|Page 5 of 20:||              |
|Index||196 reviews in total|
'Land of the Dead', 'Diary of the Dead', 'Dawn of the Dead', and 'Planet Terror' are my favorite zombie movies so far.What they did so well was create an atmospehere that helped make interesting characters, a good plot, and a really good movie.This remake of George A. Romero's version probably should've have just stayed beneath the ground.It's not that I didn't like it, it's just that I wish the people didn't stay in the house for an hour and a half.Zombie movies need to take the people and put them in different areas.The only zombie movie that put the characters in one place and let them stay that I liked was 'Quarantine'. This is a bad zombie movie, but it's a so-so movie overall.
I do not fault Romero for the way the original looked, but you can tell it had a really low budget and it looks kind of choppy in places. This film makes up for that and has a nice look to it, just a shame it is not nearly as gory as other zombie films like "Dawn of the Dead" and "Day of the Dead" or even lesser known Italian zombie films of the late 70's and early 80's. The story is sort of the same, with just enough differences to keep it interesting and not look like a carbon copy remake where it is the old virtual shot by shot deal. So we get the zombies attacking and survivors trying to hold up in a house in the middle of nowhere. We have are arguing that ensues about where the best place to hide is and we have the poor sick child that has been bitten by one of the undead outside and of course we have the speculation about what those outside are as well. Differences are plenty though as the attack scenes on the house seem faster than the original and the lead female is not some very spaced out girl who lacks any and all survival skills. Also, the ending is very different and more to my liking than the original as well. The highlight in the movie though has to be the little girl scene as that looks creepy and is very good in this version of the film.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
In rural Pennsylvania, a group of average people gather together in a
farmhouse to fight off the undead hordes taking over the area.
Night of the Living Dead (1968) is my favourite film of all time. I've had the 1990 remake for a long time, but have only watched it once. The first time I saw it, I remembered nothing but mediocrity, and shortly thereafter became embittered that they attempted to mess with the film at all. Then, I saw Night of the Living Dead 3-D and I got a little more respect for the 1990 remake, seeing as it's not one of the worst horror films of all time (and NotLD3D is). So, I decided to revisit it. This first remake is not a bad film. But it's just not very good either. I think the majority of my dislike for it comes from its very 'TV-movie feel': From the direction/cinematography, the acting, and even the credits. . . it just feels like some kind of gory Hallmark Showcase or something. The gore & makeup are well done, even though Tom Savini didn't do them. Overall, as a remake, it's hard to consider overly excellent as it's essentially a subpar clone of the perfect original. On its own, however, it's a good zombie flick that should be watched as a separate piece to be enjoyed. Unfortunately, due to its lack of straying from the original, it's hard to view as special.
Final verdict: 6/10.
"Night of the Living Dead" immediately lapsed into the public domain
because the original theatrical distributor, the Walter Reade
Organization, didn't place a copyright notice on the prints. In 1968,
United States copyright law required notice for a work to maintain a
copyright. Image Ten had a proper notice on the title frames beneath
the original title, "Night of the Flesh Eaters." The distributor
inadvertently removed the copyright statement when it changed the
title, an act of negligence which ensured widespread distribution, but
without royalties to the film makers.
Romero wanted to get at least some restitution for himself and others who worked on the original.
Because of the inexperience of the people who made The Night of the Living Dead back in 1968, the film quickly fell into public domain and they lost out on the lion's share of the profits as it developed from a cult favorite to a genuine horror classic. The Tom Savini directed remake was a way for them to get back some of what they lost as the old crew reassembled hoping lightning would strike twice. Unfortunately, it wasn't the hit they were hoping for but it's a pretty good movie which faithfully recreates the tone and feel of the original while throwing in a few welcome twists and maxing out the prerequisite gore. An early starring role for future Candyman headliner Tony Todd.
This movie is a classic zombie horror, it's great and there are a lot
of thrills throughout.
If I have to knock it at all, the acting could be a bit better. There are no big names in this movie but for what it is, being a fun zombie movie, it is good enough.
Also I would say that the movie is a little bit too much like a copy of the original grandfather of all zombie movies "Night of the Living Dead". It can't possibly be better than that so if you want to remake the movie at least make it different, add more twists or different settings etc.
At the end of the day this is a fantastic movie that you can still enjoy today, some great cheesy special effects and gore, and lots of fun zombie deaths!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Tom Savini didn't need to remake this movie, but I don't think anyone's
complaining. First of all, we have full Savini zombie effects, in
color. And despite what critics think, it's awesome to look at.
Secondly, just listen to this cast. Tony Todd (Candyman) is Ben this
time around. Tom Towles, who played Otis in "Henry: Portrait of a
Serial Killer" plays Tom. Bill Mosely (Choptop from Texas Chainsaw
Massacre II) is in the movie early as the ill fated Johnnie. And to top
it off, the only man to be killed by Jason Voorhees, Leatherface, and
zombies, veteran Bill Butler plays Tom, complete with a Pittsburgh
So is the story different? No. Not really. Everyone ends up in an abandoned farmhouse again. This time, Barbara is much stronger, and far less catatonic, thanks to great work from Patricia Tallman. The same basic chain of events happen. Ben and Barbara bar up the doors in the house, then a group of people in the basement come out and introduce themselves. Harry and Ben bicker about whether or not to go to the basement. Once again, they decide to take a truck out, which needs gas, which Tom goes to get and of course, blows himself up.
This time however, Harry and Ben start shooting at each other. Ben goes downstairs after being hit and Harry goes to the attic. So, Barbara just decides to leave. She goes outside and teams up with those trusty Western PA gun slinging rednecks in different kinds of zombie killing games, including hanging the zombies and throwing rocks at them, as well as randomly shooting them. Hoo-ray. As far as social commentary goes, this scene pretty much has the most, as Barbara mutters, "They're us. We're them and they're us." But the movie really isn't too preachy. It's a gory fun mess.
So she goes back to the house safely, as the zombies are either too slow or just plain outnumbered. Inside she finds Ben, who is now a zombie. But what's even better is finding Harry alive, not a zombie. Does she help him? No. She shoots him. Good for her, because that guy, I have to say, was a real prick.
So that's the remake. Was it necessary? Not at all. But it was a blast to watch. And really, it didn't take anything away from the original, in the way that the "Dawn of the Dead" remake would tarnish the original years later.
__________________________________ For all of the Horror Banana's reviews, visit http://morozov924.hubpages.com/
I like zombie movies in general and so was curious to see a remake of
the seminal film that ignited the genre. I can't compare to the
original material as I haven't seen it, but I thought that by itself,
the remake was still a very good film. I thought there was intensity,
surprises and disturbing moments, and not because of the relatively
little amount of gore. I think Tony Todd (the only "living" Black actor
here) offered a strong tormented performance that made his character's
plight more poignant. He's a severely underestimated actor in my eyes.
Patricia Tallman, the redhead, had a fascinating character story arc
and she pulled it off in a competent yet not outstanding fashion. Tom
Towles in a great performance as Cooper played a selfish man you really
loved to hate. Whenever he was interacting with the others, especially
Todd, there were lots of psychological tension that made the pressure
The "action" scenes involving the zombies were not particularly dynamic or gruesome (perhaps it's because I'm desensitized from having watched too many horror flicks ;-), but such was not the point. I sometimes found the zombies pitiful and pathetic, and I thought they moved very well, "in-character" so to speak, all compliments. The intentionally grotesque zombies with minimal make-up effects were not the stars or the main menace here, it was more about survivors in extreme conditions and especially human nature. In that regard, the ending was not only morally powerful and satisfying, I found it pretty memorable. Night of the Living Dead has a limited scope (mostly in an isolated house) and non-spectacular zombies, but it still packs a bite and is definitely worth watching for the psychological thriller/horror fan. I think it shows that the original creator, Romero, was actively involved in the production.
Rating: 7.5 out of 10 (Very good)
Like most remakes, spin-offs and rip-offs of George A. Romero's
original "Dead" trilogy, the 1990 remake of "Night of the Living Dead"
didn't exactly need to be made. Sure, the original pre-dates it by a
good 20+ years and audiences are always seemingly thirsty to see a good
thing come back from the dead again and again, but as it stands,
Romero's seminal zombie opus is still pretty darn perfect.
Nevertheless, special effects maestro Tom Savini (who worked with
Romero on both "Dawn of the Dead" and "Day of the Dead") took a stab at
the material and with the blessing of Romero himself (who also rewrote
the script and served as a producer) set to craft his own take on the
So how does it fare? Well, the updated "Night" is hardly brain-dead or DOA (whichever dead analogy you choose to use). For the most part, Savini's version stays pretty true to the source material, only deviating in a few spots to keep things fresh and interesting. The film hits pretty much all the basic beats of the original: cannibal corpses spring to life for no apparent reason and corner a rag-tag band of survivors in a secluded country house. Domestic disputes and racial tension rears its ugly head as the group winds up hurting itself more than their would-be predators.
With Tom Savini at the helm, it's expected that the film should be a blood and gore bonanza; however, such is not the case. While the effects here are (mostly) top-notch, Savini keeps things relatively tame, letting the characters and their predicament take center-stage. The first-time director gives the film a quick, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants pace and handles it all with enough of a sense of dread and tension to make the grandfather of zombie films proud. Unfortunately, Savini doesn't reel in his actors enough, and from time to time the cast seems bound to choke on the chunky dialog they spew. The group is almost a "who's who" of late '80s/early '90s horror, with the likes of Tony Todd, Bill Moseley, Tom Towles and William Butler, but unfortunately some awkward performances here and there threaten to squash any fanboyish joy that can be drawn from their presence. On the flipside, the character of Barbara is seemingly injected with steroids as Patricia Tallman gives the former damsel-in-distress the Sarah Connor treatment. The Barbara of the '90s is a much needed addition with Tallman pretty much saving and stealing every scene she is in.
Overall, the makeover given to "Night of the Living Dead" is a decent if underwhelming affair. Like so many remakes before it, it fails to greatly improve upon its source material, nearly rendering itself moot. Compared to the disastrous 2008 remake of "Day of the Dead" and the over-rated Zack Snyder-helmed "Dawn of the Dead," Tom Savini's take is rather harmless and, for lack of a better term, adequate. Nothing touches the original, and even Romero himself has stumbled in his effort to top his masterpiece(s), so take this one for what it's worth.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Years ago, my family and I returned late from a long car trip. It was around 2 in the morning and even though I was tired, I found that I wasn't ready for bed yet. So, turning on the TV, I stopped on USA and saw that they were having NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD on. At the time, not yet being the zombie fan I am today, I shrugged and figured "Why not?" From that terror-filled evening on, I became a loyal follower (aka DEADITE) of all things zombie! To this day, some sixteen years later, it still holds a candle for me! Normally, I'm one who hates remakes, considering them pointless. Most of the time, you get the feeling that filmmakers of remakes are saying "The original sucks in some way, so I'm gonna do it better." And most of the time, their work is worse. However, NOTLD 90 (as I call it) is a remake done right! What's brilliant about good remakes is that they respect the original work, but then take the concept in new directions. In many ways, a good remake is an alternate story. Acting in NOTLD 90 is top-notch. Tony Todd (AKA: Candyman) delivers his best performance as Ben. Opposite him, Patricia Tallman is equally good as Barbara, now a lot tougher as Romero originally intended! Having Romero as Executive Producer and screenwriter may be the reason for this remake's success. Because now, Romero has the rare opportunity of trying new things, intensifying the in-fighting between characters, altering the fates of various characters, and eliminating the need for all that unnecessary "Venus Space Probe" explanation from the original. This time around, everyone is dropped into the middle of a situation where nobody knows what's happening. But even a good remake doesn't come without a price. In NOTLD 68, we were faced with a group of ordinary people, no heroes or villains. Throughout the entire film, they kept making mistakes and ultimately wound up dooming themselves because they couldn't stop warring against each other. In NOTLD 90, we still have a group of individuals. But now, as the movie goes on, there seems to be a clear distinction between the heroic ones and villainous ones. In terms of on-screen blood and guts? Surprisingly, this is the tamest zombie film in my opinion. In NOTLD 68, Romero set the bar for modern horror films with zombies munching on body parts, blood dripping down walls, and showing us man's inhumanity to man. In NOTLD 90, we only get a few scenes of zombies feasting, no-one gets pulled apart, no zombie limbs get ripped off, etc. Ultimately though, this remake retains the power of the original and is a good start for anyone interested in become a fellow Deadite!
|Page 5 of 20:||              |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|