George A. Romero’s Worst Movie

by

#15 in my ranking of George A. Romero’s filmography.

This movie is quite poorly written, despite being a zombie film that might appeal to fans who enjoy gory scenes. However, before the quality gore emerges, one has to endure an hour of incoherent metaphors, poor plot development, and cringe-worthy dialogue. Frankly, it doesn’t seem like the creation of Romero, the minimalist director known for his tight focus, subtle characterization, and films like “Night of the Living Dead” and “Dawn of the Dead.” Instead, it appears to be the work of a more obvious and irascible filmmaker who made “Day of the Dead,” characterized by overbearing simplicity. Adding to the disappointment is the fact that the portrayed zombie world lacks any semblance of logic, which makes for a tedious viewing experience until the zombies start devouring people in creative ways.

In the aftermath of the zombie apocalypse, Paul Kaufman (Dennis Hopper) governs Pittsburgh with absolute authority, confined within the upper echelons of Fiddler’s Green, a colossal skyscraper. Under his command stands Riley (Simon Baker), who ventures out to smaller towns surrounding Pittsburgh for one final supply run before he retires, reluctantly. Cholo (John Leguizamo), Kaufman’s second-in-command, is impulsive and has been selling liquor at exorbitant prices to accrue enough funds to eventually join Kaufman in Fiddler’s Green.

As a film enthusiast with a penchant for the undead, I must admit that I’ve always found an issue with zombie movies: their monstrous inhabitants are slow, dim-witted, and easily dispatched. It seems preposterous that such a mindless outbreak could overrun the world without any intervention. Yet, the narrative often paints a picture where the apocalypse spread too swiftly to halt, leading us to a standstill where the last vestiges of humanity are fortified behind walls and rivers, while the zombies aimlessly wander outside, ceasing to eat but persistently moving on.

The conundrum lies in the fact that the number of zombies can only escalate with each human death. Their population growth can no longer increase exponentially. They become easy targets for a well-equipped military force. So, one might ask, why isn’t there an organized effort to eliminate as many of these creatures as possible, clear out zones, and reclaim the world? It needn’t be a top-down approach; grassroots efforts could see small towns cleared and survivors living independently. The heroes from Night of the Living Dead could have easily accomplished this in their time.

Instead of Pittsburgh appearing with any signs of industry, it’s filled only with residents aimlessly walking the streets, resembling the poor inhabitants wandering the market in Fiddler’s Green. There’s no manufacturing taking place; instead, they scavenge for canned goods from neighboring towns and indulge in various vices to keep them complacent. This scene may seem almost nonsensical unless it symbolizes America under a rule that justifies suppression of its citizens’ liberties by using conflict as an excuse. In other words, the situation is confusing, but it represents a metaphor. Ah, I despise symbolism. It’s hard to critique since it’s a figurative representation. Oh well.

In Pittsburgh, there are no signs of industrial activity; instead, you find people wandering aimlessly through the city streets, much like poor shoppers in Fiddler’s Green. There’s no production happening here, only scavenging for canned goods from nearby towns and indulging in vices to keep the populace subdued. This scenario may seem odd unless it serves as a symbol for America under a government that uses conflict as an excuse for suppressing its citizens’ freedoms. In other words, this scene is puzzling, but it’s a metaphorical representation. I can’t stand symbolism; it’s challenging to critique because it’s a figurative expression.

Lastly:

Pittsburgh lacks any indication of industrial activity, and instead, you see people wandering aimlessly through the streets, similar to poor shoppers in Fiddler’s Green. There’s no manufacturing happening; rather, they collect canned goods from surrounding towns and engage in various vices to keep the populace passive. This situation may appear strange unless it symbolizes America under a government that uses conflict as an excuse for restricting its citizens’ liberties. In other words, this scene is enigmatic, but it represents a metaphorical portrayal. I find symbolism frustrating; it’s difficult to evaluate because it’s a figurative depiction.

Essentially, the narrative revolves around an armored truck, which Cholo decides to steal in retaliation for being denied entry into a club by Kaufman. Inside this truck are missile launchers that he intends to use to destroy Fiddler’s Green. To retrieve the stolen truck, Kaufman enlists Riley, who designed it (a seemingly insignificant detail), and accompanies him along with his friend Charlie and a prostitute named Slack. The film could have been passable if it only focused on this mission, but it falls short due to poor dialogue that unnecessarily clarifies simple concepts for the supposedly unintelligent audience members. For instance, it explains that zombies are attracted to fireworks, even though this is quite obvious. Unfortunately, these unnecessary explanations appear throughout the film.

Concurrently, Eugene Clark, or Big Daddy as he’s known, has transformed into a highly intelligent zombie capable of strategic thinking and leadership, amassing an ever-growing horde of undead towards Pittsburgh, guided by Fiddler’s Green as a guiding light in the darkness. The film has faced criticism for its inconsistent world-building, particularly in terms of security. For instance, there are scenes showing electric fences meant to deter them, yet the river is scarcely guarded. One might wonder if humanity, at this stage, would overlook such a basic weakness as zombies being able to traverse water without harm. This seems like a crucial question that should have been addressed and addressed early on in preparation.

The reason it isn’t protected is that, if it were, the events depicted at the end wouldn’t have transpired. However, this apparent lack of security is more a reflection of the characters’ actions than their intelligence. Despite its role in shaping the film’s universe, the plot seems overshadowed by the excessive simplicity and poor decision-making that pervade it. Engaging with such a simplistic narrative proves challenging when one considers the surrounding elements’ apparent lack of sophistication. To put it bluntly, it feels quite dumb.

The more intense and gruesome scenes towards the end of the movie are well-executed, despite the fact that nothing preceding it was coherent or interesting in any way. Moreover, Romero has a knack for capturing the impending zombie horde, which looks quite impressive at times, as I am trying to convey.

This film seems poorly constructed from start to finish. The narrative lacks coherence, and the characters appear one-dimensional and lacking intelligence. The plot developments are illogical and confusing, leaving the viewer questioning the overall purpose of the story. While I appreciate the graphic violence, it fails to compensate for the film’s fundamental flaws.

Instead of opting to create another zombie film following the success of Zach Snyder’s “Dawn of the Dead,” Romero might have considered attempting to secure funding for a different project.

Read More

2025-02-21 00:15