Night of the Living Dead (1990) - Out of Print

[mars396]

Originally Posted by dantexaiver

So what is it about NOTLD 1990 that stands out as better then the current crop of remakes from the last 7 or so years?

[Show spoiler]

[lifepawn]

Originally Posted by returnofthemack

well i wouldnt exactly call it an original story but tony todd is the man.

Tony Todd is definitely a bonus in any movie. I'm a fan of Patricia Tallman too.

[Trekkie313]

Originally Posted by returnofthemack

well i wouldnt exactly call it an original story but tony todd is the man.

It has original character development though, Barbra isn't a shrill/shrieking mess. Also ending is reversed in more ways than one.

[Mr. Movie Fan]

The ending has something of a Quantum Leap correction about it.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by hamchuck1

It's a very mature and understated remake. And it doesn't star any annoying WB channel-type actors that are impossibly beautiful. They all look like just normal people.

+1
Basically it's the antithesis of most Hollywood remakes. It's the original NOTLD with a few curveballs thrown in the plot, simply made with better technology and FX than was available in the 1960s.

It's vastly more faithful to Romero's original than the more recent Dawn Of The Dead remake. Zombie fans are going to shoot themselves for missing this Blu-ray edition.

[Liquid_Swords]

Originally Posted by Ill_Be_Back

It has an original storyline and no CGI for starters. Also it has Tony Todd a great actor...

Amen

[mayorofsmpleton]

Originally Posted by Ill_Be_Back

It has an original storyline and no CGI for starters. Also it has Tony Todd a great actor...

Original? You're joking right? It's pretty much the same exact movie aside from a few alterations here and there...

I think the performances are well done... it does well by the original in terms of doing a movie that's in the same style. I think what makes it work better is that it's written by Romero. Most of the remakes of the last decade have NOT involved the original talent and so most of what makes it to the screen are people who haven't the slightest clue as to what made the original films work. They're cash grabs (Michael Bay I'm looking at you...) made to bank on a title or a concept but not necessarily a good idea/theme/story, etc.

But hey, they're glossy and feature really pretty people so the teens eat 'em up right!? Except for the 2nd weekend when they drop 60-70% and are forgotten about a month later entirely.

NOTLD'90 is still very much in the tone of the '68 film. It's about people and their inability to work together in a crisis. There are the shades of racism and misogyny as in the original film -- the hopelessness -- the hysteria. Except Romero updates here and there (the end twist is worth the price of admission alone) which keeps it just fresh enough to get by. It will never surpass the original but it's a fairly well done remake.

[Member-222782]

Studio politics have sure changed over the years. Nowadays if you're not the lead from Glee Club, the chick from Hunger Games or an American Idol has-been, the studios won't cast you. Unless you're Rob Zombie, who only casts his wife and 80's burnouts in his films or Quentin Tarantino (casting the same people over and over or hiring the same long-forgotten actors as Rob Zombie). Actually, I'd rather watch a has-been than some gorgeous model who's totally wrong in the role.

[iamnoone]

I remember seeing this opening weekend and thought it was only OK and nowhere near as effective or well made as the original. I didn't hate it, but everything about it was done so much better in the original. I do own the old DVD and preordered the Blu as I am a zombie and Romero nut, though.


I decided to pull out the old DVD yesterday just to see how the film has aged, and to see if my opinion of it had changed over the years. Well, if anything, I thought it was even worse now as it has that 80's artificiality that was so common back then (yes, I know it's technically 1990). Just the staging, the acting, the direction - all just so calculated and sterile. There was just something so raw, organic, and gritty about the '68 original and the remake captures none of that as it simply goes through the repetitive motions and then throws in a few twists at the end in an attempt to be fresh. The thing that bugs me most about the remake, though, is the bland, generic score. There's no life to it and really does the film no favors as it fails to elicit any fear or emotion whatsoever. Romero just used free library music for the original and those iconic cues he used are so powerful and really make that film the classic it is today. Sure, the remake has more gore, but once again, there's no impact to it as the characters and Savini's direction are just so bland.


Not trying to threadcrap on those who love the remake. I found this forum just because I was trying to find more info on this upcoming Blu as I do still want it in my collection. I don't think it's a terrible film; just average, but there are many worse zombie flicks out there. In reference, I found the first season of THE WALKING DEAD to be horrendous soap-opera crap with no redeeming value whatsoever. The 1990 NOTLD is incredible compared to something like that.

[thephantomcat]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Right, but it looks like it was shot with one. It doesn't look like a typical 35mm film.

What's a typical 35mm film?

[AndersonVision]

Originally Posted by Fanboyz

The ending has something of a Quantum Leap correction about it.

Damn right. Love the movie. I have such problems with that girl power ending.

[evoxturbo]

What bothers me most about NOTLD90 is Patricia Tallman's haircut and acting. The first half of the movie her acting just seems bad and over the top. The second half she seems more natural and is not as annoying.

Tony Todd totally saves the film, hes amazing in it. The rest of the cast really doesn't impress except the actor who plays Cooper. He is great at getting you to hate his character.

The film I think is one of the better zombie movies out there. For me and zombie films its goes

1. Dawn of the Dead remake
2. Resident Evil
3. 28 Days Later
4. NOTLD90
5. Zombieland
6. Dawn of the Dead original
7. Planet Terror

PS. I am really not impressed with the first two seasons of The Walking Dead. I bought season 2 on Blu and am willing to rewatch it and watch Season 3 but the show can be extremely drawn out and boring. The soap opera factor the show has does not work. Most of the characters are not interesting enough for you to give a crap about who their screwing. AMC has much better shows on such as Mad Men and Breaking Bad which get less viewers.

[thephantomcat]

Originally Posted by evoxturbo

What bothers me most about NOTLD90 is Patricia Tallman's haircut and acting. The first half of the movie her acting just seems bad and over the top. The second half she seems more natural and is not as annoying.

Tony Todd totally saves the film, hes amazing in it. The rest of the cast really doesn't impress except the actor who plays Cooper. He is great at getting you to hate his character.

The "young lovers" were absolutely horrible in the remake. In the original, the amaturish acting fit the over the top style of the time, but in the remake it just made no sense. Honestly, the script is the main problem. Some of the lines are awkwardly written and seem forced like Tony Todd figuring out that Barbara doesn't live in the house the moment he meets her and the "why God?!?!" exlamation. But I think everyone did the best job they could with the script and a first time director. I think NOTLD '90 is just an example of the whole being greater than the sum of it's parts. It just works somehow.

[thephantomcat]

Originally Posted by evoxturbo

PS. I am really not impressed with the first two seasons of The Walking Dead. I bought season 2 on Blu and am willing to rewatch it and watch Season 3 but the show can be extremely drawn out and boring. The soap opera factor the show has does not work. Most of the characters are not interesting enough for you to give a crap about who their screwing. AMC has much better shows on such as Mad Men and Breaking Bad which get less viewers.

Season 2 was incredibly frustrasting as a fan to watch. 6 or 7 episodes of searching for Sophia and then another 5 or 6 of what do we do with the stranger. But I'm in it for the long haul. I want more of these types of shows so I support them.

[evoxturbo]

Originally Posted by thephantomcat

Season 2 was incredibly frustrasting as a fan to watch. 6 or 7 episodes of searching for Sophia and then another 5 or 6 of what do we do with the stranger. But I'm in it for the long haul. I want more of these types of shows so I support them.

Completely agree with you on this and your point of view of NOTLD90. I will still watch Walking Dead in hopes that it has one or two really good seasons. There are not any other zombie tv shows on now so its all we got.

[thephantomcat]

Originally Posted by evoxturbo

Completely agree with you on this and your point of view of NOTLD90. I will still watch Walking Dead in hopes that it has one or two really good seasons. There are not any other zombie tv shows on now so its all we got.

[lolwut]

I was all set to pre-order this (when I had the chance of course) but just for kicks I watched a few scenes on YouTube and the acting, well...

[thephantomcat]

Originally Posted by lolwut

I was all set to pre-order this (when I had the chance of course) but just for kicks I watched a few scenes on YouTube and the acting, well...

You should've pulled the trigger. Even if you didn't like it, you could have resold it to make your money back or even for a profit.

[GaragePoet]

so, has anyone here actually listened to the commentary w/ Tom Savini? since it's the only feature ported over from the old DVD, just thought i'd ask... he seems enthusiastic in every other interview i've seen him in, just thought his liveliness would extend to his first (and only?) directorial venture...

[Tybo28]

Originally Posted by GaragePoet

so, has anyone here actually listened to the commentary w/ Tom Savini? since it's the only feature ported over from the old DVD, just thought i'd ask... he seems enthusiastic in every other interview i've seen him in, just thought his liveliness would extend to his first (and only?) directorial venture...

I think it's actually one of the better commentaries I've heard. He has an excitement for the movie and he keeps it interesting. Its a good feature to have.