Quote:
Originally Posted by Sculpt
I understand what your saying.
The characters in the 2004 version were very forgetable... but I didn't find the characters in the original all that interesting either. I remember them, but wouldn't say they were particulary likable... but I could relate to them and feel their situation through them, so that was their strong point. Still, I don't know that either film was primarily about the characters.
Many talk about the original as social commentary and allegory. Did you think of it like that?
|
Yeah I definitely agree about the social commentary because that's what Romero's zombie movies were always known for.
And yeah his characters were always relatable which is exactly what made them so likable in my opinion. I personally think that the more human a character is the better.
I mean his characters did have their flaws but they were realistic and understandable. Even the villains like Harry Cooper and Captain Rhodes were understandable in the way they behaved during the zombie apocalypse.
Of course I have to admit that the movies he released after the remake of Night of the Living Dead didn't feel the same. Land of the Dead felt like a Mad Max knockoff, and his other movies like Diary of the Dead weren't very impressive. I think Romero was trying too hard to appeal to the younger audience instead of sticking with what he did best.