Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection

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!

So many thoughts are flying through my head watching this movie, most notably how a film could be produced so poorly and approved for release. Perhaps that is the logic these days...Design a flashy cover, capitalize on a popular film title (i.e. Night of the Living Dead), and not give a damn about the quality/production of the film. I invested $20 on this movie somehow knowing in the back of my mind, that this would be a total and complete failure...and to my very surprise, IT WAS! Zombie film after zombie film, they all continue to outdo one another in terms of creating the most unrealistic, boring, waste of time. I simply cannot waste any more of my time or energy into this film, but on a final note if you want a classic zombie film, look no further than Tom Savini's Night of the Living Dead.

Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection (2012)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Ultra low-budget film about some family members trying to survive inside their home while there are zombie attacks going on outside. This film was shot in Wales, which is one reason why it stands apart from countless other rips of the George A. Romero classic. Those expecting or wanted a direct remake are going to be disappointed because this is yet another case where the title is simply being used to gain some attention and push some added sales or rentals. I guess you can't blame them for using the title since there's no question that it's going to get the attention they need. With that said, I really didn't find this to be as horrible as many others did. Yes, the low-budget certainly doesn't do any favors for the film but then again, should this be an excuse since Romero was able to do so much with so little? I think there are a couple good things going on here and that includes the first big twist that happens in the story. I'm going to avoid spoiling this for those who do decide to watch the film but the rug is pulled out from the viewer and it caught me off guard. The second thing I liked about the picture is the fact that they did try to do something new instead of just giving us stuff we've seen countless times before. I'm sure a direct remake would have been much easier but the filmmakers went for something different. That "new" thing doesn't always work for a couple reasons. One is that these characters keep getting bitten because they do incredibly stupid things, which just get annoying after a while. Another issue is that the family issues that get so much attention just aren't all that memorable or good enough for you to care about them. There's also a moral debate on if zombies or humans are more evil but I'll leave that up to you. The performances aren't all that bad, there are some good gore effects and the pacing really isn't as bad as one might expect. Still, this film is only going to be for those who must see every zombie film out there.

Cheap production value, cheap sound quality, and cheesy dialogue make this film one to avoid at all costs, just when the British film Industry has at last made its mark in the world of film and cinema along comes this load of old tosh that drags it back 20 years why oh why oh why, oh I know why, to make a few quid, if you want to know what it feels like to be mugged buy this DVD and you'll realise! it shouldn't even be allowed to carry the title Night Of the Living Dead George A Romero must be livid his highly original work getting used as and excuse to sell this rubbish!!I have to make this review at least 10 lines OK it looks like it's been filmed on a phone, the characters in the film are very flimsy and the actors playing them must have been chosen in a raffle of some sort, or responded to an ad in the local paper, I didn't care what happened to the characters I just wish they would all get killed so I wouldn't have to hurt my eyes anymore watching this rubbish, I have seen a lot of films not all of them good be warned this is the first time I've been moved to write a review, be afraid be very afraid.

Well first of all, I don't really understand how this movie could even be allowed to carry the title "Night of the Living Dead", as it was a weak movie in comparison to Romero's timeless classic.

And how the movie have managed to score such a low rating, doesn't really come as a surprise, because this movie was nothing overly impressive. When I first heard about the movie I was thrilled, and had my hopes up. Why? Well, because of the title "Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection", it does have some big shoes to fill out, but it failed horribly to do so.

The story was simple and easy to follow, but it was rather pointless and didn't really peak at any point, and it didn't really throw any bones to the audience - in overall, a very uninspiring movie experience.

For a zombie movie, then there were surprisingly few zombies in the movie. And those that were there, weren't particularly scary, threatening or zombie-like. Apparently when you die, your eyes become shrouded by horribly fake contact lenses. That was just hilarious. The contact lenses they had opted to put into the eyes of some of the zombies wasn't even remotely anything near those milked-over eyes of the deceased - it was party contact lenses at best.

The acting in the movie was nothing spectacular, and it was clear that it was a low budget semi-amateurish movie, because it was like watching inadequately trained stage thespians trying to take their talent to the big screen.

Effects-wise and gore-wise, then "Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection" is nothing spectacular or particularly impressive. It didn't really make much use of either special effects or gore. So for all us gore-hounds, then our depraved cravings is better satisfied elsewhere.

However, for a low budget movie, then "Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection" isn't amongst the worst of low budget movies. There are far more questionable and ridiculous zombie movies out there. Just don't get your hopes up for this movie - as I did - you'll crash and burn fast and hard on this one.

I am giving this movie a 4 out of 10 rating because it was a good-hearted attempt at making a zombie movie on an amateurish level. The movie did have some good points here and there as well, but it just had set itself too far up by brandishing the "Night of the Living" title. Perhaps the movie should just have been named "Resurrection" or something else without the "Night of the Living Dead" title.