Cool News
John Ary's Aint It Scary Reviews #22 Of 31!! NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD!!
John Ary here with another installment of Ain’t It Scary Reviews. Today, seven people stuck in a rural farmhouse fight off an onslaught of zombies.
Who doesn’t love the original Night of the Living Dead? It’s a classic, one that every fan of horror should appreciate. It wrote the rules for modern zombie movies and serves as a terrific example of independent filmmaking. That’s why I have always been apprehensive about watching the 1990 remake directed by Tom Savini. The experience wasn’t as gut-wrenching as I expected.

This updated version follows the same basic plot of the original. Barbara and her brother drive up to visit the grave of their mother at a Pennsylvania cemetery. Shortly after pulling in, they’re attacked by the walking dead. Barbara seeks refuge in a secluded farmhouse where she meets up with Tony Todd, a young couple, and a family of three. The seven strangers spend more time squabbling than preparing for the zombie onslaught. Survival depends on keeping a level head and staying at least one step ahead of the horde.

While Savini took over directing duties, George Romero and John Russo returned to update their screenplay. The filmmakers have tweaked each of the main characters and events don’t play out the same way as they did in 1968. You have a basic idea of what will happen, but Barbara has now turned into stronger character that visually morphs through the movie from a meek victim into a determined independent warrior. This changes the outcome of the story in a mostly satisfying way. Ben and Harry Cooper’s relationship appears much more antagonistic, which leads to an extended screaming match that seems to never end. Savini, Romero and Russo remove some of the subtleties from the original with more pronounced visual cues and action. An excellent example of this happens during the final minutes, when one of the surviving characters reflects on one of the primary themes of the movie out loud while watching several zombies dangle from a tree as a redneck mob throws rocks at them. “They’re us. We’re them and they’re us.” That maybe where the film feels the most flawed. Those subtleties of the original made it a classic. We didn’t need to see Ben and Harry physically attack each other multiple times to understand their problems. The armed militia is given more onscreen time with lines and a menacing tone. These are changes I could have done without.

The most noticeable difference between the two films though is the impact of the film stock: color versus the original’s grainy black and white. Even with the colorful blood spills, forceful head bashing, visible autopsy scars on the bodies, and bullet wounds, the original felt more violent and gory. When the black and white zombies would eat the entrails of the recently departed, my mind would fill in the details. The walking dead from 1968 also seemed more faceless and less defined. You could imprint your own phobias and characteristics upon them. Perhaps there are benefits to shooting with a limited budget.

The updated Night of the Living Dead is a good zombie survival tale in its own right. Not as good as the original, but better than most of the imitators that have come along since. Savini, Romero and Russo have made some interesting changes to the original, but in the end, this retelling will make you appreciate the version we all know and love even more.
Night of the Living Dead is currently streaming on Crackle and Youtube. It’s also available on a very sought after Blu-ray ($109.99) here.
Check back in tomorrow for another Ain’t It Scary Review as Vincent Price goes mad in a film based on an Edgar Allan Poe short story.
Here’s a look back at the Ain’t It Scary Review installments that you might have missed:
The Ground Rules to the Project
#1 Son of Frankenstein
#2 Scream, Blacula, Scream!
#3 Black Sabbath
#4 Maniac
#5 Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon
#6 Invisible Invaders
#7 The Mummy’s Curse
#8 Lord of Illusions
#9 Night of the Demons
#10 Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
#11 The House of the Devil
#12 Dr. Phibes Rises Again!
#13 Audition
#14 The Catman of Paris
#15 Kuroneko
#16 Chillerama
#17 Werewolf of London
#18 Tales from the Hood
#19 The Keep
#20 The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog
#21 Equinox
For more video news, reviews and interviews subscribe to the AICN Youtube channel and follow me on Twitter.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus-
+ Expand All
-
Oct. 22, 2012, 4:32 p.m. CST
Sorry, but if you think the 1990 remake is classic, then you're insane...
by brocknroll
...the 1968 original with George A. Romero directed is a classic. Don't be surprised for a major backlash with the talkbackers.
-
However soe changes do sit me wrong. I detest they made Harry a completly unlikable cunt, an ashole whos there to validate everything the main characters do and think. The beauty of the character of Harry in the original is that though he's an unlikable fellow, in the end it proves that his ideas were right, and all the efforts from te likablehero ened up with eveybody else killed, while he hero survives the night y doing what Harry had sugested fom the begining. Yes, the original does seem more nuanced and adventurous, the remake a bit more on the nose. However, as John Ary said, thremake is still an enjoyable movie. Much better then the indication of it being a remake would make us believe. I knowwhat i'm going to say sounds like blasphemy, and it is, but i would be fun to see a remake of NOTLD each decade, to see what the sensebilities, zeitgeist and mood of each decade would bring to each incarnation.
-
The updated Night of the Living Dead is a good zombie survival tale in its own right. Not as good as the original, but better than most of the imitators that have come along since.
-
And I'm a huge Pat Tallman fan
-
Oct. 22, 2012, 5:20 p.m. CST
Pat Tallman is more a stuntwoman then an actress, right?
by albert comin
She did alright in this movie, but often times you can tell she is not in her element in the more dramatic scenes. But she ups her game for the action scenes. You can tell she' far more confortable with the physical stuff. But she was alright overall. Well, at the time, even in the early 90s, even after Ripley in Aliens, there wasn't yet too many action ladies onscreen. So to turn Barbra into a capable survivalist in this movie was still considered a novelty for an Holywood movie. Unbelievable!
-
Uhhhh... no.
-
Scared the shit out of me when I was a kid.
-
Truly creepy back in the day.
-
Oct. 22, 2012, 6:37 p.m. CST
BEST REMAKES!!! INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS 78>THE FLY 86>THE THING 82>THE BLOB 88>NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD 90!!!FACT!!! BUT THE NOTLD 90 BLU-RAY IS WELL AND TRULY FUCKED!!!FACT!!! LET ME EXPLAIN....
by CreepyThinManForever
Seems that the stupid cunts at Twilight Time, the company distributing the limited edition of NOTLD 90 on BR, decided to fuck with the color correction and have darkened the picture quality to absurd levels. Here's a video showing comparisons of before and after..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6MZnqPnTxU Fucking terrible!!!
-
Oct. 22, 2012, 6:41 p.m. CST
It's BETTER than '68. Tony Todd.Savini's awesome Zombie FX. Better acting. Creepy as hell score. It's better.
by Cureguy
-
Better acting. MUCH better sfx. Better more interesting heroine. Give me Savini's Dead over Romero's any day.
-
Oct. 22, 2012, 8:15 p.m. CST
Remake owes everything to the original. Nonetheless the remake is better than the original.
by Autodidact
The remake is one of my top ten favourite movies for sure. I personally can't stand Barbara's acting in the original. It also seems off when the girl zombie kills her mother with the garden trowel. As for the idea of the original "seeming" gorier than the remake... nonsense.
-
Oct. 22, 2012, 8:15 p.m. CST
^ Wow. The blu-ray really IS fucked up. I'll stick with my DVD for now.
by Autodidact
Great special features on the DVD too.
-
I'm sure that skewed my perspective, but I really liked it.
-
Rednecks with guns will liberate the pacifists from the Zombie Apocalypse.....
-
Oct. 22, 2012, 11:11 p.m. CST
Can the people claiming the 1990 version is superior to the 1968 version
by mr.underwater
Please post their ages? I'm just interested.
-
The original was groundbreaking and good,...for its time. The remake absolutely updated the effects and made them better hands down! Barbara's protrayal made sense. I hated all the whining and screaming of the original Barbara. Tony Todd's acting was superb. *Not telling you my exact age mr.underwater but I will say that I was born in the early 70's
-
Oct. 23, 2012, 3:12 a.m. CST
I rate the original as the better movie, but the remake is pretty sweet.
by albert comin
The remake did simplified the characters, some almost to the point of caricature (Harry is the worst sufferer of this). The characterization in the older movie is more nuanced and less black and white (pun not intended), you have good guys making wrong decisions while the unsympathetic cowardly cunt was right all along. Such complexities are sadly absent from the remake. Many hate the "whnning" from Barbara in the original movie, but you have to understand her reaction is actually quite believable. Some people just crack under pressure. It's not as if she went blue screen from the start, she did put a bit of a fight before, and had been persued for a while until she found safe haven. She's bascially suffering from a severe case of post-traumatic stress. That's understandable. The remake Barbara can also be seen as a reasonable character interpretation too. It's not as if the original Barbara stays catatonic to the end, she does snap out, and it's her snapping out that gets her killed! Again, sweet complexities of the original. The moral of the story? The remake is better then one would expect, but the original is an unsinkable classic.
-
Oct. 23, 2012, 3:57 a.m. CST
NOTLD 68 IS THE MOST IMPORTANT HORROR MOVIE IN HISTORY!!! THERE ARE ONLY TWO ERA'S IN HORROR; PRE-NOTLD AND POST-NOTLD!!!FACT!!!
by CreepyThinManForever
-
...okay I hate the idea of remakes actually, but there are some I like. I've never considered anyone liking the remake of NOTLD over the original. I liked the remake okay, but no way would I rate it over the original. First, the fact that it is is black and white, to me makes is even scarier. It has that old documentary feel to it, just seems more realistic. The crudeness of the film works for it. Sure the remake is a more professional looking film, but I can't say I enjoyed it more. I'll give you that the effects, wait, I was gonna say look better, but I can't . The effects of the original still look great. You can say the new one's effect look more real or bloodier or whatever, but when I sit down to watch the original, it still works. As someone who loves the original, I appreciate and like the remake, but it kinda makes me sad. I worry that our future little horror fans will see the remakes of this and Psycho without seeing the originals. That actually happened with a girl I worked with. She told me that she had watched Psycho and it sucked. but she had watched the remake of course. Will she ever go back and see the original and appreciate it for the art that it is? I don't know but of course the surprise is gone.
-
Talked about its strengths and its flaws. I don't know who brocknroll was replying to. It must have been the review he read in his head.
-
I saw it before '68 and thought it was pretty great. Saw '68 when I was about 20 and it was probably the last film to scare me. '68 wins hands down. '90 has tremendous FX, and that closing song is pretty awesome, but zombie Ben? - sacriledge. '68 is still terrifying if you watch it alone in the middle of the night, and socially speaking is probably the most important American Independent ever made.
-
The original is creepier, but the remake has better acting, makeup, and a better ending. But the original is a more important film because of Ben and the social commentary, and for inventing the zombie movie. I also prefer the black and white photography, and though I really like the music in the remake, the library music in the original is better. I like them both.
-
Oct. 23, 2012, 10:34 a.m. CST
I have a soft spot for this one, it's a pity that Savini was never able to put out his stronger, gorier cut though.
by Bradly Durant
-
Oct. 23, 2012, 11:17 a.m. CST
For the record, only Romero wrote the script for this film.
by Scott Baiowulf
Both Romero and Russo get previous story credits. Romero gets solo screenplay credit on this. Russo went on to get his own solo writing credit on the truly unwatchable Night of the Living Dead 30th anniversary release, where he added 15 minutes of new footage to the colorized version of the 1968 original. I've always been a huge fan of this film. This and Return of the Living Dead were in my VHS player non stop from 8th grade though high school. Tom Savini is at the peak of his FX powers and Tony Todd does a great job filling the Shaq sized shoes Duane Jones left for the role of Ben. All that said, I'll still take the original 68 version anytime you give me the choice.
-
Crap! You are absolutely right. Although Russo got credit for his earlier screenplay with Romero, he didn't write any of the 1990 script. That 30th anniversary abomination was a travesty.
-
Oct. 23, 2012, 12:35 p.m. CST
Creep, great list, but, you missed Coppola's Dracula, which is also far superior to the original, IMO.
by bat725
-
NOTLD 1990 was the first DVD I ever bought, and a treasured part of my collection.
-
I enjoy the updated stuff, and it maintains the core essence of the original. But BETTER than the original? Jesus Christ, that's blasphemous. One of the greatest horror films ever made, and still spooky to this day. And one thing about the remake: there's nothing shocking about it. Absolutely nothing. There's barely even anything of the zombies eating people. The original may be "dated" now, but do not discount how shocking it was for its time. People were strongly advised against seeing it.
-
...is better than the original, which is very slow and "stagey", but no way its better than the first real remake, Horror of Dracula.
-
Oct. 24, 2012, 10:05 a.m. CST
^ I like that the movie starts on a bright afternoon. It's all the more jarring and out of place.
by Autodidact
-
Oct. 24, 2012, 10:05 a.m. CST
.. and you get the feeling of night descending, of time passing. It's an effective choice all around.
by Autodidact
Top Talkbacks
- Spoilery early review of MAN OF STEEL!! -- 157 total posts 125 posts
- Holy Crossover!! Magneto’s Boy Quicksilver To Speed About In Whedon’s AVENGERS 2 And Singer’s X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST?? -- 259 total posts 47 posts
- Papa Vinyard thinks that HANGOVER: PART III was a paycheck grab for a buncha people who are already rich!! -- 197 total posts 22 posts
- Green-Band and Red-Band trailers for the new Jason Sudeikis & Jennifer Aniston VACATION ripoff, WE'RE THE MILLERS are here!! -- 114 total posts 22 posts
- A review of Refn and Gosling's ONLY GOD FORGIVES, direct from Cannes!! -- 37 total posts 18 posts
- That rumor about Sony selling SPIDER-MAN? Don't you believe it for a second! -- 444 total posts 16 posts
- Ron Howard's latest trailer sure is a RUSH!!! -- 44 total posts 15 posts
- The METALLICA THROUGH THE NEVER Teaser! -- 200 total posts 15 posts
- Harry dives into STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS' spoilers to reveal the truth behind the blockbuster we're seeing! -- 1421 total posts 14 posts
- Next on the Reboot assemblyline? TIMECOP!! -- 154 total posts 12 posts

