KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

jerralagbayani Like Every Remake they usually don't surpass the original, this one hadn't. I don't have much to say but this was like watching Ringu, then The Ring where you realize they're both practically the same. The two things I liked was the ending and Barbara's character change though. 6/10.

re-animatresse this totally unnecessary remake of George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead (1968) doesn't measure up to or significantly diverge from the original, but i like it. one key difference, the one that makes it worth watching, is the strong female protagonist – Barbara, who was largely useless and in the way in Romero's version, becomes the most levelheaded character in this one. she doesn't talk much after her traumatic experience in the cemetery in the opening scene, so i headcanon her as an autistic heroine with selective mutism Harry Cooper, the drunken wife beater who hides his family in the cellar, becomes the more irritating character, largely due to poor acting on Tom Towles's part: the escalating tension between Cooper and Ben that was a driving facet of the plot in the original film just isn't very effective here there are some memorable scenes and zombie designs; the altered ending is far less impactful than in the original, but satisfying nonetheless. if you're a fan of zombie films, check it out, but don't expect a cinematic masterpiece

rdoyle29 This film really isn't a good idea. The original film is a classic, and there's very little you can do to improve it, outside of making Barbara a stronger personality, which they did. Colour and more modern effects really end up doing little benefit. Given that this film is a terrible idea, it's refreshingly okay. It adds precious little to the original film, but it also manages to do it a bit of justice without sullying its memory. Oddly enough, it's populated with better actors, but has worse acting. The fighting between Ben and Cooper is pitched to ridiculous extremes, and given some plot changes, is even more pointless than in the original film. Worth a look.

bowmanblue It is fair to say that, in zombie movie terms, the original 'Night of the Living Dead' was a classic. Not only was it pretty gory and creepy for its time (hey, it was still the sixties!), but it also carefully alluded to the racial tensions of America at the time. Therefore, it not only cemented its place in the horror hall of fame, but also won praise for its daring social commentary.How could anyone truly do the original justice by remaking it? Well... perhaps one thing that may go a long way is by giving it back to the people who made it to begin with! Yes, zombie overlord George A Romero returns at (well, near) the helm to make sure the remake goes smoothly. If you don't know... the film is about the start of a worldwide zombie epidemic. While society crumbles a rag-tag bunch of people try to survive the night in an abandoned farm house, while trying to fend off seemingly never ending waves of flesh-eating ghouls. Now, that synopsis actually describes both the 1968 version and the 1990 remake. The latter's first selling point is that it sticks to the original concept pretty tightly. In fact, the story is basically a shot-for-shot remake (okay, not 'shot-for-shot' in that depressing 'Psycho' remake, but shot-for-shot enough to keep the basic premise constantly the same).Yes, it has some changes. First of all the remake looks better. It has a higher budget and has a more 'polished' feel to it. Plus all the actors really do play their parts well (some even being improved, in a few cases). Basically, the original is so good, that a remake that simply takes everything that's good at it and just updates its look and feel for a more modern audience isn't such a bad thing.Yes, the original was a classic, simply because it was – for want of a better word – original. There had never really been anything like it before, therefore it's stayed the test of time. Yes, it was filmed in black and white (and the 'coloured in' version looked a little odd) so having what is technically a 'properly coloured' version of the same movie is no bad thing.If you were to ask most (a) zombie purists and (b) film critics, they'd probably tell you that nothing could outdo the 1968 version. And, to be fair, they may be right. However, that doesn't stop the 1990 remake being a decent enough little zombie film in its own right. If you like your undead slow, creepy and relentless, give this one a go.