Own the rights?
22 out of 25 people found the following review useful: Great Revisionist Horror Movie, 17 June 2003 Author: (howlermonkey) from United States
Sometimes it seems to me that the "users" who comment on movies here go out of their way to miss the point. The horror storyline here isn't just "vampire nonsense" nor does Romero succeed in spite of his "lowbrow intentions." The film IS a horror film, as successful in "revising" the typical vampire films as other 1970's classics like McCabe and Mrs. Miller and Point Black were in "revising" the western and gangster genres respectively. The film would hardly be as interesting if it were some kind of slick production with the usual trappings. Instead Martin is a low-key intense underplayed film that reverses the usual expectations without rejecting its genre.I don't think Romero is somehow upholding the ideals of faith either; the religious zealot, Martin's uncle, is the least sympathetic figure in the movie, though he may be right in thinking that Martin is "nosferatu." Or his fanaticism may have created the delusion in Martin's mind, an attempt to reject the religious dogma by adopting its traditional/mythic opponent. In any case, Romero's take on faith is very complex and is as interesting in this film as his complex take on individuality and consumerism is in Dawn of the Dead.Romero makes great use of the depressed area of Braddock Pennsylvania, the kind of down on its luck, conservative, fading neighborhood I know from my own experience. The setting is essential to the movie, but Romero doesn't overplay it. The radio talk-show angle isn't as well handled but it is interesting.I thought this film was very impressive in its deadpan update of the vampire story and Martin is a strangely moving character. Ultimately the movie is a much more convincing dramatization of the "serial killer" figure than we get in most films now, despite the current fascination with that type. (P.S. Romero was so good in the 1970s..how did he fall to the likes of Creepshow?)
16 out of 19 people found the following review useful: One of the most underrated movies of all time!, 3 June 2002 Author: Infofreak from Perth, Australia
George A. Romero will always be associated with his innovative and spectacular zombie trilogy ('Night Of The Living Dead', 'Dawn Of The Dead' and 'Day Of The Dead', all classics). Dig deeper and you will find he has made several less discussed but worthy movies, including this one, quite possibly the best movie he has ever made.'Martin' manages to be both a disturbing psychological drama and a genuine horror movie at the same time. It is complex and mult-layered enough to be read in more than one way. It's up to you, the viewer, to decide whether Martin (John Amplas, in an impressive debut) really is the vampire he claims to be or is simply deluded. It's a pity that this movie slips through the cracks. Hard core horror nuts often undervalue it because it isn't what they expect from the genre, and movie buffs who can appreciate downbeat 70s classics like Scorsese's 'Taxi Driver', and Toback's 'Fingers', will dismiss it as "just another horror movie", not realizing just how much it has in common with the aforementioned. Too bad. 'Martin' is a real gem, and highly recommended. I think it's absolutely brilliant, and a classic.
13 out of 14 people found the following review useful: One of horror's greatest character studies!, 28 December 2005 Author: SickBoySimon from Brentwood, USA
Over the years George A. Romero has created a number of landmark horror films for the genre. This modern 'vampire' flick ranks among his very best films!Shy teenager, who believes himself to be a century old vampire, comes to live with his superstitious old cousin in Pittsburgh.Romero's Martin is a truly unique, one of a kind psychological thriller. It is a memorable journey from its disturbing opening sequence to its chilling conclusion. Martin, like most of Romero's classics, is a film with plenty of social commentary and believable characters. The driving force behind the films premise is the question of whether or not our title character really is a vampire. Martin has no fangs, no fear of the sun, in fact he actually uses razors and syringes to seize his victims. Yet, Martin has memories of an attack that apparently he did ages ago and his elderly cousin fully believes his young relative to be an evil creature. Romero throws out all of the old fashion vampire conventions for this symbolic clashing of the ways. Romero's direction is, as always, very nicely done with plenty of suspense, atmosphere, and gruesome moments. Romero makes this drama stylishly operatic and adds an occasional moment of dark humor. The haunting music score also adds greatly to the atmosphere.The cast is excellent, but it's star John Amplas who really drives this show. Attractive youth Amplas is a greatly sympathetic character, even as he is the films monster and hero all at once.A film unlike any other of the horror genre, Martin remains a terrific low-budget masterpiece that is as hauntingly effective today as ever.**** out of ****
11 out of 12 people found the following review useful: A dark family drama in the guise of a typical Romero horror-fest; one of his best as writer/director, 6 March 2005 Author: MisterWhiplash from United States
One of the two horror film sleepers of 1977 were not necessarily definable under the usual typecasts of the genre: David Lynch's Eraserhead, which drew itself more to a kind of surreal horror from paintings and animation; and this film, George A. Romero's Martin, where the horror is not what is usually expected from the director. Indeed, before I saw this film I generally related Romero to the status of a horror-film maverick, where he brings out much of the violence and tension in his films that we as the audience wouldn't get on TV. His subversion's of the genre, however, can be sensed in his zombie satires, as he makes his characters and situations, for the most part, far more believable aside from the dark fantasy/graphic comic-book quality of the designs and look of the films. There's something to think about with his films, even as flesh and blood get tossed about.But this time, for Martin, he made a story that deals with the human relationships even more so than the creepy and supernatural elements of his other works. Martin is a vampire movie, and there are some key scenes that deliver the good for the fans (and, again, going against expectations, as if Romero was a "new-wave" filmmaker from Europe), but also giving something for people who may not be expecting depth in the themes and situations with these people. The main characters of the film, aside from the protagonist Martin (a twisted and very confused protagonist at that), are all developed very well, and aren't necessarily one-sided or even two-sided portraits of caricatures in other vampire movies. For example, the sort of 'Van Helsing' character in this film is in the form of Martin's uncle Tada Cuda, played by Lincoln Maazel. He's the only one that knows, and is terrified of, Martin's secret life, and upon first bringing him into his home, Tada tries to use crosses and holy water on Martin. Martin can't be fooled, and so Tada resigns, for the moment. While Tada is the kind of typical, harsh old man that acts like something of an antagonist for him and Tada's daughter, he may not be entirely one-sided by the end of the film. The theme of Christianity, as shown in certain variables as the film cuts to black and white flashbacks, explores it in a very on-target way. Why do vampire movies have this kind of magical ability to wash everything with a cross and silver and garlic? Martin seems to ask these same questions, when he calls up a radio show (his only real output of his frustrations, though a media that still treats his despair as a joke). Martin himself, played in a peculiar, low-key way is John Amplas (an actor who has his peak in this film, having only appeared in bit parts in other films, mostly Romero's). He is often observing, never sure what it is he'll say, and much to how his character is and evolves, has skills of a predator. He was perfect for the role, as he has a level of vulnerability and sincerity that can be connected to, while at the same time in a conflict about what to do with his craving for blood. That the other actors, all indie actors (one of them, Christine, played by Romero's wife), are really quite good with the material, helps the feel and flow of the film.Some directors can't stand editing their own films (John Ford once said he hated sitting in on it, as other have as well), and while they sit in with the editors and make notes, few actually go to the machines and do the work themselves. Romero is one of the few that seems to really enjoy the process, and has fun with it. In some ways his movement within the frame, and with the pacing of Martin's sense of reality and of the past, makes the film seem like it should almost belong in an art-house (so to speak) as opposed to at a midnight cult-horror theater. That's not to say he doesn't have it in him to give people their money's worth expecting to get the pants scared off their waists. In fact, there is one big sequence in the film (where Martin stalks and attacks, needle in hand, a married woman who's having an affair) that is one of Romero's most suspenseful and unusual. Not to mention there is an ending that wraps everything up rather terrifyingly- one knows something like this would be coming, but not from this direction.Simply this, Martin is smarter for it's regularly intended audience out for simple thrills and cheesy characters- it's a drama that involves searching for companionship, the significance of religion on people, and trying to fit in to one side or another. And it's also a low-budget 70's horror film with a few scenes that hit more on a visceral level than on cheap effects (not to say there aren't a couple, ho-ho). To put it another way, I viewed the film for the first time on a video released in the 80's. Now I'll be on the look-out for the DVD a.s.a.p.
11 out of 14 people found the following review useful: No Magic?, 23 July 2000 Author: BaronBl00d (baronbl00d@aol.com) from NC
Writer-director George Romero delves into the world of modern vampirism...or does he? I am not real sure, but he does examine the life of a young man(says he is over eighty...is he?)that certainly thinks he is a vampire but has no fangs or claws but needs to use razor blades and needles to drug his victims. Is he a real vampire in the modern sense, or is he the product of societal, family and sexual repression and inner anger. Apparently there are family members that believe he is a "nosferatu," most notably his Uncle Cuda, played strongly by Lincoln Maazel, but Crosses, garlic, and the sun do not affect Martin. Martin tells his Uncle that the magic is all gone...what does that mean really? Martin is a strange, weirdly poetic, disturbing film. John Amplas does an outstanding job playing the ..whatever he is. I felt little sympathy for him but thought he was very evil in his madness and sickness. The rest of the cast is very adequate...although all unknowns for the most part except for Romero regular Tom Savini in a bit part. Romero's wife and father-in-law even have roles and to top that George Romero plays a priest(which he does quite nicely). Made on a small budget, Martin shows us the decay of city-life and briefly focusses on the young moving away to the suburbs. The movie is indeed slow at times, but the murder scenes are well executed(no pun intended) and create a great deal of suspense.
7 out of 7 people found the following review useful: Excellent, 28 July 2002 Author: pig_71 from Cowpens, SC
George A. Romero did an outstanding job with this movie. It is not your usual vampire flick. Martin can walk in sunlight, garlic does not work, crosses don't work, and he does not even have fangs. He simply cuts his victims after putting them to sleep. This is also a very odd but beautifully shot picture. It has a low-budget gritty feel, almost handheld but it fits the story perfectly. It also uses some great Black and White photography. The acting is top notch. There are no names just people, although sometimes weird people. Also Tom Savini is in it. He has a small role but he is a good actor. It really is too bad he really has not caught on to more mainstream movies. But he also did the FX for this movie. It does get bloody. But it never is gory. But do not get me wrong, the FX is felt. Overall this is a must see vampire movie. It is great.
7 out of 8 people found the following review useful: A Beautiful Piece Of 70's Cinema., 10 July 2004 Author: boredatwork (kslice@hotmail.com) from Vancouver, B.C.
You don't see anyone make a film like this anymore. Shot on 16mm but absolutely gorgeous looking. Low budget but has a very unusual and quite fine OST(modern classical/jazz sounding I guess?). Great characters and performances. Some of the performances are simple but are usually always quite charming. Romero was able to create a great look by using locations that happened to be available through family and friends. Martin exemplifies the beauty of doing a lot with a little. Re-watchable because there are so many clever details to be found. People looking for tired vampire movie formulas and a bit of T&A will be disappointed with this film. What's impressive is how little the film actually covers the standard themes of vampires. Instead, the actual social construct of vampirism is brought into question. Viewers are left to figure out and discuss what the main character is all about on their own. One of the finer moments in 70's semi-independent cinema. On par with Season Of The Witch in terms of weirdness and style. The creativity and integrity seen in Martin will seldom be seen again as long as Hollywood continues to be run by spineless, cowardly producers.
5 out of 5 people found the following review useful: Brilliant update on the classical vampire genre flick, 14 June 2005 Author: theoscillator_13 from boston, ma
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I am a huge Romero fan but had never seen this gem due to poor video distribution. I just picked up the new DVD and watched Martin for the first time. It truly demonstrates Romero's genius. He takes the classic , Gothic vampire movie that we've seen done a thousand times and manages to put his unique stamp on it creating a deep, philosophical social commentary.Is Martin really a vampire? What is the definition of a vampire in modern society? Just because Martin does not have fangs, garlic has no effect on him and he is more or less immune to sunlight that doesn't mean he is not a vampire. Romero leaves a lot of questions open ended in this film like Martin's mortality or immortality and whether he physically needs to drink blood to survive. Maybe he really is nothing more then a mentally ill, sexual deviant ....but is that really different then any other vampire that we've seen portrayed in any other movie? As you can tell by my comments, this movies raises more questions then it answers and it certainly will make you think more then the average horror movie...which isn't a bad thing.Stylistically, I love the way Romero weaves the current time (the late 70's) in color with the black and white footage of the turn of the century era Martin. That gives a nice contrast between the Bela Lugosi Gothic vampire image and the updated version that is Martin. The cinematography is great and it is just a well crafted film.At it's heart this is the same vampire movie we've seen remade over and over just with some new twists on the genre and in an updated setting. But it is more then that because it really is a mashing of various genres. There are the excorisism sequences which are not common in vampire movies, there are elements of the serial killer thriller genre, some elements of the teenage coming of age story and even hints of melodrama but it all blends seamlessly and keeps the viewer's interest throughout.
4 out of 4 people found the following review useful: Unflinchingly original., 3 May 2002 Author: sibisi73 from United Kingdom
Between seminal 'zombie' flicks "Night of the Living Dead", and the follow-up, "Dawn of the Dead", George A. Romero created two of the most overlooked horror movies, not only of the 1970's, but maybe of all time. Four years after the socio-political horror of "The Crazies", he returned with "Martin", a vampire film like no other before or since.Romero's intelligent movie turns on its head all the things associated with the genre, and presents us with a modern day story of addiction, sexuality, and obsession. Martin is your average gawky teenager, a little boy lost in a chaotic world, with an insatiable appetite for human blood. But, where previously that vampiric bloodlust is a sign of great sexual prowess, and overpowering self-importance, here it is a curse. Martin's world is one of unfulfilled desire and confusion. He is ostracised from family, with few friends - his only confidante is the faceless radio talkshow host - and our sympathies are with him throughout. His attacks are fuelled not by pleasure, but more by a fruitless search for intimacy with his victims, who aren't picked off indiscriminately by uncontrollable urges, but rather chosen. When he finally finds 'the sex thing', his need for blood is overcome. Although gruesome and calculated, his attacks aren't excessively violent, and the opening scene is perfectly written to repulse and reprieve in equal measure. What initially appears to be a brutal rape, is twisted by Romero into an almost tender love scene between attacker and victim.With brilliant use of locations, and nondescript atmosphere, "Martin" is a horror movie that both disturbs and intrigues. The performances are erratic, and Maazel is way too OTT, spouting "Nosferatu!!" all histrionics and melodrama. But Amplas, as Martin, is genuinely affecting, and steeped in pathos. Unflinchingly original, a horror movie with gore, but plenty of brains to go with it.
4 out of 5 people found the following review useful: me and Martin go way back, 10 January 2007 Author: jonathan-577 from Canada
I probably watched it 100 times in high school, although I probably haven't put it on in this decade. And how does it look now that Uncle Fuzzy has replaced my old Betamax copy? Well the first thing I noticed was the fine detail of the bored-housewives this teenage vampire gets mixed up with, and how that milieu really does affect their behaviour and hence the plot. I noticed that the bits of romantic dialogue that I used to find shudderingly cheesy are DELIBERATELY that, because that's how these people would actually talk. I noticed that old Tata Cuda, the colonel-sanders-like uncle who is out to save Martin's soul, is not completely unsympathetic, not due to anything the conservative old codger actually does, but due to the fact that Lincoln Maazel's performance is - I can hardly even type it - UNDERSTATED. I noticed that Romero's smoking-priest cameo is even more hilarious and apt than I remembered it. I saw how this guy can barely pack into one movie everything he's trying to get across, new stuff just keeps happening - he's not connecting the dots or marking time, he's inventing something new. And I asked myself again whether this puberty-parable-for-grownups is an even greater film than Romero's anticapitalism-for-teenyboppers. And once again I just dunno.
Add another review
