Today, we are taking a closer look at the remake of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and asking the question, Was Ebert Right?
In 1968 George Romero made a scruffy little low-budget horror film named “Night of the Living Dead,” and it was truly frightening. That was in the days before the MPAA rating system, and I saw it at a Saturday matinee filled with little kids, who were so scared they were screaming and weeping. I noted their reaction in my review – I believed, then and now, that some films are simply not appropriate for children – but at the same time I had to admire the artistry of Romero’s film. With grainy black and white photography, a handful of locations and a cast of unknowns, he created a horrifyingly original vision that has been ripped off ever since – not least by Romero himself.
I love that he begins this review with context. I agree that the original film was truly frightening. I also agree that some films are not appropriate for children. I was nine or ten when I saw the film for the first time and it scared the crap out of me. I had a hard time sleeping for a few days afterwards.
The grainy black and white photography is true great. The few locations does help the film because it doesn't complicate things. It's a simple story told very basically with a lot of style. The film is also a "horrifying original vision".
The creatures attacked again in Romero’s “Dawn of the Dead” (1979), which was a superb horror film, and in his “Day of the Dead” (1985),which was not.
I agree with him on both points. DAWN OF THE DEAD is one of the best horror films ever made. It shows both the horrific existence of living in a world inhabited by zombies and the boring times when you know you are safe. DAY OF THE DEAD, on the other hand, seems to just focus on the boring side until the horrifying side makes it's presence know close to the end of the film. Sure, there is zombie stuff spread throughout but not really. The carnage is mostly at the end. The rest of the stuff is incredible boring. It's not a bad film but it is a very lackluster follow-up to one of the best horror films of all time.
Now they are back in a remake of the original film, which has been written by Romero but directed by Tom Savini, his longtime makeup expert. The remake is so close to the original that there is no reason to see both, unless you want to prove to yourself that black and white photography is indeed more effective than color for this material.
This is the biggest problem I have with the film. What's the point? I understand that Romero wanted to be able to make money off the film as they weren't able to because of the copyright bullshit that sent the film right into the public domain. He wanted to make money for himself and the cast and crew along with making money for the original investors. This is a noble but not a very good idea.
Watching the film, you can tell very little effort was put into the film. This is close to being a shot for shot remake. So much so that there is very little point in this film's existence. Tom Savini's direction is basic at best. He doesn't do anything interesting with the camera or the editing. The photography is flat and lifeless and doesn't feel very much like a scary horror film. Take out the zombies and this could be a drama. Romero gave his film life. The black and white photography was striking with ti adding to the overall creepiness of the film. The sound mixing is top notch as well. The sounds used during the scene where the girl in the basement kills her parents still makes my skin crawl. I don't think the original film would benefited from being in color. In fact, it would have been a detriment.
The discovery of the people in the basement leads to the movie’s longest-running non-event, a bitter fight between Towles and the others about whether they should all hide out in the basement, or stay upstairs. Todd says no to the basement. Towles says yes, frothing at the mouth. They scream at each other in confrontations in which the overacting is so ludicrous, it gets bad laughs. Towles is an actor who can indeed be chilling; he is unforgettable playing Otis, the mass murderer’s slack jawed friend, in “Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.” But here, like all of the other actors, he is wasted on a film that confuses screaming with emotion.
I agree with the wasteful use off Tom Towles. He is a much better actor than this film allows him to be. He yells tons of his dialogue and it feels forced. I know that is the point of the character but they could have done something else with it. Maybe make the guy the quiet type who you are not sure about. Maybe he would sell out his family in order to save himself. How knows? As the character is now, it wastes a good actor's time.
Thanks for small gifts: I am grateful that Tallman’s character eventually figures out something that has been abundantly obvious ever since the first “Living Dead” movie. The zombies are very stupid, and very slow. “You could just walk right past them!” she observes, looking out of the farmhouse. And so she does, for a while, until she is intercepted by a band of redneck hunters who are killing zombies for sport.
The one thing I think the thing does right is giving Barbara a complete 180 of the character from the original. In that film, she was the damsel in distress who goes catatonic for a big chunk of the runtime. She is an incredibly boring and worthless character in that film. In this remake, she starts out screaming and running and being the typical damsel in distress before becoming a badass. She goes full Sarah Connor about halfway through and the film actually gets a little bit better because of this. She is smart and tough and we like watching her take control and dish out bullets.
The ending of the movie, with its bonfire and tortured freeze-frame scenes, is apparently intended to suggest that we really are no better than the zombies, a conclusion which, even based on the evidence of the characters in this movie, I have trouble in accepting.
This ending worked in the original but not here. It feels way too forced like they had to include it because the original did. I do like the other twist in the film. I won't spoil it here but there is a bit of character development we never saw coming.
So, was Ebert right?
In many ways yes. There were a bunch of remakes in the 80s and early 90s in the horror genre that are held in high regard. JOHN CARPENTER'S THE THING, THE FLY, and THE BLOB are all universally loved among horror fans because they bring a lot of different ideas to the table. They are not carbon copies of the original like the NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD remake. THE THING gives us a monster that could be anyone while also giving us some of the most amazing gore and effects to come out of the decade. THE FLY gets rid of the cheesy effects (yes, they are cheesy) for a more realistic take on the same ideas. THE BLOB is probably the film that sticks the closest to the original. A alien from outer space attacks a small town. It's a basic plot but the remake not only ups the gore and scares, but also ups the response to the alien. We have the military trying to save people while also trying to hide the monster.
All three of these films are upgrades from their original but the remake of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is not much of one. It ups the gore but I found what gore we got in the original to be much more effective. I loved the zombie at the beginning who's clothes fall over showing us the medical examination wounds. I thought the gore was good but not really needed. It helps the film a bit but not that much.
I do like what the film did with the Barbara character but thats really it. There's not much outside of that that warrants a remake.
I don't think the reasoning behind the existence of this remake is enough to get it made. I also don't think the film does enough to make it a worthwhile watch. I mean, give it a shot if you really want to but I would rather watch the original again. The film just got a 4K Blu-ray release and it's one I won't be buying. I own the film on Blu-ray and that is fine enough for me.
){kind=link}
0 Comments