Very cheaply made film by Director George Romero about a virus, known as Trixie, that has somehow leaked out in a small town in Western Pennsylvania. The military quickly comes, assesses the situation, and then implements martial law. This is a very thought-provoking film and has some clever dialog and direction here and there. The biggest problems arise with Romero's virtually absent budget. We have a cast of amateurs, some moved on to star in other films particularly by Romero. Richard Liberty as Frankenstein in Day of the Dead being the most noteworthy. Despite not having any star power, the cast for the most part does a decent job notwithstanding. But the settings, although very "realistic," just don't create a real sense of fear for me or believability. I wonder what this film might have been with a budget double the size. If you can get past the minuscule budget, you will find an interesting film here. A film I think that has some real issues at hand even now. The things Romero does do well is create suspense based on the feelings of time being an enemy and make some scathing social commentary on the nature of war, science in war, and apocalyptic threads concerning the way rules are all thrown out when faced with doomsday.
142 Reviews
Solid, if not completely absorbing
I_Ailurophile28 October 2021
George Romero's legend as a genre filmmaker is secure; his repertoire is less sure, as his movies can be hit or miss. I admit I started watching 'The crazies' with expectations of something different than what we actually get. However, while the narrative starts slowly, it nonetheless ends up being duly engaging. What begins as a disordered effort to contain an outbreak gradually spirals out into a deepening crisis, and the spotlight on a handful of recalcitrant townspeople humanizes the course of events and a strong overarching theme of distrust in the military. The premise is disquieting, the story as it transpires is often unsettling, and in the midst of all the chaos, what scenes of violence we get are acutely jarring. The sense of horror here is broadly more thematic and conceptual than concrete, but even at that, this is a reasonably worthwhile classic.
The detail in the production design is somewhat impressive considering especially that this was only Romero's fourth film, a few short years after 'Night of the living dead.' The vehicles, props, and costume design presumably ate a fair portion of the budget, joined in that spread by special effects including blood. In general there's not much to speak of in terms of dialogue or characters, but the scene writing is pretty swell. And though never wholly captivating, or engaging to the extent we'd hope, the overall narrative is fairly solid.
Moments that could be emphasized with gravity or emotional weight are passed over with the same detached observer's eye that otherwise captures the unfolding events. With this in mind, the assembled cast get to explore their parts mostly only in instances of worsening infection - but they all inhabit their roles well to tell the story. And this rather summarizes 'The crazies' as a whole: the storytelling and film-making are fine, demonstrating Romero's practiced hand in the genre - and that's about it. Nothing about the movie is bad, but nor is anything exceptional to the point of demanding praise. It's modestly gripping, but not necessarily satisfying; entertaining, but not outright stimulating.
One shouldn't necessarily go out of their way to find this, but it's sufficiently deserving of consideration as to be worth watching if you come across it. As a horror film, and as a George Romero picture, 'The crazies' isn't the most essential slice of cinema, but it's a good time all the same.
Though as a lifelong resident of the greater Pittsburgh area, the idea of anything noteworthy coming out of Evans City, like a classic movie, is still a laugh.
The detail in the production design is somewhat impressive considering especially that this was only Romero's fourth film, a few short years after 'Night of the living dead.' The vehicles, props, and costume design presumably ate a fair portion of the budget, joined in that spread by special effects including blood. In general there's not much to speak of in terms of dialogue or characters, but the scene writing is pretty swell. And though never wholly captivating, or engaging to the extent we'd hope, the overall narrative is fairly solid.
Moments that could be emphasized with gravity or emotional weight are passed over with the same detached observer's eye that otherwise captures the unfolding events. With this in mind, the assembled cast get to explore their parts mostly only in instances of worsening infection - but they all inhabit their roles well to tell the story. And this rather summarizes 'The crazies' as a whole: the storytelling and film-making are fine, demonstrating Romero's practiced hand in the genre - and that's about it. Nothing about the movie is bad, but nor is anything exceptional to the point of demanding praise. It's modestly gripping, but not necessarily satisfying; entertaining, but not outright stimulating.
One shouldn't necessarily go out of their way to find this, but it's sufficiently deserving of consideration as to be worth watching if you come across it. As a horror film, and as a George Romero picture, 'The crazies' isn't the most essential slice of cinema, but it's a good time all the same.
Though as a lifelong resident of the greater Pittsburgh area, the idea of anything noteworthy coming out of Evans City, like a classic movie, is still a laugh.
a movie in desperate need of MORE craziness
Jonny_Numb13 June 2003
Like Romero's "Day of the Dead," this is another marathon of carnage and excess talk, filled with scattered themes (martial law, role of the military, bureaucracy, disease, etc.). It's high-concept stuff, granted, but the budget is low and the script is unfocused. Like the attorney general's definition of "terrorism," the effects of the virus in "The Crazies" is just as vague (abnormal behavior that varies from person to person), but the unpredictability gets tedious after a while. The reason David Cronenberg's similarly-themed "Shivers" worked so well is because the parasites had a specific function (to replace a dead organ) and side-effect (they transform people into sex maniacs), and were confined to one specific location (an apartment complex). "The Crazies" is ambitious, but the unengaging performances and heavy-handed symbolism (tattered American flags, toy soldiers stepped on by real soldiers) renders it a mediocre oddity on Romero's resume.
5/10
5/10
A terrific low budget paranoid thriller!
Infofreak16 January 2004
Romero's zombie classics 'Night Of The Living Dead' and 'Dawn Of The Dead' are two of the best horror movies ever made, but they really cast a huge shadow over his career. Romero made two movies in between that are seriously overlooked, the fascinating character study of a vampire(?) 'Martin', and 'The Crazies', a paranoid thriller in a similar vein to the Dead movies. While not actually a zombie movie as such anyone who enjoys NOTLD or DOTD will find much to admire here. The budget is very low so the production values sometimes leave a bit to be desired and the acting is variable, but overall I think it's a terrific movie with some interesting echoes of both NOTLD and the Vietnam war. Will MacMillan (David) and Lane Carroll (Judy) aren't familiar to me, and neither is Lloyd Hollar who plays the Colonel in charge of the quarantine (he's very good), but cult fave Lynn Lowry ('Shivers') plays space case Kathy, her Dad (Richard Liberty) will be recognized by anybody who has seen 'Day Of The Dead', and David's 'Nam buddy Clank (Harold Wayne Jones) went on to appear in Romero's 'Knightriders'. And then there's the wonderful Richard France playing a similar character to the one he would memorably play in DOTD, an outraged scientist. 'The Crazies' pretty much flopped back in the 70s but looking at it now restored for DVD it's obviously one of Romero's best and a must for any horror buff. The commentary track by Romero and William 'Maniac' Lustig is also highly recommended as it offers lots of insights into the highs and lows of low budget film making.
B-Movie with things to say and a novel way to say them
youngcollind28 June 2021
It's easy to see this as a close cousin to the zombie genre of which it's creator is the undisputed king. However, it flips the script, presenting a world in which nearly everybody is the bad guy. It's commentary on how well meaning government policy can become barbaric when implemented through brute force was obviously intended for the Vietnam War, but it's interesting to consider in a literal post pandemic world. It often favours this allegory over realism, but if you can accept the exaggerations along with a few other low budget trappings, the grisly action and deep cynicism make for a wild ride.
Better than a lot of other low budget horror for it's time, but NO zombies
macabro35725 February 2005
A plane crashes near Pittsburgh carrying a bacteriological weapon called "Trixie". It gets into a nearby town's water supply causing it's citizen to go crazy, some of them homicidal maniacs. Some of the town's residents try to escape through a cordon around the town set up by the Army and shooting between the residents and soldiers (who go around wearing white contamination suits) and blood spurts ensue. That pretty much sums up the plot.
There's really no gore in this Romero film, but we do see plenty of gun battles that look cheap and amateurish. The only memorable character is Dr. Watts, played by Richard France, who's overacting is so bad that I actually liked his time on the screen. You can see he's trying real hard.
The Blue Underground anamorphic DVD looks nice and it contains a short interview with co-star Lynn Lowry who explains some of her experiences on the film as well as her failed film career. Also a decent commentary track by George Romero who wishes he could have done more with it if he had a bigger budget.
As long as one doesn't compare it to Romero's other films like the DEAD trilogy or MARTIN (1977), then it's better than most 70s low budget efforts in that cheap, charming way. I think it's worth a look.
6 out of 10
-
There's really no gore in this Romero film, but we do see plenty of gun battles that look cheap and amateurish. The only memorable character is Dr. Watts, played by Richard France, who's overacting is so bad that I actually liked his time on the screen. You can see he's trying real hard.
The Blue Underground anamorphic DVD looks nice and it contains a short interview with co-star Lynn Lowry who explains some of her experiences on the film as well as her failed film career. Also a decent commentary track by George Romero who wishes he could have done more with it if he had a bigger budget.
As long as one doesn't compare it to Romero's other films like the DEAD trilogy or MARTIN (1977), then it's better than most 70s low budget efforts in that cheap, charming way. I think it's worth a look.
6 out of 10
-
Crazy, Indeed
Cineanalyst26 March 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I viewed George A. Romero's "The Crazies" as part of my exposure therapy, or unhealthy obsession with, the current coronavirus pandemic, as the film is about a viral outbreak, which in this case turns people, well, crazy--oft, homicidally so. Unlike the 2010 remake, this one doesn't waste time with a gradual buildup to the action, jumping right into the lunacy, with a military quarantine and a rebellious townsfolk. There's the blatant allegory here to the Vietnam War and the political turmoil and distrust of the 1970s. All of that is lost in the remake. Moreover, there's the thrill here of the exploitation genre, of guerrilla filmmaking and with lots of blood splatter and a bit of gratuitous nudity. Whether an acute depiction of mass hysteria, or merely hysterical, "The Crazies" earns its status as a cult classic.
Consistently Weak
aimless-469 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
"The Crazies" (1973) was George Romero's attempt to get a little more low-budget mileage out of his "Night of the Living Dead" (1971) zombie-like stuff by blending it with elements from "The Andromeda Strain" (1971).
A germ warfare bug is accidentally released into the water supply of a small western Pennsylvania town named Evans City (where it was actually filmed). It turns some into placid zombie-like creatures and some into out-of-control maniacs. The Army comes in and imposes martial law and the local civilians do a good imitation of the zombies from "Night of the Living Dead".
The cast is a bunch of locals (western PA/NE Ohio) who fortunately for us all with low thresholds of pain did little acting after this project. Poor acting combines with poor editing to make it impossible to determine who among the citizens and the troops has the disease, is just stressed out, or is just trying to party hard. Romero's direction is extremely weak and he has trouble throughout keeping the cast in character.
Romero had discovered with "Night of the Living Dead" that there was serious exploitation potential in stories about the breakdown of society and this is where he really tries to focus his film. There is an underlying theme of social commentary as this was the time of serious social protests (Kent State just across the state line), distrust of the federal government, and our winding down involvement in Viet Nam. Romero was also drawing from his fascination with 1950's sci-fi themes regarding irresponsible science.
Unfortunately the best aspect of "Night of the Living Dead", its simplicity, is sacrificed as Romero has just enough resources to turn the film into an exercise in excess. There are several tangential plot points (voice recognition systems, a B-52 with a nuclear warhead, a frustrated scientist) that go nowhere but use up a lot of time getting there.
But these obvious problems are not the film's ultimate downfall. That comes from the film's lack of organization on the most fundamental level; which means it is extremely boring. No suspense is generated because there is no sense of progress or advancement of the storyline. Instead the same three basic scenes are repeated over and over until Romero is able to cobble together a feature length production. There are a handful of civilians trying to evade the Army troops, there are a handful of Army officers whining about how difficult their job is, and there are a handful of national security advisers back in Washington tossing around doom and gloom predictions. The film simply alternates between these three groups, with the segments completely interchangeable. The editor could have assembled them in any order and they would have not altered the flow of the story.
There are a couple of unexpectedly stylish scenes to watch for; the shooting of the flower child girl in the pasture, with a flock of sheep passing quietly in the foreground. And the infected woman with a broom sweeping the grass.
Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
A germ warfare bug is accidentally released into the water supply of a small western Pennsylvania town named Evans City (where it was actually filmed). It turns some into placid zombie-like creatures and some into out-of-control maniacs. The Army comes in and imposes martial law and the local civilians do a good imitation of the zombies from "Night of the Living Dead".
The cast is a bunch of locals (western PA/NE Ohio) who fortunately for us all with low thresholds of pain did little acting after this project. Poor acting combines with poor editing to make it impossible to determine who among the citizens and the troops has the disease, is just stressed out, or is just trying to party hard. Romero's direction is extremely weak and he has trouble throughout keeping the cast in character.
Romero had discovered with "Night of the Living Dead" that there was serious exploitation potential in stories about the breakdown of society and this is where he really tries to focus his film. There is an underlying theme of social commentary as this was the time of serious social protests (Kent State just across the state line), distrust of the federal government, and our winding down involvement in Viet Nam. Romero was also drawing from his fascination with 1950's sci-fi themes regarding irresponsible science.
Unfortunately the best aspect of "Night of the Living Dead", its simplicity, is sacrificed as Romero has just enough resources to turn the film into an exercise in excess. There are several tangential plot points (voice recognition systems, a B-52 with a nuclear warhead, a frustrated scientist) that go nowhere but use up a lot of time getting there.
But these obvious problems are not the film's ultimate downfall. That comes from the film's lack of organization on the most fundamental level; which means it is extremely boring. No suspense is generated because there is no sense of progress or advancement of the storyline. Instead the same three basic scenes are repeated over and over until Romero is able to cobble together a feature length production. There are a handful of civilians trying to evade the Army troops, there are a handful of Army officers whining about how difficult their job is, and there are a handful of national security advisers back in Washington tossing around doom and gloom predictions. The film simply alternates between these three groups, with the segments completely interchangeable. The editor could have assembled them in any order and they would have not altered the flow of the story.
There are a couple of unexpectedly stylish scenes to watch for; the shooting of the flower child girl in the pasture, with a flock of sheep passing quietly in the foreground. And the infected woman with a broom sweeping the grass.
Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
Unsettling in a very realistic way.
Nightman8510 January 2008
After the success of his classic Night of the Living Dead (1968), horror master George Romero followed up with this low-budget thriller.
Airplane crashes outside of a small Pennsylvania town and unleashes a bio chemical substance that turns the locals into murderous psychotics. The government steps in, but only makes things worse... far worse.
George Romero's films have long been known for their violence, disturbing nature, and social commentary and this early film is no exception. The Crazies has exciting action wrapped all in a thought-provoking and unsettlingly believable story. There's plenty of moments of gore and a number of scenes that are quite horrific (burning preacher anyone?). Romero's direction is nicely done, providing tense atmosphere and using the rural locations of Pennyslvania well.
Cast-wise some of the performances of this film seem a bit forced, but the performers do manage to hold it together. Harold Wayne Jones, Will MacMillian, and Lloyd Hollar are the best stand-outs.
While The Crazies is often forgotten among the horror films of the 70's, it's a good film from a great director. A must for Romero fans.
*** out of ****
Airplane crashes outside of a small Pennsylvania town and unleashes a bio chemical substance that turns the locals into murderous psychotics. The government steps in, but only makes things worse... far worse.
George Romero's films have long been known for their violence, disturbing nature, and social commentary and this early film is no exception. The Crazies has exciting action wrapped all in a thought-provoking and unsettlingly believable story. There's plenty of moments of gore and a number of scenes that are quite horrific (burning preacher anyone?). Romero's direction is nicely done, providing tense atmosphere and using the rural locations of Pennyslvania well.
Cast-wise some of the performances of this film seem a bit forced, but the performers do manage to hold it together. Harold Wayne Jones, Will MacMillian, and Lloyd Hollar are the best stand-outs.
While The Crazies is often forgotten among the horror films of the 70's, it's a good film from a great director. A must for Romero fans.
*** out of ****
Antiwar Movie masquerading as a quasi-zombie Outbreak Film
Armin_Nikkhah_Shirazi28 January 2022
The crazies, a movie about the inept efforts of the military to deal with the consequences of an accidental release of a biological weapon into a small town that drives the townspeople mad, feels on the surface like a zombie movie.
Sure, just by looking at them you can't tell they are crazy, and, unlike zombies, they don't eat people but just kill them. However, the opening sets a tone that belongs to any standard zombie fare.
Two aspects make movie this different and more interesting: first, the almost-obligatory band of survivors who try to escape the reach of both the infected and the military effectively takes second place to a portrayal of the authorities' efforts in dealing with the catastrophe, and second, that portrayal relentlessly depicts a group of incompetents in charge who don't know how to deal with the situation effectively and could care less about the population they are supposed to protect. In that, it reminded me a little of 'Dr. Strangelove...'.
The movie was made in the early 70s and seems to have been influenced by at least three contemporary sociopolitical events:
First, a large proportion of Americans was becoming disillusioned with the Vietnam war, and this reflected itself in growing protests against the ongoing operations. One of these culminated in the Kent State massacre in 1970, where national guard troops shot and killed, as well as injured, several student protesters at Kent state University. In fact, this is briefly referenced in the film.
Second, the Biological Weapons Convention was signed in 1972 (going into effect in 1975), which banned its signatories, including the United States, from developing and testing biological weapons.
Third, also in 1972, the Watergate scandal erupted, which exposed people at the highest levels of authorities attempting to pull strings behind the scenes illegally and being quite incompetent at doing so. Incidentally, these political events reflected themselves in cinema in a string of excellent paranoid 70s thrillers of which this movie is at least a close cousin.
There are a few nice examples of how the various forms of the incompetence by the authorities stack on top of each other to give rise to something like a synergistic effect. In one scene, a scientist finds a potential cure but cannot transmit the information due to excessive bureaucratic procedure, so he decides to report it in person. He fails to communicate his findings to his colleague before dashing off, only to be blocked by the military who lump him together with the crazies.
While much of the cinematography seems dated, there are still several effective scenes with rapid editing techniques that keep the tension high. The acting is for the most part decent, and the multiple story lines are easy to follow, even if we may not care about all characters the same amount.
Quite early in the movie it is established that there is practically no hope for the townspeople, and this gives the entire movie a nihilistic outlook. As the movie progresses, the authorities in their white decontamination suits, initially portrayed as not unreasonable, seem increasingly like evil aliens, an effective device which inverts the standard good guys vs bad zombies movie narrative.
In my view, the subversive sociopolitical commentary puts this movie a cut above the rest, even though purely in terms of film-making it does not stand out as much.
Sure, just by looking at them you can't tell they are crazy, and, unlike zombies, they don't eat people but just kill them. However, the opening sets a tone that belongs to any standard zombie fare.
Two aspects make movie this different and more interesting: first, the almost-obligatory band of survivors who try to escape the reach of both the infected and the military effectively takes second place to a portrayal of the authorities' efforts in dealing with the catastrophe, and second, that portrayal relentlessly depicts a group of incompetents in charge who don't know how to deal with the situation effectively and could care less about the population they are supposed to protect. In that, it reminded me a little of 'Dr. Strangelove...'.
The movie was made in the early 70s and seems to have been influenced by at least three contemporary sociopolitical events:
First, a large proportion of Americans was becoming disillusioned with the Vietnam war, and this reflected itself in growing protests against the ongoing operations. One of these culminated in the Kent State massacre in 1970, where national guard troops shot and killed, as well as injured, several student protesters at Kent state University. In fact, this is briefly referenced in the film.
Second, the Biological Weapons Convention was signed in 1972 (going into effect in 1975), which banned its signatories, including the United States, from developing and testing biological weapons.
Third, also in 1972, the Watergate scandal erupted, which exposed people at the highest levels of authorities attempting to pull strings behind the scenes illegally and being quite incompetent at doing so. Incidentally, these political events reflected themselves in cinema in a string of excellent paranoid 70s thrillers of which this movie is at least a close cousin.
There are a few nice examples of how the various forms of the incompetence by the authorities stack on top of each other to give rise to something like a synergistic effect. In one scene, a scientist finds a potential cure but cannot transmit the information due to excessive bureaucratic procedure, so he decides to report it in person. He fails to communicate his findings to his colleague before dashing off, only to be blocked by the military who lump him together with the crazies.
While much of the cinematography seems dated, there are still several effective scenes with rapid editing techniques that keep the tension high. The acting is for the most part decent, and the multiple story lines are easy to follow, even if we may not care about all characters the same amount.
Quite early in the movie it is established that there is practically no hope for the townspeople, and this gives the entire movie a nihilistic outlook. As the movie progresses, the authorities in their white decontamination suits, initially portrayed as not unreasonable, seem increasingly like evil aliens, an effective device which inverts the standard good guys vs bad zombies movie narrative.
In my view, the subversive sociopolitical commentary puts this movie a cut above the rest, even though purely in terms of film-making it does not stand out as much.
Nothing to get excited about, rather amateurish & boring.
poolandrews22 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The Crazies is set in a small Pennsylvanian town called Evans City. The film starts with with a man having killed his wife setting fire to his house for no apparent reason. Major Ryder (Harry Spillman) of the United States Army and his men have arrived in Evans City after a recent plane crash. The plane crashed into a river that supplies the town's water, on-board the plane was a man made virus called Trixie. The military believe that the residents of Evans City may be infected with a disease that turns the sufferer into a crazie, people who commit random acts of violence & are generally unpleasant to be around. Major Ryder takes over the local Doctors, Dr. Brookmyer (Will Disney), surgery and prepares his plan of action. His men form a perimeter around Evans City, no one gets in or out. His men are then ordered to round all the residents up and take them to the high school. Soon an even more high ranking officer Colonel Peckhem (Lloyd Hollar) arrives to take charge, as well as Dr. Watts (Richard France) who was part of the team who originally developed Trixie to try and find a cure for the disease. The military think they have the situation under control but five people have escaped their round-up, Dr. Bookmyer's nurse named Judy (Lane Carroll) & her fireman husband David (Will MacMillan) & his workmate Clank (Harold Wayne Jones), Artie (Richard Liberty) & his daughter Kathy Bolman (Lynn Lowry) & Frank Winson (Norman Chase) most of whom are convinced that they would be better off as far from Evans City as possible. Will they make it out & are they infected? Can Colonel Peckham keep the situation quiet, prevent the disease from spreading outside Evans City and resolve the crisis before unthinkably drastic action is taken?
Written & directed by George A. Romero I really disliked this poor excuse for a film. The script by Romero is about as dull and slow as you can imagine. The film itself is too long and just plain boring, although I did like the last 10 or 15 minutes & the downbeat ending. The Crazies also has a lot of similarities with Romero's infinitely superior Dawn of the Dead (1978), the female lead being pregnant, a fight against inhuman faceless enemies (all the soldiers wear gas masks), the lone survivors who question whether they should stay or leave & a degeneration into petty squabbling and in-fighting. All the characters are very unlikable too, both military and civilian. The fact that the acting is poor throughout doesn't help things either. The violence & gore is non-existent, there are some gunshot wounds, that's it. Overall the film is very rough on a technical level and becomes a real chore to watch. I had heard very good things about the Crazies, but I just can't see anything in it even remotely enjoyable. Maybe I was expecting too much but having Romero's name on the credits as director gave me high expectations that weren't met. Anyone familiar with Romero's other horror like Dawn of the Dead, Creepsow (1982), Martin (1977), Day of the Dead (1985) & expect something similar then prepare to be very disappointed. Proceed with caution.
Written & directed by George A. Romero I really disliked this poor excuse for a film. The script by Romero is about as dull and slow as you can imagine. The film itself is too long and just plain boring, although I did like the last 10 or 15 minutes & the downbeat ending. The Crazies also has a lot of similarities with Romero's infinitely superior Dawn of the Dead (1978), the female lead being pregnant, a fight against inhuman faceless enemies (all the soldiers wear gas masks), the lone survivors who question whether they should stay or leave & a degeneration into petty squabbling and in-fighting. All the characters are very unlikable too, both military and civilian. The fact that the acting is poor throughout doesn't help things either. The violence & gore is non-existent, there are some gunshot wounds, that's it. Overall the film is very rough on a technical level and becomes a real chore to watch. I had heard very good things about the Crazies, but I just can't see anything in it even remotely enjoyable. Maybe I was expecting too much but having Romero's name on the credits as director gave me high expectations that weren't met. Anyone familiar with Romero's other horror like Dawn of the Dead, Creepsow (1982), Martin (1977), Day of the Dead (1985) & expect something similar then prepare to be very disappointed. Proceed with caution.
Very underrated n far ahead of its time.
Fella_shibby20 October 2020
I first saw this in the early 90s on a vhs. Revisited it recently.
Small town residents go berserk after a viral epidemic engulfs em n military law is enabled to control the town's border, place people in quarantine n shoot the 'crazies'. While scientists work hard to learn the pathogen n search for a cure, two ex army men turned fire fighters along with three other civilians fight their way out to obtain the information n evade the quarantine.
The film moves at a good pace n surprisingly without it containing any zombies, it has sufficient tension n suspense. The chaos n fear shown is pretty relevant in today's covid 19 pandemic.
Small town residents go berserk after a viral epidemic engulfs em n military law is enabled to control the town's border, place people in quarantine n shoot the 'crazies'. While scientists work hard to learn the pathogen n search for a cure, two ex army men turned fire fighters along with three other civilians fight their way out to obtain the information n evade the quarantine.
The film moves at a good pace n surprisingly without it containing any zombies, it has sufficient tension n suspense. The chaos n fear shown is pretty relevant in today's covid 19 pandemic.
Paranoia and Madness
claudio_carvalho11 September 2010
In Evans City, a plane crashes on the hill releasing for six days in the water the bacteriological weapon Trixie that affects only human beings. The army under the command of Colonel Peckemseals (Lloyd Hollar) seals off the town to contain the virus and there is no antidote for the victims that are doomed to die or become incurably mad. The pregnant nurse Judy (Lane Carroll), her husband David (W.G. McMillan), their friend Clank (Harold Wayne Jones), their new acquaintance Artie (Richard Liberty) and his daughter Kathy (Lynn Lowry) tries to cross the border of the town, but the escapees are hunted by the army. Meanwhile, the scientist Dr. Ralston Watts (Richard France) researches blood samples trying to find the cure for the disease.
"The Crazies" is a tale of paranoia and madness in a period when the world was afraid of a bacteriological war. The plot is based on a total stupidity from the authorities that send the army to contain the virus in a small town but does not provide any explanation to the population, invading real estates and breaking in homes. The lead scientist is another stupid character. Surprisingly this year it was released a remake of this average film. Last time I saw this film was on 04 July 2000. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "O Exército do Extermínio" ("The Extermination Army")
"The Crazies" is a tale of paranoia and madness in a period when the world was afraid of a bacteriological war. The plot is based on a total stupidity from the authorities that send the army to contain the virus in a small town but does not provide any explanation to the population, invading real estates and breaking in homes. The lead scientist is another stupid character. Surprisingly this year it was released a remake of this average film. Last time I saw this film was on 04 July 2000. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "O Exército do Extermínio" ("The Extermination Army")
Please George, make this film again, and make it right...
crabapple866 October 2001
The film's story and plot is imaginative, however it over all is a poorly acted and scripted film. Romero deserves credit for his work, however he needs to stop and not be in so many places at once. Much like George Lucas, he needs to produce his work, and never direct it.
My biggest complaint is the grossly inaccurate military use in the story.
My biggest complaint is the grossly inaccurate military use in the story.
A very fine film by Romero
dh494 February 2000
Aside from Dawn of the Dead, I feel that this little seen film is one of Romero's strongest vehicles. Indeed the two films have a great deal in common in terms of pacing, style and overall visual impact. It throws the viewer into the middle of a story with little introduction, and continues at a breakneck pace right until it's bleak conclusion. The wonderful thing about Romero's works is that he manages to take situations that might just be distantly possible and make them an absolute chaotic reality. This film is a testament to that, and may even stand as one of his more realistic and plausible stories. Performances on the part of almost all of the actors are very good, particularly the main group of focus. There are some awkward moments with David, but Judy is very good, and proves herself particularly in her final scenes. Clank is interesting to watch, and does a very good job of descending into a dangerous and confused haze. Richard Liberty's Artie is a favorite, though, due largely to a scene where he tells why he never allowed his daughter to date. He is truly creepy. Those on the military side are also very good, particularly Major Rider and Colonel Peckam. I must admit that I do have a soft spot in my heart for Richard France as Dr. Watts. He rants and relentlessly chews the scenery in a grand performance, and adds a wonderful dash of color and even more insanity to this bleak film. Romero is always interesting in his use of characters, and this film is no exception. He is constantly pushing the envelope of audience expectations by having major characters die or succumb to the madness. Nothing is safe in a Romero movie. His use of the soldiers is wonderful in the frenzied and gritty military and chase scenes. This film as a whole is gritty, unnerving and a perfect stylistic precursor to Dawn of the Dead. One of the better scare pictures of the 70s.
Night of the Living Sick
aciessi9 October 2020
Oh boy, have I found the most 2020 movie ever. The Crazies is about a pandemic unleashed by the government that turns people rabid. It's mad cow disease, but for people. The infamous government hazmat suits are pretty creepy and signify the unique world that George A. Romero creates. But let's not kid ourselves, this is a really kitschy, grungy movie. The war room scenes are practically filmed inside of Romero's basement. We're talking high school student film level filmmaking. That kind of gives it its charm and strangely enough, it makes the absurd situation seem more real. It's story and scope should be big budgeted, yet it done entirety on the cheap. It's a formula that worked in Night of the Living Dead and it works here.
Good Example of Creative Film-making
kasserine6 May 2005
This early film of George Romero is about a small town in Pennsylvania that is infected by a virus created by the U.S. Army. The virus produces one of two results; violent rage or a dementia like state. We initially see the violent side as the film opens with a man killing his wife and burning down his home. The military acts quickly in an effort to quarantine the town and prevent the spread of the virus. This goes fairly smoothly at first, with the residents cooperating as the soldiers herd the townsfolk into the school gymnasium. Problems arise, as the infection prompts many residents to shoot the soldiers. And, of course, the soldiers shoot back. At the army command center, a local doctors office, no one can quite agree on the proper course of action to take. There are even some scenes with the higher ups in Washington, DC gravely agreeing that, if need be, the town will be destroyed via bombardment. The main crux of the story centers on a small group of townspeople who decide to try and break out of the quarantine and are pursued by government forces. The group consists of David, an ex Green Beret and his pregnant wife, Judy, followed by Clank, an old army buddy, and Artie and Kathy Bolman, father and daughter. Things go from bad to worse as some members in the group exhibit signs of the virus and the film follows on from there.
This was Romero's third film, and he made it before his first film, Night of the Living Dead, was to make him a horror legend. The Crazies is similar to Dead in many ways, it was shot in Pennsylvania, centers on an invading "army," and the chaotic breakdown of society.
The Crazies is definitely a cheapie. Romero would be the first to admit that. However, the film is effective in its execution despite its low budget. There is a clear storyline and the film is competently shot. The acting ranges from awful to convincing and Romero relied on stock footage and cut-aways to keep the movie rolling. To me, the editing seems choppy and appears as if the director, who also edited the film amongst other duties, was attempting to salvage some scenes. Oddly, this enhances The Crazies charm. It is truly a low budget film and illustrates what a creative spirit and some teamwork can achieve. It is watchable and a perfect example of how films got done back in the 70s without studio support. I really believe this is the glory years of independent movies especially as it pertains to the horror genre. Also, amazingly, these folks, Craven, Romero all had to shoot and edit with film. There were no fancy digital cameras and Final Cut Pros back then, just creativity. It makes me wonder why we aren't seeing more gems from today's filmmaker. Unfortunately, I just haven't seen any real leap with all the opportunity that is out there with this new equipment and I've seen A LOT of low budget films. Anyway, I digress.
Some of the aspects of The Crazies that I don't think work so well were in some of Romero's directorial choices. As he was to later employ to ill effect in Day of the Dead, Romero seems to think that having characters simply shout at each other is enough to illustrate drama. The scenes at the military headquarters are the best examples of this. I realize the characters are supposed to be handling a crisis, but, at times, it appeared that they could communicate by no other means then yelling. It got very wearing.
Also, ineffective and wearing was the drum roll music used throughout the film for scenes that involved the military on the move, which was most of the movie. It sounded a little too cheap and since it was repeated so often became distracting.
The costumes the soldiers wore were white biological warfare type gowns with army issue gas masks. For the budget Romero had, these were perfectly acceptable and worked. However, not the filmmakers fault, but I couldn't help but think of the white clad storm troopers from the Star Wars series and not just in resemblance. The soldiers were about as effective as the buffoonish space soldiers in shooting and chasing after the renegade townspeople. I imagine this was Romero's own view of the American army as there are also many scenes of the soldiers stealing.
As a film, on its own, The Crazies isn't the greatest film you'll see, even in it's genre, but it is often engaging and with the right nostalgic frame of mind entertaining. It's chief value, so many years later though, is its illustration of an early filmmakers creativity and independent spirit.
George Romero, as he did with many of his other early films, got the money together and went out and, for better or worse, got it done.
There is a lot to learn and appreciate from that.
This was Romero's third film, and he made it before his first film, Night of the Living Dead, was to make him a horror legend. The Crazies is similar to Dead in many ways, it was shot in Pennsylvania, centers on an invading "army," and the chaotic breakdown of society.
The Crazies is definitely a cheapie. Romero would be the first to admit that. However, the film is effective in its execution despite its low budget. There is a clear storyline and the film is competently shot. The acting ranges from awful to convincing and Romero relied on stock footage and cut-aways to keep the movie rolling. To me, the editing seems choppy and appears as if the director, who also edited the film amongst other duties, was attempting to salvage some scenes. Oddly, this enhances The Crazies charm. It is truly a low budget film and illustrates what a creative spirit and some teamwork can achieve. It is watchable and a perfect example of how films got done back in the 70s without studio support. I really believe this is the glory years of independent movies especially as it pertains to the horror genre. Also, amazingly, these folks, Craven, Romero all had to shoot and edit with film. There were no fancy digital cameras and Final Cut Pros back then, just creativity. It makes me wonder why we aren't seeing more gems from today's filmmaker. Unfortunately, I just haven't seen any real leap with all the opportunity that is out there with this new equipment and I've seen A LOT of low budget films. Anyway, I digress.
Some of the aspects of The Crazies that I don't think work so well were in some of Romero's directorial choices. As he was to later employ to ill effect in Day of the Dead, Romero seems to think that having characters simply shout at each other is enough to illustrate drama. The scenes at the military headquarters are the best examples of this. I realize the characters are supposed to be handling a crisis, but, at times, it appeared that they could communicate by no other means then yelling. It got very wearing.
Also, ineffective and wearing was the drum roll music used throughout the film for scenes that involved the military on the move, which was most of the movie. It sounded a little too cheap and since it was repeated so often became distracting.
The costumes the soldiers wore were white biological warfare type gowns with army issue gas masks. For the budget Romero had, these were perfectly acceptable and worked. However, not the filmmakers fault, but I couldn't help but think of the white clad storm troopers from the Star Wars series and not just in resemblance. The soldiers were about as effective as the buffoonish space soldiers in shooting and chasing after the renegade townspeople. I imagine this was Romero's own view of the American army as there are also many scenes of the soldiers stealing.
As a film, on its own, The Crazies isn't the greatest film you'll see, even in it's genre, but it is often engaging and with the right nostalgic frame of mind entertaining. It's chief value, so many years later though, is its illustration of an early filmmakers creativity and independent spirit.
George Romero, as he did with many of his other early films, got the money together and went out and, for better or worse, got it done.
There is a lot to learn and appreciate from that.
I don't know who's crazier...
Pjtaylor-96-13804424 September 2021
After a military plane crashes nearby, an American town starts experiencing the effects of a mysterious man-made virus that causes people to act in wild, often violent ways. When the army gets involved in trying to contain the situation, paranoia and fear spreads among the population until it's practically impossible to tell who is infected and who is simply scared. As you may expect from a film directed by George A. Romero, 'The Crazies (1973)' contains a pretty blatant political underpinning. It's, essentially, a sort of satire, even though it's presented seriously, that takes aim at the government and the way in which it treats its own citizens as expendable. There's perhaps less overt 'craziness' in the piece than you may expect, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a chaotic and downright bleak affair throughout. Its moments of sometimes rather explicit violence aren't really its focus, although they are effective in conveying the senselessness and brutality of the central situation. Instead, the focus is on the way in which the town's civil liberties are slowly taken away as the army tries its best to 'help'. That's actually a far more scary prospect than the virus itself. By refusing to paint any particular person as a villain, the picture remains rather nuanced. It's the infrequently seen higher-ups who are to blame, not the boots on the ground acting out their orders. Even then, those higher-ups are simply trying to contain a potentially devastating situation (though, it is their prior decisions that caused said situation), which makes them a little more empathetic than they may otherwise have been. It truly is a no-win situation. The film itself is a little jumbled, bouncing between characters as it tries to balance its wider conflict with its more straightforward survival story. Still, it's compelling no matter how messy it gets. It's stressful, too. That's the type of horror that it aims for and that's the horror that it achieves. It's a distinct entry in the genre because of it. It's also entertaining, which is perhaps the most important thing, and never lets its underlying themes get in the way of its surface-level action. Everything comes together nicely, although there are segments which aren't as engaging as they perhaps ought to be. It's only ever so enjoyable, too, perhaps because of what it tries to achieve. It's a really solid effort, though. It's honestly surprisingly good. 7/10.
Fails as a Horror film and a social commentary.
callanvass6 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say the remake did this better. It's not that I want a movie to be full of action, it's just it's full of nothing but boring dialog. The characters are selfish and the acting consists of an amateurish style, that wears out its welcome quickly. Romero has given us some dandies. "Dawn Of The Dead" "Night Of The Living Dead", hell even Day Of The Dead was good, but this doesn't rank among them. The gore level is pretty tame as well. The only blood that you'll see flow freely here, is some messy gun-shot type stuff, and it looks like red paint most of the time. I know this was directed to be an act as a social commentary of sorts, but it even fails in that regard. I didn't feel anything after this movie was over, in fact I was relieved I didn't have to watch any more of it. The most effective sequence in the movie, by far is the beginning. Chilling stuff.
The Performances are all amateurish, and not really worth going over.
Bottom line. I was going to say this is worth a look for curiosity's sake, but even that is pushing it. Stick to Romero's better works.
3/10
The Performances are all amateurish, and not really worth going over.
Bottom line. I was going to say this is worth a look for curiosity's sake, but even that is pushing it. Stick to Romero's better works.
3/10
Mass hysteria at its most intense
Coventry22 January 2005
Just in case some stubborn people are still questioning George A. Romero's talent after his 1968 milestone "Night of the Living Dead", we hereby present "The Crazies"! Once again a film stuffed with subtle criticism on society and pitch black humor. "The Crazies" immediately demands your full attention with a powerful pre-credits opening sequence and the high-excitement level is upheld throughout the entire movie. The little Pennsylvanian town of Evans City is overcome with a secret, but very lethal, government virus leaving the infected either dead or incurably insane. "Trixie" initially was developed as a chemical weapon, so not one of the scientists or army officers know how to put a stop to it when innocent people are exposed to it. The simple plot and cheap elaboration are excellently camouflaged by Romero's sharp eye for detail. Right from the start, he builds up a tense atmosphere of truly realistic mass hysteria that confuses even you the viewer in not knowing which characters are infected and which aren't. They could all simply be trigger-happy Pennsylvanian hillbillies for all we know! Although this film never really becomes "disturbing", there are quite a few scenes that shock and that feel strangely real. You could also state "The Crazies" was quite ahead of its time because chemical warfare is much more in the picture now than it was 30 years ago, when this film got shot. Romero's premise is simple but efficient: the malfunctioning and greed of the human race is much scarier than any fictional horror monster could ever be. Best example is the military men who become eerie and threatening in their icky white suits.
I don't care who directed it, or how socially conscious it is, this stinks!
deacon_blues-31 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Poorly acted, poorly filmed, no production value, and very, very, very BORING! I've definitely had my fill of people running around in whites and gas masks for another millennium! Nothing actually happens in this film! It's all just a bunch of bureaucrats sitting around at a command post and talking about things happening elsewhere!
Plot: A guy with "brains" and only one eyebrow is caught in an epidemic of insanity, which mainly causes a bunch of non-paid extras to lolly-gag around trying to decide whether they are drunk or just happy to be part of a movie. The film is a bunch of really bad actors following a really bad script while being filmed as cheaply as possible.
Some relevant observations:
Antibiotics are not prescribed to treat viruses!
People do not always hit someone every time they fire a weapon!
Cheap sets and fx are not a virtue!
People have no peripheral vision while wearing a gas mask!
While they had the chance, the producers of this film would have served humanity better by dropping a real nuclear bomb on Pittsburg, Pa.!
This is one of the worst films I have ever watched from beginning to end.
The only reason I watched it all was because I thought something interesting might actually happen before it ended; boy was I wrong!
George Romero is not a genius, he's a one-hit-wonder!
Even "Dawn" was better as a remake. Only "Night" was better in the original.
This film is hard to find for a good reason—it stinks! If you haven't been able to watch it, be thankful for the wisdom and kindness of divine providence!
Plot: A guy with "brains" and only one eyebrow is caught in an epidemic of insanity, which mainly causes a bunch of non-paid extras to lolly-gag around trying to decide whether they are drunk or just happy to be part of a movie. The film is a bunch of really bad actors following a really bad script while being filmed as cheaply as possible.
Some relevant observations:
Antibiotics are not prescribed to treat viruses!
People do not always hit someone every time they fire a weapon!
Cheap sets and fx are not a virtue!
People have no peripheral vision while wearing a gas mask!
While they had the chance, the producers of this film would have served humanity better by dropping a real nuclear bomb on Pittsburg, Pa.!
This is one of the worst films I have ever watched from beginning to end.
The only reason I watched it all was because I thought something interesting might actually happen before it ended; boy was I wrong!
George Romero is not a genius, he's a one-hit-wonder!
Even "Dawn" was better as a remake. Only "Night" was better in the original.
This film is hard to find for a good reason—it stinks! If you haven't been able to watch it, be thankful for the wisdom and kindness of divine providence!
The Cinema of George A. Romero.
Captain_Couth21 February 2005
The Crazies (1973) was a film by horror film maker George A. Romero. A military biological weapons is accidentally released in a small town. Evans City, PA. is the unlucky recipient to a very deadly virus that has fouled the nearby water supply. The virus is highly contagious and it causes madness and insanity in it's victims. The government tries to contain the after effects by imposing martial law around the town and quarantining the citizens of Evans City, affected or not. A few of the citizens rebel against the soldiers and try to flee the occupied zones. Can this small party escape the wrath of the government and it's soldier of fortunes or will they become victims of the bio-plague?
George A. Romero has once again created a unique movie utilizing a small budget and a large cast of mostly volunteers. The camera work and editing is what makes this movie work. The acting is not that bad and the writing is very inventive and creative. Many look upon this movie as a trial run for his more successful zombie sequel Dawn of the Dead, others have called this a mere reworking of Night of the Living Dead. I have to say that this is a very entertaining movie that works despite the boundaries of it's limited budget. A social commentary that still rings true today.
Highly recommended for George A. Romero fans.
George A. Romero has once again created a unique movie utilizing a small budget and a large cast of mostly volunteers. The camera work and editing is what makes this movie work. The acting is not that bad and the writing is very inventive and creative. Many look upon this movie as a trial run for his more successful zombie sequel Dawn of the Dead, others have called this a mere reworking of Night of the Living Dead. I have to say that this is a very entertaining movie that works despite the boundaries of it's limited budget. A social commentary that still rings true today.
Highly recommended for George A. Romero fans.
An unpolished gem
stevelivesey-371839 January 2024
The central idea of a whole town going crazy Is great. Having the Army step in to seal the town up makes it better. In terms of originality, this is a ten. Unfortunately, the budget and the ideas that aren't fleshed out enough are a problem.
The recent remake of the Crazies was, in my opinion, one of the best remakes of all time. It really built on the ideas of government secrecy, the horror of the infection, the relationships between the protagonists and also kept the reason the infection secret until the end.
This films broad strokes are excellent. The theme of the army finding a cure are a little boring and I was glad they were cut from the remake.
The recent remake of the Crazies was, in my opinion, one of the best remakes of all time. It really built on the ideas of government secrecy, the horror of the infection, the relationships between the protagonists and also kept the reason the infection secret until the end.
This films broad strokes are excellent. The theme of the army finding a cure are a little boring and I was glad they were cut from the remake.
Terrible Waste of Time
osloj4 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
This low budget zombie-esque film is a complete waste of time, I rented it thinking that it would at least have some frightening moments, but what I got instead was a test in patience.
The details concern a toxic agent released by some dumb-witted morons in the army into a small town and soon everyone gets a disease. The military, or what appears like brainless extras in cheap army clothing, start to order martial law, except a few hot-headed guys break out.
Each time the military is shown on the screen, Romero has some corny drum beating like we are too stupid to figure out that the army is there.
Absolutely no suspense and an awful ending to boot.
The details concern a toxic agent released by some dumb-witted morons in the army into a small town and soon everyone gets a disease. The military, or what appears like brainless extras in cheap army clothing, start to order martial law, except a few hot-headed guys break out.
Each time the military is shown on the screen, Romero has some corny drum beating like we are too stupid to figure out that the army is there.
Absolutely no suspense and an awful ending to boot.
Bananas
tieman6410 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
"We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take this anymore!" - Howard Beale ("Network")
This is a review of George Romero's "The Crazies", a horror film released in 1973, and 2010's "The Crazies", a remake directed by Breck Eisner, son of media mogul Michael Eisner.
The better of the two, Romero's film sees the US military accidentally releasing a biological weapon into a small town's water supply. This bio-agent turns the town's population into raving, murderous lunatics. As a result, the US government swiftly quarantines the town. Much violence ensues.
Romero's film is shapeless, overlong, lacking in tension towards its final act and nowhere as good as his zombie movies. It's also frequently brilliant. It's a mad, hilariously anarchic, politically incorrect mob of a movie, filled with manic energy and many strange passages, some of which were deemed shocking back in the early 1970s. Kubrick's "Dr Strangelove" - Romero borrows Kubrick's all-percussion soundtrack – and Peter Watkins' "Punishment Park" seem to be the chief influences.
Like Romero's zombie movies, "The Crazies" simmers with post-Watergate distrust. Our heroes are government hating Vietnam vets, and much of the film observes as various social institutions (the state, the nuclear family, the church) fester, implode or explode. Significantly, Romero paints contemporary society as being "crazy" long before the bio-agent was released; it was already waiting to discharge. The contaminated water merely shatters civilization's last facades and brings various latent abominations and/or unspoken feelings rushing to the surface. It was always going to happen. Or, as Romero says in interviews, "what's crazy is that it hasn't already occurred."
Unsurprisingly, themes of incest and militarism abound. A father has sex with his daughter, priests set themselves on fire (echoing the famous self-immolation photographs of the Vietnam war, in which Buddhist monks set themselves alight), soldiers tear down villages like the Nazis' liquidated ghettos, helicopters echo Vietnam's Hueys, and much of the film paints military and government figureheads as being as mad and irrational as the infected townspeople. Pretty soon it becomes clear that the state's method of treating the madness is itself madness, Romero eradicating the line between infected and the uninfected; they're all crazy, the government mimicking the volatile, violent behavioural patterns of those contaminated. "You can't just push people around like this!" one man yells. But no one listens. Everyone's being pushed.
The film's pacing is slowed by various sequences which focus on annoying bureaucrats and fast-talking figureheads. Though grating, Romero's intentions with these scenes are nevertheless correct. State bureaucracy, in which men and women spend as much time fighting each other, red tape and the inefficiency of procedure, is itself virus-like and counter-intuitive; nothing gets done, everyone infected with a kind of bureaucratic madness. Elsewhere scenes show rural idylls and totems of conservative America torn apart by mad patriarchs (the film's opening sequence is "Night of the Living Dead" in microcosm). Hilariously, few people are even given a chance to succumb to the virus; the military kills them more efficiently and rapidly than the virus ever could. One of the film's jokes is that a perfectly functioning military apparatus is far more illogical, bloated and morally messed up than the collapsed, lawless hordes it battles.
Fittingly, the name of the film's bio-agent is Trixie, literally "the bringer of joy". On an allegorical level, it is the state's blunders, its inherent violence, which are directly inspiring an almost carnivalesque explosion of public mayhem. The military steps in to violently clamp down on these outbursts, but they're not fast enough. Oppositional groups clash, lock horns and slaughter one another in a mad, incoherent festival which does nothing but destroy any form of potential socio-political progress. An early 70s capitalist order is assaulted, but rather than enabling progressivism in the formation of a new social order, things are only further debilitated and any rational functions necessary for future formations are swiftly put down. The film ends with a pregnant woman dying (and with her the hope of a future), and two rugged men stepping out of the conflict's wreckage. One's an African American, airlifted above the carnage (symbolically outside and above it all), another's a fireman who embodies the adjusted (immunized) man of tomorrow: cynical and a Vietnam vet, but with a traditional love for marriage, servitude and stability (his first lines stress his love for "moderation"). The lyrics "Heaven Help Us" play over the film's closing credits.
There are countless parallels between "The Crazies" and Romero's earlier and later films. Two obscure ones: Richard France, who looks like a cross between Orson Welles and Francis Ford Coppola, plays "men of reason" in both "The Crazies" and "Dawn of the Dead". His character's always warning populaces (Richard's an Orson Welles scholar, his character having many overlaps with Welles' "War of the Worlds" radio-play). Then there's "The Crazies'" plot itself, which echoes Romero's earlier "Season of the Witch", in which the banalities of the bourgeois drive an oppressed housewife's to various subversions and perversions.
Released in 2010, Breck Eisner's "The Crazies" removes the politics of Romero's film but largely tells the same tale. It's a safe, clean and sanitised movie; like licking an Ipod while rubbing a credit card on your crotch. Glossy, overproduced, expensive looking and immaculately pressed, the film moves, looks and feels like plastic. While some of its horror moments elicit some thrills, it's mostly all very conventional and clichéd.
Still, some of Eisner's changes are interesting. While Romero has officials talking of dropping a nuke on the infected town, Eisner does it for real (encapsulating the film's philosophy: spectacle over politics). Elsewhere he spares the life of a government soldier (who helps our band of rebels), whilst the far more pessimistic Romero outright murders the very same character.
7.5/10 - See 2009's "Carriers", 2011's "Contagion" and 1978's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". Worth one viewing.
This is a review of George Romero's "The Crazies", a horror film released in 1973, and 2010's "The Crazies", a remake directed by Breck Eisner, son of media mogul Michael Eisner.
The better of the two, Romero's film sees the US military accidentally releasing a biological weapon into a small town's water supply. This bio-agent turns the town's population into raving, murderous lunatics. As a result, the US government swiftly quarantines the town. Much violence ensues.
Romero's film is shapeless, overlong, lacking in tension towards its final act and nowhere as good as his zombie movies. It's also frequently brilliant. It's a mad, hilariously anarchic, politically incorrect mob of a movie, filled with manic energy and many strange passages, some of which were deemed shocking back in the early 1970s. Kubrick's "Dr Strangelove" - Romero borrows Kubrick's all-percussion soundtrack – and Peter Watkins' "Punishment Park" seem to be the chief influences.
Like Romero's zombie movies, "The Crazies" simmers with post-Watergate distrust. Our heroes are government hating Vietnam vets, and much of the film observes as various social institutions (the state, the nuclear family, the church) fester, implode or explode. Significantly, Romero paints contemporary society as being "crazy" long before the bio-agent was released; it was already waiting to discharge. The contaminated water merely shatters civilization's last facades and brings various latent abominations and/or unspoken feelings rushing to the surface. It was always going to happen. Or, as Romero says in interviews, "what's crazy is that it hasn't already occurred."
Unsurprisingly, themes of incest and militarism abound. A father has sex with his daughter, priests set themselves on fire (echoing the famous self-immolation photographs of the Vietnam war, in which Buddhist monks set themselves alight), soldiers tear down villages like the Nazis' liquidated ghettos, helicopters echo Vietnam's Hueys, and much of the film paints military and government figureheads as being as mad and irrational as the infected townspeople. Pretty soon it becomes clear that the state's method of treating the madness is itself madness, Romero eradicating the line between infected and the uninfected; they're all crazy, the government mimicking the volatile, violent behavioural patterns of those contaminated. "You can't just push people around like this!" one man yells. But no one listens. Everyone's being pushed.
The film's pacing is slowed by various sequences which focus on annoying bureaucrats and fast-talking figureheads. Though grating, Romero's intentions with these scenes are nevertheless correct. State bureaucracy, in which men and women spend as much time fighting each other, red tape and the inefficiency of procedure, is itself virus-like and counter-intuitive; nothing gets done, everyone infected with a kind of bureaucratic madness. Elsewhere scenes show rural idylls and totems of conservative America torn apart by mad patriarchs (the film's opening sequence is "Night of the Living Dead" in microcosm). Hilariously, few people are even given a chance to succumb to the virus; the military kills them more efficiently and rapidly than the virus ever could. One of the film's jokes is that a perfectly functioning military apparatus is far more illogical, bloated and morally messed up than the collapsed, lawless hordes it battles.
Fittingly, the name of the film's bio-agent is Trixie, literally "the bringer of joy". On an allegorical level, it is the state's blunders, its inherent violence, which are directly inspiring an almost carnivalesque explosion of public mayhem. The military steps in to violently clamp down on these outbursts, but they're not fast enough. Oppositional groups clash, lock horns and slaughter one another in a mad, incoherent festival which does nothing but destroy any form of potential socio-political progress. An early 70s capitalist order is assaulted, but rather than enabling progressivism in the formation of a new social order, things are only further debilitated and any rational functions necessary for future formations are swiftly put down. The film ends with a pregnant woman dying (and with her the hope of a future), and two rugged men stepping out of the conflict's wreckage. One's an African American, airlifted above the carnage (symbolically outside and above it all), another's a fireman who embodies the adjusted (immunized) man of tomorrow: cynical and a Vietnam vet, but with a traditional love for marriage, servitude and stability (his first lines stress his love for "moderation"). The lyrics "Heaven Help Us" play over the film's closing credits.
There are countless parallels between "The Crazies" and Romero's earlier and later films. Two obscure ones: Richard France, who looks like a cross between Orson Welles and Francis Ford Coppola, plays "men of reason" in both "The Crazies" and "Dawn of the Dead". His character's always warning populaces (Richard's an Orson Welles scholar, his character having many overlaps with Welles' "War of the Worlds" radio-play). Then there's "The Crazies'" plot itself, which echoes Romero's earlier "Season of the Witch", in which the banalities of the bourgeois drive an oppressed housewife's to various subversions and perversions.
Released in 2010, Breck Eisner's "The Crazies" removes the politics of Romero's film but largely tells the same tale. It's a safe, clean and sanitised movie; like licking an Ipod while rubbing a credit card on your crotch. Glossy, overproduced, expensive looking and immaculately pressed, the film moves, looks and feels like plastic. While some of its horror moments elicit some thrills, it's mostly all very conventional and clichéd.
Still, some of Eisner's changes are interesting. While Romero has officials talking of dropping a nuke on the infected town, Eisner does it for real (encapsulating the film's philosophy: spectacle over politics). Elsewhere he spares the life of a government soldier (who helps our band of rebels), whilst the far more pessimistic Romero outright murders the very same character.
7.5/10 - See 2009's "Carriers", 2011's "Contagion" and 1978's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". Worth one viewing.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
