Night of the Living Dead

Unfortunately, a long-standing grave mistake with the original Night of the Living Dead was the accidental failure to copyright the prints, thus putting the film into public domain to be remade. Fortunately, it took quite a long while before people used this as an excuse to churn out things to the general public so horrible that no one should want to see them. But it seems that beginning with the 2006 3D remake, the Night of the Living Dead story is going to become a piñata for terrible "filmmakers" everywhere to ruin.

*This* particular "film" takes that idea and doesn't just destroy the story, it runs it into the ground with poor directing, acting, writing, editing, sound mixing, etc. Now I have nothing against an amateur film company that wants to make a name for themselves by experimenting, growing, and eventually satisfying movie-watching audiences by the dozens(maybe hundreds if they can put up something that can hold with great indie-classics that never got mainstream attention they deserved). However, this film shows such disrespect for George Romero's masterpiece that everyone involved owes a written apology to everyone involved with the original, starting with Romero. They have taken a horror icon's beautifully flawed masterpiece and turned it into a steaming pile of... yeah, you know what I'm saying.

Then even further than insulting the original and it's team, people involved with this film have taken it upon themselves to write positive reviews for the film on IMDb and rate it fairly high in order to promote it as something worth watching, no, worth PAYING to watch. That should count as theft with how horrible this film is, and I am incredibly happy that I did not pay to see it. And not only do they insult the original, they insult the noble remake in 1990.

Everyone knows the Tom Savini version from 1990 was an amazing effort to add something new to the original while staying true to the spirit, the ideas, even the flaws of the original. Whether people genuinely liked it or not, it held its own as something that at least had the utmost respect for it's source material.

I sincerely hope the people responsible for this remake are not benefiting(or even making their budget back) with any amount of money. Everything they do make from selling this should be doubled from their pockets, refunded to the movie-watchers they ripped off and sent to Romero himself.

Avoid at all costs. And if you find a copy lying around somewhere, burn it.

A Night of the Living Dead (2014) 6 out of 10.

You'll have a good time watching this remake of George Romero's 1968 Night of the Living Dead. Big thanks to Gad Holland for making the movie really enjoyable. He was absolutely hilarious. Loved the character change from the hero Ben from the original to this Ben. I really like Kayla Elizabeth and Lisa Marie as well.

Don't go into watching this, with high hopes. Don't expect high budget or the exact same movie like the original. This movie is a lot different, but in a good way. Overall, you will literally have a great time with this movie. Acting is decent, the story is compelling and keeps you interested. I really liked the zombies, it was a great throwback to the original. The makeup was on point.

Shattered Images Films home-grown horror remake of the classic "Night Of The Living Dead" retells the zombie story with a few alterations to Romero's original tale. It is an ultra low-budget film shot in black and white and stays pretty close to the original story without being an exact reproduction. The plot takes place during a visit to see their wife and mother's grave, placing Jerry and his daughters Melanie and Barbra at the beginning of a zombie apocalypse.

The story arc manages to hold together pretty well from start to finish, unfortunately there are times when it gets weak due to dialog and inconsistent story elements that fail to build the suspense or keep the film moving forward. Mostly this is due to some of the cast's inability to stay on point with their lines and clumsy dialog.This is home grown horror so a lot of the errors are expected, but not always forgivable, "A Night Of The Living Dead" does have some pretty effective moments as far as creating chilling scenes and an overall chilling atmosphere. Not to mention several of the cast give good performances.

The special effects are ultra-cheap in "A Night Of The Living Dead" and due to camera angles and time spent focusing on the effect, are ineffective and do more to harm the scene. Not all the scenes that use special effects are a fail, some are very effective and create genuinely creepy moments. Thankfully I didn't see any CGI effects, so the use of practical effects are greatly appreciated.

A plus for the film is that the zombies being shot in black and white are acceptable in design and effect. They stay pretty basic much like the original and several other films that it spawned that keep the zombies simple. The soundtrack and sound effects are work in "A Night OF The Living Dead" by staying pretty simple and used with precision. The music creates a since of emotion that elevates several scenes to higher-quality moments. Kudos.

Overall, "A Night Of The Living Dead" misses at creating an original retelling of the film because too much of the Romero film is present when it comes to scene set-ups and structure. The acting is pretty low quality with the exception being the few actors that do offer quality performances. This is a no budget horror film and at times really shines, unfortunately the amount of line flubs from some characters and inconsistent use of practical effects drag the director's intended vision down.

The good things about "A Night Of The Living Dead" are the fact that it is shot in black and white, plus it does alter some of the original film so that at times it does feel genuine and more like fan fiction than copycat. The zombies are acceptable – thanks to the black and white filming choice, and I enjoyed the added characters and location used in this film, with the exception of too much down time inside the home that the real owners obviously refused to sign off on scene damage like busting windows or actually boarding up windows.

All that said, fans of homemade, home grown horror and ultra low- budget will like the fact that "A Night Of The Living Dead" offers a better quality story than most home-grown zombie films out there. And for this particular production company this film rises above some of the companies previous works. The added characters, and black and white keeps "A Night Of The Living Dead" from completely failing, and at times creates some pretty effective moments.

Fans of indie horror that are used to films with larger budgets may not enjoy this one because of the lower quality of effects and dialog issues. It does offer an original ending to the story that is intense so I enjoyed that aspect of the film. Just be prepared and know that this is an ultra low-budget horror when you set down to watch it. I am 50/50 on this one because I enjoy the home- grown/ultra low-budget side of indie horror, I just prefer a bit more originality than what this "Night Of The Living Dead" offers, you know-something that I haven't seen before.

this is my first ever review on IMDb. So please bare with me.

George Romero's Night of the Living Dead is one of those classic movies that will never fade away. The movie still holds up all these years. Since there will a problem with the title, the movie is a part of public domain. That means anyone can make their own version of the movie. That is exactly where A Night of the Living Dead comes into play. I do respect anyone willing to make a movie, if its original or a remake. So I am not here to bash the company or anyone involved in this movie. I am just giving out my opinion.

A Night of the Living Dead is a low-budget remake from independent director Chad Zuver. Now I've looked through his bio and seen that he is fairly new at directing. I haven't seen his other work before. But I am going to be completely honest here. I didn't think he did a bad job with this. NOTLD is a very slippery slope that the fans will never like any remake if Romero isn't involved in it. Since that is the reason why the 1990 remake gets so much attention. With this new remake, it IS better than some of the other remakes. 3D and Origins were god- awful. But this one is a lot better than those two. Even though this one doesn't have professional actors or a high Hollywood budget. This showed a different take on the story and even though the execution wasn't flawless. You see exactly what they were trying to do. There is something new added onto the story, that you haven't seen before, in any of the other remakes.

I agree with another reviewer. Any remake does do the original one an injustice. So I do have to give them fault for that one. It might have been a mistake to make this movie. But I'm not going to punish the people that made this for that mistake. I will not say this movie is trash, like other reviewers. Because it is far from trash.

Overall, I wasn't bored or disgusted by this movie. I did enjoy some small bits here and there. That does including the acting. I really enjoyed Sarah Thomas as Helen Cooper and the new characters from Lisa Marie and Kayla Elizabeth.

If you are a die-hard fan of the original movie. You are going to hate this movie, because you are so dead set on the original.

Shockingly poor film. Terrible writing, lighting, sound, and as for the acting. O...M...G. I want my 79 minutes back.