|
Post by CK on Mar 22, 2007 12:48:04 GMT -5
1 being the worst, 5 being the best.
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Mar 22, 2007 12:58:18 GMT -5
A 5 from me. One of the best horror films ever made, with one of the most surprising and effective endings of any horror film, any film period really. My favorite of Romero's zombie films.
|
|
Conan
DWI/Evil Dead Moderator
Pennywise
Posts: 6,432
|
Post by Conan on Mar 22, 2007 23:40:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CT on Mar 23, 2007 21:59:38 GMT -5
One word, CLASSIC (as Conan said).
Romero perfected the zombie flick with this one. From the instantly recognizable opening cemetary scene, to the memorable ending as Jen mentioned, this movie has everything you could want. The black and white sets the tone and was a nice choice. The interactions between the characters like when they fight inside the house are very realistic and believable as well as serving as a social commentary. It slows down in the middle, but that just adds to the suspense as you know the zombies are out there clawing to get inside. I also like the radio reports about the zombies that they listen to, very cool.
5/5 of course!
|
|
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 22:27:10 GMT -5
At risk of tipping over the edge into hyperbole, it is the horror genre equivalent of Citizen Kane - one of the most seminal films of all time. And as CT alluded, a classic on many levels, not the least being its biting socio-political sub-texts. A 5, no need to deliberate there.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Mar 27, 2007 9:37:23 GMT -5
A five for sure. This is an absolute masterpiece and one of the first horror films to transcend the limitations of the genre and broach subjects previously only addressed in more "serious" films. Romero was the first to tell us that a horror film could be as intellectually honest a work as films from any other genre
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Butcher M.D. on Jan 24, 2008 11:11:59 GMT -5
5/5
Zombie masterpiece.
|
|
Lazario
Zombie Flesh Eater
BANNED FOR FLAMING
100%
VOTED OF THE ISLAND!!!
Posts: 409
|
Post by Lazario on Jan 28, 2008 6:03:39 GMT -5
I gave it a 3. Because, when I look past the impact it's had on the genre, I think it does have a healthy-enough amount of flaws. Most to do with its low budget, I'm sure. Much of the acting is very wooden. And it feels like an uncomfortable balancing act of the old-fashioned with the new film techniques. Basically, both Rosemary's Baby and Hershell Gordon Lewis's stuff came before it and they felt much more of-their-time. I had a hard time accepting it as an old-fashioned movie (which it was), then to see them incorporating the outrageous elements into it. It almost makes it feel schlocky. That keeps it from having that "masterpiece" serious impact on me that everyone sort of raves about on behalf of the movie. Plus, I still don't see what people are talking about when they talk about that ending.
There's more, but, it's right there in the movie. I did think it was disturbing enough. But... not in the right way for me.
|
|
|
Post by GP on Feb 17, 2008 4:20:06 GMT -5
Bleak, grim, controversial (at the time), scary, classic. 5
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Dec 7, 2009 15:43:26 GMT -5
Not only one of the greatest zombie movies made, its one of the greatest movie ever made.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Dec 8, 2009 10:54:29 GMT -5
I'm tempted to go for 2, but I think I end up much more in the camp of a 2.5, so I'll just round it out and go 3. Very heavily flawed, and most of it's watchability is centered around it's historical impact, which is perhaps the single lamest reason to parade around a film just above who's in the cast. Crappy-looking zombies, times when they fail to keep any kind of continuity within themselves, and a low-budget which hinders a lot of big action scenes, forcing instead tons of moments where it's based on acting (mainly the middle segment when everyone is fighting for control with each other) that is simply boring and not that interesting. Sure, there's some good action scenes, but it's hardly enough.
Actually, come to think of it, I'll take that 2 instead. I don't have to go 3.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Dec 8, 2009 13:11:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by GL on Dec 9, 2009 10:56:42 GMT -5
What? What's wrong? I don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Dec 9, 2009 12:12:14 GMT -5
Nothing really just kidding around, I just never heard of a horror fan who hates Night of the Living Dead.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Dec 10, 2009 10:46:37 GMT -5
Well, there's a big difference actually to how I really feel. I don't hate it at all, I just don't like it. I hate the Saw series, I don't like Night of the Living Dead. I only watch the Saw series to get their reviews up on my profile on IMDb so I can get a good-looking profile down, but will never own them in any format so long as I live. Night of the Living Dead will both be owned and viewed, which is true in that I do own it on DVD.
|
|