Gore and Dialogue Issues (Spoilers)

[ChokeOnEm]

Longtime Romero fan here. Like most of you, I consider the original trilogy the holy grail of zombie flicks. With each passing new installment, I find myself falling into the same trap of breathlessly waiting for Romero to deliver a classic. For ‘Survival’ I remembered to manage expectations, but I would be lying if I said a part of me didn’t come away disappointed. I was hoping for a film at least on the level of 'Land', and to some extent, it meets this modest goal (let’s just put Diary behind us, shall we). The setting is unique, Kenneth Walsh steals the show, and the feuding rivalry between the Muldoons and the O'Flynns is one of the fresher spins on the genre in some time. Romero’s dark humor is also on-display throughout. Religious hypocrisy is his latest target, just as terror politics was skewered in "Land". Here, the “pro-life” (or would it be "pro-living dead”?) island patriarch, Seamus Muldoon, just as soon blasts the deadheads away as he does pray for their salvation. The final shot is also a classic (shame so many reviewers felt the need to spoil it). However, I have to give 'Land' the edge due to the far superior gore work of Nicotero. Many of the practical splatter efx are just really poor here. Survival’s disembowelment scene(s), in particular, barely even measure up to the original ‘78 Dawn. Back then, a young Savini worked his magic, and could have you believe a biker was literally having his guts torn ashred by blue faced hordes. In Survival, there’s little integration between the actors and the feeding frenzy, everything is just a noticeably fake prop torso. This is also visibly jarring during a scene where a character has the skin ripped from his skull. The dummy head flails about weightlessly exactly like, well, a dummy head. Of all the shortcomings of Romero’s recent output, weak and limited gore is not one I expect. Dripping entrails and viscera don’t make or break a movie, but in the case of a zombie film, especially a Romero one, it IS a factor. During 'Land', I thought Savini’s master touch was sorely missed. In Survival, KNB is missed. If a Romero film can’t even adequately deliver on the red stuff, why bother? Technical quibbles aside, I also think Alan Van Sprang’s overacting is worth a mention. Van Sprang has a good look and is a likeable lead, but on two occasions his character goes into such a massive freak out that it makes Tom Towles' turn as Harry Cooper in the Night remake look restrained by comparison. As with Big Daddy howling and barking at the moon, I have to wonder, where is the quality control? Does nobody behind the video assist monitor recognize the cheese and shout “CUT”? Lastly, Romero has seemed to develop a lazy writing quirk. On no less than 2 to 3 occasions, Character A will say a line of dialogue only to have Character B recite the same line back to A for dramatic effect. For example, Tomboy upon catching O’Flynn when he jumps to the ferry says “You’re lucky I’m me.” Later, when O’Flynn steps forward to rescue Tomboy from the clutches of the Muldoons, he quips to her “you’re lucky I’m me.” This happens again when Tomboy mercy kills the transforming Francisco, saying “you finally changed my life forever.” This dovetails with Francisco, who said earlier that he would change her life. Nicotine also repeats the line “If you ever get to be full grown” twice for effect. I don’t know how else to say this, but this is the hallmark of a hackish amateur, not a seasoned pro like Romero. I normally cringe when this happens even once in a movie script, but repeatedly? C’mon. All in all, as others have mentioned, 'Survival' is a step up from 'Diary', but if you were hoping to be disabused of the notion that Romero has lost quite a bit between Day and now, don’t bother. Whether this can be chalked up to Romero’s own advanced age or the loss of Savini and Rubinstein, I have no idea, but it cannot be denied. I’d be less inclined to micro-analytically harp on these things if the movie raised the bar for squibs and inventive use of pig guts, but even in this shallow respect, Romero has been soundly outmatched by the new kids on the block. Like I said earlier, what’s the point? C

[venom012]

It is all about budget. I say give him 100 mil to make a movie now. We will be all in awe.

[ChokeOnEm]

It is all about budget. I say give him 100 mil to make a movie now. We will be all in awe. I don’t know Venom, if that were true, I don’t think the studio-financed 'Land' would have been a letdown to so many. Both ‘Land’ and ‘Survival’ are *almost* there, but various creative choices prevent them from being classics. ‘Land’ would probably be held in the same regard as the original trilogy if not for the terrible camp performance of Eugene Clark as Big Daddy. Of course, the responsibility of reining in a bad performance ultimately lies with the director. At this point in his career, I think George needs a collaborator to help refine some of his ideas. As a Romero fanboy at heart, it goes without saying, my hope springs eternal.

[clanglee]

It is all about budget. I say give him 100 mil to make a movie now. We will be all in awe. I am afraid that that might not be the case. . . .anymore at least. I think George has been in the low budget pits for so long that he honestly wouldn't know what the hell to do with that much money. After Dawn. . or even Day. . .that would have been just wonderful. . . .but after his recent crop . . . .meh. . .I think it would turn out to be a very expensive "disappointing" movie.

[Trin]

He's not likely to spend the extra 90 million dollars getting people to hone his story, plot, and characters. And that's where he's been falling down. He could make a great zombie film on his current budgets if he'd spend more time telling a story. Sadly, he's failing on the free parts. I say this not having seen Survival yet...

[fulci fan]

It is all about budget. I say give him 100 mil to make a movie now. We will be all in awe. Give him that much and we will have a fucking living dead musical on our hands!

[MagicMoonMonkey]

I thought the gore level was limited also for a Romero movie that had set scenes up for some classic moments of gore. This leads me to believe that there is gorey additions to some scenes out there waiting for a director's cut, which might just come when the movie has it's US DVD release. If there isn't any additional gore scenes then Ol' George must be getting soft in his old age as there was a couple of scenes that screamed out for carnage. One in particular was the guy that was dangling from the rope as the zombies approached. We haven't seen a dangling kill before...

[krakenslayer]

I thought the gore level was limited also for a Romero movie that had set scenes up for some classic moments of gore. This leads me to believe that there is gorey additions to some scenes out there waiting for a director's cut, which might just come when the movie has it's US DVD release. If there isn't any additional gore scenes then Ol' George must be getting soft in his old age as there was a couple of scenes that screamed out for carnage. One in particular was the guy that was dangling from the rope as the zombies approached. We haven't seen a dangling kill before... There were one or two scenes that seemed specifically to be cut - one was when Lem Muldoon was dangling upside down with the zombie, we see him hanging there freaking out, then we never see him again (as Monkey mentioned); there was also another guy we last see being approached by zombies, and another who's getting his face and/or neck eaten off but digitally superimposed zombies keep walking across in front of the scene, obscuring the more gruesome detail. It looks to me like it has been cut for an R-rating - in anticipation of the US theatrical release no doubt.

[MagicMoonMonkey]

There were one or two scenes that seemed specifically to be cut - one was when Lem Muldoon was dangling upside down with the zombie, we see him hanging there freaking out, then we never see him again (as Monkey mentioned); there was also another guy we last see being approached by zombies, and another who's getting his face and/or neck eaten off but digitally superimposed zombies keep walking across in front of the scene, obscuring the more gruesome detail. It looks to me like it has been cut for an R-rating - in anticipation of the US theatrical release no doubt. It does reek of the release of land prior to it's director's cut. shortened scenes and digital zombilees.

[krakenslayer]

It does reek of the release of land prior to it's director's cut. shortened scenes and digital zombilees. Yeah, Don't get me wrong, I thought the movie was pretty solid in the gore department - it had about ten times more gore than Diary and was bloodier than Night and the theatrical cut of Land - but it was obvious to me that there is more we haven't seen.

[ChokeOnEm]

- but it was obvious to me that there is more we haven't seen. I hope you're right. Somehow tho I'm doubtful. Considering this was made independently I wouldn't expect any studio-enforced cuts. Similar to Diary...there was no difference between the theatrical version and the dvd version. The scene where the one rancher is left swinging at the zombies' mercy did strike me as odd. Seemed like the perfect set-up for a classic Romero disembowelment.

[MagicMoonMonkey]

Has there been any news on the issue of the limited (or perhaps, edited) gore in this movie? With the US dvd release on it's way, has there been any mention of a 'Director's Cut' adding in a few minutes of missing maulling in the same manner in which the Land DVD release did. It's not a quality Romero gorefest if it doesnt have a carnage ridden ending for lead bad guys. Land let me down badly when Kauffman was blown up rather than torn apart screaming.

[ChokeOnEm]

Has there been any news on the issue of the limited (or perhaps, edited) gore in this movie? With the US dvd release on it's way, has there been any mention of a 'Director's Cut' adding in a few minutes of missing maulling in the same manner in which the Land DVD release did. Judging by the promotional dvd materials out there (see other threads on this page), it doesn't look like there will be any uncut gore. Which is a shame. As other have mentioned, during the climax one of the Muldoons is left swinging in the air in the barn. A perfect set-up for him to be ripped apart. It's not a quality Romero gorefest if it doesnt have a carnage ridden ending for lead bad guys. Land let me down badly when Kauffman was blown up rather than torn apart screaming. Yeh, Kauffman's demise is underwhelming. Big Daddy rolling the pipe bomb, or whatever it is, is a series' low. Worse yet, the burning money visual motif was already done by George in Two Evil Eyes. In that film, it was blood splattered money - but no difference, still the same hamfisted anti-capitalist moralizing.

[Mr.G]

This has probably been answered before but why has Romero switched from 'old school' FX to the CGI? Is it that much cheaper or is it just more convenient from a time perspective?

[bassman]

This has probably been answered before but why has Romero switched from 'old school' FX to the CGI? Is it that much cheaper or is it just more convenient from a time perspective? It's mostly time and money. Basically he has to do it in order to get the job done. Although I know they had to make a CG pez preacher in Land because Nicotero couldn't get the puppet to look right. Somwhere I read that Romero would rather use practical effects, but if CG will save prep time and budget, he goes with that.