Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection

I don't usually write reviews but felt compelled to after viewing this piece of trash.It was rather reminiscent of a home movie made by drama students,not that they are all bad but this was amateur film-making at its highest. The acting was bad,horror effects when there was horror were appalling.I expect the makers were trying to make money off the living dead franchise.For horror movie buffs there is nothing here to like and much better b-grade horror movies.I want my 90 minutes back that I wasted. If I could recommend a good zombie movie besides the current blockbuster it would be 1985's "Return of the Living Dead". I found it laughable that 15-18 hrs a day was involved in making this movie and I don't think this would make it to cinema but even straight to DVD would be too good for it,maybe it should be showed in the early hours of the morning when its only viewed by a small part of the population.

Cheap production value, cheap sound quality, and cheesy dialogue make this film one to avoid at all costs, just when the British film Industry has at last made its mark in the world of film and cinema along comes this load of old tosh that drags it back 20 years why oh why oh why, oh I know why, to make a few quid, if you want to know what it feels like to be mugged buy this DVD and you'll realise! it shouldn't even be allowed to carry the title Night Of the Living Dead George A Romero must be livid his highly original work getting used as and excuse to sell this rubbish!!I have to make this review at least 10 lines OK it looks like it's been filmed on a phone, the characters in the film are very flimsy and the actors playing them must have been chosen in a raffle of some sort, or responded to an ad in the local paper, I didn't care what happened to the characters I just wish they would all get killed so I wouldn't have to hurt my eyes anymore watching this rubbish, I have seen a lot of films not all of them good be warned this is the first time I've been moved to write a review, be afraid be very afraid.

So many thoughts are flying through my head watching this movie, most notably how a film could be produced so poorly and approved for release. Perhaps that is the logic these days...Design a flashy cover, capitalize on a popular film title (i.e. Night of the Living Dead), and not give a damn about the quality/production of the film. I invested $20 on this movie somehow knowing in the back of my mind, that this would be a total and complete failure...and to my very surprise, IT WAS! Zombie film after zombie film, they all continue to outdo one another in terms of creating the most unrealistic, boring, waste of time. I simply cannot waste any more of my time or energy into this film, but on a final note if you want a classic zombie film, look no further than Tom Savini's Night of the Living Dead.

Welsh writer/director James Plumb sure has balls to name his film after George Romero's classic zombie movie, but sadly he doesn't quite have the talent to do the title justice: his writing skills aren't all that bad, the film's familial drama being reasonably effective thanks to believable dialogue bolstered by surprisingly convincing performances, but his project as a whole suffers from a lack of decent zombie action, poorly judged camera placement, weak editing, and one or two scenes crippled by a severe lack of logic from the characters.

After a false start ala Hitchcock's Psycho (which actually provides the best moment in the film), the plot centres on a family trapped in their rural home by a plague of zombies, and as tension mounts and their number slowly dwindles, the characters begin to reveal their flaws and secrets, and relationships break down. This interaction of characters works fairly well, but the film's flaws are too numerous and impossible to ignore (individually, some of the following may sound like petty niggles, but together they really serve to irritate)… Firstly, Terry Victor as Gerald sports eyebrows so bushy that zombies would be hard pushed to get close enough to bite him (and as it happens, they don't). Also rather frustrating is the fact that no attempt has been made to fortify the house—hell, they don't even lock the back door after going outside! Furthermore, the family seem a little slow on the uptake, not realising that the 'crazies' are in fact the dead brought back to life (a headline in the newspaper shop in the first scene states that The Dead Live—haven't they been following the news?).

Then there's the technical issues: the overuse of canted angles, which looks like Plumb forgot to lock-off his tripod properly, and inappropriate low POV shots, as if the the camera was left on the ground still running between takes, all of which give the film an air of amateurishness.

But it's back to Gerald for my biggest complaint: when faced with a gang of machete wielding chavs, the bushy-browed fool stops his car (instead of ploughing straight through them) and pays for his stupid mistake with his life. It's dumb beyond belief.

While not nearly as bad as many of the other reviews make out (I reserve my '1/10's for completely unwatchable dross that actually makes my eyes hurt), the film is certainly undeserving of its 'Night of…' title.

Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection (2012)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Ultra low-budget film about some family members trying to survive inside their home while there are zombie attacks going on outside. This film was shot in Wales, which is one reason why it stands apart from countless other rips of the George A. Romero classic. Those expecting or wanted a direct remake are going to be disappointed because this is yet another case where the title is simply being used to gain some attention and push some added sales or rentals. I guess you can't blame them for using the title since there's no question that it's going to get the attention they need. With that said, I really didn't find this to be as horrible as many others did. Yes, the low-budget certainly doesn't do any favors for the film but then again, should this be an excuse since Romero was able to do so much with so little? I think there are a couple good things going on here and that includes the first big twist that happens in the story. I'm going to avoid spoiling this for those who do decide to watch the film but the rug is pulled out from the viewer and it caught me off guard. The second thing I liked about the picture is the fact that they did try to do something new instead of just giving us stuff we've seen countless times before. I'm sure a direct remake would have been much easier but the filmmakers went for something different. That "new" thing doesn't always work for a couple reasons. One is that these characters keep getting bitten because they do incredibly stupid things, which just get annoying after a while. Another issue is that the family issues that get so much attention just aren't all that memorable or good enough for you to care about them. There's also a moral debate on if zombies or humans are more evil but I'll leave that up to you. The performances aren't all that bad, there are some good gore effects and the pacing really isn't as bad as one might expect. Still, this film is only going to be for those who must see every zombie film out there.