La notte dei morti viventi

This movie is truly an insult to George Romero. The acting and the zombie effect were barely above normal but the story is so weak. It's essentially a zombie movie taking place in a pot farm. The pot humors aren't funny at all and they never ever gotten around to barricading the windows.

Yes, they added nudity but was that remotely necessary?

The ending was also very weak with Barb just standing there even though she was holding a gun and could have run. They had a perfectly good movie from which to base this movie on and they still managed to botch it up. I really do wonder about all these direct-to-DVD horror movies that have no reasons for being made and can only trick people into buying because there are no reviews.

This pointless rehash of the Romero classic sees the original story retold as a modern-day Z-grade effort, replete with amateur night acting and Halloween masks. Yes, it really is that bad, and the biggest surprise is that cash-in king John Russo – a guy who's made an entire career from the fact that he wrote and produced the 1968 film - is nowhere to be seen.

The story diverges little from the original, except to introduce an extra, extraneous character – played by B-movie stalwart Sid Haig. The zombies are so ineffectual here and the gore so tame that two things happen: first, an extra villain is introduced to little end, and secondly, their origin has to be explained in depth. Both take away from the eerie impact of the Romero original, where the horror came from the fact that the world ended abruptly with the 'what if?' scenario of zombies arriving at your door.

The film's hook is the 3D, but anyone going in looking for guts and entrails flying out of the screen (a la the MY BLOODY VALENTINE remake and the latter FINAL DESTINATION movies) will be disappointed. A 3D spliff and subsequent smoke ring are all you're going to get (way to take advantage of the technology, huh?). Speaking of spliffs, the awful dialogue is loaded with stoner jokes and a far cry from the terse exchanges we all remember from Romero's classic.

The acting is terrible, aside from Haig, an actor who always seems to be enjoying himself (complete with ghoulish chuckle) in his recent B-movie outings. The story is so slim that at one stage we take a softcore detour to the barn, where a sex scene between two unappealing characters plays out in all its nude detail. Incredibly, the end result is a film that feels more dated and less grisly than the film that inspired it, made all those years ago; making me appreciate Romero all the more is the only thing this movie does right.

I'm sorry, but I cannot really summarize my feelings more than to say that I was ready for this to be sort of bad, you know, in a so bad that it's hilariously funny sort of way, but I never knew that a movie could loop its way around again to just plain bad. And just to let you know, this is not the only zombie movie, or "remake" of a zombie movie that I've seen. --I guess I was just spoiled by the leetness of "Dawn of the Dead."

This movie IS a "remake" true, but the effects were so ill done, that except for times the actors were using something like a cellphone in a scene, you could have sworn this was made at the same time as the original. Which, seriously is not necessarily THAT bad, but really, come on... The "3D" could have been way more effectively utilized as well. Truly, if you KNOW you are making it 3D, you could do way cooler, and way more terrifying things than, "Ooh look! A Doobie!". *sigh*

But the "horrifying" zombies were the absolute least of this thing's problems. Oh yes, I AM speaking of the acting. Let me just first say, I think I lost about one IQ point per minute (maybe second) of watching these people try to act. Now, that's not that I'm saying that I thought this was supposed to be an Oscar worthy film. When I walked in, I knew I wasn't going to be enlightened. But dang! The crappy delivery of the "witty" lines that the script offered was the only thing in the whole movie that was worthy enough to make me gasp in horror. COME ON PEOPLE!! Absolutely everyone watching has fairly low expectations of you and yet you decide your mission in life is to lower them even further?!?! There was not ONE person in the entire cast (including the lead actress) that you could EVER feel for enough to root for THEM against the zombies. I myself, was cheering for the zombies. If they could have eaten everyone in the first 15 minutes, THAT would have been worthwhile.

I'm not going to say more because no more is needed. It was bad and that is it.

You can hate the review, or agree with everything. I don't truly care. I just wrote this because I needed somewhere to vent. I had already used up my boyfriend, who by the way agrees with me.

This movie is a pale imitation of George Romero's original. Giving characters the same names isn't enough, pitting characters against zombies isn't enough. The 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead was outstanding, while this one fails almost completely on every level. Remember Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho and Roland Emmerich's remake of Godzilla? This turd is somewhere in between, trying to step in the footsteps of greatness, but, like a zombie, exhibiting no life of its own. This zombie movie is simply, well, dead.

I suggest you go rent the original Night of the Living Dead, or either version of Dawn of the Dead, or Return of the Living Dead or 28 Days Later. These are the zombie movies that will stand the test of time.

First off: I like zombie movies, I really do. I like them that much that I rent zombie movies which are almost definitely bad.

That said, I simply had to rent this. Only when I started the movie I noticed that this was NOTLD 3D, as it was just labeled "Night of the living dead" here. Even though the notion of "3D" implicated that this one would be a pretty awful remake, I simply wasn't prepared for this. It's pretty damn courageous to begin and end your film with the the opening scene of the original and also have the original running on TV during the movie when the remake is such a pile of garbage. From terrible acting over just plain awful special effects and missing wounds, everything here. The worst thing though is that the script only bears a slight resemblance of the original's story. True, it begins at a graveyard. True, at some point in the movie some guys are trapped in a house. The names of the main characters are the same. That's it. All the other things that were good about the original (and even about the first remake) are gone and replaced by a completely generic "horror" story, centered around Sid Haig. There is no reason why this movie should be called "Night of the living dead". It has nothing to do with NOTLD... well, about as much as any other zombie movie has.

Problem is: Even most really, really low-budget zombie movies I've seen were far more enjoyable than this one. Simply stay away from this one. And if you're like me and simply can't stay away from it, don't say you hadn't been warned.