Sign up to add this to your collection
|
Sign up to add this to your favorites
|
|
43%
Overall Rating
|
|
Ranked #8,859
...out of 13,206 movies
|
Sign up to check in!
|
Night of the Living Dead: REANIMATED features the work of various artists, animators, and filmmakers from around the globe. The mixed media featured include puppetry, CGI, hand-drawn animation, illustration, acrylics, claymation, and even 'animated' tattoos, just to name a few. This mass-collaboration approach is less about remaking Romero's film and more about viewing the classic through an experimental lens. Instead of trying to alter Image Ten's work, NOTLD:R seeks to showcase the responses that artists from around the world have had to this landmark film.
--TMDb
|
|
Review by Ginose
Added: January 11, 2011
I suppose throughout the course of our existence on this planet mankind has formulated several opinions on what we believe art is, and I suppose that's an important question. I've heard many interpretations and logic as to what art is, in and of itself, but I think the one that approached me the broadest was "anything that is designed to evoke an emotion, that being it's first purpose". Now, this is obviously a bit general, but can you really fault it for being such? It's a good interpretation of the varying degrees to which we observe works of art, be they paintings, songs or films.
We oft view classic cinema greats with a strong bit of reverence, but not simply because of their legacy or presentation, but because we feel the emotions that they were supposed to imprint on the generations past, and with features like that, is it arguable what art is? Truly, many a film through out the ages is a great work of art in some way or another, but truly timeless ones are things that we can hold onto, no matter what attempts to trump or emulate in the future... or remake. Not to say that there aren't honorable attempts, but is pure emulation as artistic as true creation? I don't think it can be... or... rather I DIDN'T think it could be.
"Night of the Living Dead: Reanimated" set out to do something completely new and different and, surrealistically, attempt to do it with nothing more than George A. Romero's mortus opus and a team of many, many talented artists of the pen, screen, clay, ink, G-mod, etc.
The take was simple enough: Re-adapt Romero's classic, changing none of the pacing, arrangement or dialogue, and just rework the scenes with new animation styles, as performed by each of the artists available. Now, let me tell you, it did that with a vengeance.
Everything in this film's aesthetic flows perfectly; between each of the different styles and each of the mediums used, and boy do they vary. The style jumps from various forms of animation, both drawn and stop-motion, as well as panel-per-panel drawings, claymation, static-movement and some beautiful cinematography. It was truly a beauty to behold as it progressed, hell, some of the styles I would have liked to have seen the whole movie presented in, but that would have saturated all of the wonder that went into it.
Though, this puts me at ends, aside from praising the film as it is, I don't know what else I can truly say about "NotLD:R". It's a great word of art, and nearly brought a tear to my eye when I realized the type of magic that can happen when artists work together, but the limitless praise I can give to it still always lands me back at "it's a reworking of NotLD". That's all. Past it's surface beauty it's still the same tried and true (and, thankfully, public domain) classic that it has always been, but nothing more or less.
Be that as it may, this is a beauty of a film, and I do advise any fan of the classic to track it down... hell, any fan of ART as a whole should see this movie. It's everything it claims to be and that much more.
8.9/10.
|
|
#1:
Doug
- added 01/25/2011, 04:40 AM
Definitely worth checking out if your a fan of the
original.
|
|
#2:
Crispy
- added 03/20/2012, 04:47 AM
Certainly worth a look; it's an interesting piece
to say the least. Still, there were some styles
that I just personally did not enjoy the aesthetic
of, like the more abstract stuff, whereas others I
felt were more objectively bad choices. Namely,
the lighter toned styles during the more intense
scenes were an awful choice, i.e. the muppets, the
furbies, the looney tunes-esque mice.
|
|
Rate Movie? 
