Badmovies.org Forum

Two thumbs up for me. A very underrated film.

I saw this movie once on TV, which did have a lot more clarity to it than the original. The part where he hits the gravestone made me giggle as I could see the head was rubber...some of the other effects were blatantly bad,but all in large it was enjoyable to watch right up until the ending. I don't know about you,but was there a subtle attempt at social commentary at the end? They seemed to want to make some sort of antipathy towards rednecks...I'm sorry,past evils of the South don't compare to ZOMBIES EATING PEOPLE IN MASS FORCE. But that's just me.

One of the best zombie movies I have ever seen!

Bad! Very bad! Horrible remake of the original 1968 classic with innane dialogue, bad acting abound, and just about bad everything. Just watch the original, or if you major film buffs cannot watch the original due to it being in black and white. Personaly the original is more scary in black and white.

Just watched it, worth watching if you loved the original, but watch the original first.  This was dissapointing but entertaining enough; although the acting was laughable.

THis movie in my opinion was seriously pretty good.  Although in two specific instances I was forced to laugh uncontrollably.  One being the crippled zombie unable to walk towards the beging.  Another was while the zombies are breaking into the house, all of a sudden a shirtless anerexic zombie busts in and his intrance is absolutly hillaroious.  Not becasue it was over done just because of the sort of frog stroke he does, and his skinny physic.  Then he is quickly shot in the head. Classic.

This movie is not that bad of a remake, but definitely doesn't compare to George A. Romero's original, which in my opinion is still the scariest movie ever made. But Tom Savini does a great job here as director and creator of all the special make-up effects. He's one of those original pioneers in this field, and everyone who's ever seen his work will never forget it!

Should have been a LOT gorier but hey, overall a good movie. I think it's one of the best horrormovies and the best remake! -xxx-

I liked it and all, but how the hell did Tony Todd (Ben) become a zombie??  He locked himself downstairs with ZERO zombies.  The only one was the wife of the dickhead and he shot her in the head.  The rednecks also had to use a chainsaw to cut open the dorr.  There wasn't a zombie to bite him!  If you can tell me how he was turned into a zonmbie, please e-mail me the answer.  Besides that, good movie except the dumb@$$ who uses a d@mn SHOTGUN to break a lock on a GAS PUMP!  

Dawn of the Dead is being remade, but I have no idea by whom.  There's no information as of yet on the IMDb.  I know it's not Romero.  I was hoping it would be, considering the fine job he did on the NOTLD remake.  As for those people who had a problem with Romero's disparaging of rednecks at the end, he did it in the original as well, and to a greater extent - in the 1968 version Ben wasn't even a zombie when the rednecks shoot him in the head.  Barbara may or may not be indicative of Romero's "politcal correctness," but it's plain to see that she's a far more entertaining character to watch in the 1990 film.

two words : f**king awful. ok, barbera is some gun totin' superchick is an improvement over the original? i guess the "old" barbera's demeanor isn't really politically correct????
what a f**king insult to judith o'dea's great performance in the original - and duane jones as well.
romero should be ashamed of himself.

This was something I rented with about six other cheesey horror flicks one lonely night. I did enjoy it, considering it's about dead people reanimated to eat the living. Or maybe it was just that the other movies I watched that night were terrible. I don't know why they remade this. They could have just as easily made another sequel instead. The original was okay for its time, and so was this remake.

It was a great movie. Not that sci-fi and voodoo have ever mixed really well, but when you can suspend your disbelief for an hour or two, it's just plain old good clean fun.

Okay, so a few things were changed...but 'the black guy' (he always had a name? I haven't seen the original in years, but, hey...) still knows everything, and still gets killed by his own side. Social commentary meets B Cinema...C'est formidable.

For those who don't know, the concept is that an unknown force is reanimating the bodies of the dead by reactivating the brain. So, you don't have to be bitten, dang it. Who do you think bit the original zombies, hm? So, yeah...Ben just dies breathing his own blood and voila, instant zombie.

I thought this movie was fun and I especially liked the redhead.  I confess I've never seen the original, but it's hard for me to imagine that any zombie movie could be the "scariest movie ever."  Zombies are slow, easy to escape from, and easy to kill.  Yes, if you were completely cornered and there were millions of them, they'd overwhelm you, but it seems that zombie movies always rely on the protagonists inexplicably and foolishly cornering themselves.  Going down my list of scariest movies ever, I don't hit any zombies in the Top 25.  Lots of aliens, ghosts, a shark, an American werewolf... no zombies in that scariest movie list.

I also thought the end of this movie where the red head saw the Rednecks playing games with the zombies and killing them was absolutely hysterical.  "They're us.  We're them and they're us."  What the hell does THAT mean??  At what point did the zombies exhibit any capacity for deliberate cruelty for cruelty's sake?  And what exactly is her problem with people killing zombies?  Kind of hypocritical, isn't it?  

Any chainsaws on your list?

The Zombie rodeo at the end is supposed to be a reality-bite, I think. When blacks were hanged. History repeating itself, or something. And I'm sure there's something in what she's saying, but it's not worth giving much thought to.

I guess.  That's a stretch comparing zombies to black people, though if you ask me.  

Yes, definitely a chainsaw.

I quite enjoyed both versions of this movie.  You have to amend your frame of reference, tho'-- the same criteria don't fit them both.  The "moral" of the first is something in the area of the difficulty of a black guy in the US of the 60's finding justice, while in the second, it's a question of just how different zombies are from the hordes of people you want to take a machete to in the mall (so, really a lot more like "Dawn of the Dead", eh?).
   On the point of "Why did Tony Todd become a zombie if he's in the basement without any zombies?"  People with untreated gunshot wounds DIE. He DIED, and the RECENTLY DEAD are coming back to life.  Not rocket science, really.

Great Zombie Movie!
In my opinion superior to the original as it manages to stick to the atmosphere of the original whilst making some welcome changes (The acting is better and Barbara is not super annoying.)
Don't get me wrong I love the original (I have it on DVD) but this version is better.

The only thing I didn't like about this movie was one person survives. In the 60s version everyone dies, bringing a rather unhappy ending.

Not only are they planning a fourth 'Dead' movie, "Dead Reckoning" but I also just heard that they are remaking "Dawn Of The Dead."

And I ask myself, Why?

First Zombie flick I ever saw.  Eventually I discovered the original, Dawn of the Dead, etc...  Helped turn me into a Zombie Movie Fanatic.  

The redhead from Babylon 5 is an absolute TURN ON in this film!  (Sorry lady Zombie fans...I've a guy).  Sigorney Weaver-like, she is fun to watch.  Overacting abounds but it's very spooky with well-researched (see the DVD commentary version) special FX.  Lots of creepy moments if you've never seen the original.  It's doesn't hurt the original to watch this one first.  I like them both very much.  I wouldn't show this one to some members of my family because the gore is very realistic. The B&W original is easier to take...and probably much more scary..as people have mentioned here.  I wonder what generation began to dislike black & white film?  Geez, Repulsive, Psycho, Bride of Frankenstein, YOUNG Frankenstein (er, steen!), Paper Moon (not a horror I know), etc...should only be watched in NONcolorized version.  Don't touch them Mr. Turner!!

To the person who thinks Zombies are NOT scary because they are too slow to get you...just want to wish you a good night's sleep.  (giggle, giggle)

Although the original 'Night of the Living Dead' is in no way bad, for a bad movie... the remake is better than it in every respect. The effects are better, the characters are more defined (the female lead is no longer a human vegetable, and that damn a***ole badguy is even MORE of an a***ole), and the ending is much darker. People would argue the headshot ending of the original was worse, but I think the new one takes the cake. I felt utterly hollow watching those rednecks shooting zombies hanging in the trees, it was a surreal, horrible thing to see on so many subtle levels. The radiation business in the original has been removed, which is another plus.

This is a great bad movie, anyone who calls themself a zombie fan should see it.

I think this 1990 version is way better then the older one. I love it! I watched it over a million times.

Great movie the reason I watched it was for Tony Todd who is the Candyman one of my favorite slashers since Freddy. Though Savini is great in special effects and acting his directing is so-so but who cares it has a great ending except when Ben dies and that is it.

I'm sorry...but this movie reeks. A terrible remake. I cringe whenvever I hear someone say this is superior to the original. I know they tried to make a little money for the people that got left out in 1968...but c'mon...this is the best they could do?

More gore? Who cares? Gore does not a good movie make. I'm so tired of this "Hey, its got gore!" argument. Like gore is something so new and startling. Why, we've only had gore in movies since...oh...about 1960! Wow! 40 years of gore! Good lord, people...

As for the '68 Barbara vs. the '90 Barbara...the whole point of her going catatonic was a nod to Hitchcock! Ever hear of a little movie called Psycho where the main character is murder a third of the way into the movie?!? Personally, I DESPISE the gun-toting Babs...stupid, kowtowing, politically correct decision...

You people need to have your heads examined...

   THe remake sucks.  Tony Todd (nothing personal) sucks.  I think Duane Jones was superior in every way.  As far as gore, I think it you did an experiment and had 100 children under the age of 13 in a room and had to watch either film, to see which movie was "scarier" I think the original would win.  The second not only has bad acting from the Harry Cooper character but all in it.  The attempt at social commentary at the end is a joke.  I think if the red head was in the original it would be more fitting.  The interaction between Cooper and Ben is a joke in the 2nd. film.  It is like they already know each other and hate each other from the start. I is like they watched the original and tried to continue from where their arguement left off.  Aside from the special effects the movie blows.  Even the first zombie in the original is more scary than the entire remake.  

I'm one of those fools who prefer this version to the original.  Tallman is hot!

Tom Savini is no Romero and let's leave it at that.
*1/2

I love your site! I didn't notice some of the funny things in the movie you pointed out until now ^^

I felt that the writing was better than in the original (it goes without saying that the effects were much better in the remake.) Don't get me wrong, I do like black and white films, but sometimes the monochromatic color scheme in the original made it a bit hard to follow what was going on.

However, the original definitely had more atmosphere, and had more subtle acting. Plus, it also has the nostalgia factor going for it, even for someone from a much younger generation than it was released for (the original NothLD was the first horror movie I watched; my mom bought one Halloween and watched it with us kids because she remembered seeing it as a girl herself [I didn't understand much beyond "the dead people want to hurt the living people" and "the dead people will die if you shoot them in the head."])

To me, they balance each other out, but try watching the 1990 version not as a remake, but as a totally separate film; I think you'll enjoy it more that way.

On another note, is it just me, or does Romero have something against Rednecks? I personally would rather not "hang" with them, but I mean, they're still good people for the most part...

I saw this movie on the old "on demand" a few nights ago.  I have yet to see the original '68 version but its definitely on my bucket list.  I liked this movie, from what I have read about the original I like this Barbara better.  In 1968 having a black man as the hero was groundbreaking and new while having a catatonic useless woman was acceptable.  Personally a catatonic/useless woman to me is an aggravating portion of any movie especially when they focus on it (ok, I get it, she's too freaked out to be anything other than zombie fodder, feed her to the zombies and lets move on)

In 1990 to obtain that same kind of "wow, so that's the hero" newness having the female escape using what is the most obvious and simple means you could imagine (she literally walks calmly away from the farmhouse with a pistol that she doesn't even use after she gets past the first group of zombies as she can walk faster than the zombies can, yes I know this totally doesn't jive because at one point zombies are obviously moving too fast for someone to walk away from them and then later she simply walks circles around them but the point was still there).  I like the 1990 ending as more social commentary (humans turn out to be much more sadistic and cruel than zombies, they don't kill the zombies, they simply torture them and force them to fight eachother etc.) and this maybe the inspiration for an excellent low budget film "Zombies Anonymous" which probably has the best angle on this dimension of human cruelty towards zombies imaginable.
Overall I like this movie, even without seeing the original you get this feeling of respect for the plot.  This as opposed to the 2006 3D version which is not nearly as good.

I hate Remakes! and because of that i don't think i gave this one a fair chance, i turned it off after the first 5 to 10 minutes and neveer looked back on it. im starting to think that maybe ill give this one another chance...can't be any worse then the remake that was in 3-D right?

The 1990 version is a masterpiece compared to the 2006 3D remake.  For a remake, and for what they were trying to achive, I guess 1990's offering was OK, but a lot of things weren't cool:

Generic gunshots,  the obvious rubber body parts (when the one zombie was playing with a hand) and the overall feeling that the film was "refined" with many cuts and edits before it's release. Too "sanitary" as Tom Savini described to me in his own words at one Chiller Theatre con'.

However the makeup for the ghouls was quite good-this time the ghouls looked like they died from vastly different causes not related to the zombies (like the one ghoul with the heroin needle in his arm). The clouded eyes was another nice touch too.  Not a great movie, but not a bad one either.  Oh, and Karl Hardman's original Harry Cooper was a sweetheart compared to the one played by Tom Towles!