Night of the Living Dead

There are SPOILERS in this review. Seeing Night of the Living Dead with only four stars is a bit of a surprise to me because it is such an influential and important film in many ways. But it's also true that in terms of what has happened since its release long ago in 1968, that it seems tame and its relative cheapness shows through in a way that would leave viewers who did not experience its initial release wondering what all the fuss is about. But Night of the Living Dead was one of the most revolutionary films ever made and completely changed the horror genre and even influenced other types of films.Every genre, whether of film, music or literature, has it's tropes, its cliches, the rules under which it operates. What Night of the Living Dead did was to overthrow and subvert almost all of the rules of the horror film as well as add new elements. Romero and Russo did not set out to make a revolutionary film; they were just bored with their Latent Image Company making local television ads and wanted to do something different. They just made the film by instinct, but by being apart from the film making world they were less aware of its rules and aware somehow that times had changed.Horror in the 1960's was dominated by Hammer Films based in Britain and Roger Corman's American International. They both did about the same thing. Their films were made cheaply, often using the same sets in a number of films. They were filmed in lurid color and were basically Gothic dramas, thrillers and mysteries which often implied the supernatural but which usually turned out to be a front for a murderer or someone trying to drive someone else mad (for an inheritance). They did some pretty fun things this way and gave the world Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and the late career of Vincent Price. Some of their films were quite stylish, especially Corman's Poe dramas and some Hammer titles like The Wicker Man. But even when they included Frankenstein or Dracula they were never really scary. Of course there were a few independent masterpieces in the decade like Hitchcock's Psycho and The Birds and films like The Innocents, The Haunting and Rosemary's Baby but these were few and far between.What you sat through was about 80 minutes of a semi-boring, often campy drama usually set in an isolated castle or manor somewhere, until the last ten minutes when the entire special effects budget would be used to show ghosts, magic, vampires or whatever. Night of the Living Dead turned all this on its head from the start. What was the last ten minutes in any other horror film started within the first ten minutes of this one, with Barbara being attacked and trying to flee, and it never let up for a minute after that. It completely blew up the old structure of horror films. The setting was an ordinary cemetery and a farmhouse - nothing special about that, but that was the point. Previous horror most often had been set in some exotic locale: a mansion, haunted house, castle, remote tropical island, etc. all "other" kinds of places where such things could happen. Here was horror set in your own backyard, implying it could happen to you. Hitchcock had done this with The Birds, and Spielberg would use the idea of setting the extraordinary in an everyday setting, but that was yet to come.Already you were off balance. Then there are the monsters themselves; ghouls, later to be known as zombies, who were the reanimated dead and not only that but they wanted to eat your flesh. This was a whole new monster. It was like a blind force, unable to think but totally relentless and seemingly unstoppable in numbers. These were not mad scientists, elegant vampires or serial killers that you just might be able to reason with or trick; these just came at you. Then there was the gore. I know, it doesn't look like much now but in its day it was the extreme of gore. Snobbish critics called it junk. The editors of Variety were so upset they called it pornographic and called on the Supreme Court to set limits. (there was no MPAA rating system yet).There were other unusual elements as well. The fact that the hero was a black man was highly unusual, though somehow I didn't notice that as much as the fact that he seemed to be the only sane, centered person there. Still, in many places that must have not gone down well, especially when he punches the cowardly Harry, who was white. Then there are Tom and Judy, two nice local kids, a jock and his attractive girlfriend. If anybody makes it out it will be them, right? That's the way any standard film would play. But when they die, that's the real turning point of the film. Now the world is turned upside down. Now you don't know what's going to happen. This film has no moral center, the fundament has opened up beneath your feet: anything can happen now. And it does. In the chaos that ensues only Ben is left, taking refuge in the very death trap basement he had (with good reason) scorned before. Then the film lulls you a bit with the sheriff and the locals acting almost comically until they see "something" moving in the farm house. They shoot Ben. The chaos is complete. In this disordered world even the hero of a thousand faces die. The universe is totally nihilistic.The small budget worked for the film. The black and white stock made it seem more, not less real, and gave it a kind of documentary feel. The local actors often improvised their lines giving it even more of a cinema verite sense. Even the cheap stock music from older films rented from Capitol Records (they couldn't afford a composer) gave it an appropriately gritty feeling. In the end, even the mistake that caused it to not be copyrighted worked in the film's favor. It's true it was a cult hit, as big in Europe as in the U.S. and Romero lost a lot of potential money. But falling into public domain gave it an afterlife it likely would never have had otherwise, much like It's a Wonderful Life. Being free, it got played on thousands of TV station's Saturday Horror Night shows, Halloween shows making it familiar to just about everyone. Videos were put out by every conceivable company, often terrible-looking, but again, it was everywhere. This is what made it a mass phenomenon for so long.We can thank Romero for sticking to his guns. Columbia Pictures and American International were both open to distributing it as long as he cut the gory scenes and re-shot a happy ending. What kind of movie would that have been?PERSONAL NOTE: I first saw Night of the Living Dead under almost ideal circumstances. Everyone was back in Ohio on summer break in 1969 and a friend from NYU said we had to see this film, he hadn't, but everybody had been talking about it there. (Remember, movies weren't released everywhere at once then). When I heard the title I laughed, "A zombie film? Those aren't scary, they just walk around like sleepwalkers." Another friend and I said Okay reluctantly, and we planned to make jokes and wisecrack throughout the film. The only place showing it was a drive-in way out in the country. It was surrounded by acres of corn fields as far as you could see. It was a lonely an almost spooky setting; it seemed like anything could walk out from the rows of corn. NOTLD was the second feature. I don't even remember the first. Once it came on and Barbara was attacked the car was total silence. Afterward we skipped the third feature and went home stunned.

In 1968 George A. Romero took the world by storm with an incredibly violent, low-budget, horror film that introduced what would grow to be the modern day interpretation of the living dead (referred to as zombies by most modern day moviegoers). These creatures are the reanimated corpses of the recently deceased, they shuffle, moan and eat the flesh of the living, and the only ways to kill them being incineration and a fatal blow to the head (via gunshot or clubbing). Naturally these aspects would lead these monsters into being the most common form of canon-fodder in today's video games.In recent years the zombies, due to their stupidity, and the fact that they are easy to kill, have made them nothing more than things for the heroes of a film to blow apart in increasingly gruesome manners (so long as they're zombies the MPAA does not care how the characters go about killing them). So what is it about Romero's first Dead film that makes these creatures so darn scary? Two out of the three sequels to this cult classic (the classic Dawn of the Dead, and the more resent Land of the Dead) have used these creatures to create socially satirical environments exploiting human nature, while never bringing real spine tingling moments, the concepts (at least in Dawn) were equally frightening to the horror of Night of the Living Dead, just in a more psychological aspect.How do these pitiful excuses for monsters bring in the scares within this low-budget exploitation film? I'd have to place my bet on the claustrophobic atmosphere Romero creates within the farmhouse, where ninety-five percent of the film takes place. In films such as Dawn, and Day of the Dead the characters had a lot more maneuverability. They could run, they could hide, and easily out maneuver these slow, clumsy creatures. Here, there is no room to move about, and you can feel that there truly is no way out, and no place to hide.The film starts as a brother and sister drive to apply the annual decoration to their father's grave. The two individuals are Barbra and Johnny, and as the two leave they are assaulted by a man. Barbra flees to a nearby farmhouse, and the story begins. Soon after she arrives she encounters a strong willed man by the name of Ben, who quickly establishes that Barbra is hysterical and must be taken care of. Taking responsibility for both their survival Ben soon boards up the doors and windows, preparing to sit the infestation out until help arrives.During the stay they discover some more survivors living in the house's cellar. There's the eager to help young man by the name of Tom, and his loyal girlfriend Judy, and then the paranoid Harry Cooper, his wife Helen, and their ill daughter Karen. Mister Cooper instantly protests against the command of Ben, saying that they all should retreat to the cellar, because there's only one way in and out of the cellar, as opposed to the house with its many doors and windows. Ben denies this, not wanting to be enclosed in a death trap without any means of escape if things were to go badly (which you know they will). In the end it seems only ironic as to how each character meets his or her fate.I must point out the Ben character played by Duane Jones because he is obviously the star of this film, and for good reason. Considering this was the 1960s, and racism was still a huge factor throughout the country it feels remarkable to see such a well done performance by an African American actor, with such great intensity, especially with such a low-budget. He is strong willed, and won't let people change his mind, even to the point of ignorance, but he does so with such passion we, the audience, can't help but side with him as the character, even when he is clearly wrong at times with his decisions. His survival techniques are not perfect, but with his strong attitude he is able to make the survivors inside the house side with him, over the over-cautious (yet, in all fairness, intelligent) Harry Cooper.This film has rightfully earned its reputation as one of the best horror movies to date, and still beats out all of today's zombie films by a mile. Here the zombies really are scary, without resorting to being anything more than slow moving, clumsy beings (unlike the remake of Dawn of the Dead where they felt inclined to super power the creatures). Also, the setting is so normal it further increases the scare factor. How many people haven't been in houses like the one in this film? Imagine being trapped in one of these houses, surrounded by vicious flesh-eaters in the late hours of the night. This is where Night of the Living Dead succeeds where others of the genre have miserably fallen. If it wasn't for the original Night of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead (both of which have been remade with a less positive response from critics and audiences alike) zombies would be some of the worst movie monsters ever conceived. This film innovated and created the concept of the living dead which have been embraced by mainstream audiences, and it is fitting that it is perhaps the ONLY film involving the creatures that has legitimately frightened me. Maybe it was watching it at night with the lights turned off, but I can say that few films have actually scared me when I watched it. Let me put it this way, most classic horror films that truly deserve their status don't scare me when I'm watching them, but end up poking my mind later on in the day (Examples are The Shining and the original Nightmare on Elm Street). With this film I was constantly holding my breath, and looking about the room nervously.The reason I was frightened (and surprised) by this film was due to its incredibly fast pacing, which is very similar to the way films are made today. This film just never has its dull moments (not to say I like all action, I was just surprised how quick it was). The plot is extraordinarily simple, and could've easily been covered in thirty minutes, but Romero was careful to grab the audience in the first attack scene, and keep their attention through means of suspense and violence.Now that brings us to the violence, and there is nothing that the undead are more associated with then excessive amounts of blood and gore. For the 1960s this film is incredibly violent, especially when it shows the undead feeding on the flesh of their victims. Being low-budget the victims are not seen being torn apart like they are in the sequels, but you still are given some disgusting shots of flesh from the bones, or fighting over intestines, which in some perverse way reminded me of people fighting over a chicken wing at a local KFC buffet. The images are just truly grotesque, maybe not to the avid, modern day gore lover, but to the common moviegoer it still holds up as being disturbing.This is the best film of the living dead subgenre, followed closely by its sequel, Dawn of the Dead, and certainly holds up in all regards to the modern, brainless horror film. The film goes out to scare, and manages to pull it off, even to this day. Though the zombies are most associated with gore, and for the 60s this film surely had it, this is a film with more brain than blood, and that's why it has terrified people for so long, and will continue to do so, even as the creatures continue to become even less threatening through video games and modern interpretations (which happen to be video game based, for the most part). With their decline as an actual icon of terror, at least we can still return to the gut wrenching human struggle, and terror of George A. Romero's definitive horror picture.5/5 stars; a classic that has endured the test of time with more strength, emotionally, and in the form of pure terror, than many films of the same era which possessed a larger budgets, certainly being on par with some of Hitchcock's greats.

I am a big fan of horror movies. The zombie sub-genre is a particular favorite of mine. I have seen the rest of the Romero Dead movies and a range of zombie films before this one. For one reason or another, I never got to it until now. I also saw the Last Man on Earth with Vincent Price. Both Night of the Living Dead and the Last Man on Earth are the two origin points for the modern zombie mythos. I was bored while watching Last Man on Earth. I appreciated the movie for its artistry and historical relevance, but it wouldn't be a movie I'd recommend.Night of the Living Dead is a near perfect zombie movie. I saw only near perfect, because the cause/origin of the virus or mutation is still rooted in 1950s fear of nuclear energy and the Cold War. There is also a question raised by the cognitive abilities of zombies given their surprising dexterity. However, these two flaws do not undermine the film in anyway. The story is fantastic, the action is still great decades later, and the casting of a black man as the lead role helped demonstrate that horror can be an effective means of subtle but very deep social commentary (particular of the zombie sub-genre). Romero denies that he intended the movie to convey a political commentary of 1960s America. Yet, the way the credit roll and the images that are used by this militia of white men make me think that the late great Romero was pulling our legs.This movie is great at every level. If you love horror, if you love zombie movies, or if you want a film that provides a deep analysis of systemic racial injustice and social structures but doesn't beat you over the head with preachy monologues akin the Aaron Sorkin the West Wing, then this movie is for you. It is a masterpiece of cinema!

Night of the living dead looks awesome on blu ray, the sound quality is excellent and the transfer is great too. The film was very well acted by an unknown cast at the time, does not look cheap and nasty, despite it being shot on a budget and in black and white. From the opening scene in the cemetery, to the survivors in the farm house trying to hold out against what the zombies were called ghouls, and the fact that they could only be killed by burning them or by destroying their brains, George A Romero effectively created the modern zombie movie, that many others followed, and tried and failed to imitate. Night of the living dead is an essential prequel to the more superior Dawn of the dead, but you don't have to watch night of the living dead to catch up on what happens in Dawn of the dead. Night of the living dead does have violence and some gore, but not the gory excess that is in Dawn of the dead. There is only 2 scenes of flesh and gut eating, and a violent death by trowel stabbing. Overall as a fan of the late George A Romero this is easily one of his finest zombie movies, and it has aged pretty well too.

I'm reviewing the 2002 Stax version which is single disc and has a colourised version of 96 minutes and a black & white version of 96 minutes, hence the advertised running time of 192 minutes. (Both versions are on the same disc.)A reasonable copy of the film (exactly the same print 'cept the colour) and I'm not an expert on Romero's films as other reviewers attest on this site but the film set standards when released in 1968 not least that its budget was $100,000 and over the quickly succeeding years it made many millions and set George A Romero on a course to evolve that gigantic success into a series of stunning follow up cult classics in the horror genre.Recently been watching 'The Walking Dead' which owes everything to NOTLD some fifty years later. Production values are as different as chalk from cheese but the film is famous for its versatility of performers --- some of the production and writing crew doubled as actors or extras as zombies, or ghouls as Romero preferred to call the undead. Because of the limited budget Romero had to be parsimonious hence black & white film which was of the cheapest brand and the result was the grainy picture which has become iconic ---- I'm not a purist and enjoyed the colourised version as much as the original seen back in the late 60's and on tv channels since.It's a good buy for horror fans to explore a modern zombie classic that is often attributed to the re-emergence of the 'undead' genre. But there are NO English subtitles with this copy.P.S. Back in the day I used to buy hundreds of vinyl records under the Stax label. Nice to see the name again on a dvd.

is a 1968 American independent horror film written, directed, photographed and edited by George A. Romero, co-written by John Russo, and starring Duane Jones and Judith O'Dea. The story follows seven people who are trapped in a rural farmhouse in western Pennsylvania, which is under assault by an enlarging group of cannibalistic, undead ghouls.Now a classic and the mother of all modern zombie movies.

Review of the Criterion Collection Blu.As you'd expect from CC, the picture and sound quality are superb, especially for a 50 yr old film.The case contains a beautiful fold-out poster, with a potted history of the making of the film on the flip side. This is the only version of this movie that a film fan needs.

If you love horror films or classic movies this is a must buy. Made in 1968 its still a fresh and exciting horror film even today. Romero's zombie films had a tendency to focus less on the undead and more on the human characters. Though even this first entry into the 'dead' has its fair share of gorey scenes. The actors, largely unknowns at the time, put in great performances that keep you hooked. Though Remero would certainly go on to better this film it stands the test of time as a thrilling horror film and a classic of the genre.This Blu Ray offers a great quality picture and sound. There seem to be many different companies releasing this film, with varying success. However I can recommend this release from Studio Canal.