A Perfectly Cromulent Blog

Me and the wife tooled over to the U of L campus to watch the River City debut of DIARY OF THE DEAD tonight. Excellent flick; everything you could want in a zombie movie, plus, everything you’d want in a movie intended to be a ‘reboot’ of the entire Romero ‘Dead’ franchise. Whether this means that we’ll get new, Romero helmed ‘reboots’ of ‘DAWN’ and ‘DAY’ (what would he call them, to keep the new title theme going? JOURNAL OF THE DEAD? BLOG OF THE DEAD? DEADBOOK.COM, maybe?) I don’t know, but I’m way more psyched at the mere thought of getting a 21st century version of DAWN from Romero to wash the taste of that Snyder thing out of my frontal lobes, than I am about nearly anything else I know for a fact is coming to the theaters in the next eighteen months or so.

Others try hard to bring the full Romero ghoulishness to the big screen, but nobody can rock it quite the way George can. As with most Romero films, it’s the little touches that hit the hardest, like when our embattled crew of protagonists drives their camper van underneath an overpass that some poor hapless overwhelmed fellow has hung himself from… and, of course, he’s since become a zombie himself, and is writhing there in his noose ten feet above the pavement. And how often do you see zombie movies where one of the coolest characters is a deaf Amish farmer with dynamite and a scythe?

I’m grateful for your report on STREET KINGS, as I suspected it sucked, but would probably have gone to see it anyway, as I love gritty cop dramas, and following up WE OWN THE NIGHT with another really crappy one might have ruined the whole genre for me.

You’re welcome. And you’ve somewhat reignited my interest in Diary, as yours is one of the few positive reports I’ve heard.

I’ve got this good thing to say about Diary: it’s better than Land. (I’m sure you recall our bitchfest about that atrocity.)

Diary is also very, very flawed, with sins including:

) A jumbled movie-within-a-movie-within-another-movie-within-yet-another-movie framing device, a consequence of having a camcorder-holding “protagonist” (see below) start filming a fictional movie, and then start recording the zombie apocalypse, which is then followed by a second character editing and voicing-over what we’re actually seeing/what we’ve already seen on screen, with a heapin’ helpin’ of omniscient security camera and YouTube footage thrown in. It’s excessively clunky, and from a filmmaker/audience persepective, the “authenticity” of the work is compromised (when not outright violated).

) A ridiculously stupid and unsympathetic cast. Yes, yes, it’s a patented Romero trademark for humanity to be the real monsters and the real zombies, but this cast really, really, REALLY deserves every misfortune they suffer; they make the iPod-victim from Land look good by comparison. Our zoom-lens loving “protagonist” is an invasive asshole that does absolutely nothing to help others, much less himself; in Real Life, it would have taken about five minutes of being in his presence before someone had the sense to destroy the camera by either smashing it to the ground or, preferably, caving his fool head in with it. And our group shows a remarkable Disney-lemming-like lack of regard for their own safety; case in point, you’d think that they’d actively search each safehouse they find for the presence of zombie occupants before settling in (especially after they first time they get burned by their obliviousness); but, no, there are multiple instances when they realize too late that there are monsters amongst them. And what do they do when they ultimately find a super-safe place in the form of a “panic room”? They leave the door open all night just to have easier access to the liquor cabinet, that’s what, and decide to close it up only at the very last possible minute. There’s idiots, there’s Romero-style idiots, and then there’s these clowns.

) “Meta” casting choices that jerk you right out of the film. There’s a throwaway scene featuring one of bit players from the 2004 Dawn remake, but it’s a jarring hey-that-guy-was-in-another-zombie-movie moment; even worse, Romero himself has a cameo. Yes, yes, Ol’ George is playing with the whole reality-as-it-is versus reality-is-only-what’s-on-camera theme, but his inclusion is just gratuitous and disruptive.

See the film for the nifty gore, some first-person-based suspense, and aforementioned Amish Rambo. But remember how you felt after watching Open Water? Expect to be very, very, very annoyed.

I think many long time Romero fans went into DiOTD expecting pretty much a straight up remix of the original NOTLD, similar to what Snyder provided in his new DAWN, or, as far as that goes, to what we’d already seen in NOTLD’s previous remake. It’s a mistake to look for that. DiOTD is a departure from the standard DEAD formula in that it’s not really at all static… the survivor group doesn’t get to a fortified building quickly, hole up, and then tear themselves to pieces from within as with the previous trilogy. This movie is about a group of college kids in a camper van trying to get home through the chaos of the zombie apocalypse. They move from place to place, having encounters along the way, and only reach the seemingly thematically necessary ‘fortress’ near the end of the film.

I can see where many might find the movie disappointing, and for all I know, you’ll go out of your way to watch it and then end up cursing me roundly as you tromp on out of the theater on your way to the closest bar for several rounds of self medication. But I was fascinated with how Romero re-imagined the events of the Zombie Apocalypse for the early 21st century, and especially how he depicted the impact of cell phones with video cameras, You Tube, and various other forms of amateur, instantaneous communication on the events in the film itself. Beyond that, yeah, Romero’s zombie movie fans are largely an older crowd now, and we may, as a class, be sick and tired of films about young reasonably attractive college kids getting into some kind of trouble. However, I enjoyed it, and I thought it was a very well made film and an excellent new installment in the ‘series’, and am certainly hoping Romero gives us a few more.

Between the two of us, Doc, we have a tendency to clog all of Pete’s bandwidth, so I’ll try to be brief.

—

I think many long time Romero fans went into DiOTD expecting pretty much a straight up remix…It’s a mistake to look for that. — Doc Nebula

I freely admit I had no expectations whatsoever after Land. Romero burned mucho goodwill from this viewer.

But I was fascinated with how Romero re-imagined the events of the Zombie Apocalypse for the early 21st century… — Doc Nebula

Shrug. I guess he read World War Z.

…the impact of cell phones with video cameras, You Tube, and various other forms of amateur, instantaneous communication on the events in the film itself. — Doc Nebula

Night and Dawn already covered the “talking heads/zombies in the news” angles; what impact—aside from driving the cast to new heights of idiocy to get the most hits on their webclips—did the new media actually have?

[We] are largely an older crowd now, and we may…be sick and tired of films about young reasonably attractive college kids getting into some kind of trouble. — Doc Nebula

I’m just sick of stupid people getting into “some kind of trouble.” Romero’s never been subtle in this department, but he’s gone overboard in the last two films.

I thought it was a very well made film… — Doc Nebula

It looks pretty, and it’s got some great shots and splatter-gags, but the film is compromised by the various narrative cheats. Romero seems to want it all ways, with shifts between first-person and third-person and omniscient narrators, and as a result, his always-less-than-delicate preaching gets clunkier.

…and am certainly hoping Romero gives us a few more. — Doc Nebula

If you can believe the horror-news, a Diary sequel is already signed and in the scripting phase.

Between the two of us, Doc, we have a tendency to clog all of Pete’s bandwidth, so I’ll try to be brief.

Was it Mark Twain who said “I’ll be frank, although I’m Sam?” Actually, I think Philip Jose Farmer made him say that in FABULOUS RIVERBOAT. But yeah, there’s no denying I’ll yap forever given the opportunity…

I freely admit I had no expectations whatsoever after Land. Romero burned mucho goodwill from this viewer.

I liked LAND more than most did, I think. The thematic underpinnings (the whole ‘living humanity sucks, so let’s turn the world over to the zombies’ dealio), while the logical culmination of all Romero’s finger shaking in the previous films, struck me as being mind bogglingly stupid (western civilization may well suck bag, or suck bag well, as the case may be, but still, it’s got to be worth more than some animated corpses shambling around in the ruins of said civilization occasionally going ‘nrg’ at each other), BUT, I pretty much enjoyed the post apocalyptic action/adventure plot he grafted on over top of all that. Sometimes you have to ignore the subtext. Saying that LAND was a better movie than RESIDENT EVIL: APOCALYPSE may well be damning with faint praise, but, hey, I liked RESIDENT EVIL: APOCALYPSE.

Shrug. I guess he read World War Z.

I haven’t read WORLD WAR Z, but if I were to speculate on a hypothesis, I might be inclined to opine that WORLD WAR Z was probably largely or entirely inspired by the original work of George Romero.

Night and Dawn already covered the “talking heads/zombies in the news” angles; what impact—aside from driving the cast to new heights of idiocy to get the most hits on their webclips—did the new media actually have?

Um… well, what NIGHT and DAWN, and, for that matter, SHAUN OF THE DEAD as well, did with the ‘zombies in the news’ thing strikes me as being very different from what DIARY did. But maybe I’m too stupid to discern these subtle dichotomies and perceptual viewpoints.

I’m just sick of stupid people getting into “some kind of trouble.”

Hrm. One of my pet peeves, just as an aside, is the extremely common/near universal habit of misusing the word ‘stupid’ when one actually means ‘foolish’ or ‘unwise’.

Having said that, while intelligent people can be as foolish as anyone else (and most of the protagonists of any Romero zombie movie strike me as being above average in the smarts department) wise people rarely get into the kind of trouble that makes for good cinematic conflict. I don’t know you well, and thus, do not know what any of your favorite movies are, but I would bet a stack of Confederate money sight unseen that any random five of said favorite films are probably full of intelligent-yet-foolish people getting into all kinds of whacky-ass trouble. As a random example that may mean nothing to you at all, one of my favorite movies of all time is Walter Hill’s EXTREME PREJUDICE, and it is packed to the running boards with some of the biggest goddam fools in the history of mankind, nearly all of whom wander the landscape with gigantic frickin’ automatic pistols in either hand blowing holes the size of Abilene in anything that walks, flies, or crawls within fifty yards on either side of them. This is not wise behavior, nor is it even particularly smart behavior, yet I find I like nearly every single character in the movie, even that smarmy Cash Bailey in his goddam ice cream suit.

Now, I dig that you find all the characters in DIARY OF THE DEAD intensely dislikeable. I myself found the kid with the camera entirely obnoxious, and certainly will not dispute your previously made point that in ‘real life’ (whatever that can possibly mean in this context) someone would have broken his frickin’ camera toot goddam sweet. But, in ‘real life’, many many people would have realized what was going on very quickly from watching George Romero movies, and would have known from the start that they had to shoot the zombies in the head to put ‘em down, and I would think at least one character at one point would have said “thank jesus it’s SLOW zombies, if it was FAST zombies like from that Zack Snyder remake I’d just put the gun in my mouth right now”.

Romero’s never been subtle in this department, but he’s gone overboard in the last two films.

I liked one or two of the characters in LAND, although I grant you, Romero most likely didn’t want me to. I liked most of the characters in DIARY, although I confess that I thought the most awesome character in the whole movie was the deaf Amish farmer, and I was a bit disappointed that the Obligatory Cool Black Guy turned out to be a bit part.

It looks pretty, and it’s got some great shots and splatter-gags, but the film is compromised by the various narrative cheats. Romero seems to want it all ways, with shifts between first-person and third-person and omniscient narrators, and as a result, his always-less-than-delicate preaching gets clunkier.

None of that bothered me over much. I thought the subjective nature of the mostly first person camera work made the whole zombie apocalypse thing seem much more immediate and compelling, and while I’m a student of film, and am generally way more analytical than nearly everyone else I know, I don’t deconstruct video shot by shot or frame by frame.

If you can believe the horror-news, a Diary sequel is already signed and in the scripting phase.

As Romero has never picked up the threads of any previously established characters, I doubt any subsequent zombie films he makes will actually be true ‘sequels’. However, as I said previously, if he’s going to give us something like another DAWN OF THE DEAD, only, you know, a better one than we got from Snyder, I say ‘hurray’ and retire from field.

Thanks for the detailed response. I rarely get to have any kind of intelligent conversation on the Internet any more.

My apologies, Herr Vonder Haar. You know what happens when I get going about zombies.

—

The thematic underpinnings (the whole ‘living humanity sucks, so let’s turn the world over to the zombies’ dealio), while the logical culmination of all Romero’s finger shaking in the previous films… — Doc Nebula

I got to hear Tom Savini himself lament, albiet diplomatically, Land, which culminated in his ultimate condemnation: “You don’t let zombies go to the promised land…you shoot them in the head.”

Sometimes you have to ignore the subtext. — Doc Nebula

That would’ve been easier to do if Romero hadn’t bludgeoned the audience with it; having Dennis Hopper, of all people, rant about The Terrorists isn’t using a deft directorial touch. Land was Romero’s “message movie,” while the themes present in his previous zombie efforts were mostly (Dawn is the exception) manufactured by critics and grad students.

…I might be inclined to opine that WORLD WAR Z was probably largely or entirely inspired by the original work of George Romero. — Doc Nebula

That goes without saying. However, you mentioned being “fascinated with how Romero re-imagined the events of the Zombie Apocalypse for the early 21st century,” and he came too late to that party.

…wise people rarely get into the kind of trouble that makes for good cinematic conflict…but I would bet a stack of Confederate money sight unseen that any random five of said favorite films are probably full of intelligent-yet-foolish people getting into all kinds of whacky-ass trouble.

I don’t mind “foolishness” (your phrasing) in movies—I’m very forgiving, just ask Pete—but I also expect people to act sensibly within the parameters of the film itself. Take Diary—after the third time that Our Cast got burned for failing to do a sweep of their safehouse to make sure it was actually, ya know, safe, I just wanted them gone. “Foolishness” is a major component of why I found Land so loathesome. John Leguizamo is apparently a seasoned veteran of The Zombie Apocalypse, and yet his master plan is to blow up the city unless he’s given a few million dollars in currency. No, he doesn’t ask for gasoline or supplies or armaments—he wants useless cash. I can only assume he wanted to corner the world market on makeshift toilet paper.

Romero, justified or not, has a certain gravitas that is expected from his work, and I don’t tolerate wacky hijinks in his flicks (unless they involve killer monkeys or knights on motorcycles, of course).

…and while I’m a student of film, and am generally way more analytical than nearly everyone else I know, I don’t deconstruct video shot by shot or frame by frame. — Doc Nebula

This, um, “student of film” (snort) doesn’t deconstruct the shots, either; however, Romero forces that deconstruction upon the viewer when he makes the All-Seeing Narrator(s) be film students and/or security cameras. Both the Craft Of Movie-making and theme of Seeing Is Believing—OR IS IT?! become instrumental—and invasive—parts of Diary, and they’re impossible to ignore.

As Romero has never picked up the threads of any previously established characters, I doubt any subsequent zombie films he makes will actually be true ‘sequels’. — Doc Nebula

Actually, Romero’s most recent words on the matter said that Diary II would continue following the travails of Diary’s survivors.

(If you want great horror coverage, I highly recommend Rue Morgue magazine, and the Dread Central website (www.dreadcentral.com).)

Okay, I’ll keep this brief.

There are many, many reasons I like DIARY OF THE DEAD. None of your reasons for disliking it are enough to overcome the totality of these reasons, a few of which I will list below:

* Kid’s birthday party with ZOMBIE CLOWN!!!!

* An all new Tarot, featuring The Hanged Zombie From An Overpass!

* That deaf Amish farmer ROCKED.

Honestly, none of the cast and characters in DIARY bothered me anywhere near as much as they bothered you, except for the kid with the camera, who was necessary to the film’s central conceit.

As to LAND OF THE DEAD, yes, the villains were annoyingly stupid and it’s certainly the least of all the previous Romero zombie movies. I myself would have preferred to see a film where humanity started to get its act back together and retake their world from the walking dead. But Romero’s pessimism is probably one of the reasons he and Stephen King get along so well; neither of them are particularly well known for giving their audience happy endings. And having the Inevitable Cool Black Guy be a zombie was, I thought, a pretty nifty twist.

Our Host has gone above and beyond in letting two goobers duke it out. Much obliged, hoss.

—

There are many, many reasons I like DIARY OF THE DEAD. None of your reasons for disliking it are enough to overcome the totality of these reasons…. — Doc Nebula

Perish the thought(s) that I was trying to either sway you to my side, or diminish your enjoyment of any/all of the films; while I may be an Internet loudmouth, I’m definitely not a piss-on-your-parade kinda guy. It’s just that the one-two shock to the zombie zeitgeist in 2004 (Dawn remake) and 2005 (Land) brought out the Romero-devotees-slash-apologists in force, and trying to get a critical discussion going was nigh-impossible. And while enough time has (seemingly) passed for those first two, this year’s Diary just stirred up the geek-hive all over again.

I myself would have preferred to see a film where humanity started to get its act back together and retake their world from the walking dead. — Doc Nebula

You touch upon yet another gripe I had with Land. It seemed as if everyone was armed, from the most elite guardsman to the sickliest of street urchins. If there was relative equity as far as hardware went, then WHY did the underclass put up with the lousy treatment? I couldn’t see that feudal-model in the survivor city working for any length of time; human nature being what it is, the lowly Have-Nots would’ve made quick work of the Haves, and after the ass-kicking to level the playing field and whip the pampered into shape, a united front against the ghouls could coalesce. (See World War Z, again—I can’t pimp that work enough.)

But Romero’s pessimism is probably one of the reasons he…[isn’t] particularly well known for giving [his] audience happy endings. — Doc Nebula

And the one definitive happy ending we DID get out of all Romero’s dead-flicks (which, of course, transpires in the lamentable Land…sigh) involved the zombies heading out to what was essentially one gigantic, post-Armageddon nature preserve, and the surviving hobos, through no efforts of their own, “taking back the streets” in the most anticlimactic of fashions. Gah.

And having the Inevitable Cool Black Guy be a zombie was, I thought, a pretty nifty twist. — Doc Nebula

Except that The-Inevitable-Cool-Black-Guy—named “Big Daddy,” of all things—violated Romero’s own established rules of zombiedom, in that he ignored all prey and proceeded to “fixatedly march on a mission” to “avenge his people.” He didn’t chow down on a SINGLE person—not those that invaded his turf at the beginning, not those that were being ripped apart mere inches from him during the invasion, and not even those he cornered at the climax. Granted, Day’s Bub established precedent for “humanized” zombies, but it took intensive attention and training—plus copious quantities of fleshy snack-treats—to get It to become a Him, and to behave with that endearing docile, slack-jawed, big-dumb-dog demeanor.

Sure, sure…Big Daddy may have been super-intelligent (despite being a pump-jockey) pre-reanimation, or a mutant wonder-cadaver, or simply dead long enough to regain some semblance of intelligence on his own; however, his mere presence and subsequent Louis Farrakhorpse/Shaka Ghoulu routine seemed as if Romero was purposefully trying to not only milk the whole “Boy, Romero Is Sure Racially Progressive!” label with which he’s been tagged by those aforementioned critics and grad students, but also fill a quota to appease them. “I’ve done Everyman-Black-Guy, Super-Soldier-Black-Guy, Rasta-Chopper-Pilot-Black-Guy, so what’s left? Eureka! Black-Power-Black-Guy-(But-Who’s-Actually-DEAD)! What a twist!” (And while Black-Power-Black-Guy-(But-Who’s-Actually-Alive-This-Time)! was immediately recycled in Diary, he was a genuinely welcome addition to the film—thanks, in no small part, to the competence he displayed in glaring counterpoint to Our Protagonists—and I would have no problem if sequels focused on him.)

(I have a humorous aside about Big Daddy. At a recent monster-con—with this year being both the 40th anniversary of Night and the debut of Diary, the horror-circuit is in overdrive—I attended an “Actors Behind The Undead” panel, which united various and sundry zombie players (Night’s The Original Ghoul, Dawn’s Nurse and Sweater Zombies, Day’s Bub, and more) from Romero’s canon. They were collectively demure and appreciative and completely stunned at their fan-fame and geek-fortune…well, except for one actor, and that was Eugene “Big Daddy” Clark. He explained, in quite the stentorian, elaborate, over-earnest, humorless, self-satisfied, and all-around wayyyy-too-fucking-serious fashion, the “labor” and “artistry” and “depth” and “craft” and “Craft” and “CRAFT!!!” that went into his “authentic” and “genuine” and “REAL” portrayal of a shambling, lurching, nigh-mute-except-for-animalistic-growling simpleton. It was one of the most unintentionally hilarious and ridiculous things I’ve ever seen; only his graciousness towards the fans that sought him out for autographs and pics saved him from being amongst the most pompous and insufferable of gasbags. Hopefully—and probably inevitably, as those things go—a future in fandom circles will instill some humility.)

—

Whether or not I finally have the last word, I have to say that this back-and-forth has been a hoot and a holler. I wouldn’t mind stopping by your blog, if for no other reason than to detail my OTHER Land gripes that haven’t come up in this overblown-to-the-point-of-madness thread. Viva La Nerd-Rage! (And if you ask nicely, I may even tell you the Secret Origin behind why Romero and His Flesheaters get me all a’twitterpated.)

I wouldn’t mind stopping by your blog, if for no other reason than to detail my OTHER Land gripes that haven’t come up in this overblown-to-the-point-of-madness thread.

Well, my DIARY OF THE DEAD review is up here, and I don’t much care about Google’s bandwidth, so feel free to come by and knock yourself out. ;)