Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection

I don't usually write reviews but felt compelled to after viewing this piece of trash.It was rather reminiscent of a home movie made by drama students,not that they are all bad but this was amateur film-making at its highest. The acting was bad,horror effects when there was horror were appalling.I expect the makers were trying to make money off the living dead franchise.For horror movie buffs there is nothing here to like and much better b-grade horror movies.I want my 90 minutes back that I wasted. If I could recommend a good zombie movie besides the current blockbuster it would be 1985's "Return of the Living Dead". I found it laughable that 15-18 hrs a day was involved in making this movie and I don't think this would make it to cinema but even straight to DVD would be too good for it,maybe it should be showed in the early hours of the morning when its only viewed by a small part of the population.

Don't you just hate those reviews that say blunt things like 'This film is rubbish!'

I try to give a little more information than that, but, I have to say, that that is the crux of my review. For those ten people out there who don't know, the title of 'Night of the Living Dead' comes from the sixties zombie film, made by George Romero film and sporting the same name. The original sixties version is largely considered to be the 'start' of the modern take on the undead. This film, ie. The 2012 version where the film-makers have stuck the word 'Resurrection' on the end has NOTHING to do with the original or the official sequels spawned from it.

It is a 'homage' to George Romero's classic. Therefore it takes the best bits and tries to give them a 'fresh' new spin. And it fails.

Saying it's made on a 'shoestring budget,' would be an overstatement. I doubt they had a budget at all. The actors (and I use that term loosely) seem to be straight out of the amateur dramatics society and the camera is mainly hand-held all the way through, making it seem like your old home video footage of your holiday to Spain when you were a child.

One plus point: the gore is reasonable in the few places it's used, plus there's quite a shocking moment early on that I doubt many will see coming.

However, a couple of nice touches do not make a movie. The rest is just awful.

Don't be lulled into thinking it'll be good just because the film-makers stole a classic's title. It's just a poor attempt at cashing in on the name. If you like British zombie movies then stick to the 28 Days Later pair, or Shaun of the Dead if you want your gore with some light-hearted moments in it.

http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

I saw this movie just last night. I was expecting a repeat of so many other zombie movies, and was not going in with high expectations.

This is low-budget fare. So, no super-duper special effects! But this should not dissuade you from watching, since they did a very good job with what they had.

I liked how the story started with some people and then moved with one character, and then moved and stayed some other characters. What we get from this is learning how nobody knows what is happening. Some are running all the time (but to where?) and some are locked up in their homes (but for how long?) Everyone is scared and doesn't know what to do.

Since this is taking place in modern times, people expect to use their fancy cell phones to communicate with each other. But nothing seems to work. The government is seemingly out of the picture. The people in this movie are truly alone.

Though the story takes place in Wales, it was not relevant. A cabin in the woods could be anywhere. And someone coming to your door late at night, making noise and trying to break in, is terrifying.

A good horror movie, to say the least.

Welsh writer/director James Plumb sure has balls to name his film after George Romero's classic zombie movie, but sadly he doesn't quite have the talent to do the title justice: his writing skills aren't all that bad, the film's familial drama being reasonably effective thanks to believable dialogue bolstered by surprisingly convincing performances, but his project as a whole suffers from a lack of decent zombie action, poorly judged camera placement, weak editing, and one or two scenes crippled by a severe lack of logic from the characters.

After a false start ala Hitchcock's Psycho (which actually provides the best moment in the film), the plot centres on a family trapped in their rural home by a plague of zombies, and as tension mounts and their number slowly dwindles, the characters begin to reveal their flaws and secrets, and relationships break down. This interaction of characters works fairly well, but the film's flaws are too numerous and impossible to ignore (individually, some of the following may sound like petty niggles, but together they really serve to irritate)… Firstly, Terry Victor as Gerald sports eyebrows so bushy that zombies would be hard pushed to get close enough to bite him (and as it happens, they don't). Also rather frustrating is the fact that no attempt has been made to fortify the house—hell, they don't even lock the back door after going outside! Furthermore, the family seem a little slow on the uptake, not realising that the 'crazies' are in fact the dead brought back to life (a headline in the newspaper shop in the first scene states that The Dead Live—haven't they been following the news?).

Then there's the technical issues: the overuse of canted angles, which looks like Plumb forgot to lock-off his tripod properly, and inappropriate low POV shots, as if the the camera was left on the ground still running between takes, all of which give the film an air of amateurishness.

But it's back to Gerald for my biggest complaint: when faced with a gang of machete wielding chavs, the bushy-browed fool stops his car (instead of ploughing straight through them) and pays for his stupid mistake with his life. It's dumb beyond belief.

While not nearly as bad as many of the other reviews make out (I reserve my '1/10's for completely unwatchable dross that actually makes my eyes hurt), the film is certainly undeserving of its 'Night of…' title.

3 attempted reimagings... 2 miserable fails.There was Night of the Living Dead 3D, Night of the Living Dead (Memesis) but I can't really count that one......Then there is this. Utter nonsense! I was actually looking forward to seeing this movie. No, my hopes were not up high at all. I am a realist. I have watched some terrible movies. The trailer definitely fools you into thinking you are in for a jolly good time or one heck of a ride. What you are in for is a snoozefest with your head bobbing up and down consistently once you get to the core of the film... Sigh, such a wasted opportunity. Yeah, I get it. They want to make it their own. Give it a new spin. This movie is random...How random you ask? Random in every aspect. Just watch the movie and see for yourself... Or better yet DON'T. Everyone has their own taste. This definitely is not mine. Watch at your own risk. If you can't do a decent reimaging or remake leave the franchise ALONE!