Customer Reviews

Night of the Living Dead (1990)

5 star:		(64)
4 star:		(28)
3 star:		(15)
2 star:		(12)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Most remakes are a total joke, however Savini is a genius when it comes to gore etc and makes this one part of the Dead family. If you LOVE the original film and want a small "different" spin then check this out, the acting is GREAT and the zombies look disgustingly cool. Not one to miss if your a "dead" fan.

If the internet had been nearly as popular in 1990 as it is now, I'll bet the IMDB message boards would be filled with protests from outraged fans of the original (the way the message boards on Dawn of the Dead are now). I'm pretty sure that when this came out, there were plenty of people screaming blasphemy. But, I'm almost ashamed to say this, I found this remake even better than the original, and the original is a classic! It launched the zombie genre of to incredible popularity, and it's a just plain amazing movie. I rented this earlier the other day, not really sure what to expect. What I found was that this movie was much more entertaining and exciting and suspenseful than the original. It moves faster, has better effects, better acting, the works. Also, it throws in plenty of little plot-twists so a scholar of the original could still be surpried. From the get-go, things aren't as they seem. We think we know what's going to happen, but then it's totally different and unexpected.

The biggest change in this flick is the Barbara character. No longer is she a whiny little pansy who just sits around and cries. Now, she shoots zombies, she stabs zombies, she fights zombies, and she finally points out what I'm sure many fans of the Dead trilogy have known for a long time. "They're so slow!" she observes. "We could just walk right past 'em. We wouldn't even have to run."

The acting is very impressive. Tony Todd is outstanding as Ben, improving on Duane Jones' excellent performance from the '68 version. Patricia Tallman is probably the best in the movie. Stong, capable and determined. Tom Towles is great as the scumbag, and his wife performs admirably. William Butler is pretty good as Tom, but his girlfriend is definately the worst performer in the movie.

Tom Savini, as well as being an amazing make-up man, proves himself to be a capable director. The movie has plenty of style, and the action scenes are exciting. The make-up in the film is appropriatly gross (though nothing compared to Dawn or Day) and the zombies are a big improvement over the ones in the original.

Roger Ebert and other critics may have hated this movie, but trust me when I say that it not only lives up to the original, but also improves on it. The two movies are also different enough to warrant owning both (Millenium Edition for the original).

5/5

It's been said before but, just for the record, I'm gonna say it again: If it ain't broke, don't bother fixing it. In other words, if you've already got a movie that's widely regarded as a classic of the genre it can safely be said there is little point in trying to improve upon it. So quite why anyone thought Night of the Living Dead needed a remake is beyond me, especially when you consider the iron clad rule that applies to remakes as much as it does to movies with a '2' in the title: nine times out of ten, it's gonna suck.
However, to its credit, NOTLD remake is at least done with the support and input of those assosciated with the original film (including Romero), unlike the recent spate of Hollywood remakes, which seem to almost take perverse glee in undermining the original film without any consultation to, or recognition of, the original film makers (stand up Texas Chainsaw Massacre). Yet, despite Romero's input, the film is still just not terribly good.
The main problem with this remake, in my opinion, is the new portrayal of the characters. In the first film, you could sympathise with, to some degree, all these people trapped in the farmhouse, you felt sorry for them, and understood their actions because of the predicament that was facing them. In the remake, they're all a bunch of whiny bitchers, and any remaining sympathy is gone; every single one of them is shown to have a mean or annoying streak a mile wide and it comes as something of a releif when one of them gets killed. Also gone is any semblance of intelligence: what kills the characters in this remake is, more often than not, their own stupidity. Maybe that's the point, but still, it makes you feel as if they deserved to die, not something good for character empathy, which is a nesscessary ingredient of a horror movie.
The ending, too was a dissapointment, especially compared to the extremely downbeat, depressing ending of the original. That ending left you with a feeling of hopelessness and a question mark over the fate of humanity. The new ending leaves you with little doubt over how humanity will fair in the struggle against the undead: We'll win, no question.
My final major gripe with this movie is with the zombies themselves. In the original, they were terrifying and mysterious, unstoppable killing machines. In the remake, they seem comically weak and monumentally useless. As Barbara says at one point (an intensely annoying version of the original character, by the way, i spent the entire movie hoping her fate would be the same as that of the original): "they're so slow... we could just walk past them, we wouldn't even have to run.". You see the problem? how are you meant to be afraid of something that couldn't pose a serious threat to a three year old on a trike?
However, despite all the above, and the monotony of some of the zombie attacks (how many times can you watch the undead come smashing through a window the heroes were JUST about to board up? Well, if you want to watch this movie through, make sure it's at least four) Night of the Living Dead the remake is still a watchable film, a much shallower version of the first, that requires much less attention or thought. As a popcorn zombie movie, it works very well, and, it goes without saying, the special effects are quite fantastic for this version, though perhaps not used to their full potential.
Overall, this film is one to watch if your looking for a quick splatter-horror film and is reasonably entertaining. However, if your looking for a horror film with some depth, or one that creates a genuine feeling of unease and tension, then watch the original. There is a reason, afterall, why that is considered a horror classic and this isn't.

Ok, this is a rather pointless remake of the original classic. What makes it so bad is that it was directed by Tom Savini, who collaberated with George Romero on "Dawn of the Dead" and Day of the Dead". Savini, a noted make-up artist specializing in gore and blood, left this movie pretty dry. The plot is the same, a group of strangers are wholed up in a farm house that is besieged by zombies. There are no big stars here, except Tony Todd, who went on to be the Candyman. He is obviously the hero, or so you'd think. The end is different, and not for the better. The acting is pretty wooden, but you were expecting that, weren't you? The gore is graphic, but like I said, I was expecting more from Savini. The moral of the story is pounded home too hard. But it's fair, and not too long, so it's barable. It is a good movie, just not great. I only wish that they would stop remaking the classics and give Romero the money to do the fourth 'Dead' movie.

So you're George Romero, writer and director of one of the most influential horror movies ever, Night of the Living Dead (1968), and it's some twenty odd years later and you're executive producing a remake of said movie. Who do you get to direct? How about special effects master Tom Savini, the man responsible for the horrifying effects in Dawn of the Dead (1978) and Day of the Dead (1985)? Seems a pretty good choice to me...

Night of the Living Dead (1990) stars Tony Todd and Patricia Tallman as Ben and Barbara, respectively, two individuals who seek refuge in a farmhouse as a legion of hungry corpses descend upon them and soon find the house not so much a haven as a claustrophobic nightmare. They also discover they aren't the only ones in the house, as there are five people locked in the basement. Emerging from their hidey-hole are Harry and Helen Cooper, a married couple, and Tom and Judy Rose, a younger couple, Tom's uncle being the owner of the house. Also in the basement is the Cooper's daughter, Sarah, who has become ill after being bitten by one of the undead (guess where that's going). A diverse group, for sure, and one that finds itself at odds in if it's better to fortify the house or retreat to the fairly secure basement. Harry thinks it's best to go into the basement and bar the door, but Ben would rather board up all the doors and windows, using the basement as a last option, as there is only one way in and out and he doesn't want to trap himself down there unless he absolutely has to...Harry, who is quite vocal throughout, thinks this plan foolish and says once he goes into the basement and bars the door, he won't open it for anything, regardless. As tensions flare, night falls, and the dead begin arriving in greater numbers, I guess sensing the warm, living flesh they so crave to be inside the house. As the situation grows worse, an escape plan is formulated, but the plan soon falls apart, and it's back to the house. Who lives? Who dies? Is rescue in the wings, or should they just put their heads between their legs and kiss their hinders good-bye?

It's always a sketchy affair remaking a film, especially one that's deemed a classic and definitive representation of its' genre. Look what happened in 1998 when director Gus Van Sant released a remake of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. A total and tremendous flop...Yes, I am sure there was a awful lot of apprehension to redoing a movie that really didn't need to be redone, but the end result turned out an interesting update, remaining true to the original while adding a few surprises along the way. Tony Todd is excellent as Ben, and is definitely the strongest characterization in the film, bringing a lot of what Duane Jones did in the original, while adding personal nuances to make the character his own. Patricia Tallman's character of Barbara starts out the same as the original played by Judith O'Dea, but goes through some serious changes by the end, allowing for the a modernization of the character to fit more along the lines of the strong female lead, as seen in the Alien films with Ripley, played by Sigourney Weaver. Was this for the better? I am still undecided, but it certainly made interesting viewing. The character I found most annoying was that of Harry Cooper, played by Tom Towles. His portrayal was overblown to the point of being silly, with his constant yelling, screaming, and berating of other characters. The Harry Cooper in the original was a jerk, for sure, but at least you got the feeling it was a jerkiness borne of overriding desire to protect his family, even if his plans were at odds with the rest of the group, allowing for viewers to develop some empathy for the character. Here, the character is played as a bonehead to the nth degree, and it only served to, in my opinion, disrupt the flow of the film. The biggest difference between the original an the remake is obviously the color factor, but one will also notice that the undead are much more detailed than in the original, due to a much larger production budget. You can tell a great amount of effort was taken in this area, enhancing on the original film. The film wasn't quite as gory as I thought it was going to be, but that's pretty well explained in a making of featurette. Seems in order to avoid an X rating, these scenes were either removed or toned down. Savini didn't seem too upset about it, as he felt, and I agree, that sometimes what you don't see is just as effective as what you do see.

The disc has the wide screen presentation on one side and the full screen on the other, and includes some good special features like trailers, production notes, commentary by Savini, and a 25 minute making of featurette called 'The Dead Walk' that highlights a lot of interesting facts about the movie, along with comparisons to the original. Also in this featurette are some of the scenes that were deleted to get an R rating, along with alternate, more visceral scenes that were toned down in the release. If you liked the original, chances are you'll get a kick out of this film, as I wasn't disappointed, and I usually despise remakes.

Cookieman108

I have to give Tom Savini credit, this was not your average Remake. It captures much of the qualities that made the original so wonderful, the spontaneous attack, a fabulously gifted leading man, and a good deal at stake. The direction is nearly flawless, and the newer effects are a welcome addition. Savini even managed, though massively retooling some key characters, to maintain the sociological subtext of the original film. (Take note everyone, when the dead live, we need to work together)

My only problem with the film is that it is only part one of a three part story, and Part One ends too easily. The plot tends to pin every wrong on one character, who, though often wrong in the original film, was only one player in the greater chaos. I like the few changes in the character of Barbra, but, well, let's just say I like the original ending (and its implications) better. Nevertheless, I highly recommend this remake of a classic, if for no other reason than to see an already great story told in a slightly different way.

I ordinarily hate remakes,but this one is surprisingly good.Devotees of the original should give this film a look.The wooden,somnambulistic acting of the original is absent in this remake.Although some would argue thats the charm of the original.You decide.

This is the 1990 remake to the classic 1968 zombie classic " Night of the Living Dead", it's about a horde of walking dead corpses caused by a pleague that invades a farm house owned by people and those people must defend themselves for the night.

A remake that proves it can be as great as the original masterpiece, Tom Savini directs while George Romero is the executive producer and co-writer of this remake. There are some good gore and fine acting especially by Candyman's Tony Todd.

I highly recommend this remake before you see the "Dawn of the Dead" remake.

Are you kidding me? Tom Savini directed this. The master of special effects gore. This movie should be rated PG except for the language. There is no gore or blood. None. I'm not kidding. The original was edgier and gorier and that was 1968! I bought it because I love zombies and the Romero trilogy and Savini but let's be honest, the acting was horrible and the gore was nonexistent.

This not only is an amazing remake, but they change just enough for it to be a great movie to stand on its own two legs.

Without giving too much away, I will say that the acting is top notch. Yeah, a few times it gets hokey...Judy Rose won't shutup...but then again, if you were being attacked by zombies wouldn't you freak the hell out?

Basically, this is the movie that made me realize that good horror movies are nothing more than dramas with more blood and guts. The writing and acting provided great tension, and the direction (Savini's debut) was nothing spectacular, but then again, we didn't need matrix style effects for the movie to be effective.

One of the charms of this movie is its simplicity. The story is simple and the goal is even simpler...to survive. But when the dead come back to life, and you can't believe your own eyes...it turns out not to be quite that simple.