11/24/2023 0 Comments Return of the living dead![]() ![]() However by 1985 the slow, lumbering image of a zombie had ceased to appeal to anyone outside of die hard gorehounds. Romero topped himself with his sequel, "Dawn of the Dead" in 1978 which many considered the pinnacle of the genre. 1968's "Night of the Living Dead" changed everything for horror movies and that effect is still felt today but in a far more watered down form. Romero is rightly crowned the father of zombie cinema. If that word is "Brains!" then you're beginning to see the bigger picture. After seemingly claiming the crown as king of zombies, I'd like to argue why George Romero did NOT make the best zombie movie(s) ever with his filmography but rather it was Dan O'Bannon's "The Return of the Living Dead." Quick.think of the first word that enters your mind when I say zombie. ![]() All in all, immensely enjoyable and the best of the series by some margin, being the only one to be completely satisfying.After decades of zombie movies hitting theaters (or going direct-to-video,) along with numerous video games, comic books, novels and one hit TV show, we've certainly had an ample sampling of what is good (and not so good) in the genre. The twist is deliciously ironic, adding to the freshness when it easily could have been tired or anti-climactic. The film also cleverly and wisely makes the zombies the stars and uses them brilliantly, furthermore these zombies actually are very menacing, a real threat, do a lot more than just shuffle and plod around and are wonderfully tongue-in-cheek, exuding real personality. Return of the Living Dead is directed with adroit class and a clear fondness for the genre by Dan O' Bannon, and while some of the punk teens are annoyingly and one-dimensionally written and acted with not much spark (the sole problems with the film, and they are not that major), the leads are written very likeably and Clu Gulager, James Karen, Thom Mathews and Beverly Randolph are charming and lots of fun (all of them at least knowing what sort of film they're in), Gulager and Karen are particularly good. As well as a hilarious and clever script that's never forced, doesn't get bogged down in too many explanations or too much exposition, and that is very quotable (which I don't think any of the sequels achieved and it was something that 4 and 5 could only dream of doing so), and a story that seemed tired in concept but felt very fresh in execution with so many funny moments and an equal number of highly disturbing and scary ones. There is a killer 80s soundtrack that still sounds good and haunting rather than cheesy, and instead of the outdated quality it could have had the soundtrack makes one nostalgic for the 80s. It is definitely the best-looking film in the series, it is stylishly shot and lit with a wonderful ominous atmosphere, complete with atmospheric sets, above average effects and some great make-up on the zombies. The original however is an immensely enjoyable film, with its very few flaws barely noticeable amidst the huge amount of good. The sequels varied in quality, with 2 and 3 being acceptable enough though with their problems and 4 (Necropolis) and 5 (Rave to the Grave) being terrible, the latter being marginally worse and being one of the worst sequels ever made. This is saying a lot too, because to me this is the only film of the five Return of the Living Dead films to be above good standard.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |