Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary Edition (Video 1999) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
Why?
kittenkongshow9 February 2020
Ok, so the original fell into the public domain due to a lack of copyright so for some of the makers this may be the best way to finally earn from the film but for everyone else there is really no reason to bother with this.

The new footage doesn't really fit or really add anything, The music is dull.

Only watch if your a completest, The original is hugely important in the history of Horror cinema and being PD you can see it free all over the web and you should...but this version can be forgotten.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rather Pointless Attempt to Update a Classic
Michael_Elliott20 July 2016
Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary Edition (1999)

** (out of 4)

There's no question that NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is one of the greatest horror movies ever made. Since it's release there have been colorized versions, remakes, rip-offs and just about anything else that people could imagine. In 1999 the film was celebrating its 30th Anniversary when John A. Russo decided to shoot some new scenes and that resulted in this version.

The basic idea was to add a couple new characters to the mix as well as give some more backstory to characters in the original movie. The major changes are with the cemetery ghoul played by Bill Heinzman. We're given a backstory on why he was dead as well as some crimes that he committed. Another major change is the introduction of the character Reverend Hicks (Scott Vladimir Licina).

I still remember the hate and vile things that were said about Russo when this film was released. The backlash was quite brutal and the film ended up being a major flop for Anchor Bay. The negative press was so bad that the limited edition release never sold out and I think the studio basically gave up on it. I hated the movie when it was originally released and this here was my first time revisiting it since. So, did a seventeen year wait help the film?

I wouldn't say it "helped" the film any but it's certainly not quite as awful as some of the remakes that were released since. I will say that there was no need to add new scenes to an already wonderful movie. The new scenes stick out like a sore thumb and they just don't mix well with the movie. All of this backstory and new characters honestly could have just gone into a new remake. There's really no point in this film to exist and today it's just out there are a curio for fans of the original movie.

It's hard to imagine anyone really wanting to watch this film. I mean, once again we're dealing with one of the greatest movies ever made. I'm sure Russo thought he was doing the film a favor but he really wasn't and the end result is rather forgettable.
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A total scam.
madahab6 June 2022
I spotted this in a store and was under the impression that footage was being added to the original film. I leapt to the conclusion this was deleted scenes being restored. I couldn't have been more wrong. When I started to watch it and saw this "new" footage I knew that I (and many others)had been duped. What every fan of the George Romero classic have been dying to know is the backstory to the first zombie who attacks Barbara and Johnny in the cemetery. They could even be bothered to match the film stock and the new scenes are jarring. Since the original film has lapsed into the tender mercies of public domain anyone could distribute it, colorize it or anything they want. The new score is dreadful. Whatever flaws the original film has it is still a classic and , in my opinion, the best zombie film ever made. A one star review is far too generous. I cannot recall what I did with my copy- I either sold it or threw it away. Hopefully it has gone out of print and just viewed in disgust by fans of the original.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
When there's no room in Hell, this gets released
BandSAboutMovies9 December 2022
Warning: Spoilers
You have a lot of choices as to how you can watch Night of the Living Dead. The Criterion collection, the original, colorized, animated, deep faked, you name it, you have so many ways to drink in the 1968 classic. Except please, whatever you do, please please please stay away from this one.

To celebrate the 30th anniversary. Anchor Bay put out this version that has the original co-writer John A. Russo writing and directing all new scenes. You think ll the changes to the Star Wars films was horrible? Well, I've got news for you.

I've avoided this for years because, well, I kind of enjoy Russo's films on their own and know that he probably shouldn't meedle with a movie that yeah, he feels some ownership toward, but that he should not put his signature on someone else's painting.

There's also a new music score, re-editing and remastering of the film and you know - yes, the remaster helps, it looks better - but as much of a cliche as "if it's not broke is," some cliches are written because they're true.

Patton Oswalt said it best: "I don't give a **** where the stuff I love comes from, I just love the stuff I love!" I don't need to know how William Hinzman's cemetery zombie got there. It doesn't add anything to the classic at all. I don't need to know that he was a child molester when he was once alive. I don't need to see new footage of Dan (Grant Kramer), Mike (Adam Knox) and guard Charlie (Scott Kerschbaumer) loading up the body. Nor do I need to know that the outbreak first happened at Beekman's Diner, which is the location of the sequel to this, Children of the Dead.

Debbie Rochon also shows up as a therapist interviewing Reverend John Hicks (Scott Vladimir Licina, who also did the music for this and nearly died of a "heart stroke" while filming). Before all this, he opened Hinzman's coffin so that Arthur (George Drennen) and Hilda Krantz (Julie Wallace), the parents of one of his victims, could spit into it. Then, in the midst of the zombies running wild, he gets bitten by Hinzman right in the face. And he survives!

What takes away from it even more is the new ending - which literally breaks the dread that happens when - spoiler warning for a movie made before I was born - Ben dies and we shockingly watch him burn. Now, there's a new close with Rochon coming back to interview the now deranged priest who says that he was healed by Holy Water and that the dead are literally demons, thereby telling us exactly why the dead have returned.

There's also a gory car crash and the undead naked woman is gone, which is funny, because Russo is the man who brought us Scream Queens Swimsuit Sensations and Scream Queen's Naked Christmas.

Russo isn't all to blame for the 17 new minutes. Hinzman was produced and edited, while originals Russell Streiner, Karl Hardman and Marilyn Eastman were all part of this too. They cut twenty minutes from the real movie for this new stuff. Can you even imagine? Well, it happened. And none of the footage matches.

On the commentary, Russo claims that this story is what Romero wanted to do in 1968 but didn't have the budget. Who can say?

The April 19, 1999 Entertainment Weekly reported: "Director George Romero owns the copyright on the title of his cult horror phenomenon Night of the Living Dead - but that's about it. For a special anniversary edition due this fall, the film's writer, John Russo, gathered members of the 1968 ghoul-fest's crew in Pittsburgh to film 15 minutes of new footage. So they dug up some original equipment and dressed cinematographer Bill Hinzman as "the Cemetary Zombie."

Romero, busy with his upcoming project Resident Evil, opted instead to put his name on the 20th anniversary director's cut of the sequel, 1979's Dawn of the Dead, due April 27. "I didn't want to touch Night of the Living Dead" Romero says of his $114,000 feature debut, to which Russo has added prologue, epilogue, and extra zombie footage.

Of the reanimated film, Hinzman says, "We looked at it as, had we the money in 1968, how would we have made it?" But there's no bad blood between the team, who all live in Pittsburgh: A long-standing deal gives both Romero and Russo the right to do as they please with the film. And the director is the kind of guy who never says die. Of future Night visions, Romero says, "I'll do the one for the millennium.""

Guess what? I've now seen Children of the Living Dead and I'm going to put you through that one soon.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Great addition for the fanatric fans // buy the two disc dvd limmited edition
theromanempire-110 November 2018
I really don't get the hate for this NOTLD version. i'm a huge zombie fan. I own more than 100 zombie films and especially I love romero zombie films. NOTLD is my no 1 zombie film of all time. I own a dozen dvd editions from all around the world. including the millennium edition the 40th anniv. edition the new blu ray criterion edition and of course the two disc 1998 limited dvd edition which include also the 1998 soundtrack cd of the film. now I think any fanatic fan who owns the original 1968 version must own the 1998 version too. the fact only that it includes like 15 minutes overall of new footage makes it a must have. that it changes the beginning and the end it's not a bad thing. we already have the 1968 version to appreciate the creepy music and the unknown element of the beginning. that the 1998 version try to explain how the famous first ever flesh-eating zombie broke out of his tomb and showed how he reached the semetery to attack Barbara and her brother is a nice addition to the film. it's not a bad thing. also the new music score is very good. not creepy like the original was but it's nice to watch the film with two music scores. Essentially this is the 1968 version with few changes here and there which is a must have for the fanatic fans. if u are fanatic fan of this film u should own the famous NOTLD TRILOGY.

1) the 1968 original film

2) the 1998 version of the film

3) the great 1990 tom savini remake of the film

that's all I had to say about this version. ignore those beep negative comments and enjoy this version like u did with the original 1968 version.
3 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed