I'm reposting this review from before, because this is the way I should have done it - I have now seen Dawn Of The Dead and Day Of The Dead as well, so I can present reviews of all three of Romero's zombie trilogy masterpieces.
In fact, it seems to be better timing also - there's news not only of a fourth Return Of The Living Dead film (they have a less wider appeal but I still like them) and rumours that a fifth is planned, but also news of a remake of Dawn Of The Dead (hopefully it will do it similar justice to this re-make of Night Of The Living Dead)
Note that although this is the most recent of the Living Dead trilogy of films, it is effectively interchangeable with the original as far as continuity is concerned. This is still the film that "introduces" the viewer to the zombie plague, and whilst it is in theory possible to watch each film on its own, i'd recommend you watch all three in as short a time period as possible. But then i am slightly crazy
Ok, first off, I haven't seen the original. I intend to though. Why is this important? Because I'm not going to be comparing this (1990s version) to the original, instead I'm going to judge it on it's own. In case you hadn't guessed, this is very much a zombie movie. It's also supposed to be a horror movie, and there are some shocks to be had (at least first time round), but i imagine (as with most horror flicks) it'd be more scary when watched in a near-pitch-black room. At night. With someone hiding behind the sofa ready to jump up at a particularly tense moment in the film.
Article comments
1 - James Russell
Well, when you do get around to watching Romero's original, avoid the "30th anniversary edition" of the film. That has new material in it shot by someone else and is basically a travesty. Stick with the original (Elite have a nice DVD of it with masses of extras) and you won't go far wrong.
2 - jadester
yeah, i have only heard bad things about the 30th anniversary edition. And the "coloured" version of the b+w (i.e. the film has been coloured) one.