|
Post by GL on Nov 9, 2009 10:50:05 GMT -5
Interesting. So you find a completely fictitious monster that could never actually exist more frightening than a crazy person who is conflicted about what he does, as is virtually every real serial killer or mass murderer? I guess I just have to disagree. As Romero himself pointed out, the myths of vampires were really based upon people being unable to explain away or understand mental illness and the drive of some insane people to commit murder. Instead, they explained it away by suggesting that these people were monsters rather than that they were ill. Today we know that there are no vampires. There are, however, a damn lot of folks who are crazy enough to kill people and think they are somehow justified or othewise unable to keep from doing so . Right on. I have absolutely no interest in those kinds of films, and find them to be quite dull and nearly worthless. Following those kinds of films is rather useless to me, as I don't find them scary or intimidating, I'm just bored stiff of them, and hence don't watch them. To put it in another analogy: I don't want to watch a man driven insane thinking that a piece of dog-s hit is talking to him and making him kill, I just want to see him killing because the dog-shi t has already broken him down and he is out there killing. That is a much more enjoyable film to me.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Dec 10, 2009 11:00:04 GMT -5
Well I thought the movie was phenomenal, loved that it didn't answer the question for you, as to whether he was really a Vampire.I'm watching it as I write this, the shooting of the film is masterful, great montage shots of the killing in the beginning.
The film is very stylistic, particularly the black and white scenes, John Amplus with his unusual looks was perfect for the role. I found it to be a very sad movie and at the end was torn between feeling disgusted by his actions, and sympathetic to his plight.
5 from me, Romero's best movie between NOTLD and Dawn.
|
|