Stevieboy666 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!
Danny Blankenship Finally after all these years watched the cult hit classic of the now late George A. Romero's "1968's" "Night of the living Dead". And for it's time this low budget independent picture was a masterpiece that helped change the landscape and gave horror films a new path to follow. For 1968 and being in black and white it had plenty of gore, death, and blood. And even a few twists and turns in the plot were found.Set in Pennsylvania in a small farm town the nearby graveyard starts to come alive and one by the dead have risen! And oddly enough this is a panic and epidemic that is all over the country!It's a battle of will and determination for survival against the walking undead! Many will not like this film when comparing today's standards of special effects, graphics, and "CGI" yet one can see that this old classic was a gateway to current hits like "The Walking Dead".
aaronlbacks Compared to most horror films these days, Night of the Living Dead is quite primeval. But that's not to say that it is bad - Primitive Technology on YouTube has shown me time and time again that early man was brilliant. And in a way it was refreshing to take a break from overdone gore and overacting. Well, overacting is still here. The plot is pretty simple by today's standards too. A couple of people, led by a Mr. Ben (Duane Jones) attempt to survive against a wave of zombies while trying hard not to attack each other first. And more than 90% of the movie takes place inside the same house which they barricade and raid for supplies. As far as the simple plot goes, I feel they do it justice, and it is supplemented by the interesting to watch power struggle between Ben and Mr. Cooper (Karl Hardman) and the racial undertones that the movie infers. But aside from the inherent fun this movie offers, about halfway through, the movie becomes a little repetitive. Even though new characters are introduced, the tone feels quite samey for the entire middle leg. It's not until the run where Tom (Keith Wayne), Judy (Judith Ridley), and Ben run out where things get moving again. Perhaps I am just accustomed to today's thrillers which keep up at a breakneck pace for the entire runtime, but it felt not too much was happening during that period. Overall, I think it a successful and worthy grandfather of modern horror.
putrescent_stench This is my #1 favorite horror film of all time. It is the only movie to ever give me nightmares. I started getting them as a teenager, put into the same situation as the film – one among a small band of people trying to survive a zombie apocalypse, surrounded by an increasing number of the living dead.Aside from the nightmares, this is my #1 horror movie because it creates an atmosphere of absolute dread – something that I appreciate in a movie (thus my screen name AnDread). The protagonists face what seems to be a pretty much hopeless situation, surrounded by numerous antagonists who want to eat you, who can't be reasoned with, and who continue to grow in number. On top of that, they are faced with in-fighting and incompetence. Perhaps they could survive if they just learned to work together, rather than constantly argue with each other. But this is Romero's not-so-subtle point: compromise rather than dominance is the key to survival. He has said that he thought of the living dead as a revolution, a new (single- minded) generation cannibalizing the older, obsolete generation. Actually, I think of them more akin to a natural disaster – or Godzilla, a monster birthed from our own violent ways, a new creation bent on destroying everything old.The nihilistic ending still gives me chills – it's one of the bleakest movie endings ever. I don't want to spoil it. I'll just say that when I saw it for the first time as a teen, it hit me pretty hard. I had never seen any movie end like that.For such a low-budget film, Romero does a fantastic job using sound, lighting, practical effects, and performances to maximum advantage. The acting is excellent. Some may not be impressed with the way the characters are written, or the way they are portrayed. But while both are handled with a simplistic, at times seemingly melodramatic, approach, the writing is more layered than you might first think. And I think most people would agree that the performances are highly memorable. Duane Jones as Ben and Karl Hardman as Harry Cooper make this film work so well; seeing their increasing aggression and rivalry ratchets the tension to an almost unbearable degree. This dynamic is so complex that I see it a new way each time. While I've always identified with and rooted for Ben – quite a feat for an African American protagonist in 1968 – on recent viewings, I've come to realize that Ben isn't always that reasonable either. If he hadn't been so pushy and competitive with Cooper, maybe things could have turned out differently. Judith O'Dea as Barbara and Marilyn Eastman as Helen Cooper also deserve mention. Some people criticize O'Dea's performance as wooden or the way her character is written as sexist, because she's either hysterical or catatonic through much of the narrative. But I think plenty of people, men and women, would be like Barbara in a similarly horrifying situation. Although she has a minor role, Eastman as Helen is a great counterpoint to both Barbara and her husband, spitting sarcastic barbs at Harry and trying to become part of the larger group. I can't say that Keith Wayne as Tom and Judith Ridley as Judy add much, except as a counterpoint to the Coopers, a couple who tries to hang on to love during a crisis. Kyra Schon as Karen, the Coopers' daughter, George Kosana as Sheriff McClelland, and Russell Streiner as Johnny (who, according to IMDb, is uncredited for some reason), show just how memorable minor characters can be. Streiner and Kosana speak two of the most memorable lines in horror movie history – "They're coming to get you, Barbara," and "They're dead, they're all messed up." And to many, Schon's big scene is one of the most disturbing scenes in all of horror cinema.The black and white cinematography also adds to the bleakness of the film; for me, the often washed-out look and dark lighting make the zombies more frightening than in any of the subsequent films, with skin tones of blues, greens, and grays, and bright red blood flowing. Something about watching the ghouls stumble around in the shadows, and blood pour out in dark swatches, adds a sinister air to them that doesn't quite translate to color, even in the more realistic and disgusting effects in later films.Many have already spoken eloquently about the film's social commentary and influence on later horror films, and culture generally. I'll just say that Romero and John Russo (who co-wrote the script) tapped into already existing horror elements and current social anxieties around civil unrest, clashes with authorities, and Vietnam, by creating a new genre, the flesh-eating zombie film (as opposed to the Voodoo zombie), and virtually helping to usher in a new horror aesthetic – bleaker, gorier, and more focused on gritty realism than stylized aesthetics.
