Infamousta
brilliant actors, brilliant editing
Patience Watson
One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.
Sarita Rafferty
There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.
mwkmak
This version really surprised me. I am a bit late to the game and only heard about this version like, yesterday. The character names remain familiar, however their personalities and actions became modernized to relate to a modern audience. Loosely following the story line of the classic, George Romero had his hand in the screen writing for this version. A couple of new characters not in the original version are thrown into the mix, creating an interesting twist to the climax of the plot. Haunting in itself as there are points where the classic version is playing on miscellaneous television screens in different locations. This version is different enough that it is engaging and not just another spit up failed attempt at being a copycat. I give this movie an 8 out of 10 due to the fact that the story did pull me in, being different enough, but keeping the integrity of the original story line from the 60's.
Josh Myers (myrothe)
This movie was absolutely terrible. Bad acting, bad special effects, ridiculous uninspired writing, truly an insult to legacy of Romero in every way.Not much more to be said, an embarrassing effort not even worthy of scifi channel status.Do yourself a favor and pass this weak effort by. I diddn't even want to finish it, but I did and I can honestly say it never gets any better.The only way to make this enjoyable would be to give it the Mystery Science Theater treatment, then it would be tolerable. No one in this movie was even slightly believable and had the combined acting depth of a puddle, INCLUDING their poster boy.
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.
EricVierthaler92
Wow and I heard the movie was bad before I finally saw it. I remember back in 6th grade when I heard this movie was coming out I was so excited to see it! I thought it was gonna get a theatrical release. But I was wrong only a limited theatrical release. But on with my review. I finally saw this movie on demand and I thought it was horrible. I should have listened to all the fans who said this movie sucked. The acting was bad. No really I've seen better acting in a porn movie then this! And the special effects were god awful! No really I've seen better special effects in a home movie filmed by a 2 year old! I mean the special effects looked so fake! I was highly let down. And it hardly remakes the original! So whats the point to remake it then? the dialogue was unbelievably cheesy! No really I've heard better dialogue from a drunk guy then from this movie! This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. What were you thinking Sid Haig? Why were you in this god awful mess of a movie?! This movie is just as bad as Halloween 3: Season of the witch and the sinfully bad Jaws: The Revenge!
