There's Always Vanilla (1971)
** (out of 4)
George A. Romero's follow-up to NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is about as different as you can get but, as the director stated, he didn't want to become known simply for making horror movies so what we got is a romantic- drama. The story follows Chris Bradley (Raymond Laine) who is just returning from Vietnam and spending most of his time with drug dealers and strippers. He eventually meets a model/actress (Judith Ridley) and the two hit it off until she gets pregnant and things start to change. For over thirty years this here was the hardest Romero film to see and it's one that he often calls his very worst when asked during interviews. I think the legendary horror director is being a tad bit harsh because there are a few interesting touches here and there but on the whole it's a pretty forgettable cause except for those who want to see everything the man has done. Of course, one of the biggest reasons for Romero fans to check it out is that Judith Ridley played Judy in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and she's actually not too bad here. She's certainly not going to win any awards for this her second and final film but she's still enjoyable to watch as that laid back approach of hers comes across quite nicely. Laine is also pretty good in the movie as long as they're not trying to get any strong emotions out of him. So, where does the film go wrong? Romero has said that the screenwriter was lazy and pretty much gave up on the picture so the director had to work with what he had. As to why he didn't try to do a re-write is anyone's guess but perhaps the low-budget nature just didn't allow the time. The screenplay isn't horrid but it falls well short of what you'd call good. I think the biggest problem is that he never really tries to explain countless things including why on Earth this woman would be involved with this guy. The two are certainly different types and one might say opposites attract but there's never anything here except this guy treating the woman badly and not doing a single thing good. Just check out the long sequence where he's telling her that her butt is too big for TV and you'll see what I mean. Romero's direction keeps the picture moving well enough and there are a couple good shots (including a nice sex scene) but in the end this is a pretty forgettable movie. The 70s were full of movies about drifters and this one can't come close to best so there's not really any point except for die-hard Romero fans.
** (out of 4)
George A. Romero's follow-up to NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is about as different as you can get but, as the director stated, he didn't want to become known simply for making horror movies so what we got is a romantic- drama. The story follows Chris Bradley (Raymond Laine) who is just returning from Vietnam and spending most of his time with drug dealers and strippers. He eventually meets a model/actress (Judith Ridley) and the two hit it off until she gets pregnant and things start to change. For over thirty years this here was the hardest Romero film to see and it's one that he often calls his very worst when asked during interviews. I think the legendary horror director is being a tad bit harsh because there are a few interesting touches here and there but on the whole it's a pretty forgettable cause except for those who want to see everything the man has done. Of course, one of the biggest reasons for Romero fans to check it out is that Judith Ridley played Judy in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and she's actually not too bad here. She's certainly not going to win any awards for this her second and final film but she's still enjoyable to watch as that laid back approach of hers comes across quite nicely. Laine is also pretty good in the movie as long as they're not trying to get any strong emotions out of him. So, where does the film go wrong? Romero has said that the screenwriter was lazy and pretty much gave up on the picture so the director had to work with what he had. As to why he didn't try to do a re-write is anyone's guess but perhaps the low-budget nature just didn't allow the time. The screenplay isn't horrid but it falls well short of what you'd call good. I think the biggest problem is that he never really tries to explain countless things including why on Earth this woman would be involved with this guy. The two are certainly different types and one might say opposites attract but there's never anything here except this guy treating the woman badly and not doing a single thing good. Just check out the long sequence where he's telling her that her butt is too big for TV and you'll see what I mean. Romero's direction keeps the picture moving well enough and there are a couple good shots (including a nice sex scene) but in the end this is a pretty forgettable movie. The 70s were full of movies about drifters and this one can't come close to best so there's not really any point except for die-hard Romero fans.