Visca Occitania Only one thing might save this movie - a less important, but nevertheless lacking feature in other remakes of this classic theme - which is a relatively credible background of why and how zombies became zombies. All the other stuff: acting of both living/dead, script and continuity is so full of potholes even a mindless zombie would be crying his/her (rotting) heart out over the final product. Events are too predictable, save for the key role of the undertaker (played by Mr Sid Haig) that even steals some humor into the action. The end credits make me smile too, but alas, they'd come too late to get me feel I spent these 70 minutes of my life worthly to remember - so, try to avoid it and better re-watch the classic and Romero versions instead.

Wizard-8 It's been a long time since I've seen the original version of "Night of the Living Dead", so some details of it are fuzzy in my mind. But I can remember enough of it to know it was a lot better than this remake. Even the equally ill-advised 1990 remake was a lot better than this second remake! Everything goes wrong this time around. It's a pretty cheap- looking enterprise for one thing, with ugly photography that 3D probably didn't help during the brief time the movie was in theaters. The characters are extremely unlikable, with most of them stoners or drug dealers, and ALL of them being extremely stupid. The script also has a number of plot holes and other flaws, like the fact that the fate of a couple of characters is never revealed. But the biggest flaw is that the movie is not the least bit scary. The original movie slowly built and held a level of terror, while there's almost a casual feeling here. Even fans of Sid Haig would best avoid this feebleness.

manumad1998 I watched the remake of George Romero's 'Night of the living dead' this morning and I certainly wasn't expecting much because I had read some reviews on it and judging by the 3.4 rating that it got, I wasn't sure I was going to like it.As soon as I saw that Sid Haig or 'Captain Spaulding' from the famous 'House of 1000 corpses' and 'The devils rejects' which I personally thought were two of the best films I've ever seen, I wanted to see it. I loved Sid as Captain Spaulding and I thought if he acted as well as he did in the 'The devils rejects' and 'House of 1000 corpses' then I would be satisfied. And I was. Obviously he wasn't as good in this as he was in the other two films but he still managed to make me laugh.Anyway, I'm not here to review Sid Haig's acting, I'm here to review the whole movie as a whole. People are saying that the acting was awful, I thought that the acting was good, they weren't going to win any awards or anything but it certainly wasn't terrible. I did not watch this film in the cinema so I did not see it in 3D. I've heard that the 3D was pointless so I'm not too disappointed to of not seen it in 3D. The effects weren't very good because the film had such a low budget and the gore wasn't very realistic. The film had a few flaws, such as there wasn't very much zombie action which I was a little disappointed about seeing as I am a big fan of blood and guts in horror films! Overall this is not a bad movie and I would definitely recommend it to any fans of zombie/horror films, it was fun to watch and it made me laugh in parts but it also had some saddening moments, which I'll leave to you to find out if you decide to watch this flick, and I definitely think that is worthy of a 7 and not the ridiculous 3.4 it's been given!

Tom Jeffrey Anyone who views this movie expecting a remake of George Romero's 1968 classic is sure to go away disappointed. Apparently the creative minds behind this film wanted to do a remake of the obscure 1950s film, I Bury the Living. But the producers, wanting to make the product more marketable, decided to turn it into a rip-off of the Romero film. Under the circumstances, I can understand the disappointment of many reviewers and the low ratings.However, if a viewer is willing to accept this film for what it really is -- a movie about the living dead that merely references the Romero film from time to time (as in the opening credits) -- he or she may be in for a pleasant surprise. Although it will never end up on anyone's 100 Best list, and I can't honestly call it a good movie, I did find it to be an entertaining, "not bad" movie.The premise is actually quite different from the Romero movie. Instead of being a worldwide plague threatening to destroy humankind, this zombie outbreak is limited at first to the mortuary of "Junior" Tovar (Sid Haig), who cannot bring himself to cremate the dead people whom he's embalmed. So he simply leaves them lying around the mortuary. Over a period of two years, the corpses begin piling up and eventually become infected with a mysterious virus that gets into his embalming fluid. They then begin to come alive again. At first Junior manages to control the problem with his trusty shovel, but it soon gets beyond his control.The main action takes place in the house of a local pot farmer, where the stoned-out characters are watching a broadcast of Romero's "Living Dead." They initially fail to comprehend the gravity of the situation, as a frightened young woman who has escaped from the zombies at Junior's mortuary seeks refuge in their house. The fact that the owner is engaging in illegal activity explains his persistent refusal to call the police. The house is finally overrun by zombies, and the remaining survivors flee with Junior (who has joined them and explained the source of the zombie outbreak) back to the mortuary. Then it turns out that Junior has been keeping a secret that threatens the lives of the other survivors.Some reviewers have called this the worst zombie movie ever made. I wonder if they have seen some of the stuff I've seen. In my opinion, it's head and shoulders above such Italian-made crap as Zombie 4: After Death and Zombie 5: Killing Birds. The question that I ask after watching such movies is: do I feel that I have just wasted 80 minutes of my life or do I feel like I've been entertained? And . . . would I consider ever watching it again? Thus far, I've seen this movie twice and have felt entertained both times. If you want to see a decent retelling of the George Romero film, then watch Tom Savini's 1990 remake. If you're willing to settle for some mindless entertainment with plenty of zombie action and some gratuitous nudity to boot, then you may want to check this one out.