|
Post by CK on Mar 22, 2007 12:42:49 GMT -5
1 Being the worst, 5 being the best.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Mar 23, 2007 10:27:14 GMT -5
“Night of the Living Dead” is a pretty serviceable remake.
**SPOILERS**
Barbara, (Patricia Tallman) and her brother are attacked in a cemetery, and seeking to escape, she comes across an abandoned farmhouse in the middle of nowhere. After a while, Ben, (Tony Todd) comes to her aid, and together they stay in the house for protection. Later that day, from the basement emerges Harry Cooper, (Tom Towles) his wife Helen, (McKee Anderson) and local kids Tom, (William Butler) and his girlfriend Judy, (Katie Finneran) and they decide to formulate battle plans against the threat outside. When it’s finally decided that zombies are the ones outside, the house is boarded up, but they still come after them. After trying many different ways of getting out, they resort to increasingly dangerous ideas to get out alive.
The Good News: The original “Night of the Living Dead” is still considered one of the best zombie films around, and really doesn’t deserve to be remade. That being said, this isn’t that bad of a film if looked at on its own. The zombies here are certainly far better-looking than in the original. Decayed and rotting just a tad, with the slightest amount of facial scars and wounds that give them a little edge over the zombies in the original. The Cemetery Zombie at the beginning is the best of the redesigned zombies from the original, and a rather hideously realized Autopsy Zombie looks really spectacular. It should be known from his description what he looks like, and it comes across beautifully in a great gag. In keeping with the spirit of the original, the gags here are a little on the small side, and held back, which makes it a little more impressive. Considering the talent involved, the fact that it isn’t an over-the-top gorefest, and is instead a more restrained film, making it a pretty subtle film that is easier to get into. There is none of the political sub-text in here to bog the film down, which is certainly a case with the original. Here, we don’t have much in the way of political sub-text, or at least any that’s highly noticeable right off the bat and this helps to make it a more singular film. It doesn’t need any to be enjoyable and it’s nice that it doesn’t. However, the one thing great about this film is that it uses the knowledge of the original to get you off center enough to not expect the shocks coming. It’s a masterful trickery that comes across so nicely and unexpectedly to get the shocks. Again, bringing up the cemetery scene as an example: seeing Johnny and Barbara talking about one of his insensitive comments, they don’t see a man shambling up behind them. When he tackles Barbara and is revealed to be just an ordinary man, it sets up the shock of the real zombie coming out of nowhere into the scene. Other such scenes is a couple brilliant scenes in the farmhouse that don’t need spoiling. There are plenty of such scenes along the way that trick you from watching the first one.
The Bad News: That above being said, there are a few problems with the film. The biggest one is the zombies themselves. They are just too slow to be threatening at all. I love the shuffling kind of zombies, but these are taken to the extreme and are just ridiculous. At one point, one remarks that they are slow enough to walk around with getting bit, which is exactly what happens later, and yet at the time it was uttered, no one takes it seriously. When it is revealed to be just the way to escape makes it all the more ironic at the time it was said, and all the more ludicrous why it wasn’t tried earlier so that the whole situation could’ve been avoided. I pointed out the lack of gore in the beginning one as well, and this can be a curse as well as a blessing. This isn’t something for the gorehounds out there, despite the names involved and their reputations. We do get a couple neat and inventive gags here and there, but this is nowhere near what it could’ve been or should’ve been. The role reversions from the original may get under people’s skin a little, but I didn’t feel this was enough to distract from the enjoyment of the film. One more thing: the gag with Ben at the end is pretty confusing. We never are told what the probable cause was that lead to the creatures, nor are we told that it comes from bites. His fate is direct contradiction from zombie lore, and what happens makes you scratch your head a little.
The Final Verdict: Not exactly as pessimistic as the first one was, or as ground-breaking, this is still pretty enjoyable in most places. It doesn’t damage or tarnish the reputation like the v30th Anniversary release does, and is a pretty nice viewing anyway. Give it a chance and don’t judge it against the original, it isn’t that bad.
Rated R: Graphic Violence, Language, themes of matricide and Brief rear Nudity
|
|
Canetoad
The Prodigal Toad
HMaM member of the Month, July 2006
Cry Havoc! And let slip the cats of war.
Posts: 2,868
|
Post by Canetoad on Mar 23, 2007 22:54:41 GMT -5
I actually gave this one a five for the pure enjoyment factor. Maybe my view is coloured because the first time I saw it (on your recommendation GL) I really wasn't expecting much. But the way Savini let's you slip into a comfort zone of the familiar, and then twists the direction of the film is terrifically efective. And I love the fact that Barbara ended up being a more modern femme fatale rather than a helpless bimbo. Best remake/homage I can remember seeing, and obviously done with loving care.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Mar 24, 2007 11:02:26 GMT -5
Just glad to help a fellow fan of the genre take a chance on something that was pretty good that might not get seen. The remake stigma is really strong, so a lot of the good ones are shoved aside because of general resentment.
|
|
|
Post by CK on Mar 25, 2007 6:38:36 GMT -5
Back when this one was made the remake BS wasnt what it is now. I think Savini did an excellent job with it. Kept the idea the same but changed Baera to match the time period! RIPLEY WOULD HAVE BEEN PROUD!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Mar 26, 2007 0:59:07 GMT -5
A remake that gets it right, that's for sure. But lacks the punch of the original. I am torn between a 3 and 4, so I will give it a 4.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Mar 27, 2007 9:50:06 GMT -5
3 for me. Very well done and a worthy remake, but it just doesn't pack the punch that the original does
|
|
|
Post by GP on Jun 14, 2007 19:06:18 GMT -5
This movie is ample evidence of Savini's influence on Dawn and Day way beyond simple make up effects. It's an infinitely better effort than Romero's own Land of the Dead. 4 from me.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Butcher M.D. on Jan 24, 2008 11:37:10 GMT -5
Tom Savini does an astounding job for his first feature length effort as a director. Somehow this movie becomes kind of forgettable though after you're through watching it.
3/5
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Dec 7, 2009 15:38:35 GMT -5
I think the movie is just fine, sure its not better then the original, but then again that is a classic and so a comparison really doesn't figure. One thing that everyone here will learn about me is that I absolutely despise remakes, I have a very strict criteria for remaking a film that is a classic, basically that is, that if its a classic...leave it alone. Therefore there are only a few remakes that I have seen, which is to say that I have not seen any of the remakes that have been made in the last few years. There are only a few remakes that I have seen and this is one of them mostly because it was directed by Tom Savini.
The best aspect of the movie is that it answers the question of how the zombies knew that they humans were in the house in the first place.
How is Ben's fate a contradiction?
|
|
|
Post by GL on Dec 8, 2009 10:58:16 GMT -5
I used to be like that, too, about remakes but I got over it quite quickly and have adopted another sound strategy: don't see them in theaters but do see them on TV/DVD so that the horror genre is still strong enough for projects to get made.
And often times, that leads to the viewing of films which are oftentimes better than the originals, mostly because right now they're thankfully just doing films I didn't really care for the first time around.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Dec 8, 2009 13:08:25 GMT -5
Now thats a novel idea, I never heard that defense for remakes before.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Dec 9, 2009 11:00:16 GMT -5
Well, thanks. It's something I came up with back around 2005 when all the remakes started getting made in the first place. I figured it would allow me the best of both worlds:
Save the money by not going to the theaters (which, at the one near me at the time cost between $15-20 a movie) that I never really liked spending in the first place, thereby removing my money from the gross so that it makes a little bit less and ensures a signal to studio bosses that spending money to remake films is not going to give you business...
...While at the same time using that money instead of going to the theaters to spend on getting the DVD, thereby saying that the market for horror films is great and produce more of them.
It's still flawed (no one else besides me does it) but big whoop.
|
|
|
Post by HiderInTheHouse on Jun 2, 2011 14:28:51 GMT -5
Gave it a 5. Great movie regardless of it being a remake.
|
|
|
Post by stinger on Jul 26, 2012 14:11:13 GMT -5
I haven't seen it in a long while but I thought it was just as good if not better than the original. I give it a five.
|
|