Night Of The Living Dead

Glad to own this version of Night of the Living Dead. It is honestly my favorite version though I respect the classic. It is a double-sided disc for widescreen and fullscreen.

This is an amazing remake. It stays true to the original story and at the same time changes enough to not be not worth it. I just with the studio had let Savini do the movie he wanted to do.

This film gets an undeserved trashing from many critics and fans of the original 1968 George Romero film. I am a fan of the first film which I saw under ideal conditions in the summer of '68 at a drive-in theater located in the Ohio countryside and surrounded by cornfields (talk about spooky...). I'm a fan of the remake as well and don't really see why some people don't. Of course there's the general rule that you don't remake a classic and as a rule that's true. Remakes of classics almost never live up to the originals and usually are total failures. I think a lot of people were mad that this film was even made and automatically dismissed it.But this film was a product of George Romero (executive Producer and writer) who wrote the script based on his original, written with John A. Russo. It was directed by Romero's make-up artist from Dawn of the Dead, Tom Savini. Therefore it's not some studio's rip off attempt but something coming from the source of the original. Most people know Romero didn't copyright the original and basically never made a dime out of its enormous, genre-changing success, and so some say the remake was done so he'd have a copyrighted version. Though this must have figured in, I don't believe it was the only concern. Romero went on to make two sequels (and later more) in color and may have aesthetically felt that the black-and-white original seemed like it was from another era entirely and that the Trilogy needed a first chapter in color. Secondly, there was the well-publicized change in the character of Barbara, who went from traumatized mute to active defender. Many people liked this change, but some felt it was some kind of politically correct move and reacted negatively.I like the new Barbara much better than the old, who only sat around catatonically until her untimely end. The new Barbara assists in defending the farmhouse and is eventually shown to make good decisions. The film pretty much follows the original except for the change in Barbara until the ending, which is quite different. The rest of the cast is good with the exception of Tom Towles as Harry Cooper, who over delivers his angry lines turning everything into a shouting match., though some of that is simply the way the part is written. Cooper always was an unsympathetic character but here he's practically diabolical. My only other quibble with the remake (and it can apply to the original as well) is where are all these zombies coming from? This is an isolated farmhouse in western Pennsylvania, yet there seem to be scores of the creatures. Even counting the fact that there are some neighbors and Pennsylvania isn't Wyoming, it still seems like too many in a short time.If there is a real problem with this film it's just that it lacks the shock and deep, disturbing effect of the original. But this was made in 1990, ,after all the Eighties slasher-films and gorefests and any number of films with cynical endings. The power of the first film was due to the fact that it was so transgressive with its nice young couple getting killed, its downbeat ending and the fact that it was the ultimate gore film of its day. A movie like the original, coming in the heyday of the Mid-Sixties in its optimism was like a bucket of cold water to the face. It was a shock that will never be forgotten. This movie does not reproduce that because it can't. Times have changed, even more-so since 1990. But it's a solid film that is worth seeing.

A remake of the original by the same writer George Romero with a bit of twists to it. Fans of the original and The Walking Dead should enjoy this one. We did. Highly recommend. Balanced audio and video.

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