You see, thats what i like about Romero and Argento,, good story,little if any cgi.
Alot of movies ( the bigger budget ones) rely too much on cgi effects and no story to speak of.
Most blockbusters are hoping that you are so overwhelmed by the visual onslaught that you'll never stop to think - "Wait, why am I watching this?"
And I've noticed over the last decade or so a rise in the reviews of movies that tend toward, "yeah, it wasn't tooo good, but the special effects are awesome!"
I need a bit more substance than that.
And it seems sometimes that entire movies are written around some CGI effect someone came up with...
But honestly, tho', I think Romero and Savini might've used CGI were it as readily available as it is now. Granted, the probably would've worked on the story, too, but they would've still used it.
I gotta say, tho, that there are still movies from the 80s and early 90s that had no CGI and have better special effects than some new CGI flicks.
Just look at
Aliens.
That film still has amazing special effects and there's no CGI in the whole flick.
Or hell,
The Thing or even
Gremlins...
When they actually had to create real objects that were believable on screen. That's some serious talent, right there...