Document of the Dead

Shot when "making-of's" weren't standard practice yet, this is a fortunate movie in that it not only provides a lot of insight into George Romero's working methods, but also catches him making one of his (and the horror genre's) best films, the original "Dawn of the Dead." There's also a moderate amount of information about "Night of the Living Dead" and "Martin," used to further detail identifiable aspects of his cinematic style. It would have been interesting if the film had gone on to describe the marketing, box-office and general commercial rewards of "Dawn," rather than stopping with post-production and the decision to release without an MPAA rating.

I saw the 2nd of the documentary's three versions, which adds material shot ten years later when he was shooting his part of the two-part horror feature "Two Evil Eyes." That content is fine but doesn't really deepen the profile, beyond showing that Romero hadn't really profited from the horror explosion of the VCr era--perhaps because he preferred to work independently, perhaps because the increasingly franchise-driven nature of mainstream horror didn't appeal to him. (Even though, of course, he had his own "Dead" franchise--but that pretty much reinvented itself with each new entry.) In any case, he seems a bit embattled and weary of the constant struggle for funding in this shorter second section.

Having just finished watching this for the third(and most likely last) time, I can sadly clearly see why I gave up on it around the half-way point the first time; as the credits rolled, I realized that I did not feel entertained or even informed... I merely felt relieved. Add to that the version I watched was only just over an hour in length, not the 90 minutes that this page lists it as, and you can tell that I, personally, was quite underwhelmed by this feature. The presentation felt flat; it really wasn't very engaging or fascinating, in spite of the movie it revolves around being both of those and more. The editing wasn't very tight, nor does it try anything interesting, but rather goes through the motions. However, I think what really slayed this was the idolization of Romero; he is compared to Hitchcock, his style is mercilessly praised and his films, shots and cuts are analyzed to mean far more and be far more planned and thought out than they actually are. Imagine the dichotomy when Romero himself, in his interviews, comes off as a down-to-Earth, nice, pleasant guy who just happens to rock at making horror movies and manages to inject satire and social commentary without it coming across as forced. These clips, as well as Tom Savini's presence(in which he confirms the viewer's first impression of Romero) are what make this watchable. Pacing is non-existent. The voice-over narration sounds as if the speaker is bored out of her mind, but I don't know what they had access to as far as that goes, so I'll cut them some slack on that. In any case, the pseudo-intellectual analysis and shameless praise is far more distracting. I respect Romero... I think he has created one heck of a horror trilogy. He's clearly talented and smart, but the way he's spoken of in this simply comes off as some excited, easily impressionable kids expressing their fandom without having the sense to openly admit that that's what it is. I recommend this to fans of Romero and Dawn of the Dead... just be aware of and prepared for the unintended hyperbole and the lackluster production. 5/10

Well, the one thing I learned from this documentary is that George A. Romero smokes a lot and that he apparently can't give an interview without holding a cigarette in his fingers, whether it's lit or not. Apart from that, this documentary doesn't feature any groundbreaking news or memorable information. I guess that, as usually the case with footage like this, it's a lot more fun to make it than to actually watch it as an extra feature on the DVD. Roy Frumkes probably had the time of his life following and interviewing horror idols like George Romero, Ken Foree and Tom Savini (especially since he was still a student at the time) but for other viewers it's not that interesting. The introduction is rather ingenious, as it shows a comical sketch of the Marx-brothers mocking Pittsburgh (the place where all Romero's movies are set) and than it's just a whole lot of interviews and sequences from "Night", "Dawn" and the modern vampire movie "Martin". The documentary explains how Romero was influenced by the news events of that time and that he's a truly gifted filmmaker with a sixth sense for imaginative camera angles. Stuff we all knew already, in other words. There's some nice trivia about the mall where "Dawn of the Dead" was shot, like for instance, filming was interrupted during the month of December because of the Christmas decoration that couldn't feature in the film. The parts with Tom Savini are also a lot of fun to watch, because he clearly loves his job and was offered a lot of creative freedom by Romero for his zombie make-up in "Dawn". There surely are worse ways to spend 60 minutes of your life, but overall this documentary is not really worth bothering for.

DOCUMENT OF THE DEAD has a promising idea behind it: the making of horror classic DAWN OF THE DEAD. Yet it only features a bit of footage centering around DAWN OF THE DEAD, which is not that interesting. Other footage revolves around MARTIN, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, and TWO EVIL EYES. Tom Savini is interviewed, but seems bitter in most of the footage. Romero seems like a nice, down-to-earth guy and gives valuable information about low-budget filmmaking, distribution, and ratings problems. Only three of the four DAWN leads are interviewed and not in-depth at all, which was of interest to me. Some nice bits about DOCUMENT is a Calgon soap commercial by Romero's 60s company featuring none other than NIGHT stars Russell Streiner and Karl Hardman!; also are some alternate takes of some scenes in DAWN (the scene of zombies breaking through the apartment complex barricade is longer and scarier; dialogue in the scene of subduing a black female zombie) that make me wonder if they appear in ANY cut of the finished product? I'd love to know, they really are more effective. Susan Tyrell, a personal favorite, narrates the whole thing. I love her voice, so it's nice to hear her. Select scenes from NOTLD and MARTIN are featured, but what are they doing here? It's as if director Roy Frumkes ran out of DAWN material and improvised in the editing room! Overall, DOCUMENT is recommended only to hardcore Romero and Savini fans; then again, I'm a hardcore fan myself and I STILL didn't like this. Oh well, give it a try, but don't expect a masterpiece.

A great film if you fall into one of three catagories: a) Horror movie fan, b) more specifically, a George Romero fan, or c) a film student. Basically what this movie boils down to is a look into the world of horror film production. It follows the development of the movie Dawn of the Dead from pre- to post-production. Provides a fascinating look into how exactly a film is shot and put together into its final form. I had heard of this film's existence shortly after I became a rabid Romero fan, and when I bought I was expecting a great supplement to the classic film. I have to admit I was a little disappointed after first viewing. While the movie concentrates on Dawn out of all of Romero's movies, I was left wanting more.