Night of the Living Dead (1990) User Reviews

Remake of something that didn't need to be remade, but it's still alright

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 31 October 2001]

George A. Romero turns over his classic horror film to be remade, and it's in the hands of Tom Savini (who did brilliant makeup for Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead). Now, I do have some mixed feelings about this movie. While in some aspects it's well made (er, for a remake), it can not match the original, if only in tone and style. But it also doesn't match up with the original because until the end, most of the movie is a shot for shot remake. More style is added, to be sure, but Savini and Romero (who scripted this one) could've gone farther.

With that said, Night of the Living Dead (1990) was an enjoyable horror flick experience, one where it's a good time with color and gore and all (plus more full frontal zombie nudity) and as long as you don't think too deeply about what you are watching (and certainly don't try to compare the 1968 and 1990 versions together), you'll have fun. B+

Not bad, but could have been better...

[Mulliga · 8/10 · 30 March 2002]

I've seen every "Dead" movie many times, and I've even written a spec script for "Dusk of the Dead." Here's what's right and wrong with this remake of the 1968 classic.

***SPOILERS AHEAD *** SPOILERS AHEAD ***

1. RIGHT - Barbara getting strong. Looking at Romero's other films - "Dawn" and "Dusk," strong females like Fran and Sarah play tough, believable characters. The catatonic Barbara in "Night" '68 was way too weak, especially for a Romero film. Although the execution wasn't as good as I would have liked (more on that later), it was the right decision.

2. WRONG - The music. Though the original used library samples for its music, they were very well-picked and added a chilling side to the action, with very few hitches. Here, though, an annoying score sometimes takes the viewer out of the picture. Better to leave the music out altogether.

3. RIGHT - Playing on people's expectations. The opening cemetery scene is one heck of a shock. Shooting at a gas pump? Not a good idea:).

4. WRONG - Harry Cooper. The point of this film was to make Harry out to be a complete a--hole. He hits his wife, drinks, argues, and doesn't even sound rational. The original made Harry an angry, nasty guy, but he helped some (throwing the cocktails, etc.) and made some good arguments for staying in the basement. Here, all he does is shout at everyone - not fun.

5. RIGHT - Effects. Great makeup here, absolutely convincing. Much better than the average horror film.

6. WRONG - Pacing. When the house is being boarded, the zombies attack constantly, and overpower the humans several times. You'd have to be an idiot to stay up there if the zombies were THAT strong. The first one made staying upstairs a viable option.

7. RIGHT - The third option of just getting the heck away. With a rifle and a shotgun, it shouldn't be too hard to get everyone past the zombies and into the open.

8. NEUTRAL - The ending. Certainly a radical change for Barbara's character, but it makes sense in context of Harry's behavior.

9. NEUTRAL - Decreased role of TV/radio reports. It's nice to focus on the matter at hand, but seeing the wider view of things is fun, too. It's good that they didn't explain WHY the dead were rising.

There you have it. Comments from a die-hard "Dead" fan. The film is about a 6-8/10, depending on how you like the series in general. It's comparable to "Day," in other words.

Really good...

[BandSAboutMovies · 7/10 · 9 September 2022]

By all rights, a remake to Night of the Living Dead should be a movie that I absolutely hate. But you know, when you get George Romero rewriting the original script and Tom Savini directing, it already had a great shot of having me be happy. Yet Savini told Film Monthly that there was an even better movie that he didn't get to make: "It was the worst nightmare of my life. No, I still have nightmares of being on the set directing that movie. It all started before the movie. It was a plethora of why and how dare you?! I'm getting the same slack now because I'm in the remake of Dawn of the Dead. Listen the thing that kept me going on the Night of the Living Dead set was that George asked me to do the FX on the original film back in 1968. But I was in Vietnam when he shot that. You know I had enlisted in the army and they called me in. So what kept me going on the set was that I realized that I didn't get to do the first movie and now here I am directing the remake. My problem with the remake and the reason I call it a nightmare is because you know I had lots of ideas. I had some eight hundred-story boards and the whole movie was actually shot on paper. See George Romero wasn't there. George was off in Florida writing the Dark Half. I got stuck with these two idiot producers that didn't know anything and their careers prove it and you know I didn't want to make their bad movie for them. You know my hands were just slapped all over the place I couldn't do a lot of stuff. The movie is about forty percent of what I intended. It would be a much better movie if I had got to put in all the stuff I really wanted to do. Then the MPAA hit us hard. You know with my name on it and George Romero they were waiting for us. And they made us cut some more stuff so it's kind of a sterile film."

Those producers would be Ami Artzi, who also produced several movies for 21st Century starting with The Forbidden Dance, and Declan Baldwin, who went on to produce American Splendor, Manchester by the Sea and Captain Fantastic, so he seemed to do pretty well.

Regardless, the whole reason for the remake was that thanks to the court battle over the rights to the film -- as well as the mistake that caused the copyright notice not to be included -- Romero never saw any money from his original film. Even when he won the case, the distributor went out of business before he got any money.

Romero contacted Menahem Golan when he heard that 21st Century Film Corporation wanted to make a remake. This remake would bring together Romero, John Russo and Russ Streiner for the first time in 20 years. Savini was supposed to only do the special effects but Romero talked him into directing the film.

Sure, we know the story -- starting with Barbara (Patricia Tallman) and Johnny (Bill Moseley) getting attacked in a cemetery -- and if the players are the same (Ben is the hero and played by Tony Todd, Harry is still a horrible person and played by Tom Towles), the fact that this movie gives Barbara more agency and doesn't have her grow catatonic worked with me. How great is it that this one ends with Streiner -- as a cop -- saving Barbara instead of menacing her in Evans City Cemetery?

Despite the fact that filming was on time and on budget, Menahem Golan and his producers insisted on cutting out scenes to keep costs down. Savini could do little to stop them. He also blamed the multiple MPAA cuts as the reason why so few horror fans were excited about this movie.

I know that I was in a theater the first and only weekend this played in Western Pennsylvania and when Bill Cardille showed up and read the cities where the zombies were showing up, there was sheer joy and outright yelling in the theater. I hoped that this movie would be a bigger deal and yet even three decades later, no one seems to think about it.

"This is pure hell on earth."

[Backlash007 · 17 February 2002]

"This is pure hell on earth." Actually, what Tony Todd meant to say was "This is one hell of a movie." Tom Savini and George A. Romero have succeeded in recreated a classic (which is quite hard to do). Night of the Living Dead '90 is faithful to the original, but still manages to scare and surprise you by throwing in a few unexpected twists. Director Savini creates a great atmosphere. This is one of my favorite claustrophobic films. It has the feel of an old, secluded farmhouse, and thankfully lacks that Hollywood gloss. The characters feel real as well. The cast is perfect. Tony Todd, William Butler, and Tom Towles are the re-incarnations of the original Ben, Tommy, and Harry Cooper. And longtime Romero collaborator, Patricia Tallman, revamps her character Barbara for the nineties. And you gotta love Bill Moseley ("They're coming to get you Barbara. They're horny Barbara."). All of the classic elements (the feud between Ben and Cooper, the claustrophobia) and a few new ones (a smarter female lead, new ending) make this one unforgettable.

Not needed--but OK

[preppy-3 · 7/10 · 18 January 2006]

The dead come back to eat the flesh of the living. A small group of people are holed up in a farmhouse. They have to fight the dead from getting in...and each other.

There was no reason (that I can see) to remake the 1968 classic "Night..." but George Romero (director and co-writer of the original) wanted it. He scripted it and got makeup artist Tom Savini to direct. The results are OK. It could have been a disaster but wasn't. It's not a scene by scene remake but it does have some of the original dialogue. Still it makes some pretty extreme changes.

Barbara in the first movie was little more than a basket case. Here she is strong and intelligent and can hold her own. It's never really explained how she became such a crack shot though. Tony Todd is a good actor--but not here. He has the unenviable job of playing the part that Duane Jones played so well in the original. He is good...but not enough. The other actors are all pretty OK--the same as the originals were.

There are some cute visual and verbal references to the first film and the gore has been upped drastically (though not as much as it could have been). There is also an eerie and very effective music score throughout the movie. I found this a little slow but that's because I've seen the first multiple times in the past. And this one tacks on a screamingly obvious "ironic" finale.

It's OK--but the original is still the best. I give it a 7.

A Pretty Good Zombie Movie

[Uriah43 · 6/10 · 16 April 2013]

This movie is a remake of the 1968 film of the same name. In essence, the dead come back to life and seven people take shelter in a farmhouse somewhere in western Pennsylvania. Once inside the people disagree on their next course of action. One wants to fight them off by fortifying the house and waiting for help to arrive. Another wants to retreat to the basement and hide. Yet another wants to make a run for it. Now, rather than say which person is right, I will refrain so that it won't spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it. I will say, however, that the differences between the original version and this one were rather stark. For instance, the original was filmed in black and white and when it was released shocked the nation. The remake, on the other hand, had some improvements but wasn't nearly as impressive. For example, the original character of "Barbra" (played by Judith O'Dea) was in a state of shock and hysteria which added greatly to the suspense of the film. The new and improved "Barbara" (Patricia Tallman) was sleeker, more capable and less catatonic which added more versatility to the storyline. However, it seemed to lessen the effect. Likewise, the other characters seemed more polished but less effective as well. Now, that is not to say that there was anything wrong with the acting abilities of any of the characters as all of them were adequate. If anything, I thought Patricia Tallman performed quite well in her enhanced role. In short, this was a pretty good zombie movie. But even so, the original version was much more horrific.

Romero and Savini create a horror masterpiece.

[classmouse · 10/10 · 29 June 2005]

Wanting to re-visit the genre he created, George Romero approached Tom Savini to direct a remake of his 1968 masterpiece, Night of the Living Dead.

While the film follows the original closely, it does have some important changes. Notably the character of Barbara is no longer a gibbering vegetable but now much more balanced. Other changes help blend the film much better into Romeros Dawn and Day. The use of tools by the zombies for example, is lessened and removed at times, creating more continuity between Night, Dawn, Day and Lands time-line of the undeads abilities.

Some seem to automatically shoot down the remake in favor of the original, I've watched this version almost as many times as Dawn and Day, and believe the film tops the original in almost every way.

Although the groundbreaking nature of the original will always remain, Savini's Dead is a without doubt a classic Zombie flick and in my opinion a perfect first chapter in the Romero Dead series.

Acceptable remake about flesh-eating living dead taking over the world , in which again a bunch of people are chased by Zombies

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 17 February 2013]

Interesting remake of the original classic film filmed by expert make-up artist , Tom Savini . This powerful horror film is the Tom Savini's directorial debut with more budget than George A Romero classic film , one of the most successful independent films of all time that was initially dismissed as exploitation, but when was re-released , it struck deeply with a disillusioned youth angry with the desperation about Vietnam . Tom Savini's gruesome first film, combining gore, 'bona fide' frights horror and in colorful style with skillful characterization . A mysterious plague expands about people , as every cadaver for miles around hungers for their flesh , it creates the recently dead to rise from their graves and scout the countryside and surrounding a farmhouse for feed on and where find shelter a hapless group . The legions of dead people who stalk the house are looking exasperatingly for live humans . A woman (Patricia Tallman ,she had known Tom Savini since they went to college together, he chose to cast her because of her strong-willed demeanor) along with an African-American named Ben (Tony Todd, Laurence Fishburne and Eriq La Salle both auditioned for the role of Ben ; Ving Rhames was also considered) escape the frightening zombies to take refuge at a house . The group is trapped inside a farmhouse as legions of the walking dead try to get inside and use them for food .

The first time the Zombies appeared was in ¨White Zombie(1932)¨. From then on Zombies remained a firm staple of terror B-genre , bringing the dead back to life was a popular pastime in the 30s and 40s . The early zombies were basically genteel beings and generally likable and agreeable types . Romero created in Pittsburg his own production company Image Ten Productions with his friends, John Russo among them and they each contributed 10.000 dollars and formed the budget for his first ¨Night of living dead¨ movie which made Romero world famous and he gave birth to the modern Zombie genre . Tom Savini cast an African-American Tony Todd , Duane Jones-alike , along with usual horror secondaries as Bill Moseley and Tom Towles ; furthermore ,Billy Cardille appears as a reporter in both the 1968 version and the remake . And acting debut for Katie Finneran and Heather Mazur . Claustrophobic picture , giving interesting consideration to the violence executed by the zombies and , along with the original ¨Night of the living dead, has had a lasting importance . It was one of the first successful independent terror productions influencing and inspiring countless imitations, copies and rip-offs . The scene at the end of the film, where several zombies are lynched from a tree and shot at was in fact scripted in the original 1968 film, but was cut because of the racial tensions gripping the country at the time , the scene pays homage to the cut. As is tradition with most zombie films, the word 'zombie' is never once used in this movie to describe the Living Dead . The motion picture was well directed by Tom Savini , though Peter Hyams was asked to direct, but turned it down to make ¨Margin narrow¨. However , Tom Savini's originally wanted to start the film in black-and-white, then slowly add color. Other equally celebrated sequels are the followings : ¨Dawn of the dead (78)¨ where the zombies attack a shopping mall ,¨Day of the dead dead(85)¨ and scientific experimenting on zombies and ¨Land of dead (2005)¨ with high budget played by Simon Baker, Asia Argento and Dennis Hooper .

Great remake

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 28 October 2013]

Director Tom Savini remakes the iconic George A. Romero original. There are some significant changes that makes it a more action packed logical construct. It's no longer the moody black and white '68 indie with odd shooting angles. This one is much more straight forward.

The actors are pretty good. The biggest name at the time has to be Tony Todd. Also this is Katie Finneran's first film. And Tom Towles is quite effective as the obnoxious dad. But it's Patricia Tallman that's the big discovery. She's got the great look, the force of will and the physicality to drive the movie and compete without being overshadowed by Tony Todd.

Not awful, just irrelevant.

[nosp-4 · 5/10 · 7 February 2009]

*** Major Spoilers ***

This movie is by no means horrible. Seen outside of the context of the NOTLD series, it wouldn't be a bad popcorn muncher. Arguably, it even improves on the original in some ways, but in most ways it pales in comparison.

• On the positive side, the acting is better than the original, and the production values are improved. This is not a major shock given the tiny budget of the original (only $114,000) and the unknown cast and crew culled from the Pittsburgh area theater and local commercial circuit.

• Some might feel that the Barbara character is an upgrade. I feel neutral on that. In the original, Barbara was nearly a vegetable, but this is in line with the shock we might expect from her trauma, and in the end she does try her best to help out, and we appreciate her effort to overcome the shock. Yet I did enjoy the new Barbara's role as an interesting twist.

• Some might argue that this version is better because it is in color, though I would disagree strongly. I feel that the black & white original, along with its wooden performances and choppy editing, actually added to the creepiness of the movie.

The original was groundbreaking in many ways. The remake, however, is merely conventional. That doesn't make it bad, but it does make it irrelevant.

Here are some ways where the remake fails to deliver:

• When Barbara first enters the house, she leaves the door standing fully open. This is despite the fact that she is being chased by a couple of zombies who had killed her brother and tried to kill her. She never tries the phone, which is inexplicable. Even the vegetable Barbara from the original movie had that much sense.

• The people in the house wait waaaayyyy too long before beginning to board up the house. There is no logic or explanation for why it takes the zombies so long to cross the lawn (seemingly hours, from daylight to darkness) and start attacking a house full of juicy meat.

• Often in the midst of zombie attacks, some people in the house manage to allow themselves to focus on other matters. This seems implausible.

• The lonely, shocked aspect of Barbara wandering around the creepy house looking for wood amidst the animal heads and jewelry box is completely gone, yet those scenes set much of the critical tone in the original.

• We never see the dead really devouring the living. I guess it's just assumed that the audience understands what is going on.

• The radio and TV broadcasts were an essential component of the original, not only for expository purposes (what is happening? why is it happening? what do we do about it?) but again for setting the tone for showing the widespread nature of the attacks and defining this house and its inhabitants as being truly on their own. One could really place themselves in a similar position, and watching the world kind of falling apart through local emergency TV broadcasts was riveting.

• The fact that zombies catch fire easily is not exploited at all as in the original. The scenes with the flaming chair and the Molotov cocktails were effective in the original, but gone in the remake.

• The remake added a strong female character, but at the same time the Mrs. Cooper character became weaker and less effective.

• The scene in the original that really sent audiences into shock and really made this movie famous was the basement scene with the child killing her mommy with a garden trowel. It was extremely graphic although mostly done in shadow, and as I recall there were reports of people fainting in theaters. This is just totally gone in the remake. The subsequent scenes of the girl eating her parents are also gone. Wow, so much for shock value.

• The death of Ben was a major shock moment in the original that is completely lost. The new ending is interesting enough but somewhat predictable and trite. The original ending was truly... original. It was definitely not a conventional happy or even moderately hopeful ending, resulting in people walking out of theaters quiet with their thoughts - a real win for a director.

• The musical score in the remake is just awful. It's distracting and inappropriate. By comparison, the spartan soundtrack of the original was extremely effective and creepy in a Hitchcock sense, varying from screeches to soundlessness, to heartbeat sounds.

In summary, it's an OK movie worth watching, but if you're a fan of the series don't expect it to be a suitable replacement for the original.

Well-done remake of a horror classic; Savini does Romero proud

[george.schmidt · 8/10 · 17 October 2013]

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1990) *** Tony Todd, Patricia Tallman, Tom Towles, McKee Anderson, William Butler, Katie Finneran, Bill Moseley, Heather Mazur. Make-up wiz Tom Savini's big-screen directorial debut is a a doozy: a remake of the seminal zombie horror classic for a contemporary day audience doesn't disappoint with more than enough tension, terror and violence. Teaming up with frequent collaborator - and the original's creator/director - George A. Romero (who also does a better turn with the screenplay), the film echoes its counterpart nicely yet layers on the dread. While Todd does a comparatively equal (if not better and tougher) job as the Duane Jones hero, Tallman is a bit off for the most part (a bit stiff and then suddenly gung-ho makes an uneasy transition) while Towles is perfectly cast as the obnoxious loud- mouth whose negativity is only second to the slow-moving corpses taking a stranglehold on their holed-up farmhouse sanctuary. The original is the bellwether curve for modern-day horror and this well-produced homage is just as good.

They're coming to get you, Barbara! Again...

[paul_haakonsen · 7/10 · 20 January 2016]

As much as re-makes usually aren't sitting well with me, then I just had to take a chance on watching this 1990 re-make of the 1968 movie that just revolutionized the entire horror genre and sparked the zombie sub-genre; "Night of the Living Dead". But with the dread of director (and special effects master) Tom Savini failing to fill out the massive footprint left by George A. Romero hanging over the movie, it was either a make or break experience.

And now in 2016, I can say that I have watched this 1990 re-make numerous times since back in the 1990's. Yes, it is a re-make that is well worthy of the original movie upon which it is founded. And director Tom Savini really stepped up to the task and showed that he was able to skillfully grace the re-make in the spirit of the father of all zombies; George A. Romero.

The story told in "Night of the Living Dead" needs no introduction. And if you are a fan of the horror and zombie genre, then you will already be familiar with the storyline. And if you are not, and if you are a horror fan, then you seriously need to get around to watching the 1968 original and this 1990 re-make. As such, I am not going to delve into story details here.

Director Tom Savini did deviate some from the original story, which was acceptable and good, because a frame by frame re-shooting of the original movie would have been disastrous. And I must salute him on his accomplishments with this movie.

The cast also deserves a good share of credit for making this movie into what it was, because people really did good jobs with their given roles. Again, especially since they had a lot of pressure hanging over their heads, as they had to live up to the 1968 classic. But they managed to do so quite well. Tony Todd (playing Ben) and Patricia Tallman (playing Barbara) in the lead roles were carrying the movie quite well. And Tom Towles (playing Harry) really portrayed the despicable character quite well. Personally I think it was a shame that Bill Moseley (playing Johnnie) didn't have a bigger part in the movie, because he really is an iconic actor in the horror genre.

"Night of the Living Dead" does have some great special effects, and why wouldn't it have with director Tom Savini also being a masterful special effects man himself. The zombie make-up was really nice and had lots of good details, which is essential for a zombie movie.

I enjoy all things zombie, and it is sacrilege not to be familiar with "Night of the Living Dead" if you are a zombie aficionado. And this 1990 re-make is a well-worthy addition to the zombie genre, and is most worthy of a place in the movie collection right next to the original 1968 version.

So the only thing left to say is: "They're us. We're them and they're us."

No way near as good

[zombie-41 · 4/10 · 4 February 2000]

NOTLD remake was just on the sci-fi channel this evening and I have to say, it was no way near as good as the original. As a seasoned horror fan, I expected a little more gore, the small bullet holes could not compare with some of Romero's earlier work. Another thing is that the remake missed out what I thought was one of the best parts of the original and that is the long radio announcements. The remake only shows a few seconds of a news report and only a brief radio announcement. The film drags on for too long.

Lastly, I won't spoil the ending for you but the original film's ending was much darker and horrific than the remake.

I say, rent the original and give this a miss. 4 stars.

An interesting twist on the old formula.

[Big Jon-2 · 4 January 1999]

You can't help but feel a tingle of deja vu while watching the color remake of Night of the Living Dead. It is essential for full enjoyment to have seen the original since the remake takes the same story and twists and tweaks it to bring it into the 90's. People are divided into two camps on this film. They either absolutely hate it or they have been enraptured by the change-up's that it pitches at you. I am of the later camp. At least Barbara (played by the beautiful Patricia Tallman) has enough of her wits about her to point out how irrational everybody else is being instead of being the catatonic victim like the first time around. "They're so slow. We can just walk right by them." She remarks to Ben (Tony Todd) who is adamant about staying in the house. Perhaps this version isn't socially relevant like the first, but it's nice to see that Romero can add a twist ending that can stand on it's own merits, but really is amusing in light of the former movie.

Nice enough carbon copy - though why bother?

[SteveRaccoon · 7/10 · 21 December 2005]

If you've never seen the original, then go right ahead and get hold of an enjoyable zombie romp.

If you've seen the original (and particularly if you are a fan) then this should be OK to watch, it's pretty much the same thing with a few changes to Barbara and shot in colour. That is unless you are a die-hard fan in which case you'd probably gain nothing from the experience.

There's nothing that I can throw at this movie, it doesn't reflect badly on the original, nor is it a bad film in its own right.

I just don't get why it was remade, we know and love (maybe loathe) these characters already, do we need another clutch of actors to repeat the performance like a dodgy kebab? Nothing's added, no new light is cast, no performance is either bad nor outstanding, it's just 'there'.

Ah well, if you see it cheap then you probably won't regret your purchase, just don't go expecting something new.

An entertaining remake of a classic.

[alexanderdavies-99382 · 7/10 · 8 September 2017]

This 1990 remake of "Night of the Living Dead" is actually very watchable remake of the 1968 classic. Remakes tend to be disappointing but not in this case. The ending here is different and not so downbeat as before. The characters are pretty much one- dimensional but they serve their purpose well enough. The location is suitably eerie and imaginative. It is always a good idea to set and make these kinds of films in the countryside as it heightens the sense of isolation. The zombies are out in full force here and there must be thousands of them on the loose. As before, a small group of humans in a house are besieged by the living dead. There is some good action as well as the customary bloodletting.

Politically correct remake of George A.Romero's classic.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 8/10 · 22 October 2001]

Make-up maestro Tom Savini's color remake of Romero's 1968 classic follows the original almost shot-by-shot,but it's of course not better film.This remake was clearly made for younger viewers who refuse to watch black-and-white films,no matter how good they may be.The result is passable,but it lacks dark atmosphere and mood of the original.If this version has anything to offer,it is Patricia Tallman("Army of Darkness")in an engaging lead performance as a tough,independent heroine.This is only my opinion,but I'm really fed up with "strong female lead" concept that every new horror film seems to have.The next thing I dislike in this picture is the lack of gore.For God's sake this film was directed by gore wizard Tom Savini-the man behind such hard-core splatter flicks like "Maniac","Nightmare" or "The Prowler".The violence is very tame-even by today's standards.However the acting isn't bad,the zombies are pretty scary and the film is never boring.Recommended for horror buffs all around the world.

A worthy installment.

[Anonymous_Maxine · 7/10 · 11 November 2004]

The script is pretty weak and at least as many bad things as good things were brought over from the original for this remake, but the 1990 version of George Romero's classic horror film has its heart in the right place, I guess you could say. The movie wastes no time, starting out in a cemetery where a bickering brother and sister have driven no small amount of distance to visit the grave of their mother. So the Don't Go Into A Cemetery rule of horror movies is immediately broken and swiftly punished. I really liked the way the zombies were introduced, it reminded me of the zombies in Shaun of the Dead, where Shaun walked among them, not paying attention to his surroundings, before noticing that he was surrounded by the walking dead.

Patricia Tallman turns in a satisfactory performance as Barbara, the sister involved in the opening scene and the heroine of the movie. I thought it was strange that she turns out to be such a strong character when at the beginning of the movie she was immediately reduced to a blubbering basket-case when she arrived at the farmhouse in which most of the movie takes place. Granted, she had just witnessed her brother being killed by a zombie, but no matter how much I sympathize with their plight, I can't stand hysterical people in horror movies, male or female. When someone starts whining and moaning and screaming and crying and sobbing and blubbering and won't even respond to someone shaking them and hollering into their face, I just want them to hurry up and get killed so they'll shut the hell up.

Harry Cooper is still the same ridiculous jerkoff he was in the first movie, displaying an entirely unacceptable and unjustifiable state of constant rage, even when finally finding himself in the company of other living, breathing people rather than mindless zombies. Just like the security guard in Dawn of the Dead, this guy wants his own way, even if it means separating himself from other living people, who are fast becoming an endangered species. One thing I'm not sure I understand is the way his insults have been updated to fit the modern times of 1990. At one point, after locking himself, his wife and his zombie-bitten daughter alone together in the basement, he flings a few more vicious insults at the people in the rest of the house, curiously calling them 'lame-brains,' and 'yo-yo's.' If this movie was meant to be shown on the Disney channel, I could understand including such words in the script. But it wasn't. I don't even think the Disney channel was around in 1990.

The zombies are updated, needless to say, but they're not over-the-top and they maintain the general appearance of the original zombies. There's nothing worse than using special effects just because they're there, and this remake doesn't do it. Then there are newer horror movies made that try to improve upon the make-up in the original films, such as the first color installment in the Night of the Living Dead series, the original Dawn of the Dead, tried to do it in color and wound up with a lot of bad extras wearing blue make-up all over their faces. Awful.

(spoilers) There are lots of radio broadcasts throughout about an epidemic of mass murder being committed by a virtual army of unidentified assassins and do not attempt to reach loved ones and blah blah blah. A brother and sister finally get Ben's truck running enough to get it to the gas pump (the fact that it was out of gas should have been mentioned earlier than it was, because it looked a little ridiculous to see him drive up to the house and then frantically shake Barbara, asking her repeatedly if she has a car), only to be killed by fatal stupidity.

I have to admit that I thought the ending was fairly clever. The horribly ironic ending of the original has been changed, but it's still horribly ironic. The whole gang of characters gets saved by a bunch of drunken rednecks, who gleefully and repeatedly shoot zombies between pounding cans of beer, stringing them up in the trees and whatnot, while one character has a bit of insight about the zombies, 'They're us and we're them.' Nice, but I could have done without the philosophy lesson.

I think this remake really tried hard to justify itself, to be more than just a static colorization of a classic, and I think that to a large extent it succeeds. Where it falls short is that it doesn't know what is good and what can be changed about the original. Lots of good is brought through, but there are a few things that I could simply have done without. I'm not a big fan of people remaking classic movies and changing them, but Harry Cooper needs a total character overhaul. Nevertheless, this one's worth a look.

Good remake directed by Tom Savini

[dworldeater · 8/10 · 4 July 2020]

I'm usually opposed to remakes of classic movies. While the remake did not have the groundbreaking impact of the original, The Night Of The Living Dead 90' is a damn good film for the genre and one of the 1st zombie movies I saw( along with Dawn Of The Dead and Return Of The Living Dead) on cable as a teenager. Tom Savini does a fine job in his directorial debut and was overseen by George Romero as writer and producer. This is not the gorefest that fans have come to expect as a lot of it was left on the cutting room floor by the MPAA to get an R rating. Even without it, it's a good horror film with great atmosphere and score and tension. Patricia Tallman was excellent as the leading lady Barbara and was approached differently than the Barbara in the original film. Also impressive was Tony Todd as Ben in a pre Candyman role. The support cast was very good as well with horror icons Tom Toyles and Bill Mosely giving memorable performances as well. This was a good remake that introduced Romero zombies to a generation (my generation). Night Of The Living Dead 90' is a nice companion piece to the original black and white film and is much better than a lot of less effective zombie horror that recieves more fanfare.

A decent execution of a terrible idea

[rdoyle29 · 7/10 · 4 August 2017]

This film really isn't a good idea. The original film is a classic, and there's very little you can do to improve it, outside of making Barbara a stronger personality, which they did. Colour and more modern effects really end up doing little benefit. Given that this film is a terrible idea, it's refreshingly okay. It adds precious little to the original film, but it also manages to do it a bit of justice without sullying its memory. Oddly enough, it's populated with better actors, but has worse acting. The fighting between Ben and Cooper is pitched to ridiculous extremes, and given some plot changes, is even more pointless than in the original film. Worth a look.

What a piece of garbage.

[Speechless · 1/10 · 4 April 1999]

What a piece of garbage. I mean, I could go along with this if the remake had actually been a respectable piece of work; the original Night of the Living Dead is one of the finest horror films ever made, and quite simply THE uncontested best zombie flick. With that masterpiece, George Romero managed to transcend the world of schlocky B-movie horror and deliver a genuinely frightening look at humanity's failure to cooperate in times of crisis. Through that movie's realistic characters and skillful script, the audience learned the real definition of terror. But this . . . it's like the 1990 version was made by people who utterly hated the original and wanted to smear its name. The shining, serious message expressed in the 1968 work of art has been buried under a mountain of hideous acting, cheesy makeup and needless, unrealistic profanity. Real people would not behave like this in a crisis situation. This movie has absolutely nothing going for it--not even the excessive gore that made Day of the Dead at least watchable (and you'd really expect a lot of it, seeing how Tom Savini directed this monstrosity). I realize a lot of zombie fans happen to like this one, and they are entitled to their opinions; if you have any respect for the original movie, though, I'd advise you not to take any chances. Seriously, if I could change just one day of my past I would choose to rewrite the day I decided to watch this film.

Romero produced & written remake is better than you'd expect

[a_chinn · 8/10 · 29 March 2023]

This remake doesn't get enough respect. George A. Romeo didn't get his original film copyrighted, so he ended up not making any money off the film because it wound up in the public domain. With this 1990 remake, he scripted a remake of his original film that's quite loyal to the original story and vision, but this time it's in color and amped up with plenty of gory and very realistic special effects. Of all the zombie movies ever made (and that's quite a few after the zombie film comeback following 28 DAYS LATER and THE WALKING DEAD), this film is the only one I can think of where the zombies really look like corpses (though the zombies on THE WALKING DEAD are quite good too). Romeo turned the directing reigns over to special effects maestro Tom Savini who does a fine job behind the camera. The special effects in the film are top-notch, AND even if Savini wasn't credited for the special effects or makeup on the film, his influence on capturing realistic corpses come to life cannot be denied. Tony "Candyman" Todd takes on the role of Ben, Patricia Tallman is Barbara, Tom Towles is a nicely obnoxious Mr. Cooper, and Bill Moseley is great as the short-lived Johnny. What's most fun about this film is how the story stays so loyal to the original film, outside of thankfully making Barbara a less helpless character, but that when the film deviates from the original for the last 25 minutes, it's kind of a mindblower for anyone who grew up repeatedly viewing the original film. It's like Romero added another half-hour of the story taking place after the events of the original film! On the downside, the film does feel rather stiff and even corny at times, but it's still one of the best zombie siege films out there.

same basic plot, better gore and better barbara.

[aazzam · 7/10 · 26 October 2014]

just watched this and thoroughly enjoyed it! same basic plot as the 1968 original, so not particularly surprising, but very well done. savini does some great work here, and the move up to colour enhances the gore effects, which are certainly more gruesome than the first. music is not so good, the original had a better score, and goblin's work is also better, nothing wrong with the score but nothing catchy/moody as could be. one of the best aspects is, of course, watching how quickly people's civilised exteriors fall away under pressure. tallman is notable as a very different, much stronger barbara, another one of the good differences, there is also more time spent on the aftermath as we see more of the rednecks and the remaining humans. recommended.

Night Of The Living Dead 1990 - Perfect example of how NOT to remake a film.

[karmaticx · 3/10 · 3 November 2006]

Having watched The Night Of The Living Dead 1990 Remake, I can say it's flat out terrible.

Tom Savini... good effects man... Horrible director.

But it wasn't the bad direction that bothered me as much as the writing. It was absolutely meaningless. The original worked together perfectly. But the ending of the remake was awful, and the least of it's problems. You see, the original film had a simple ending with a great message. Also, it came across very well that the lack of working together is what doomed them.

The only epilogue in the ORIGINAL is that when the "posse" comes the next morning, they see Ben in the window. He was the sole survivor, but they shot him in the head assuming he was a zombie. OK, good. Irony well done. It was simple and powerful. With this film, there is No surprise, no drama, no fright and we're off to the start of what is a VERY unfulfilling film when all is said and done.

Technically incompetent, badly directed, no clear focus, a bad script, a loose re-working of points that were strong in the original, turned into an unfocused mess of points that fail to emerge coherently.

Barbara is the survivor, this time. She escapes and comes back for help. This is done VERY unconvincingly, first of all. I mean geez. In the beginning, she could hardly do anything. But then after spending time with people that annoyed her to no end she suddenly gets survival skills OUT OF NOWHERE.

She says she can walk right past them. So... at this point if she was in there with people she wasn't liking that were fighting and arguing, why doesn't she? She just got done screaming at everyone saying they were fighting like 2 year olds. Yet, she stays. This is ridiculous for the next reason: The ridiculous thing is that she DOES leave and DOES walk right past them.

Yes... AFTER everything falls apart, and AFTER everything has gone from bad to worse, when the horror of it all is getting bad when they are ALL out there, THEN she just runs out there and gets away.

....makes no sense. None. She could have done this at any time, but it feels like she didn't until it was "convenient" for the writers. And she had MUCH less trouble out there than Ben had for 2 minutes! WHAT???? So OK.... THEN...

After Ben and Harry had their shootout, Harry locks himself in the attic while Ben, with the good common sense is the one that finds himself in the basement. He sees the keys to the gas pump which they thought they had but failed, and laughs.

OK... that ending worked well enough. But then it gets very stupid.

Barbara comes back the next morning, and sees Zombie Ben coming from the basement, and he's shot. ..........WHAT???? Well, there goes the intelligent ending to the first film. It didn't bother me so much that they "changed" it. Rather it's because they failed to HAVE an intelligent ending because of what happened next.

Barbara then finds Harry that made everything fall apart. He's glad to see her and he's alive. Yes, the selfish, troublemaking guy you hated was the sole survivor. Barbara puts a bullet in HIS head.

uhh............ OK. What a stupid ending.

I mean... what are we supposed to learn from this? That if you're selfish and you can't work with the others, then you'll survive, but then the other survivor will come back and shoot you? What an incoherent mess of an ending. There's no moral. Just some "haha he got shot" ending. The ending went on way too long. In the end there was no strong moral. No point.

Where's the irony? Where's the message? Where's the point? It's the least of the film's problems. Incompetent directing, a general disregard, and an "let's get through it" mentality, a sloppy lack of attention to detail of character development, sloppy story writing, plus more.

Rather just a rehashed concept from a superior film. These, classic characters, re-imagined as flat, uninspired characters who "go through the motions" and play their cardboard parts until the plot ends and the confused multiple mixed "messages" begin and last for 5 minutes more than original ever needed to make one, solid point. A lingering, confused ending with no real point is our reward for a full runtime of a shlocky and incompetent film based on a masterpiece of cinema. Why even release a film as bad as this?

There was no real mystery. Just a mindless action film with an ending that was tacked on. Nothing was horrific, and the film even sorta hits you over the head with "Well, you know what's going to happen. So here's some zombies." The intelligent commentary, all gone. Replaced with points that make no sense.

OK, it's fine that the timid, catatonic girl from the first one, took charge of her situation for once. But they made her TOO much into "G.I Jane" in this remake. It went too far, was heavy handed and everything. It was also poorly pulled off. I would have loved the idea if it was done right.

Oh what? Suddenly she gets a pair of pants instead of a long skirt, a gun, and suddenly she's Sigorney Weaver in Aliens?! If it had looked convincing or felt convincing, I would have got behind it. But it didn't. I could get behind nothing in the film.

It's not that the film couldn't have been remade, but if it was remade by someone who understood the concept and by a competent director and smart writing, it could have succeeded. The film fails largely due to the lack of these things.

And by that, I mean it REALLY fails. Nothing is done well in this film.