Truly Dreadful Film

A different way of telling a story

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Any self-respecting horror fan should be familiar with the plot for this one - when Barbra and Johnny visit their father's grave he is attacked and killed by a ghoul, while she manages to escape and find refuge in a farmhouse. Inside she finds other survivors but before long they are surrounded by flesh eating reanimated corpses... Zombie films were nothing new in 1968, they could be traced back at least until the 1930's (White Zombie), and a few had been shot in colour by this time (The Dead One - 1961; Hammer's Plague of the Zombies). But what sets Romero's film apart is that here the dead aren't brought back to life by voodoo but by radiation, therefore giving a modern, scientific explanation to it. And unlike previous zombies these ones devour human flesh. Both these factors were to prove pivotal in the sub-genre and 50 years on countless zombie films have been made (not always a good thing!). Horror critic/historian Kim Newman credits NOTLD as being the first modern horror film and indeed he has a good point, though in my opinion I would give that honour to Hitchcock's masterpiece Psycho. And gore by 1968 was nothing new (the films of HG Lewis, eg Blood Feast). This was filmed on a low budget and at times it shows. Some of the acting is a little wooden, including a few of the ghouls. But Romero manages to deliver a powerful film in which the tension steadily builds (it is quite heavy on dialogue at times) to it's shocking finale. I'm not including a spoiler but one death in particular is very brutal, especially for it's time. There are obviously political references here too, just as there are in say Dawn of the Dead. It's a movie that deserves to be viewed several times but be warned - there are many releases out there and they can vary greatly in quality. These include colourised versions, one of which I have just watched. OK, it shows up the gore but otherwise it's pretty pointless. This was filmed in black and white and that's how it's meant to be seen. If you consider yourself a horror/zombie fan but have not yet seen this then you really need to!

I should alert readers that I am not very knowledgeable about the modern zombie genre, so my review should be taken accordingly as one by an unenlightened old geezer who is not at all hip to the twenty first century.This classic horror movie's greatest strength is its carefully developed and successful "creepiness factor" by director George Romero. After many viewings, I am still terrified when the man walking among the cemetery monuments (Bill Heinzman) suddenly begins to attack Barbara (Judith O'Dea) before moving on to her brother, Johnny, (Russell Streiner), and then begins to chase her into an isolated farmhouse before being joined by what becomes an army of his fellow ghouls, mysteriously raised from the dead. Heinzman not only imitates Karloff very well, but he looks like him! It's my worst nightmare being brought to life on the screen.Although the music is stock material, it was well chosen for its fear effect and downright creepiness. Considering its low budget, Romero's ability to create such a spine-chilling movie is very impressive and commendable.One of the problems with the film, however, is that it fails to sustain the intensity of its opening scenes and loses its punch along the way. I understand that the dialogue was often spontaneous, but it was also often weak, as was much of the acting. This may be controversial, but I didn't get the racial theme that many IMDb reviewers mentioned. I saw Ben as Ben without regards to his race. Harry views both Ben and Tom, who is white, with contempt, and I didn't understand why Ben didn't shout out "Help! I'm not a zombie!" as soon as he heard gunshots outside. He had to know that the zombies were incapable of shooting weapons. Also, the scientists and military officials in Washington were not very credible. They were actually laughable, as was their dialogue.In spite of the weaknesses, this film remains as a remarkable, pioneering classic in the horror genre, and I will continue to watch it and fear it.

It's shocking that this was a micro-budget directorial debut, as it really is just top-notch movie-making in every way. The script is great, with penetrating themes, & characters that are so well-drawn. The direction is confident & artistic. The largely improvised dialogue is so full of great quotes ("They're coming to get you, Barbara…" "Yeah, they're dead. They're…all messed up.") But mostly, it's just classically disturbing, scary, and tense horror in the truest sense.

Casting a black man as the main character in a horror film during the 60s was a bold move. Too bad he had to star in Night of the Living Dead.Night of the Living Dead has some genuinely suspenseful parts, especially at the beginning, when Barbara is attacked by a zombie. The fact that we don't really know why the dead are rising from their graves is also frightening. Unfortunately, Romero decided to add unnecessary scenes of cannibalism, and a zombiefied child who stabs her own mother to death. We already know from the radio announcer that the zombies eat their victims, and the thought of it is disturbing enough, we don't have to see them play with intestines or sink their teeth into livers.Night of the Living Dead took a giant step forward by having a black lead character, but two giant steps backward with the unnecessary guts and gore. Suddenly, horror movies started to focus more on violent and disgusting scenes than meaningful stories. In a way, movies like NOTLD ruined the horror genre. It doesn't help that the movie becomes insanely boring after a short while. And the ending is just depressing, it makes the entire movie pointless.The only way I could recommend NOTLD is as a sleeping aid.