Visca Occitania Only one thing might save this movie - a less important, but nevertheless lacking feature in other remakes of this classic theme - which is a relatively credible background of why and how zombies became zombies. All the other stuff: acting of both living/dead, script and continuity is so full of potholes even a mindless zombie would be crying his/her (rotting) heart out over the final product. Events are too predictable, save for the key role of the undertaker (played by Mr Sid Haig) that even steals some humor into the action. The end credits make me smile too, but alas, they'd come too late to get me feel I spent these 70 minutes of my life worthly to remember - so, try to avoid it and better re-watch the classic and Romero versions instead.

Media Pool This film is more of an homage than a remake. The use of the NOTLD title opens up a world of negative reviews and comparisons to Romero's work. Perhaps the filmmaker wanted to capitalize upon the Living Dead franchise, and if so it's really too bad because I think as a stand alone film this 3D movie is entertaining. As a NOTLD remake... this use of the name creates a problem for the purists and an opportunity for the haters out there. It's fun to see Sid Haig performing and I think the movie works just fine in standard def (without 3D glasses) which is how I watched it.

glbalive OK, so this is pretty bad (it is a fairly low budget zombie flick), but I think its a lot better than its given credit for. There are a few honesty clever lines, such as "Maybe we're being punked" lol, cute. The silly little plays on Mary Jane/drug culture are decent little inside jokes. Also, I liked the fact that they actually commented on the smell of the corpses, cuz in reality long decayed corpses would be so ripe as to induce immediate vomiting upon nasal contact. The explanation for the outbreak is actually pretty decent and funny, I like the purposeful play on the fast/slow zombie controversy. On the idiotic side, they were just watching the original "Night of the Living Dead", and yet they didn't think about the bite infecting them or the whole you have to hit them in the head thing. On a side note , the Left Behind books, puuuuuuuke x.x The serious stuff is pretty da*n sappy, and come on people, a matrix-style bullet for no reason? You really shoulda put that money into some decent gore, it leaves a bit to be desired. The ending is just plain stupid. Still, it could have been a lot lot worse. I definitely thought it was worth watching.

Stanley Strangelove 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