Night of the Living Dead 3D (2006) User Reviews

How to Offend a Classic

[claudio_carvalho · 3/10 · 11 April 2008]

Barb (Brianna Brown) and her brother Johnny (Ken Ward) travel to the country for the funeral services of their aunt, but they arrive late and drive direct to the cemetery. They see the location empty, but sooner they are attacked by zombies. Johnny escapes in his car leaving Barb alone, but she is rescued by the drug dealer and college student Ben (Joshua DesRoches). He drives his motorcycle to the Cooper farm, and the patriarch Henry Cooper (Greg Travis) does not give credit to Barb. When the farmhouse is under siege of a group of flesh-eaters zombies, the local mortician Gerald Tovar Jr. (Sid Haig) arrives and tells a scary story about the origin of the zombies.

I do not like remakes, but every now and then I see good ones. I bought this "previously-seen" DVD in a rental expecting to watch a good remake of the George Romero's greatest classic. My first deception was in the beginning of the movie, indicating that it would be necessary a pair of glasses to see in 3D that was not delivered with the DVD. After watching this movie, I realized that it is an offense to the original "Night of the Living Dead". The insulting story is absolutely stupid, with terrible dialogs, unnecessary nudity and a ridiculous conclusion; the direction is awful, with an inadequate pace associated to some weak performances. When the group is trapped in the farmhouse, most of the windows have glasses, and the group never protects with wood or wardrobes or whatever. In the end, better off watching the classic again, and I do not know how George Romero could authorize the release of this crap using his name and the original idea. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "A Noite dos Mortos Vivos 3D" ("The Night of the Living Dead 3D")

Crap from start to finish

[matches81 · 2/10 · 9 May 2008]

First off: I like zombie movies, I really do. I like them that much that I rent zombie movies which are almost definitely bad.

That said, I simply had to rent this. Only when I started the movie I noticed that this was NOTLD 3D, as it was just labeled "Night of the living dead" here. Even though the notion of "3D" implicated that this one would be a pretty awful remake, I simply wasn't prepared for this. It's pretty damn courageous to begin and end your film with the the opening scene of the original and also have the original running on TV during the movie when the remake is such a pile of garbage. From terrible acting over just plain awful special effects and missing wounds, everything here. The worst thing though is that the script only bears a slight resemblance of the original's story. True, it begins at a graveyard. True, at some point in the movie some guys are trapped in a house. The names of the main characters are the same. That's it. All the other things that were good about the original (and even about the first remake) are gone and replaced by a completely generic "horror" story, centered around Sid Haig. There is no reason why this movie should be called "Night of the living dead". It has nothing to do with NOTLD... well, about as much as any other zombie movie has.

Problem is: Even most really, really low-budget zombie movies I've seen were far more enjoyable than this one. Simply stay away from this one. And if you're like me and simply can't stay away from it, don't say you hadn't been warned.

Poor cash-in on a true classic

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 7 November 2011]

This pointless rehash of the Romero classic sees the original story retold as a modern-day Z-grade effort, replete with amateur night acting and Halloween masks. Yes, it really is that bad, and the biggest surprise is that cash-in king John Russo – a guy who's made an entire career from the fact that he wrote and produced the 1968 film - is nowhere to be seen.

The story diverges little from the original, except to introduce an extra, extraneous character – played by B-movie stalwart Sid Haig. The zombies are so ineffectual here and the gore so tame that two things happen: first, an extra villain is introduced to little end, and secondly, their origin has to be explained in depth. Both take away from the eerie impact of the Romero original, where the horror came from the fact that the world ended abruptly with the 'what if?' scenario of zombies arriving at your door.

The film's hook is the 3D, but anyone going in looking for guts and entrails flying out of the screen (a la the MY BLOODY VALENTINE remake and the latter FINAL DESTINATION movies) will be disappointed. A 3D spliff and subsequent smoke ring are all you're going to get (way to take advantage of the technology, huh?). Speaking of spliffs, the awful dialogue is loaded with stoner jokes and a far cry from the terse exchanges we all remember from Romero's classic.

The acting is terrible, aside from Haig, an actor who always seems to be enjoying himself (complete with ghoulish chuckle) in his recent B-movie outings. The story is so slim that at one stage we take a softcore detour to the barn, where a sex scene between two unappealing characters plays out in all its nude detail. Incredibly, the end result is a film that feels more dated and less grisly than the film that inspired it, made all those years ago; making me appreciate Romero all the more is the only thing this movie does right.

Wow...just, wow (not in a good way mind you).

[RavensAngst · 1/10 · 19 November 2006]

I'm sorry, but I cannot really summarize my feelings more than to say that I was ready for this to be sort of bad, you know, in a so bad that it's hilariously funny sort of way, but I never knew that a movie could loop its way around again to just plain bad. And just to let you know, this is not the only zombie movie, or "remake" of a zombie movie that I've seen. --I guess I was just spoiled by the leetness of "Dawn of the Dead."

This movie IS a "remake" true, but the effects were so ill done, that except for times the actors were using something like a cellphone in a scene, you could have sworn this was made at the same time as the original. Which, seriously is not necessarily THAT bad, but really, come on... The "3D" could have been way more effectively utilized as well. Truly, if you KNOW you are making it 3D, you could do way cooler, and way more terrifying things than, "Ooh look! A Doobie!". *sigh*

But the "horrifying" zombies were the absolute least of this thing's problems. Oh yes, I AM speaking of the acting. Let me just first say, I think I lost about one IQ point per minute (maybe second) of watching these people try to act. Now, that's not that I'm saying that I thought this was supposed to be an Oscar worthy film. When I walked in, I knew I wasn't going to be enlightened. But dang! The crappy delivery of the "witty" lines that the script offered was the only thing in the whole movie that was worthy enough to make me gasp in horror. COME ON PEOPLE!! Absolutely everyone watching has fairly low expectations of you and yet you decide your mission in life is to lower them even further?!?! There was not ONE person in the entire cast (including the lead actress) that you could EVER feel for enough to root for THEM against the zombies. I myself, was cheering for the zombies. If they could have eaten everyone in the first 15 minutes, THAT would have been worthwhile.

I'm not going to say more because no more is needed. It was bad and that is it.

You can hate the review, or agree with everything. I don't truly care. I just wrote this because I needed somewhere to vent. I had already used up my boyfriend, who by the way agrees with me.

I wished they didn't call this NOTLD

[KenMLin · 1/10 · 27 October 2007]

This movie is truly an insult to George Romero. The acting and the zombie effect were barely above normal but the story is so weak. It's essentially a zombie movie taking place in a pot farm. The pot humors aren't funny at all and they never ever gotten around to barricading the windows.

Yes, they added nudity but was that remotely necessary?

The ending was also very weak with Barb just standing there even though she was holding a gun and could have run. They had a perfectly good movie from which to base this movie on and they still managed to botch it up. I really do wonder about all these direct-to-DVD horror movies that have no reasons for being made and can only trick people into buying because there are no reviews.

Bad Brains

[mhenderson40 · 1/10 · 23 December 2007]

Some movies suck and others suck the life out of the fabric of the universe -- the latter is true for Night of the Living Dead 3D. High school talent show level acting, oatmeal face makeup, and dialog written in crayola on construction paper, NOTLD 3D has everything except for charm, wit, or that occasional saving grace of 'B' film, unintentional humor. Look! It's bad acting in 3-Dimensions, rather than the plain ole two we mere mortals are stuck with until the holo-projectors show up in the cineplex.

On a scale of one to ten, -200 would seem a fair score, but I feel IMDb needs a more quantitative rating system for films that defy rating - The Gigli Scale. The higher a film rates on the Gigli Scale, the more soul-sucking, time and space fabric ripping it is. While only Gigli currently scores a perfect ten on the Gigli Scale, Night of the Living Dead 3D certainly is a worthy contender to dethroning the current world champion of suck.

Did Uwe Boll Direct This?

[Scars_Remain · 2/10 · 29 March 2008]

This movie is utter and complete garbage from start to finish and goes absolutely no where in the 80 minutes that it runs. I thought it could be good despite the fact that it is a remake. I like Sid Haig a lot and the 3D idea sounded fairly good. I was totally wrong and am now hitting myself for watching this catastrophe. It's so bad that it plays out like an Uwe Boll film.

I think the producers realized that they had a crap script so they tried to save it by making the film 3D. The 3D does absolutely nothing for this film. The story is ridiculous and goes no where, The acting is miserable with the exception of Sid Haig, and there wasn't even one memorable scene in the entire film. The only reason it doesn't get a 1/10 is because of Sid Haig.

Don't see this movie. It's not worth your time or your attention. If you've blind bought it, do yourself a favor and throw it away without watching it.

another pointless remake

[SalamanderGirl · 3/10 · 31 December 2006]

This movie is a pale imitation of George Romero's original. Giving characters the same names isn't enough, pitting characters against zombies isn't enough. The 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead was outstanding, while this one fails almost completely on every level. Remember Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho and Roland Emmerich's remake of Godzilla? This turd is somewhere in between, trying to step in the footsteps of greatness, but, like a zombie, exhibiting no life of its own. This zombie movie is simply, well, dead.

I suggest you go rent the original Night of the Living Dead, or either version of Dawn of the Dead, or Return of the Living Dead or 28 Days Later. These are the zombie movies that will stand the test of time.

I don't care if it's a remake. It's horrible on it's own...

[Necrotard · 1/10 · 21 December 2007]

The second remake of George Romero's classic. Zombies, small group of people banding together in a house, etc.

This time, we're given an explanation to the outbreak. Aside from some pretty good zombie makeup, this explanation was the ONLY decent part of this movie. It was a fairly decent back story, but a lot of fans really don't want that.

So now that I've gotten the two positives out of the way, onto the long list of feces this movie dumps all over it's viewer.

For one thing, the characters are shown watching "Night of the Living Dead" multiple times, then relating the events going on to the events in the film. ...This is a ridiculous way to do a remake. It's fine in a PARODY sequel like "Return of the Living Dead", but not in a remake. In addition to this, THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND ZOMBIES! They JUST watched "Night of the Living Dead", yet they don't understand that you need to hit them in the head to put them down? They also don't shoot their buddy when he gets bitten. They don't seem to worry about him too much.

The famous "They're coming to get you Barbera" line, (which I totally want on a t-shirt), has been modernized by showing up in a text message... I didn't find this funny... just irritating... especially since it's written in text abbreviations. I just thought it was dumb.

You may be thinking what I thought going into this film... "How bad can it be? I hear it's terrible... but it's in 3D!!! Zombies and gore reaching out of the screen. Even if it sucks, how could this not be a fun viewing?" Well I assure you, it succeeded in being completely unenjoyable despite it's possible advantages. The 3D is very poorly done, utilizing the old school red and blue, (which annoys me very quickly in itself). There were also very few 3D gags and the few that were there were pretty lame.

We had a gratuitous nude scene that made the film feel immature. I can't even describe how stupid the scene was... She runs away completely naked, gets into a car to protect herself, while the guy, (in his boxers), runs over to the car and starts trying to pull zombies away from it with his bare hands. The idiot actually doesn't die for a good 30 seconds. Then the dumb chick in the car is apparently too stupid to lock the doors, as the zombies keep opening them while she makes a frantic attempt to keep them shut. The overall scene was just so painfully stupid.

But what of gore? It's a zombie film, so surely there's some good, gruesome eye candy that makes the film mildly entertaining? Nope. Very, VERY little effort is put into the violence. We see one gun wound, one burning body, a tire iron that was discreetly impaled through a guy without him noticing (???), and one zombie that's been stabbed in the mouth by a shovel. (We don't actually see the shovel nail him, but we see him standing there with the indented shovel against his mouth.) That's IT. I recall thinking the gore in this film could EASILY be topped by a school play. There was absolutely NO effort behind the violence. That says something about makers of a horror film... something very bad. Throw down some devotion, guys. Come on. Making a good film is one thing, but making an ENTERTAINING film really isn't that hard.

Another thing that REALLY made me angry was a scene in which a man gives another man a gun and asks, "You know how to use that?" The other guy replies, "Of course; I grew up on video games." while he loads the gun knowing every single detail on how to operate it. This supports the idea of violent media training kids how to kill. What kind of horror film maker supports this idea? It goes against the horror genre itself. It was insulting and ignorant. Absolutely ridiculous.

To top it off, the acting was terrible and most of the music was very bland.

Lame directing, stupid story decisions, bad acting, terrible 3D editing with few 3D gags, lame music, and next to NO EFFORT towards any violence. This was one of the worst movies I've seen in a while. If you're like me, you'll want to check it out anyway, but do yourself a favor and rent it first. Don't throw away the $20 I did. I can't believe how terrible this was.

I'd give this a zero if I could.

I Wanted To Be Hit In The Face With A Shovel After Watching This....

[Matt_Layden · 3/10 · 10 November 2006]

We have yet another remake of the zombie classic Night of the Living Dead, this time with the new addition of being in 3-D. In this version, we have Barbara, who likes to be called "Barb" being attacked by zombies when a white BEN saves her by giving one of the zombies a close line. Ben takes Barb back to the Coopers plant farm. Once there we meet the rest of the victims, as zombies begin to attack the home.

If I hadn't won free tickets to see this film, I probably would never have given it a chance. Aside of it being in 3-D it doesn't really have anything else going for it. Upon first glance it would seem to be a direct to video, armature film student remake of the classic Romero film and that is exactly what the film comes off as. The only thing that made this film slightly enjoyable would be that it was fun to make fun of it. I couldn't tell if the film took itself seriously or not because there were a lot of times when the film was just so bad, that the filmmakers had to of known the cheese factor was through the roof. The thing that rules against this is that there isn't enough comedy in it for it to be considered a cheesy "B" movie.

The horror fans will notice Sid Haig is the one throwing his shovel around hitting the zombies in the face. He delivers an over the top performance, but then again when does he not? If it weren't for his goofy delivery in his lines the film would be rated even lower. The rest of the cast can be completely forgotten because none of them seem to care for what they are doing. Everyone is one-dimensional and half seem to have never been to acting school. There was no conflict between any of the characters that lasted more then one minute. Once there was some conflict it was solved mere seconds later. "I'm going outside!!!", "No you're not!!!", "Okay". Even the zombies didn't act like real zombies, I swear some of them were walking slowly like in the classics and others were as fast as hell, much like those in the remake of Dawn.

The gore in here is lacking as well. Only two scenes showcase any real gore, first is when a zombie is dragging itself to go after the little kid, he has no legs. The second is when Haig thrusts his shovel into a zombies face, it goes through his mouth and he sticks to the wall. The zombie effects were satisfactory for the most part.

I cringe every time I think about the dialogue, which throws in awkward pop culture references that shouldn't really be there...Scarface for example. Whenever I laughed in the film it wasn't with it, it was at it and most the time it was because of these horrible dialogue. More then 75 percent of the dialogue was unintentional humor.

The 3-D was painful, plain and simple. For some reason we're still stuck in the old days of red and blue 3-D glasses for this film. It took so much away from the experience. The red was very distracting and was all over in this film. I had to take the glasses off on five separate occasions because my eyes just couldn't handle it. They could have used the 3-D to their advantage, but dropped the ball here. Only a handful of things really "come at you", which include a bullet, shovel, glass and zombie hands. Nothing to really make the film more enjoyable, although I did get a kick out of the things that actually did come at me from the screen.

For some strange reason the makers of the film felt like they had to put in the original film, for what purpose I still have no idea. We know this is a remake of that film, is it ironic, or comedic in a way? No, it's just pointless and incoherent. They watch the zombie flick and know that these things attacking them are zombies, yet when one gets bitten no one seems to care or even know that he will turn into one. Did they just happen to forget that big plot device from the film that they were just watching? Don't even get me started on the continuity because this can rival the Evil Dead films.

Bottom line is that the 3-D isn't worth your time or money. You'll leave the theatre with a headache, from the glasses and the trash that's on the screen. I wouldn't even recommend this for hardcore horror fans, is just an insult. It doesn't look to good for zombie fans after this film hits theatres, or even when the remake of DAY does.

More Thievary and Despicable Behavior

[blly_grm · 14 March 2012]

Let me start with this, every time I see someone or hear someone discussing a bad movie, if there is a reputable actor in the film, almost without fail, someone says "Why would so and so..." or "I can't believe so and so did this movie". That irritates me to no end, because it is a stupid question, usually meant rhetorically, with no expectation of a legit or relevant answer. Well I guess I'm Albert Einstein. People...Actors need to work to eat and survive. It's that simple, so don't question why Ving Rhames does Zombie Apocalypse 2012, and don't question why the great Sid Haig is in this crap-fest.

Now, on to the real issue. Theft. Another filmmaker totally devoid of integrity, discovers the so-called public domain status (which myself and others whole-heartedly refute)of Night of the Living Dead and he gets a brainstorm,..oh donkey dung, did I say brainstorm?? I meant he has a brain-Fart!!! Night of the Living dead belongs to the people who created it. Someone claiming to be an artist and then stealing from other artists is disgusting. It's an outright Us VS.Them situation. And Jeff Broadstreet you have defined yourself as one of them. You make me sick.

Fans and supporters of the real Night of the Living Dead...Boycott this Garbage. I give it a minus infinity out of ten. This guy made money, no one from Image Ten or the original film made squat from it.

Good movie

[TdSmth5 · 8/10 · 15 November 2006]

I actually liked this movie. The filmmakers are not trying to redo or outdo Romero so there's no reason to compare it to the original. This is a 3D zombie movie, based on Romero's flick, not a social message movie. It's also a low budget movie. So if you're expecting funky computer graphics, super loud sound effects, explosions, and "A-list" teenage actors racing to deliver their lines as fast as they can, then this movie is not for you. And this is precisely why I liked this movie. It doesn't sacrifice story for the sake of visuals. It must have a script twice as long as most Hollywood flicks. The characters actually talk to one another, they reason together, and even crack some funny jokes. The jokes are not in the vein of late night show punchlines but sort of natural jokes. This movie is refreshing in a way. It doesn't try extra hard to manipulate the audience into laughing, jumping, or feeling sad. It doesn't try to control you like a 80 minute roller-coaster. So its pace is slower, but it isn't boring. Many have criticized the acting. I didn't find any problem with the acting at all. What I think people miss is the hysterical over the top screaming and shouting that you won't find here. The story itself is good, it explains the origin of the zombies and there are some surprising twists. The 3D effect was neat. Looked holographic. The's some good gore and the zombies look good as well. The only thing that could have been better is the direction and acting of the action. Because it's low budget I imagine, there was no time or money to shoot action scenes the way Hollyood does: shoot dozens of takes of 1 second instants, which results in absurd situations where a character has superhuman energy for 2 hours straight and never tires. Here the actors's motions are natural, that is slower than what you're used in the movies where the action looks accelerated. Check it out.

I liked it

[beatmetodeath · 6/10 · 12 November 2006]

Although I am a huge Romero and horror fan, I saw this movie pretty impulsively and without giving it much thought. I watched the trailer a few days prior and thought that it looked like your typical direct to video, shot on video, low budget whatever movie and left it at that. The fact that it had Sid Haig in it, or that it was 3D, were if anything just deterrents. I had no idea it was theatrical, so when I saw it was actually playing down the street in about 30 minutes me and my friend said what the heck. I'm not necessarily opposed to remakes as savagely as many other horror fans are (I liked savini's notld remake and I thought the dotd remake was fun enough, not to mention house of wax and hills have eyes) so I went in neutral.

that said, Night of the Living Dead 3D is a competent enough and, thankfully, relatively straight horror film that I personally thought was enjoyable. this is a quiet, reserved zombie movie vs a balls to the walls gorefest or whatever that many people might expect going in, but don't let that deter you - if anything, it just means the filmmakers are more interested in characters, story and atmosphere than a couple of cheap shots (although their is some slightly distasteful nudity...which I am fine with).

a lot of other people have cited the acting and dialogue in the film as terrible, but I thought everyone was serviceable in their roles and the writing completely respectable. I can't say any of the actors are real standouts, but I sympathized with the characters and cared about what was going on. Sid Haig does the typical Sid Haig thing which I find borders on self parody a little bit too much, but I thought his "zombie explanation monologue" was awesome.

I thought the zombies and makeup effects were top notch - more of the return of the living dead/EC comics style zombie look than the more modern, KNB effects version, which I personally think looks hokey. to clarify, these zombies DO NOT RUN!!! they lumber around and groan and moan and are pretty classy numbers. I liked the overall l Gothic look of the film - everything is cold and dark and desaturated, and there's always plenty of fog rolling around everywhere. what else do you want? bats? I guess they could have thrown some in there.

the 3D in the movie is, ironically enough, the films weakest link. there's just no reason for it. the filmmakers try their best to include some 3D gags, but you can tell its mostly just going through the motions and to satisfy the title. I'm hoping when this is released on DVD there will be a non-3D version because the movie plays much better without it. red and blue 3D technology is outdated anyway. even captain EO used polarized lenses.

in conclusion, check Night of the Living Dead 3D out, but go into the theater without any expectations, and stop being so damn cynical too! it's clear these guys were just trying to homage one of their favorite horror movies and make something the fans would enjoy. the movie doesn't reinvent the wheel, but it's solid enough and worth a gander.

Awful, absolutely dismal.

[myrothe · 1/10 · 16 September 2009]

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.

Night of the Living Dud

[StanleyStrangelove · 1/10 · 24 June 2009]

GENERAL COMMENTS:

The original Night Of The Living Dead had blatantly amateurish acting yet the film worked in spite of it. This remake has truly incompetent, amateurish acting and doesn't work because everything else about the film is also incompetent. The direction is static, basically place a camera in position and film some idiots talking. The writing is absolutely atrocious and makes you squirm, like watching a grade school play where you feel bad for everyone involved. The zombie makeup is truly amateurish as well and the zombies are the kind that you could run around and tickle. This piece of rubbish rivals the Uwe Bolle films for sheer incompetence.

RECOMMENDATION: No. Avoid at all costs.

ACTING: amateurish

SCRIPT: terrible dialog

VISUAL: rubber suit zombies

SIMILAR FILMS: Night of the Living Dead

Lots of attempts, lots of deception

[tassedebovril · 1/10 · 14 November 2006]

this movie is from far the worst zombie movie i've seen, and i've seen Bio-zombies...

the cast is totally wrong, i was attempting something good due to the fact that Sid Haig was on the list, but the guy is only appearing from 5 to 10 minutes in the movie... wadda? if you like drug jokes, you'll be served, lots and lots of them...

where's the black hero??? never mind...

the make-ups are way too average, the 3D is somewhere but not in the movie... or yes it is as a matter of fact, a good drug gag is related to it...

and a nice glimpse at the cameraman's shadow, what more can you ask for...

Just for the record, a Romero's zombie CANNOT run, even less talk like the dead couch potato does...

i'm sad for mr. george romero... sorry man

More Horrible then Horror

[gatsby601 · 1/10 · 19 December 2008]

What we have here isn't the original 1968 Night of the Living Dead re-released in 3D. It's a remake following the same script (mostly) only this time out it's a horror-comedy. In 3D. Couple of things about that. First off, it isn't 3D. Sure, there are shots of vomit or bullets coming at the camera using cheap CGI effects (think Babylon 5) but that doesn't make it 3D. Nextly, the comedy. There is only one joke in this film and it gets worked harder then a 10 year old in a Macao soccer ball factory. Check it out, the original Night of the Living Dead is playing on a television in the film and the characters constantly point out how their situation is 'Like we're in a zombie movie'. Funny stuff...very original. The bad acting and mugging to the camera robs the film of any real suspense and the claustrophobic tension of the original. The final problem with the horror aspect is the producers decided to cheap out on the zombie make up. Instead of prosthetic appliances being attached directly to the actors skin they used discount masks. The result is, well, trick or treaters in dirty clothes. Romero has made a career off one idea and some of his Dead films have been pretty lame, Land of the Dead comes to mind, but none of them are as awful as this piece of sh--, you get the idea. Skip this, read a book.

Horrible, horrible film

[surface6669 · 3/10 · 18 July 2009]

This film was basically unwatchable (I was rooting for it to just END towards the end of the movie), and I found it to be personally offensive that they would try to ruin a classic movie like "Night of the Living Dead" by "re-imagining" it in this crappy way. The ending of the movie was just a pile of baloney IMO.

The film starts out promising, with some clever nods to the original movie in the first couple of scenes, but it goes waaaaay downhill after that. There are so many plot holes in this flick that I can't even count them. Basically, I think they were hoping that just having Sid Haig in a very few scenes could carry the movie, but they failed miserably. The acting is God-awful & unimaginative. There are many scenes in this movie that do nothing to move the "plot" along.

Some of the creature effects are pretty cool, but the other "special" effects are amateurish at best. I didn't watch the movie in "3D", but I don't think that I missed anything. I also paid zero dollars to see this piece of trash, and I still feel like I deserve a refund!

Simply an insult to fans of, not only the original, but film in general

[Shattered_Wake · 1/10 · 12 February 2008]

With acting at or below the level of the worst late night Cinemax movies, dialogue as believable as Pam Anderson's trademarks ("When the dead walk, ya gotta call the cops!"), and direction that pales in comparison to even Uwe Boll, Night of the Living Dead 3D might be in the running for one of my least favourite films of all time.

There is absolutely nothing redeeming with this movie. Nothing at all. You'd think that as the film progressed, there would be at least SOME glimmer of hope for us viewers, but no. It just got worse and worse, like Sid Haig's career. The filmmakers didn't even throw us any relief other than one naked blonde with a dumpy body and gore as revolting or terrifying as a fluffy teddy bear. Luckily, there were at least a couple of laughs. Unfortunately, it was at the film's expense. . . not actually humour.

Cell phones! What's that you say? No one had a cell phone in this day & age? Well, apparently the idiot owner of the house is convinced that they'll give you cancer. And something about Bin Laden I didn't really catch. His house, his rules. . . But, correct me if I'm wrong. . . wasn't Barbra texting her brother about twenty minutes ago? Did I miss her dropping it? Or a zombie eating it? Another thing I don't really understand. . . before Barbra got there, they were watching Night of the Living Dead (the original). . . Isn't it odd that NO ONE would take any advice from the film when the zombies starting attacking their farmhouse? "Let me unload a clip into this zombie's chest, then stare at it when it doesn't die." C'mon, man! Get with the program!

Another great piece of dialogue: "Don't worry, if I'm going to shoot him, I'll shoot him in his *beep* foot." Now. . . if you're trying to threaten someone's life at gunpoint and they're in earshot, you probably shouldn't say you're not ACTUALLY going to kill them, right? Not with Mr. Slicked-Back-Hair.

Anyway, to sum, avoid this film. Really. It was made at the expense of an error which negatively impacts the greatest horror director of all time, George A. Romero. The low level of quality isn't even worthy of 'funny B-movie status'. . . it's just. . . bad.

Final Verdict: 1/10.

-AP3-

Romero's name shouldn't even be associated with this movie!

[madprtrcn · 1/10 · 26 January 2008]

This movie is terrible! The few good things about it are the tits, Sid Haig, and maybe the special effects. Everything else sucks!!!! So yeah I'm suppose to fill this comment box with ten lines to have it posted. But the problem is I pretty much summed up the movie in twenty two words or two lines. So the 8 lines remaining is just a bunch of jibber jabber. One part in the movie which I found stupid as f%$# is when Ben comes to the rescue on his bike. The way he punched the zombie was sooooooo stupid! If I had a spoon handy I would have dug my eyeballs out!!!! I also found another screw up that wasn't posted on IMDb. The scene where Sid Haig's character enters the house and cooper (who had been bitten earlier on the neck, and had a bandage on it) is standing there with no bandage on his neck, the next scene he has the bandage on his neck again.

Nothing Redeeming about this at all!

[mhorg2018 · 1/10 · 18 January 2012]

When I saw John Russo's raping of Night of the Living dead, laughingly released as the 30th Anniversary edition, I sat back, shook my head, took the VHS out of my machine and tossed it in a corner thinking, "No one can possibly screw up what is a classic film ever again." Wow, was I wrong. I saw this horrendous abortion of a film in 2-D, since it was released to a movie theater within 500 miles of where I live. Luckily for any theater, since I would certainly have demanded my money back. This was a horrid, terrible, stupid movie. How can anyone sit around and go "Yeah, we made a winner here." This, along with Dawn of the Dead 2: Contagium and Day of the Dead (2008), should all be taken, piled up and burned, the better that no one ever remembers them ever. They should be erased from the collective memory of humanity, yes they are that bad. Acting, bad. Story (Laughable) Bad. SFX. Bad. Even the momentary nudity from an obviously enhanced woman was bad. Just do yourself a favor. Watch the original or the 1990 remake and avoid all this garbage. Your brain will thank you.

No amount of Sid Haig or cleavage can help

[amesmonde · 25 November 2015]

The dead have risen in a small town and group of people take refuge in a farmhouse weed farm.

With the original film never properly copyrighted and in the public domain director Jeff Broadstreet wastes no time in trying to cash-in with a 3D re-imagining.

This is best viewed in 2D as the 3D shots are gimmicky and are few and far between. The 1968 original appears on TVs scattered across the movie reminding you how superior it is to Broadstreet's offering. The opening is quite interesting following to the tropes of the original (the "Coming to get you, Barbara" line absurdly phoned in via text message). It has a bit of atmosphere but over all its all tongue and cheek stuff, suffering from a TV feel and low budget production values. It's on par with its 2012 follow up Night of the Living Dead 3D: Re-Animation but not a touch on Tom Savini's superb Night of the Living Dead (1990).

Horror character actor Sid Haig appears but even with its short running time and Brianna Brown, Johanna Black and Cristin Michele it's still totally forgettable.

Decent if flawed zombie cash-in

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 8/10 · 3 February 2019]

Arriving at their aunt's funeral, a woman sees that he escort has suddenly been attacked by zombies emerging from the rest of the graveyard and drives her and another survivor to a remote farmhouse nearby where they're forced to join the family living there into battling the undead horde.

For the most part, this was a much more enjoyable effort than expected. One of the strongest areas at play with this one is the manner in which it plays around with the expectations of the original in a rather fine turnaround. The idea of still opening on the two going up to the funeral is a nice way to get this going, but the action of separating them and getting them to the point of the outbreak is a somewhat enjoyable switch around. Likewise, the fact that there's some other subtle changes here that placate matters a little more smoothly, starting with the change into making the family they run into not only helpful but completely willing to buy into whatever she has to say on the matter which makes them far more likable and on our side with them from the start as the focus is shifted to the zombies breaking in. There's less of a focus on the political struggle inherent in the original which is greatly appreciated here as the film goes for more of an emphasis on the action of the zombie encounters. That is one of the other finest points here as the film manages to feature plenty of strong action throughout here featuring the zombie hordes amassing and attacking. From the graveyard emergence and the flee through the graveyard to the eventual discovery of the creatures taking over the area to the chase through the woods and the later series of encounters getting to the house where they converge in huge numbers to break in quite nicely, there's a lot of rather fine action to be had here with the overwhelming numbers getting to the victims. Especially true of the encounter in the farmhouse and also of the zombies crashing through the house barricades to get to the group inside as well as the eventual charge back through the horde of zombies to get away from the house. These here come complete with some solid zombie makeup and plenty of zombie gore to really make for quite a lot to like overall here to hold it up over its flaws. One of the main issues really holding this one back is the fact that there's just nothing really all that much different from the original in this one. It tends to run through the same storyline beats and hits many of the same points overall here that the original did, with a few small differences granted but overall it's still done with the idea of making this one get to the same overall place as the original which makes it all the more questionable why it's even done that much differently. The one major change here is the 3D aspect which isn't even done that often here to really mean much of anything as it's featuring in just a few occasions so it's rarely even prominent enough to be a worthwhile aesthetic to be featured prominently. The last minor problem is the fact that the finale's diversion back to the mortuary where it all started doesn't seem needed at all, as it's just a tacked on and wholly unneeded part of the story that doesn't need to be there for the most part. These here are what hold this one back.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language, Full Nudity and drug use.

Different but Campy Retelling of the Romero's Classic "Night of the Living Dead".

[hu675 · 7/10 · 9 October 2007]

Barb (Brianna Brown) and her brother Johnny (Ken Ward) are traveling for the funeral of their aunt. But once, they are in the cemetery. There's strange human beings are attacking them and Johnny left his sister alone out of fear. Now Barb is running from her life and he finds help from a guy on his motorbike named Ben (Joshua DesRoches). She goes along with him on his bike to a near farmhouse owned by Harry Cooper (Greg Travis) for help. But Harry's farm isn't what it seems to be and getting help is out of the question. But there's more violent human beings are attacking the farm house. Barb, Ben, Harry, Harry's wife (Johanna Black), Owen (Adam Chambers), Harry's daughter (Alynia Phillips), Tom (Max Williams) and Judy (Cristin Michele) are trying to stay alive for the night to trying battle these odd people. Which they are back from the dead and in the need of human flesh.

Directed by Jeff Broadstreet made an watchable but misfired remake of Romero's classic "Night of the Living Dead". One of the reasons why Broadstreet remade this film, because of the copyright laws. Which Romero's film is in public domain. Which Broadstreet didn't want to remake this film at first. But oddly enough, this film seems more under budget than Romero's movie. Which there's not enough Zombie action. Which this Second Remake certainly needed and the script has a completely ridiculous third act. Which it's a downer and fun is over, once the third act steps in. The characters of Tom and Judy are sacrificed and the two are extremely lame but they are only bit characters in this version. Which you only see them about five minutes in the picture.

This feature is in 3-D only like the original theatrical release. There's no 2-D versions in this DVD. DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (1.78:1) transfer and an good Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has an amusing commentary track by producer/director:Broadstreet, editor/screenwriter: Robert Valding and actor:Sid Haig. Which Haig has an supporting role as a mortician. Which he's good for a few laughs in the movie and as well in the commentary track. DVD includes Three Featurettes, Blooper Reel and more. The second remake of NOTLD is fun to watch on a Halloween Night but it's insulting for the fans of Romero's. Which Romero wrote the original screenplay with John A. Russo (Midnight, Return of the Living Dead). Probably the worst thing in the second remake that Broadstreet has the original NOTLD playing on television is some scenes, which it probably made the die-hard fans of the original very angry. It's a forgettable movie. It would have been much better if the script was better, Broadstreet had better film-making skills and a bigger budget. But at least, the cast is decent. Despite some amateurish acting and lousy dialogue at times. (***/*****).

Not awful, not great, mediocre remake

[CharlieDyer · 5/10 · 10 September 2006]

Just saw this at the World 3-D Film Expo and wasn't overly taken with this re-imagining of the original. If it weren't for the use of the 3-D and CGI this would be headed straight to the bargain DVD section of your local Walmart.

I really wanted to like this movie more than I did. It had lots going for it. A sold-out premier in high definition 3-D using the polarized glasses instead of the inferior red/blue glasses. They used special cameras as well as stedicam in shooting the entire movie. So, it looked as good as it was going to get.

But...geeking out is just not enough to carry an entire movie...

The script was clunky with some odd use of dated language mixed with present day dialog. A couple mis-castings didn't help matters much either.

And, it just wasn't creepy or scary...at all...