Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection

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.

I saw this movie just last night. I was expecting a repeat of so many other zombie movies, and was not going in with high expectations.

This is low-budget fare. So, no super-duper special effects! But this should not dissuade you from watching, since they did a very good job with what they had.

I liked how the story started with some people and then moved with one character, and then moved and stayed some other characters. What we get from this is learning how nobody knows what is happening. Some are running all the time (but to where?) and some are locked up in their homes (but for how long?) Everyone is scared and doesn't know what to do.

Since this is taking place in modern times, people expect to use their fancy cell phones to communicate with each other. But nothing seems to work. The government is seemingly out of the picture. The people in this movie are truly alone.

Though the story takes place in Wales, it was not relevant. A cabin in the woods could be anywhere. And someone coming to your door late at night, making noise and trying to break in, is terrifying.

A good horror movie, to say the least.

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.

In a nutshell: Community Theatre does a zombie play and then decides to film it. I must start off by saying I love bad movies. But this - I just couldn't even like it. I get it that the filmmakers tried paying homage to Romero throughout: with the funky camera angles, too close close-ups and claustrophobic, under-lit interior shots - but all-in-all, fail miserably in paying respect to the Master. Also, if the acting were any better, there might be a bit of redemption. Unfortunately, the locals that comprise the cast just don't pull it off. Run from this film. Run fast and run hard. Run just as you would from a flesh-eating horde.

Don't you just hate those reviews that say blunt things like 'This film is rubbish!'

I try to give a little more information than that, but, I have to say, that that is the crux of my review. For those ten people out there who don't know, the title of 'Night of the Living Dead' comes from the sixties zombie film, made by George Romero film and sporting the same name. The original sixties version is largely considered to be the 'start' of the modern take on the undead. This film, ie. The 2012 version where the film-makers have stuck the word 'Resurrection' on the end has NOTHING to do with the original or the official sequels spawned from it.

It is a 'homage' to George Romero's classic. Therefore it takes the best bits and tries to give them a 'fresh' new spin. And it fails.

Saying it's made on a 'shoestring budget,' would be an overstatement. I doubt they had a budget at all. The actors (and I use that term loosely) seem to be straight out of the amateur dramatics society and the camera is mainly hand-held all the way through, making it seem like your old home video footage of your holiday to Spain when you were a child.

One plus point: the gore is reasonable in the few places it's used, plus there's quite a shocking moment early on that I doubt many will see coming.

However, a couple of nice touches do not make a movie. The rest is just awful.

Don't be lulled into thinking it'll be good just because the film-makers stole a classic's title. It's just a poor attempt at cashing in on the name. If you like British zombie movies then stick to the 28 Days Later pair, or Shaun of the Dead if you want your gore with some light-hearted moments in it.

http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/