Flyerplesys Perfectly adorable

Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Taha Avalos The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Jared_Andrews A film that popularized "zombie movies" never actually uses the word "zombies." The living dead are only referred to as "ghouls." To an audience that presumably didn't understand the concept of a zombie (since they were not very widely known at the time), it's explained quite well and in a cleverly deliberate manner. None of the characters immediately understand what is happening because why would they? Only through a series of newscasts does the situation become clear. The characters learn that the recently deceased have come back to life (thanks to some radiation effects) to kill and devour the living. This is their first encounter with what we will later call "zombies."'Night of the Living Dead' is, like many horror classics, a movie that is eventually scary. By that I mean it's not scary right away like modern horror movies. The first half is a bit slow and totally dated. It doesn't really hold up in a cinematic way, and it certainly isn't frightening. It comes across as unintentional comedy, or perhaps even intentional comedy. Either way, the material is inherently silly and benign. Around the midpoint, something genuinely horrific happens. Then the tension escalates, and the possibilities suddenly seem endless. Everyone felt somewhat safe up until that point. Sure, one character had died and it is implied that plenty of other unseen people had died off screen too, but the deaths and violence are tame. This moment opens up the floodgates. From there, a series of atrocities take place that would still be considered shocking today and were most certainly beyond shocking when audiences first saw them in 1968. These moments aren't so funny. Even though the film is 50 years old, I still won't mention spoilers, because that's the level of respect I give to these moments. They deserve to unleashed on viewers without prior notice.In addition to making a visceral fright fest, Director George Romero also tackled racial dynamics, though he admitted this was unintentional. Nevertheless, this commentary resonated with audiences in an impactful way. In the 1960s, Black characters were hardly ever presented as heroes or even as equals to their white counterparts on screen. But the lead in this film is a competent, composed Black man who takes charge when everyone else behaves hysterically in response to the "ghouls." A white man feels threatened and compelled to assume control. Though none of this is directly addressed in dialogue, one cannot help but notice the implications. It gives the film layers and makes it more than just a well-crafted zombie flick.It's an additional element like this that makes 'Living Dead' an all-time horror classic.

frankwiener I should alert readers that I am not very knowledgeable about the modern zombie genre, so my review should be taken accordingly as one by an unenlightened old geezer who is not at all hip to the twenty first century.This classic horror movie's greatest strength is its carefully developed and successful "creepiness factor" by director George Romero. After many viewings, I am still terrified when the man walking among the cemetery monuments (Bill Heinzman) suddenly begins to attack Barbara (Judith O'Dea) before moving on to her brother, Johnny, (Russell Streiner), and then begins to chase her into an isolated farmhouse before being joined by what becomes an army of his fellow ghouls, mysteriously raised from the dead. Heinzman not only imitates Karloff very well, but he looks like him! It's my worst nightmare being brought to life on the screen.Although the music is stock material, it was well chosen for its fear effect and downright creepiness. Considering its low budget, Romero's ability to create such a spine-chilling movie is very impressive and commendable.One of the problems with the film, however, is that it fails to sustain the intensity of its opening scenes and loses its punch along the way. I understand that the dialogue was often spontaneous, but it was also often weak, as was much of the acting. This may be controversial, but I didn't get the racial theme that many IMDb reviewers mentioned. I saw Ben as Ben without regards to his race. Harry views both Ben and Tom, who is white, with contempt, and I didn't understand why Ben didn't shout out "Help! I'm not a zombie!" as soon as he heard gunshots outside. He had to know that the zombies were incapable of shooting weapons. Also, the scientists and military officials in Washington were not very credible. They were actually laughable, as was their dialogue.In spite of the weaknesses, this film remains as a remarkable, pioneering classic in the horror genre, and I will continue to watch it and fear it.

J Besser This movie shouldn't be as watchable as it is. You look up and you're an hour into it. Romero and company hit a homerun with their first at bat. The gross out stuff is not as gross as it used to be. In fact, it almost seems like a distraction now. Repeated viewing may have dulled the shocks for me but not the enjoyment...I'm old enough to remember when Living Dead aired on broadcast television the tv stations would put words on the screen during the news reports. They wanted the audience to understand it was not a real newscast and that it was just a movie.

putrescent_stench This is my #1 favorite horror film of all time. It is the only movie to ever give me nightmares. I started getting them as a teenager, put into the same situation as the film – one among a small band of people trying to survive a zombie apocalypse, surrounded by an increasing number of the living dead.Aside from the nightmares, this is my #1 horror movie because it creates an atmosphere of absolute dread – something that I appreciate in a movie (thus my screen name AnDread). The protagonists face what seems to be a pretty much hopeless situation, surrounded by numerous antagonists who want to eat you, who can't be reasoned with, and who continue to grow in number. On top of that, they are faced with in-fighting and incompetence. Perhaps they could survive if they just learned to work together, rather than constantly argue with each other. But this is Romero's not-so-subtle point: compromise rather than dominance is the key to survival. He has said that he thought of the living dead as a revolution, a new (single- minded) generation cannibalizing the older, obsolete generation. Actually, I think of them more akin to a natural disaster – or Godzilla, a monster birthed from our own violent ways, a new creation bent on destroying everything old.The nihilistic ending still gives me chills – it's one of the bleakest movie endings ever. I don't want to spoil it. I'll just say that when I saw it for the first time as a teen, it hit me pretty hard. I had never seen any movie end like that.For such a low-budget film, Romero does a fantastic job using sound, lighting, practical effects, and performances to maximum advantage. The acting is excellent. Some may not be impressed with the way the characters are written, or the way they are portrayed. But while both are handled with a simplistic, at times seemingly melodramatic, approach, the writing is more layered than you might first think. And I think most people would agree that the performances are highly memorable. Duane Jones as Ben and Karl Hardman as Harry Cooper make this film work so well; seeing their increasing aggression and rivalry ratchets the tension to an almost unbearable degree. This dynamic is so complex that I see it a new way each time. While I've always identified with and rooted for Ben – quite a feat for an African American protagonist in 1968 – on recent viewings, I've come to realize that Ben isn't always that reasonable either. If he hadn't been so pushy and competitive with Cooper, maybe things could have turned out differently. Judith O'Dea as Barbara and Marilyn Eastman as Helen Cooper also deserve mention. Some people criticize O'Dea's performance as wooden or the way her character is written as sexist, because she's either hysterical or catatonic through much of the narrative. But I think plenty of people, men and women, would be like Barbara in a similarly horrifying situation. Although she has a minor role, Eastman as Helen is a great counterpoint to both Barbara and her husband, spitting sarcastic barbs at Harry and trying to become part of the larger group. I can't say that Keith Wayne as Tom and Judith Ridley as Judy add much, except as a counterpoint to the Coopers, a couple who tries to hang on to love during a crisis. Kyra Schon as Karen, the Coopers' daughter, George Kosana as Sheriff McClelland, and Russell Streiner as Johnny (who, according to IMDb, is uncredited for some reason), show just how memorable minor characters can be. Streiner and Kosana speak two of the most memorable lines in horror movie history – "They're coming to get you, Barbara," and "They're dead, they're all messed up." And to many, Schon's big scene is one of the most disturbing scenes in all of horror cinema.The black and white cinematography also adds to the bleakness of the film; for me, the often washed-out look and dark lighting make the zombies more frightening than in any of the subsequent films, with skin tones of blues, greens, and grays, and bright red blood flowing. Something about watching the ghouls stumble around in the shadows, and blood pour out in dark swatches, adds a sinister air to them that doesn't quite translate to color, even in the more realistic and disgusting effects in later films.Many have already spoken eloquently about the film's social commentary and influence on later horror films, and culture generally. I'll just say that Romero and John Russo (who co-wrote the script) tapped into already existing horror elements and current social anxieties around civil unrest, clashes with authorities, and Vietnam, by creating a new genre, the flesh-eating zombie film (as opposed to the Voodoo zombie), and virtually helping to usher in a new horror aesthetic – bleaker, gorier, and more focused on gritty realism than stylized aesthetics.