You have to be logged in to comment! If you don't have an account register now for free! Your account allows you to post comments and reviews, upload videos and images, access or our forums, write personal blogs, and maintain your profile.
Posted By: RedSabbath at 11:57am, September 20, 2008
If I haven't said this before I'll say it again, I'm a huge fan of George A. Romero's Night Of The Living Dead and his sequels he's done for the past forty years. Thanks to him, we truly know the horrific world of Zombies and the Undead with great detail and know what a frightning place it can be trapped within, be it an old farmhouse, a suburban mall, underground bunker, or anyplace that leaves you open for an attack by the flesheaters of the living. Of course once you create such a popular character in Horror you get copycat rip-off's trying to cash-in on your original creation. Strangely though, most of these types of films have had some varied degrees of success, most notably the Italian Zombi filmakers of the 1980's. Unfortunately though, the one that started it all, 1968's NOTLD, due to a copyright snafu never got that precious right and soon it came clear to all that anyone could either release it, own it, and/or make any version with that plot and title any way they choose.
But first, a little history: back in 1998 Anchor Bay and John A. Russo (one of the men to help create the '68 original with Romero) decided to release a 30th Anniversary version of the classic, but instead of just re-releasing the same old print like every other DVD company, shot and added new footage in with the old, creating a new subplot that not only hurts the original film, but bastardizes the social commentary that was laid down in the first place. A true misstep and the fans were not pleased.
However when it came to complete remakes, at least someone got it right even before this. In 1990, with Romero's personal guidance and FX genius Tom Savini at the helm, they made a Night Of The Living Dead that stayed close to the original script giving those 90's audiences an update that not only they could be proud of, but better in some aspects of gore and production values. So after one well-done remake & one learning mistake in what not to do to a classic, could it ever be re-done again?
Apparently not. In 2006, with director Jeff "Corman Wanna-Be" Broadstreet in the chair, they decided to give it a go again, of course without any needed consent by Romero, but this time with a twist: Let's try to make it in 3D! 3D? Really? Sounds like a curious idea, but it truly falls flat here.
To be blunt NOTLD3D is a travesty. Shot on a non-existent budget, this has to be the worse "reimagining" of a movie since 2001's Planet Of The Apes. Sure, most of your favorite characters are here, but this time mixed around and played by actors who are so stiff, it's hard to tell them from the actual zombies. And the story is so slow and boring that it seems like a 3am viewing of something you'd expect to see on Sci-Fi Channel. Also, while the gore factor on the '68 original was minimal at best, 36 years later you still don't see much, if anything at all, but not for MPAA reasons but financial ones, and in fact halfway through it I wondered why was this rated "R' in the first place. It's new plot-twists were lame, the sets boring, and the cameo by newly crowned Horror icon Sid Haig (who in my opinion isn't that big of a deal in the first place) is completely unnecessary that only helps in establishing that this was the ultimate in movie cash-ins.
So it's main appeal has to be it's 3D, right? Wrong. Instead of using 3D's latest technology Stereoscopic (that's with the "shades of gray"), they went with the outdated Anaglyphic type (red/blue) which in turn turns the entire movie into a purplish-hue mess. And don't expect anything to "jump" out at you. When it does work, and it's rare, it only gives backgrounds depth, meaning it makes your image look deeper, not closer. Also it should be noted, outside of the behind-the-scenes features, this whole disc is in 3D, meaning that without the glasses, it's unwatchable. There is NO 2D version on the disc included like it should have been (that version is released separately), so once those glasses go it's the ultimate coaster.
So to sum up, bad movie, bad 3D, bad idea. It was already remade well back in 1990, and eight years later was already given a gimmick that didn't work either. Even as a movie alone, a rip-off flix like Day Of The Dead 2:Contagium is a better film. Hard to suggest even if you're a completist like myself, NOTLD3D is one dead movie that should have stayed buried.
(RedSabbath Rating:3.0/10)
"We have yet another remake of the zombie classic Night of the Living Dead, this time with the new addition of being in 3-D. In this version, we have Barbara, who likes to be called "Barb" being attacked by zombies when a white BEN saves her by giving one of the zombies a close line. Ben takes Barb back to the Coopers plant farm. Once there we meet the rest of the victims, as zombies begin to attack the home.
If I hadn't won free tickets to see this film, I probably would never have given it a chance. Aside of it being in 3-D it doesn't really have anything else going for it. Upon first glance it would seem to be a direct to video, armature film student remake of the classic Romero film and that is exactly what the film comes off as. The only thing that made this film slightly enjoyable would be that it was fun to make fun of it. I couldn't tell if the film took itself seriously or not because there were a lot of times when the film was just so bad, that the filmmakers had to of known the cheese factor was through the roof. The thing that rules against this is that there isn't enough comedy in it for it to be considered a cheesy "B" movie.
The horror fans will notice Sid Haig is the one throwing his shovel around hitting the zombies in the face. He delivers an over the top performance, but then again when does he not? If it weren't for his goofy delivery in his lines the film would be rated even lower. The rest of the cast can be completely forgotten because none of them seem to care for what they are doing. Everyone is one-dimensional and half seem to have never been to acting school. There was no conflict between any of the characters that lasted more then one minute. Once there was some conflict it was solved mere seconds later. "I'm going outside!!!", "No you're not!!!", "Okay". Even the zombies didn't act like real zombies, I swear some of them were walking slowly like in the classics and others were as fast as hell, much like those in the remake of Dawn.
The gore in here is lacking as well. Only two scenes showcase any real gore, first is when a zombie is dragging itself to go after the little kid, he has no legs. The second is when Haig thrusts his shovel into a zombies face, it goes through his mouth and he sticks to the wall. The zombie effects were satisfactory for the most part.
I cringe every time I think about the dialogue, which throws in awkward pop culture references that shouldn't really be there...Scarface for example. Whenever I laughed in the film it wasn't with it, it was at it and most the time it was because of these horrible dialogue. More then 75 percent of the dialogue was unintentional humor.
The 3-D was painful, plain and simple. For some reason we're still stuck in the old days of red and blue 3-D glasses for this film. It took so much away from the experience. The red was very distracting and was all over in this film. I had to take the glasses off on five separate occasions because my eyes just couldn't handle it. They could have used the 3-D to their advantage, but dropped the ball here. Only a handful of things really "come at you", which include a bullet, shovel, glass and zombie hands. Nothing to really make the film more enjoyable, although I did get a kick out of the things that actually did come at me from the screen.
For some strange reason the makers of the film felt like they had to put in the original film, for what purpose I still have no idea. We know this is a remake of that film, is it ironic, or comedic in a way? No, it's just pointless and incoherent. They watch the zombie flick and know that these things attacking them are zombies, yet when one gets bitten no one seems to care or even know that he will turn into one. Did they just happen to forget that big plot device from the film that they were just watching?...
Bottom line is that the 3-D isn't worth your time or money. You'll leave the theatre with a headache, from the glasses and the trash that's on the screen. I wouldn't even recommend this for hardcore horror fans, is just an insult." --Matt_Layden, imdb.com
Well I finally just saw it. What a piece of trash, like im a big Sid Haig fan but even his performance was weak at best. They should have left this one alone.
This movie is honestly Horrible in every sense of the word.
I thought more than once of shutting this movie off but i finished it for some reason and then i wanted my hour and a half back... It is not a re-make more of a new film all together.
The story was aweful and so was the acting. Stay way from this film.
THE HORROR HYPE METER Excited to see this movie? Rate it here!
