Island] and H.P. Lovercraft [who wrote Herbert West: Reanimator]. Eventually, these stories leaked onto film. The first attempt was 1932's WHITE ZOMBIE, which adapted the Haitian origins of the zombie pretty closely. It was a box office smash, leading to a massive wave of zombie flicks that included THE WALKING DEAD (1936), I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE (1943), CREATURE WITH THE ATOM BRAIN (1955), and the immortal PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE (1959).

Unfortunately, the Haitian zombie wave died down and wasn't as much of a box office draw. Real life situations like the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam created a reality that most Americans could not ignore and pass by, giving realistic horror flicks like PSYCHO (1960) a chance to shine brightly and start a new wave of horror films. It wasn't until October 1968 where an independent film from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania caught the word of mouth about a group of survivors who trapped themselves inside a farmhouse to escape a horde of the undead. Made for $114,000 and inspired by the 1954 Richard Matheson novel I Am Legend, George A. Romero and John Russo presented the excellent NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD to the world - reinventing the zombie flick to realistic and extremely successful results. The film was one of the top grosses for 1969 AND 1970, creating a new wave of zombie flicks that we continue to see today.

Unfortunately again, Romero and Russo got robbed to own the rights to the film they co-wrote and directed, pretty much letting anyone use the NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD title if they wanted to. This was due to the fact that the film was originally titled NIGHT OF THE FLESH EATERS but the producers found out the title was taken. The changes made failed to include any notice of copyrights, making the film public domain. The lack of compensation Russo and Romero failed to receive because of the film is pretty much what led to the 1990 remake of the same film directed by legendary make-up effect artist, Tom Savini. Written by George A. Romero himself, the film was made not only to update the story for modern audiences but to gain some sort of compensation for it. The remake is excellent in its own right, but the public were turned off by the lack of gore in it [especially since Savini, who is known for his gory effects, was behind the scenes]. Sixteen years later, a gorier remake was made without any input from Romero or Russo that was presented in 3D. Sadly, gore does not make a movie great and is a total waste of time, energy, and money.

So why don't we take a look at these three different versions of the immortal zombie classic and see if any of them are still worthy to rise from the grave and grace us with their flesh-eating presence.

PLOT
All three films pretty much have the same basic plot but with many differences in how they're presented in each of them. NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD begins with siblings Johnny and Barbara visiting a relative's grave [original - father, 1990 remake - mother, 2006 remake - aunt]. Barbara is apparently freaked out by cemetaries, to which Johnny utters his famous line, "They're coming to get you, Barbara!" Ironically, Johnny's tease becomes true when a decaying figure attacked the two. Johnny is eventually killed [in the 2006 version, Johnny just runs away and dies off-screen] and Barbara runs for safety, locating a farmhouse that's pretty much been abandoned. Soon another character, Ben, arrives at the house fleeing from the undead outside. Ben begins to board up the doors and windows while Barbara has different characterizations in each of the three films [original - totally in shock the entire time, 1990 remake - shock at first but manages to help out and take more of a leadership role, 2006 remake - is just a dumbass but whatever].

Barbara and Ben soon learn that the ghouls attacking them are really members of the undead, reanimated by some unknown force [each version has a different reason why], who love the tease of human flesh. They soon learn that the house has other inhabitants, who either attempt to help Ben and Barbara or just give them more grief for selfish reasons. While the main characters argue as to how to survive the situation, it begins to show that maybe the dead creatures outside the house are NOT the real monsters of the story after all.

REVIEW

[1968]

What can I say about NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD that hasn't been said already? It's a brilliant horror film that changed all the rules for every zombie film that was released right after. It's an absolute classic in every sense of the word and a must see for anyone who calls themselves a "film buff". Is it the greatest zombie flick ever made? No, I give that credit to 1978's DAWN OF THE DEAD. But is NOTLD the most influential? Absolutely.

George A. Romero and John Russo crafted a very simple story that could have been a great drama if zombies didn't show up here and there. It's intelligent. It makes you think. And it lingers with you after the last frame of the film. Taking simple characters and just letting them react to the situation around them and to each other is enough to captivate. Here's a movie where character development is not done through background info and flashbacks. We know NOTHING about these characters. Hell, we don't even know what caused the zombie outbreak [something about Venus is mentioned but never elaborated on]. But their actions and their dialogue tell you a lot about who they are as people. As a matter of fact, they all act like regular people caught in a situation they have no idea how they got into or how to get out of. They panic. They become traumatized. They try and help each other. Most of the time they just argue about the best method for their survival. They represent the common man. Each character represents an aspect of a person's personality and their reactions to this horrible situation. We're them and they're us. What would you do to survive being trapped in a weak farmhouse by a group of zombies?

The biggest compliment that's given by every critic and by anyone who has watched this film is about the social commentary Romero and Russo "accidentally" inputted into the movie. At the time of the movie's filming, the United States was going through a lot of crap. The Civil Rights Movement was strong, The Cold War with the former U.S.S.R. was still a big deal - especially when nuclear weapons were talked about, and of course the Vietnam War. Romero may have said it was coincidential, but his feelings about the world he lived in are evident in the film he wrote and directed. This is especially the case when it comes to the character of Ben, who is a black man and happens to be the hero of the film and the lead. This is a strong statement because NOTLD is one of the first movies where the main character is a strong and intelligent black man. Many probably feel Romero did this on purpose to prove a point that black man can make just as captivating leading men as a white man. But Romero claims that Duane Jones, who plays Ben, was simply the best actor for the role. Still, watching Ben argue with the older and white Mr. Cooper in the film definitely represents the racial tension that was going on at the time. I'm sure seeing Cooper feeling almost insulted that he should take the advice from a black man was something many people felt towards black people during this era. No matter what Romero says, he was obviously expressing his feelings on the whole issue.

Even though NOTLD is deeper than probably any horror film should be, it's still a horror film through and through. It's pretty gory and violent for a late-1960s film, but would definitely be considered tame by today's standards. There was no ratings board or MPAA at the time when this film was released, so Romero pretty much went for it. We have blood. We have nudity. We have scenes of chilling violence. It's more realistic horror, instead of watching some dude in a rubber monster suit terrify a town or something. It's nicely done and never goes overboard.

George A. Romero directs his first-feature film excellently and I wonder if he knew this would be the start of something big in the world of horror. NOTLD is the epitome of low-budget filmmaking done in the right way. The black and white, which was used because it's the cheapest type of film, actually enhances the horror experience. It gives it an ambience that color would have totally ruined. Some shots lose focus every once in a while, which only makes the visuals more disturbing and creepy. The angles used create an edge seen in film noir movies. I think the best scene displaying this is when the Cooper's daughter turns into a zombie and murders a loved one. The editing is great and the pacing never slows down. It's just a great looking movie on a shoe-string budget. I think Romero tops himself in DAWN OF THE DEAD, but NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD would probably be second for me as a director.

The acting is perfect for the film. Duane Jones is incredible as Ben. He's the rock of the film, maintaining his cool while everyone around him goes mad. It was probably a risk for Romero to cast this guy as his lead. But it's the best decision he's ever made. Jones does well. Judith O'Dea is good as Barbara. I'm personally not a big fan of the traumatized and catatonic character who just shakes and cries [probably why I enjoy the character in the 1990 remake more], but I can understand the character. O'Dea does well with the role, even if she doesn't do all that much really. The other actors are just as good here, but these two are the standouts of the film.


[1990]

The 1990 Tom Savini-directed remake of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is probably one of the best horror remakes ever filmed and is a movie I enjoy more and more after each viewing. It's pretty faithful to the original film, although Romero [who wrote the screenplay] updates his old work with more modern twists. Obviously the social commentary wouldn't work in 1990, so Romero focuses more on melodrama and action. The film is definitely less scarier, mainly because of the color, but the film is probably more entertaining than the original was. In fact, and I'll probably get flamed for writing this, but I actually prefer this remake over the original.

BLASPHEMER!!

I have reasons why I dig this remake alot. To be quite honest, I feel more connected to the characters here and the drama they put themselves in while the zombie invasion is going on. I'm sure some people will say the characters are a bit more annoying in this version because all they do is pretty much scream and yell at each other to prove the other right. Yes, that's possibly true. But you get caught up in it. Ben, while still the same character in the original, is a bit more flawed here. He's a lot more hard-headed and stubborn in this version, constantly putting his foot down in front of everyone because he believes staying in the main part of the house for more exits will increase their length of survival. Mr. Cooper is more of a bastard than ever and believes staying in the cellar is the best strategy. Then you have the drama between Harry and his wife Helen, slapping each other in the face because they don't agree. Barbara, who is more of a factor in this film, pretty much goes gun-crazy because she's tired of being a victim. There's a whole bunch of stuff going on and you're never bored by it one second. The original is more subtle when it comes to the drama. Here, it's pretty much in your face and I don't mind it at all.

The SFX here by Tom Savini are an improvement over the original as well. Of course, that's not the original's fault since there wasn't much money in the budget to go around. But it's nice to see the zombies look decayed and decomposed. That's how I picture zombies in my head. So it was a nice improvement due to the $11 million budget.

Probably the main thing I enjoy about the remake the most is the evolution of the Barbara character. She's traumatized after Johnny gets killed, but due to all the fighting amongst the other trapped characters, she opens up and becomes the female Rambo. This is probably one of the social commentaries Romero puts in his remake - the idea of feminism and strong women. Romero said that he hated the Barbara character in the original because she was too weak and never fought back. I can't say I disagree. I understand the original Barbara and why she acted the way she did. But I believe this version more because if one wants to survive, they're gonna fight to make sure it happens. The Barbara character in the 1990 version was definitely influenced by Ripley from the ALIEN saga and would continue a year later with Sarah Connor in T2: JUDGMENT DAY. I don't dig helpless women, sorry. I like my women tough and eager to fight back. That's what you get with Barbara here and I think it was a great improvement over the original.

Also, I like the fact that the remake isn't a shot-by-shot, scene-by-scene remake like PSYCHO in 1998 is. Remakes should be films that take the original and create something different and new with it. 1990's NOTLD does that by changing which characters live or die and how it happens. So people who expect to see the same film will be surprised by some of the differences this update puts forth.

Tom Savini does a really awesome job behind the character. It shouldn't be a surprised the man knows how to create suspense and tension since he's worked in the horror biz for so long. It's also simply directed. Nothing fancy. Boo scares here and there. Nice mood and atmosphere at times. Great pacing and nice action sequences. Just a really nice job. Surprisingly, the film wasn't all that gory. Weird.

The acting is great. Patricia Tallman sells me with her version of Barbara. I'm down with this woman from beginning to end. Watching Tallman go from vulnerable to tough chick works incredibly well. It's a shame she didn't do more stuff in a lead role. She could have been a star. Tony Todd draws you in as Ben. I do think Duane Jones did the part a little better but Todd is solid as usual. Tom Towles plays the perfect dickhead as Harry Cooper. What a fuckin' pussy the character is. I wanted to kick Towles in the balls. Kudos to him. Everyone else was good too. Not one person I hated here.


[2006]

Let me just get this review for this remake out of the way:

WHAT THE FUCK!?

Seriously, this film got on my last nerve. I can't believe someone had the fuckin' balls to butcher NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD by presenting me with this 80 minute turd. Not only did this film NOT be made since we have a perfectly great remake already. But it took everything that was fantastic and interesting about NOTLD and butchered it BIG TIME! Let's see how Jeff Broadstreet and his crew of assholes did that, shall we:

a) Barbara is now an annoying know-it-all bitch. She sees zombies and instead of being hysterically frightened by a group of the undead, she just nags about them as if she had a bad day at work. She acts like she's seen these things every fuckin' day in her life. If she has, then she seriously has issues that no one will be able to help her with. And she was the lead character, folks. Yeah, I want this bitch to live. Whatever.

b) Johnny, instead of protecting his sister and dying for her, decides to jet away from zombies attacking her by jumping into her car and driving away to leave her alone to deal with them. The whole point of the Barbara character was that Johnny's death effected her to the point where she either stayed catatonic or was so upset that she decides to fight back. So what really is the point of the character now? Oh I forgot - to annoy me! Plus the dude comes back as a zombie later on. How in the hell? Makes no sense.

c) The mortician is the reason why the zombies exist. Well there goes the intrigue and mystery of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, folks. The scary part about the zombies is that we never knew why they existed to begin with. Now we automatically have a reason. And I won't even get into why this guy does what he does. It's ridiculous and makes my dick shrivel up.

d) The farmhouse doesn't hold people who are trying to survive the zombie outbreak. Oh no...they're POTHEADS!! And they won't call the cops because they're afraid their stash will get confiscated! Fuck zombies trying to kill me and calling 911. WE MUST PROTECT THE WEED!!!

e) Ben is not black anymore. He's white and a drug dealer who's paying his college tuition. Sigh...

f) Tom and Judy, two of the braver survivors in the first two versions, are now sex-crazed idiots who fuck in some nearby barn and become the first two victims of the film. Okay...

g) The little sick girl is now an annoying brat who's so curious about what's going on that she gets bit by zombies. Fuck her.

h) The characters solve their problems by doing what anyone in this situation would: talk like it's no big deal. Oh God...my head hurts...

This movie is just horrible. For 80 minutes, I've never been so bored or annoyed in my life since probably ANKLE BITERS or ONE MISSED CALL (2008). I'm tired of seeing rednecks in horror films. I'm tired of seeing pot put in movies because the filmmakers think it's fuckin' cool. I'm sick of watching people who think they can act piss me off because they can't. I didn't even see this in 3D and I wouldn't even want to. I barely saw any signs of 3D stuff anyway besides some idiot character blowing smoke rings from his blunt and a zombie gushing blood towards the camera. Who gives a shit?

The only saving grace of this film is the presence of cult actor, Sid Haig. His character sucks as much as all the others in this film, but at least he's not annoying and attempts to create substance for such a hollow character. I could watch the guy in anything really and unfortunately for me, I watched him in this. Still, he's the only one worth watching here. And he's in the film for 20 minutes. So if you're willing to fight off suicide for those other 60 minutes, be my guest.

Jeff Broadstreet should never be allowed to remake another film again. The pacing is horrible. There's no suspense. There's no tension. I don't know how he filmed the 3D stuff and I don't really care. He loves his boobs and his pot, thinking it's funny and it'll elevate the stink coming from this movie. This is a student film disguised as a homage to a horror classic. An embarassment is more like it, really.

The acting, other than Sid Haig, is passable. Too bad the characters are written so horribly that you hate the actors as much as you hate the people they're playing. What a waste of time and money. I would rather watch that horrible PROM NIGHT remake than watch this any day of the fuckin' week.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE WATCHING NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD THREE TIMES

- Barbara tells Johnny that he complains to hear himself talk. That YouTube divorce lady must be related to him. It's ironic - she looks like one of the undead!

- Don't think you're safe from a zombie attack if you wear glasses. They'll hit you and kill you regardless of your eyewear. I hope Sarah Palin remembers that when John McCain decides to take his spotlight back.

...Oh he's not a zombie? Then nevermind.

- Barbara had a nervous breakdown in front of Ben. That explains Mariah Carey's breakdown years ago - she was traumatized by zombies. Or really, people who suffered after paying to see GLITTER. That film will suck the life out of anyone.

- Venus is supposedly responsible for the zombie outbreak. Anything to top Serena, huh Ms. Williams?

- Zombies can die via fire. Looks like someone took that Thriller video way too seriously during that Michael Jackson Pepsi commercal shoot years ago. Now who's Bad?

- Tony Todd can kick some mean zombie ass. So if you ever have a zombie invasion, just walk to your nearest mirror and say "Candyman" five times. He'll come and kill the zombies. And then he'll probably kill you too. But at least the zombies will be gone!

- Barbara in the 1990 remake is proficient in shooting a shotgun. Any woman who is a pro at that is worth having a night cap with after a date. And believe me - I'm locked, cocked, and ready to unload! Blue balls be damned!

- The survivors made a ring where locals can wrestle zombies. Don't give Vince McMahon any more ideas for horrible Undertaker feuds. I'm still recovering from that Undertaker vs. Undertaker match from fourteen years ago.

- In the 2006 remake, there was a tomb that read, "In Hope For Immortality." If it's about this film, let's hope not.

- The mortician wasn't really all that surprised by roaming zombies. Unless you constantly hang out with Amy Winehouse or Keith Richards, this should not be a normal experience!

- Henry doesn't own a machine gun because he's not Scarface. I have the urge to make that possible. Where's my boxcutter?

- Owen got a shovel blade to the mouth after turning into a zombie. I'm sure Owen wasn't digging that.

- "Sometimes when I give, I have to take away." Sounds like how I felt watching this film. I had to give up my precious time to write this review for all of you. YOU'RE WELCOME!!

THE FINAL HOWL
If you want to see any of these three versions, definitely watch the original 1968 NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. While I prefer the 1990 remake, it's still honestly the best version and the one that influenced the wave of zombie horror flicks. If you had to watch a remake, definitely the 1990 one. It's fantastic and proof that remakes can be great if the people behind it know what they're doing. Unlike in the 2006 version, which will be in the WTF? Vault until I reopen the Vault's Crematorium and turn it into ash. That film is never coming to get me ever again!

9 comments:

  1. the sneering (homo-phobic) snobOctober 9, 2008 at 9:35 AM

    i agree that the 1990 version is easily the best of the 3, (its also 100 times better than "the dark knight", which i think you`ll agree is rather interesting), the 1968 version has always been very over-rated, (but i am always prepared to over-look its inadequacies because of the budget limitations), although i am the first one to agree that it is perhaps the most influential horror film of all time, (and interestingly again i thought it was a better film than, thats right, you guessed it, "the dark knight"), now onto the supposedly unwatchable 2006 3-D version, well o.k. it is easily the weakest of the 3 but i still thought it was reasonably good and not "unwatchable" by any means, and heres where it gets difficult to beleive, (or not, as the case may be, depending on your opinion), i thought that it too was a better film than that pile of laughable mediocrity "the dark knight", let me try to put this into context a bit better, i was just about able to sit through "the dark knight" once, but i know "for a fact" that i will never "ever" want to sit through it again, not even 20 years from now (for nostalgia value "as it were"), however i never tire of watching romero and savini`s films, and i think that maybe even the 2006 film might become a minor cult item for me over the years that i might end up watching 50 times, (and keep in mind that i never want to see "the dark knight" again "ever"), you see mr. wolf thats the difference between a ludicrously over-hyped pile of hollywood horse-shit and 3 terrifically entertaining low budget cult zombie horror movies !!!. I would also just like to remind you, (as i usually do), that the british film is an abomination that must be destroyed with malice-a-fore-thought and extreme prejudice, in fact the 2006 3-D version of "night of of the living dead" that you hated and despised so much is still 1000 times better by itself than all the laughable pathetic unwatchable crap produced in england over the past 100 years combined, so remember dont be so keen to trash american films, they are still, by far, the best that the world has to offer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. BRAVO FRED!!!
    (Standing Ovation!!!)

    This may very well be your best review yet and I agree with everything that you had to say about all three films!!

    Outstanding Review!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am blown away by the depth and research that went into this post. Kudos my good man, you have kicked some rightous ass.

    ReplyDelete
  4. a pious atheists virtuous indignationOctober 10, 2008 at 8:42 PM

    actually gentlemen i am more inclined to agree with "the sneering (homo-phobic) snob", (love that name), because he said a few more straightforward, easy to understand, and true things that mr. wolf sadly neglected to mention.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I want to thank you all of you guys for commenting on this review. I'm quite proud of it since it's the longest review I've ever written.

    As for "a pious atheists virtuous indignation", I respect that you didn't find my review "straightforward". I mean, writing a review for three movies should have been a lot shorter and to the point. Maybe "NOTLD was good" or "NOTLD 06 sucked" would have been better for you.

    And how did "the sneering (homo-phobic) snob" say more true things than I did? Saying THE DARK KNIGHT was terrible is his OPINION, not fact. I happened to love THE DARK KNIGHT. If you don't, that's fine. Why keep mentioning it like it means anything? It doesn't. Don't like THE DARK KNIGHT? Cool. Just get over it. And this whole British film thing is ridiculous because neither of you have given me a reason WHY they're terrible. So I guess films like MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL, HOT FUZZ, SHAUN OF THE DEAD, and SNATCH are horrible films. Wow, I think a majority of people would disagree with you. But again, your opinion.

    Instead of boring me with (better than, you guessed it, "the dark knight"), give me some constructive criticism with a bit of substance. You two just sound like children with no lives. You're probably the same person anyway. So thanks for the comments but get over THE DARK KNIGHT hate. It's old.

    And I gotta ask: what "true" things did I sadly not mention? Humor me please.

    ReplyDelete
  6. the sneering (homo-phobic) snobOctober 13, 2008 at 6:05 PM

    mr. wolf, indeed i do think that the 2006 3-D version of "night of the living dead" is better than any of the 4 piles of unwatchable british made crap that you mentioned, and thats the point i`m making, the worst films that are produced in america are still infinitly better than the crap produced in britain, and you, (and a lot of other americans) dont seem to realise this, you should not bite the hand that feeds you, for instance, no american film should ever be rated below 2 howls, and every british film should receive the "BOMB" rating. Now you wanted to know exactly why british films are such abominations, well, the production values of british made films are incredibly laughable and inept in comparison to the breathtaking magnificence of the american product, and essentially british films are more or less the same as the garbage they were producing 50 years ago, they just haven`t moved on 1 iota, now compare that to the incredible leaps and bounds made by the american film industry over the same period, there really is no comparison. And now, you said you wanted a further and more specific explanation with regards to how the 2006 3-D version of "night of the living dead" could possibly be a better film than "the dark knight", well the reason is perhaps the simplest and most straightforward reason of all, namely that the zombie movie, (for all its ineptitude), actually entertained me, where-as the batman movie, (for all its 180 million dollar budget), did not, and when alls said and done its the entertainment value of a film, (and strickly speaking, nothing else), that really determines whether its a good film or not.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well it's obvious we don't share the same opinion when it comes to film. I don't care if a film is American, British, French, Italian, Spanish, whatever - if it sucks, it's gonna get lower than a 2 Howls rating. Where a film comes from should not effect it's entertainment value. How the film is made and presented is how it should be judged. But if your way of rating films works for you, who am I to judge? All I'm saying is that I understand you don't like British films and THE DARK KNIGHT. You don't need to keep repeating it.

    As always, thanks for the comment.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's the PG-13 American horror that are turds in the toilet.

    Thats why we Americans hate our own horror. Hollywood poops out crap.

    Only when the indie scene makes a decent flick do we scream out "Stop making those fuckin remakes hollywood!!!"

    Every once in a while we'll make a Hard R film that makes me proud to plant that American flag in gore and splatter.

    But most of those are coming from France? WTF? Really? France?

    ReplyDelete
  9. the sneering (homo-phobic) snobOctober 14, 2008 at 1:25 PM

    mr. wolf i know you said i didn`t need to keep repeating the fact that all british films are unwatchable abominations, but what "the jaded veiwer" said really does emphasize what i said, of course all PG-13 american horror films are turds in the toilet, but he dosen`t seem to under stand, (as you dont seem to either), that they are still a million times better than anything that the british film industry has ever produced, (or could ever dream of producing). once again my apologies for mentioning this again but it just really got on my nerves that "the jaded veiwer" left their comment seemingly without taking the slightest bit of notice of what i`d written in my comments, now i promise i wont mention it again, its just that "the jaded veiwer" gives the impression that they would like to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, (something you should never ever do, under any circumstances), but they did say one thing i did agree with, the fact that france is making some great horror films lately, like "INSIDE" that i bought from a sexy little chinese bird in a cafe while i was enjoying a plate of eggs, bacon, chips, sausage, tomatoes, beans, mushrooms with 2 slices and a pepsi, i even bought the little chinese bird a bag of salt and vinegar crisps, (i bet she would have blown me for 50$ but i didn`t have the guts to ask her), anyway back to this marvellous film "INSIDE" that gorgeous bird, (although her looks are fading badly now), beatrice dalle was in it, (you know betty blue), and its got enough blood and guts and downright loathesome odious obnoxiousness and hideousness in it to satisfy the most bloodthirsty gore-hound, but my final word in this comment has to go to "the jaded veiwer", please stop trashing american films its so..."BLOODY UN-AMERICAN".

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts with Thumbnails