Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

mwkmak This version really surprised me. I am a bit late to the game and only heard about this version like, yesterday. The character names remain familiar, however their personalities and actions became modernized to relate to a modern audience. Loosely following the story line of the classic, George Romero had his hand in the screen writing for this version. A couple of new characters not in the original version are thrown into the mix, creating an interesting twist to the climax of the plot. Haunting in itself as there are points where the classic version is playing on miscellaneous television screens in different locations. This version is different enough that it is engaging and not just another spit up failed attempt at being a copycat. I give this movie an 8 out of 10 due to the fact that the story did pull me in, being different enough, but keeping the integrity of the original story line from the 60's.

Wizard-8 It's been a long time since I've seen the original version of "Night of the Living Dead", so some details of it are fuzzy in my mind. But I can remember enough of it to know it was a lot better than this remake. Even the equally ill-advised 1990 remake was a lot better than this second remake! Everything goes wrong this time around. It's a pretty cheap- looking enterprise for one thing, with ugly photography that 3D probably didn't help during the brief time the movie was in theaters. The characters are extremely unlikable, with most of them stoners or drug dealers, and ALL of them being extremely stupid. The script also has a number of plot holes and other flaws, like the fact that the fate of a couple of characters is never revealed. But the biggest flaw is that the movie is not the least bit scary. The original movie slowly built and held a level of terror, while there's almost a casual feeling here. Even fans of Sid Haig would best avoid this feebleness.

Scarlett Flange This movie is not complete trash as most of the others have stated in many of the earlier reviews. This movie has many great features to observe and enjoy from a lower budget film aspect. First things first you can not go into this movie expecting a movie that owns up to a movie such as dawn of the dead remake. That remake was made with over double what these people where given to work with all together; so that should be your first sign that your not getting a dawn of the dead remake. Secondly, with the budget being considered you should understand that the 3-D moments may not be as crisp or as often as a movie given 30 million dollars to use equipment that is necessary.Next thing to be reminded of is that we are now in a different day and age when being a *donkey* is now considered funny. If a character is playing the stoner kid he is obviously going to get the roll of a dumb, slow, retard kid, that lost all his brain cells to the use of drugs. People laugh and thing that is great now and day and when the movies today do not contain such things as drinking, sex, partying, drug use, and nudity the audience grows bored more quickly and the movie suffers more because lets be the main thing horror fans want to view these days is all the things i just listed above. Which is where the word remake is okay for this movie. I myself would probably call this movie more of a remake update sort of film. My final characteristic that i think made this movie a 7 out of 10 is that this movie added a campy Friday the 13th element to the film itself and in my opinion it was much needed. It once again added that "zest", if you will, to the film that is so lack in the prior classic, at least that is my opinion.In closing, I am not saying this film is anywhere near as good as dawn of the dead remake but once again the budget difference was $27,250,000 million dollars. Yeah, that should say it all I shouldn't need to continue. Judge the movie the way it should be judged and not to Hollywood status.

Tom Jeffrey Anyone who views this movie expecting a remake of George Romero's 1968 classic is sure to go away disappointed. Apparently the creative minds behind this film wanted to do a remake of the obscure 1950s film, I Bury the Living. But the producers, wanting to make the product more marketable, decided to turn it into a rip-off of the Romero film. Under the circumstances, I can understand the disappointment of many reviewers and the low ratings.However, if a viewer is willing to accept this film for what it really is -- a movie about the living dead that merely references the Romero film from time to time (as in the opening credits) -- he or she may be in for a pleasant surprise. Although it will never end up on anyone's 100 Best list, and I can't honestly call it a good movie, I did find it to be an entertaining, "not bad" movie.The premise is actually quite different from the Romero movie. Instead of being a worldwide plague threatening to destroy humankind, this zombie outbreak is limited at first to the mortuary of "Junior" Tovar (Sid Haig), who cannot bring himself to cremate the dead people whom he's embalmed. So he simply leaves them lying around the mortuary. Over a period of two years, the corpses begin piling up and eventually become infected with a mysterious virus that gets into his embalming fluid. They then begin to come alive again. At first Junior manages to control the problem with his trusty shovel, but it soon gets beyond his control.The main action takes place in the house of a local pot farmer, where the stoned-out characters are watching a broadcast of Romero's "Living Dead." They initially fail to comprehend the gravity of the situation, as a frightened young woman who has escaped from the zombies at Junior's mortuary seeks refuge in their house. The fact that the owner is engaging in illegal activity explains his persistent refusal to call the police. The house is finally overrun by zombies, and the remaining survivors flee with Junior (who has joined them and explained the source of the zombie outbreak) back to the mortuary. Then it turns out that Junior has been keeping a secret that threatens the lives of the other survivors.Some reviewers have called this the worst zombie movie ever made. I wonder if they have seen some of the stuff I've seen. In my opinion, it's head and shoulders above such Italian-made crap as Zombie 4: After Death and Zombie 5: Killing Birds. The question that I ask after watching such movies is: do I feel that I have just wasted 80 minutes of my life or do I feel like I've been entertained? And . . . would I consider ever watching it again? Thus far, I've seen this movie twice and have felt entertained both times. If you want to see a decent retelling of the George Romero film, then watch Tom Savini's 1990 remake. If you're willing to settle for some mindless entertainment with plenty of zombie action and some gratuitous nudity to boot, then you may want to check this one out.