Matthew Ackerly

Great review from the hollywood reporter and Fangoria

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...04010561.story


http://www.fangoria.com/reviews/2-fi...lm-review.html

Paul1957

Some great kills here, not safe for work.

<object width="450" height="300"><param name="movie" value="http://www.traileraddict.com/emd/15570"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.traileraddict.com/emd/15570" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="450" height="300"></embed></object>

Drop

I just don't see why it matters. If the other films are strong enough they should easily override your recent bad memories.

Going out on top doesn't do anything for me. I'd rather someone who has made good stuff keep trying, I'll just pay attention to what is good and enjoy that and ignore the bad.

CreamyGoodness

Looks like they're using more not-too-convincing CGI gore. That guy at the end with the fire extinguisher looked really bad. I suppose they'll do a little more work.

I love Romero, (the first three Dead films, Knightriders, Creepshow), but his last films have really not been good and it just seems a little sad to me.

Solid Snake

That looked like crap....I think his last good film was Day. The zombie attacks were awesome...but...his last great moment in cinema beyond that was probably once that little nightmare intro sequence ends and BAM...I never saw good Romero Film quality again.

Giantrobo

Wow...that was...not good. What's the main story? The Hatfields vs. The McCoy's vs. Living Dead on an Island? I'm sure I'll see it eventually but wow did that come off lame.

One thing that bothered me, and it may have something to do with the CGI, the kills/injuries looked too easy and smooth. You know what I mean? Some of those kills should take more of an effort to perform by both Living Dead and Humans.

Trout

Hey George, enough with the shitty CGI. Pick up the phone and give Tom a call.....

riotinmyskull

that's what i don't understand...he's good friends with one of the best practical effects guys in the business and he's using cgi? fuck.

Adam Tyner

He explains why in the Diary... commentary. It's financial. One, it's easier to do the splattery unrated version and a tamer version since you're starting with nothing. You don't have to shoot multiple versions. Two, and this is the big one, it lets him move on faster. There's a lot more prep time without CG, plus if a practical effect doesn't work, you have to clean the stage, redress the actor, reset everything...it's an hour out the door, and with as staggeringly expensive as it is to keep a crew waiting around, practical effects can get to be a huge financial drain. The downside is that the CG, at least at this pay grade, looks amateurish and embarrassing.

I really wish he would go back to practical effects, but I'd also wish he'd go back to making worthwhile movies, something Diary... most assuredly isn't, and I'm not getting the sense that this new one is any better. I'll still watch it, though, mostly because I hate myself.

wm lopez

I wonder what the political message will be in this movie?
At least it looks bad like the last two.
I hope Romero gets smart and finds a solution to what brings the dead back to life to end this series.

Seantn

I understand cutting corners, but truthfully, I feel if it can't be done well, don't do it. The CGI blood and head shots are so distracting and poorly done. Yes, it takes time to reset shots when using blood and effects...that's what happens when you make a movie. You'd think George of all people would realize this. It's like if an actor complains about the lighting guys taking too long to set up the shots. It's in the actor's best interest to let the lighting guys take their sweet time because based on the lighting, they can be made to look great or like total shit.

Giantrobo

Yeah, George just seems to be just happy to be making a New film rather than a Good film.

Also, the CGI shots aren't even shocking or thrilling. They just make you think, "Wow, that was some bad CGI there".

Mind you, I'm not one who normally bitches about CGI bad or otherwise. And I'm also not one who flies the "Bring back the rubber heads and Karo syrup!" flag. So for me to thrown off by the CGI in that trailer is sayin' something.

Solid Snake

ditto.

This was an issue I had with the recent Rambo. It just didn't leave an impact on me. It was more along the lines of oh..they did that with CG instead of wow...that gut flying down is messy.

Drop

But it's not real any way. Yes it's tactile, but you aren't touching it, you're seeing it processed one way or another. The blood in Dawn looks nothing like really blood, not even remotely. It looks like thick red juice. And there are plenty other bad effects in Dawn too. If it's bad CG or bad practical it's all the same to me. And I feel that bad CG has reached this level of charm. It's just so prominent that you kind of expect it, and usually it has a unique quality for each film. I for one enjoyed the CG in Drag Me to Hell as well.

And it really is a time issue. I don't think it's something to ignore and say that's just how films work. It really impacts a film shoot. Money drains very quickly on an independent film. This is something Romero has learned over 40 years of film making. It really could mean the difference between getting the shot today or tomorrow. And I doubt he's concerned over whether the look bothers some people. It's either something you accept or not, and really isn't something to split hairs over. I mean if CG blood really grates you than the film has many more worse problems.

wm lopez

What I don't get is how can TERMINATOR 2 early 90's cgi be better than anything in 2009?

Giantrobo

Maybe George is letting his Wife run the CGI computer.

Chet Desmond

I'm as big a Romero freak you'll find but that trailer looked awful. I wish George could get the money for something other than another zombie movie. It looks like he's as tired of them as I am.

Troy Stiffler

Not arguing. You're totally right. A few points...

1. T2 mixed practical, on-screen effects with CG. When the T-1000 was getting shot, often times it was just the actor twisting away/towards the camera, for a second or two, before anyone could tell that it was a big, silly, plastic prosthetic. This is the sure-fire way to go. When you have the money, there is no better than filming everything you possibly can. See the new Batman movies. This is also why Aliens looks so much more 'real' than Alien Ressurection.

In the same sense, you can hide the lack of 'realism and believability' behind artistic license - and it works out fine. My example would be Guerillmo Del Toro's movies. On a more 'real life' level, I guess I could say Dawn of the Dead (Snyder's remake).

2. The T-1000 liquid metal is what CG was made for. They weren't over-stretching the boundaries. My example for overstretching the boundaries of CG is always the monkies in Jumanji. The technology just wasn't there. And the puppet lion right before the monkies was much more convincing.

Right now, with Avatar, James Cameron & Co is arguing the point, with $300mil, that they can say, "yea, we can make fully detailed character and environmental CG (erm, motion capture) look just as good as the T-1000 did, as the technology is now there". And I think Avatar will be as close to photoreal was we'll see for the next fifteen years, just like the T-1000 tech.

3. The budget. In it's current state, base CG modeling equipment and software is relatively cheap. A lot of the software programs are $10-$50k for the full sets. The question is talent, time and labor. The talent is a given. I believe that almost anyone who can graduate through graphic arts classes can do their work. When you're budgeted for a certain amount, those VFX need to be done on that day, when you run out of money. If Romero had the money, he could have a team of twenty guys sit around for another two months and do layer after layer after layer and perfect some of those shots (well, up to the capacity of the best CG you ever see). But hiring 20 guys for two months (I'm just using this example totally off the top of my head) is another big investment. You either have that kind of proper preplanning (and a lot of pull) or you don't.

4. The effects supervisor(s). To make a VFX shot look great in post, everything needs to be shot properly. A lot of it comes down to how talented the effects guys are on the shoot. I think this comes down to the money, too. You either get some regular guy who does an alright job, a guy who is underpaid (for now) and does a superb job, or a sure-fire guy from ILM (etc.) who costs a lot of money.

5. Tom Savini is the man.

Then there's always objections. For instance, if I'm not mistaken, one guy spent one year on the final shot of Fight Club (minus teh cock). And I thought that looks fantastic.

JackBurton

In the past, budget constraints have led to improvisation and creative innovation. Some of the greatest practical effects, camera tricks and general "movie magic" have come from the necessity to improvise on a tight budget. CGI has in a large part stifled that, as it often used as way to hastily move a production along or lazily avoid creativity. It can be great when utilized as a tool in addition to traditional effects, but is all too often relied upon as a crutch.

Gizmo

Apparently this is going DTV in the UK.

Solid Snake

well it looks like it's DTV here in the states too.

VHS?

This looks like a Sci-Fi Channel Original

I wasn't expecting much anyway as I was not a fan of Land/Diary so ...
I love Night/Dawn/Day and can watch them many times over but these other 'Dead' films get passed by when on TV

On a side note. I would ove to see a 4hr fan edit of all these going through the years and make it like 60yrs have gone by in a world of 'Dead' ... maybe even add in a little 'Zombieland' for shits and giggles

Paul1957

Romero's Survival of the Dead Finds a Home Source: Magnet Releasing December 18, 2009


George A. Romero's latest zombie offering, Survival of the Dead, has found U.S. distribution.

Magnet Releasing, the genre arm of Magnolia Pictures, announced today that they have the rights. Magnet will release the film as part of its Ultra VOD program this spring, debuting it on VOD platforms nationwide a month before its theatrical release.

Like its predecessors, Survival of the Dead takes place in a desperate, nightmarish world where the dead walk the earth, relentlessly attacking the living. It is the story of Plum Island – a beautiful refuge whose isolation allows two powerful families to maintain a semblance of order in the wake of the zombie holocaust. But as the inhabitants slowly die off, the two clans become sharply divided: the O’Flynns believe that the undead must be destroyed without exception, while the Muldoons insist that afflicted loved ones be kept "alive" until a cure is found. The result is an escalating showdown with echoes of a classic Western stand-off that erupts in brutality and violence.

Says Romero, "I'm a big admirer of the team at Magnolia. They’re creative and passionate, and I'm excited to put Survival in their hands."

http://shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=13349

wm lopez

Why doesn't Romero make a WB weekly series of the DEAD movies?
Since he doesn't want to stop making them and end the whole story line.
The production values of his last 2 DEAD movies are up there with low budget t.v. and he'll be collecting a steady paycheck.

Gizmo

It comes out next week in the UK on DVD and BD. I'm importing the BD.