Night of the Living Dead 3d [Import]

Ingredients for a horrible horror movie remake: horrid acting, terrible dialogue, terrible cinematography, a complete lack of gore, and a complete disrespect for the source material. This remake of 'Night Of The Living Dead' has all of those in spades...plus a ton of really crappy 3-D and oh, Ben isn't black in this one. Ugh. Terrible. Let me start by saying that I love the original and I also really like Tom Savini's 1990 remake, so my opinion may be a bit skewed. But this remake is absolutely horrid.

First off, the acting is the quality of a high school drama class. Everyone in the film is terrible. Even Sid Haig, who is normally great, phones it in. All the characters are unlikeable, especially the "hero" Ben, who is now played by some white emo kid. He's not rough and tough like Duane Jones in the original or world weary like Tony Todd in the 1990 version. White Ben is just there, stumbling through his lines like a confused drama student.

Secondly, the 3-D in the film is pointless and terrible. The film has some decent 3-D shots in the opening graveyard scene but then fails to really do anything with it for the rest of the film. Instead of trying to create depth in the shots, the filmmakers shot the bulk of the film like a regular movie. They make a couple half-hearted attempts, but there is not a single shot that jumps out at you(the slo-mo bullet effect near the end of the film is pathetic). But whatever, I could've dealt with it if it were not for the fact the the 3-D is just bad. With the glasses on, everything is just blurry. And unfortunately, there's no function on the disc that allows you to turn the 3-D off. You get to either watch a blurry film with the glasses off or a blurry film with the glasses on.

Third, I just don't feel that the team behind the film really had any love the source material. I heard an interview with the director, Jeff Broadstreet, a while back on the now defunct 'Pickled Embryo' podcast. He basically said that he's not a horror movie fan nor has he ever made a horror film. He was picked by the financers of the film because in the past he almost one time made a 3-D film. The brains behind the money picked a director who was passionless for the horror genre and passionless for the original film. But at least he almost made a 3-D film one time.

Fourth, there was a complete lack of gore. I'm not saying that it needed to be all 'Dead Alive' or anything. But a horror movie about zombies with hardly any violence in it? Sad. And then wait till you see the ending... The writers basically added in a "mad scientist" sort of character that completely ruins what was already a horrid turd of a film.

Hands down this is the worst remake ever and that is saying something because there have been some really terrible remakes('The Hitcher' or 'The Grudge 2' anyone?). I really wanted to like this, but it was just awful. Please do yourself a favor and skip this movie. Don't even rent it.

If I haven't said this before I'll say it again, I'm a huge fan of George A. Romero's Night Of The Living Dead and his sequels he's done for the past forty years. Thanks to him, we truly know the horrific world of Zombies and the Undead with great detail and know what a frightning place it can be trapped within, be it an old farmhouse, a suburban mall, underground bunker, or anyplace that leaves you open for an attack by the flesheaters of the living. Of course once you create such a popular character in Horror you get copycat rip-off's trying to cash-in on your original creation. Strangely though, most of these types of films have had some varied degrees of success, most notably the Italian Zombi filmakers of the 1980's. Unfortunately though, the one that started it all, 1968's NOTLD, due to a copyright snafu never got that precious right and soon it came clear to all that anyone could either release it, own it, and/or make any version with that plot and title any way they choose.

But first, a little history: back in 1998 Anchor Bay and John A. Russo (one of the men to help create the '68 original with Romero) decided to release a 30th Anniversary version of the classic, but instead of just re-releasing the same old print like every other DVD company, shot and added new footage in with the old, creating a new subplot that not only hurts the original film, but betrays the social commentary that was laid down in the first place. A true misstep and the fans were not pleased.

However when it came to complete remakes, at least someone got it right even before this. In 1990, with Romero's personal guidance and FX genius Tom Savini at the helm, they made a Night Of The Living Dead that stayed close to the original script giving those 90's audiences an update that not only they could be proud of, but better in some aspects of gore and production values. So after one well-done remake & one learning mistake in what not to do to a classic, could it ever be re-done again?

Apparently not. In 2006, with director Jeff "Corman Wanna-Be" Broadstreet in the chair, they decided to give it a go again, of course without any needed consent by Romero, but this time with a twist: Let's try to make it in 3D! 3D? Really? Sounds like a curious idea, but it truly falls flat here.

To be blunt NOTLD3D is a travesty. Shot on a non-existent budget, this has to be the worse "reimagining" of a movie since 2001's Planet Of The Apes. Sure, most of your favorite characters are here, but this time mixed around and played by actors who are so stiff, it's hard to tell them from the actual zombies. And the story is so slow and boring that it seems like a 3am viewing of something you'd expect to see on Sci-Fi Channel. Also, while the gore factor on the '68 original was minimal at best, 36 years later you still don't see much, if anything at all, but not for MPAA reasons but financial ones, and in fact halfway through it I wondered why was this rated "R' in the first place. It's new plot-twists were lame, the sets boring, and the cameo by newly crowned Horror icon Sid Haig (who in my opinion isn't that big of a deal in the first place) is completely unnecessary that only helps in establishing that this was the ultimate in movie cash-ins.

So it's main appeal has to be it's 3D, right? Wrong. Instead of using 3D's latest technology Stereoscopic (that's with the "shades of gray"), they went with the outdated Anaglyphic type (red/blue) which in turn turns the entire movie into a purplish-hue mess. And don't expect anything to "jump" out at you. When it does work, and it's rare, it only gives backgrounds depth, meaning it makes your image look deeper, not closer. Also it should be noted, outside of the behind-the-scenes features, this whole disc is in 3D, meaning that without the glasses, it's unwatchable. There is NO 2D version on the disc included like it should have been (that version is released separately), so once those glasses go it's the ultimate coaster.

So to sum up, bad movie, bad 3D, bad idea. It was already remade well back in 1990, and eight years later was already given a gimmick that didn't work either. Even as a movie alone, a rip-off flix like Day Of The Dead 2:Contagium is a better film. Hard to suggest even if you're a completist like myself, NOTLD3D is one dead movie that should have stayed buried.
(RedSabbath Rating:3.0/10)

What more can I say; this movie is better than most people think. First of all, horror fans are the harshest critics on the planet. Hands down. When this non-George Romero endorsed "remake" hit the theaters, most fans already had their minds made up. I myself, was skeptical, but found the picture to be an entertaining mix of humor and horror. Solid supporting actors and a tight pace are what keep you engaged, but Sid Haig gives one of his best performances and essentially makes the movie worth while. Without him, the picture would be less memorable.

Truth be told, if this were a 3D zombie movie, other than NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, people would be all over it. Aside from the same opening, this movie ventures into it's own storyline and brings in a wonderful idea as to why all the zombies exist in this small, rural town. Too good a plot point to spoil here, just keep in mind this movie has it's own agenda and is clever enough not to rehash what was already accomplished in Romero's original.