Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Logan Dodd There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

Leofwine_draca Now, it has to be said that I generally don't condone remakes, unless they are done for a point. Especially in today's world where such classics as PSYCHO and THE HAUNTING are being remade for money and nothing else, it seems a bit greedy and unoriginal that we have to seek inspiration from films 40 years old. Of course, there are a few exceptions where the remakes actually surpass the original film (THE FLY, THE BLOB, and INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS to name but three). NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD doesn't surpass the original, far from it, but it is a pleasing, entertaining film if you don't compare it too harshly with the 1968 classic (or indeed, haven't seen it!).There are numerous differences between the two films. Romero's original had important social commentary, while the 1990 version lacks that and thus appears to have the moral messages overemphasised. The newer version is also in colour, in order to appeal more to today's audiences. I have no problem with this at all. The look of the film is very good, with the colours adding to the overall glossy feel (which doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing). I did see the film in a widescreen version which may explain the reason I like the look of it so much. Director Tom Savini (famous in the early '80s for his gory special effects work) includes numerous stylistic touches in his film to differentiate it from the original (such as the severed hand shot). It may not be as powerful as the '60s classic but it's quite entertaining. There are a lot of shock scenes involving the zombies, as to be expected, but also by contrast we have generally atmospheric build ups too.The film benefits from having a relatively unknown cast of more than competent actors. Patricia Tallman plays Barbara firstly as the snivelling wreck we know from the original, but then as a gun-toting killer, more in line with Sigourney Weaver's portrayal of Ripley from ALIENS than anybody else. This is something of a welcome, if clichéd change. Tony Todd, best known to audiences as the frightening hook-handed villain from the CANDYMAN films, is actually excellent in his role of the young drifter and admirably fills the shoes left by Duane Jones. He brings a genuine warmth to his tragic character, who is doing what he believes his right, and we can sympathise with him because of this. Tom Towles is also notable as the manic Harry, and is totally obnoxious. He overacts a lot here and it's great fun to watch the shouting matches between him and Todd.Surprisingly, although the film is violent it is actually quite tame compared to other zombie offerings (notably DAY OF THE DEAD). In fact there is little gore in the film, which comes as something of a surprise and a bit of a disappointment. I was looking forward to some more of the excess gore we have come to expect from Tom Savini but not this time around. This film is nowhere near as horrific or powerful as Romero's original - which may have you asking what the point is. It is, though, a fleshed-out, entertaining zombie romp, which is nicely filmed, has a good cast, and has enough action scenes in it to keep the boredom from setting in. My only complaint would be the comedic scenes at the beginning of the film, especially as regards the zombies, but these disappear as the film takes a more downbeat tone as it nears the finale. Not to everybody's taste, and criticised by horror fans, some of whom consider it a sacrilege, I find it very watchable and a mildly successful 1990s remake. I would ignore the many detractors of this film and instead give it a go. Who knows, you might even like it...

Realrockerhalloween Romero heads his series into the nineties with an updated remake to his cult classic night of the living dead.The story is pretty much the same with a few new twists thrown in like Barbara (Patricia Tallman) is now a xena warrior princess instead of the meek helpless character from the previous film who breaks up arguments, shoving zombies out of her way and bringing in the Calvary. Tony Todd does an excellent job as Ben and makes him his own.Now set in color losing the old fashion Hollywood style feel and reveals the rubbery texture used for the makeup. Johnny hitting his head on the headstone and Barbara breaking the iron over the farmer zombie's head are obviously dummies. The camera angles hung to far on the moon and cuts back to the same image throughout as if to allow the audience a bathroom break.Another flaw was the revelation they could walk past the zombies the whole time neutralizing the threat and made the whole 80 minutes a waste of time. It makes the characters look stupid and feel inferior to the originals who came before them.I don't know what happens to George Romero and Tom Savini but both lacked the creativity and skull that made them a brand.While some will appreciate the new changes, it was an epic fail for me and undone the greatness that is the original night of the living dead.

breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com Remakes and reboots by far are one of the most despised and looked down upon ideas and concepts that many film goers and critics a like do not enjoy sitting through. Whether it's because Hollywood is trying to cash in on people's nostalgia or running out of ideas, nobody really favors their beloved pieces being redone. Another problem most fans have with these plans is that the people who make these decisions have no understanding of what made the original so beloved. Then they hire a group of people who have no knowledge either, it just insults many viewers' intelligence. But there have been occasions where the exact opposite happens. Take this project for example. To this day, director George A. Romero is best known for his feature film debut with Night of the Living Dead (1968). Being the first of his "dead" franchise, it was quite the groundbreaker. It reinvented horror for filmgoers at the time and had interesting characters to follow and sympathize with; a classic. Why would anyone remake it? Apparently Romero thought it could use an update.The majority of the plot itself, written only by Romero, remains largely unchanged. Groups of people end up crossing paths at an abandoned house after they are driven away by cannibalistic dead people known as zombies. The characters involved are also the same. The leads Ben (Tony Todd) and Barbara (Patricia Tallman) work together to defend themselves in the home. They also meet couple Tom (William Butler), Judy Rose (Katie Finneran) and the Cooper family headed by Harry (Tom Towles) who wants nothing but to hide in the basement. Bill Moseley best known at the time for playing "Chop-Top" Sawyer from The Texas Chain Saw Massacre 2 (1986) even has a small role as Barbara's brother. Aside from these similarities, Romero does pen in some new ideas and changes up several events. One of the new ideas thrown in is Barbara being a strong female lead. Unlike her 1968 counterpart, Barbara takes charge and even questions as to why staying in the house is good idea if you can just walk past a zombie quick enough. All valid points.Having a strong female lead in a horror movie was not a new thing by the 1990s, but for Romero's remake it was. Tony Todd as Ben plays it up well as the no nonsense type and isn't willing to play games. Even William Butler plays an empathetic character. Lastly, Tom Towles as Harry Cooper plays his role well as the antagonist of the group looking not to fight back. The characters are developed enough as well to where if an individual makes a mistake, the consequence is tough to accept. What's also appreciated is how first timer Tom Savini (who normally does special effects) directed the film. Savini takes Romero's script and helps bring the changes to certain events with ease making the execution almost feel like an alternate reality if things were to happen in a different way. However the film does suffer from its issues. A blatant problem is some of its continuity for unexplained reasons. There are certain things that happen to some characters that don't get an explanation to what exactly happened.The overall effects to this remake look great too. Everett Burrell served as the special makeup effects supervisor to this project and as a stand-in for Savini, it's fairly decent. Before this Burrell also worked on well-regarded films like Re-Animator (1985), Aliens (1986) and Glory (1989); all of which had a significant amount blood squibs and dismemberment. The zombie designs in this creature feature are much more grotesque than before and that's good. However it's not even the kills in this movie that make this a zombie film, but more of the all the ways a zombie can be displayed. Here there are some severely gnarled up zombies that are quite comical to look at because of their persistence no matter how banged up they are. For a normal horror fan, the shock and scare value aren't much to be seen but there is enough tension buildup to make the viewer wonder "how are these people going to survive?". The solution may seem trivial but from the past three "dead" films, in greater numbers, zombies aren't easy to fend off.It is surprising to know that the MPAA gave the original cut an X rating and required certain scenes to be cut. After all the gory films that appeared during the 1980s, it's amazing Romero's still received the deadliest of all ratings. There were other infamous films far worse than his were. Frank Prinzi was hired as the director of photography for this remake. Since the 1960s many filmmakers moved to color and seeing a retelling of the classic story in a different color tone is a nice touch. Prinzi keeps the scenes well lit even for night and keeps the camera focused as well. The musical score was a disappointment however. The composition was scored by Paul McCollough and looking at his prior work, it's rather unimpressive. The score is entirely made up of synthesizers and rarely does it work. With no main theme this remake feels like it has no identity. A signature tune somewhere would've helped but instead the listening experience is just garbled mess of sporadic tones. It could've been worse though considering it's a remake.It's music feels largely uninspired and the script does suffer from continuity errors. But for a remake (which many do not support) it's rather decent. The updated script changes, the added color visuals and overall situation is enough to keep the audience engaged for the hour and a half.

FlashCallahan Its a remake of the classic Zombie movie that we all know and love, and after seeing it again, I was thinking 'yes, the makeup is very good, but what exactly is the point of all this?'.....So the story goes that a Molly Ringwald lookalike and Bill Mosely are attacked by the living dead (in the day, may I add), Bill gets it, and Molly ends up finding refuge in a nearby house.Not long after, Candyman of all people arrives, and soon the film goes down the house invasion way, with added guests. Soon, the middle class family finding refuge, become the monsters, and all subliminal messages about ethnicity, race, and racial tension arise, whilst all the while, Tom Savini's wonderful creations pop through windows and doors....It's all very well with the great effects, and the competent acting, but when all is said and done, its a pretty pointless affair, just like the remake of Psycho, it's not a bad film by any means, just very pointless.But, this is a film that's been remade a fair few times, and they are worth seeing just to see how they mess it up each time.So all in all, great make up, good performances, but it's like a broken pencil.Pointless.....