45 reviews
3 attempted reimagings... 2 miserable fails.There was Night of the Living Dead 3D, Night of the Living Dead (Memesis) but I can't really count that one......Then there is this. Utter nonsense! I was actually looking forward to seeing this movie. No, my hopes were not up high at all. I am a realist. I have watched some terrible movies. The trailer definitely fools you into thinking you are in for a jolly good time or one heck of a ride. What you are in for is a snoozefest with your head bobbing up and down consistently once you get to the core of the film... Sigh, such a wasted opportunity. Yeah, I get it. They want to make it their own. Give it a new spin. This movie is random...How random you ask? Random in every aspect. Just watch the movie and see for yourself... Or better yet DON'T. Everyone has their own taste. This definitely is not mine. Watch at your own risk. If you can't do a decent reimaging or remake leave the franchise ALONE!
- cheetor75-1
- May 10, 2013
- Permalink
I don't usually write reviews but felt compelled to after viewing this piece of trash.It was rather reminiscent of a home movie made by drama students,not that they are all bad but this was amateur film-making at its highest. The acting was bad,horror effects when there was horror were appalling.I expect the makers were trying to make money off the living dead franchise.For horror movie buffs there is nothing here to like and much better b-grade horror movies.I want my 90 minutes back that I wasted. If I could recommend a good zombie movie besides the current blockbuster it would be 1985's "Return of the Living Dead". I found it laughable that 15-18 hrs a day was involved in making this movie and I don't think this would make it to cinema but even straight to DVD would be too good for it,maybe it should be showed in the early hours of the morning when its only viewed by a small part of the population.
In a nutshell: Community Theatre does a zombie play and then decides to film it. I must start off by saying I love bad movies. But this - I just couldn't even like it. I get it that the filmmakers tried paying homage to Romero throughout: with the funky camera angles, too close close-ups and claustrophobic, under-lit interior shots - but all-in-all, fail miserably in paying respect to the Master. Also, if the acting were any better, there might be a bit of redemption. Unfortunately, the locals that comprise the cast just don't pull it off. Run from this film. Run fast and run hard. Run just as you would from a flesh-eating horde.
- jhciswatching
- May 10, 2013
- Permalink
- dadatuuexx
- May 1, 2013
- Permalink
Cheap production value, cheap sound quality, and cheesy dialogue make this film one to avoid at all costs, just when the British film Industry has at last made its mark in the world of film and cinema along comes this load of old tosh that drags it back 20 years why oh why oh why, oh I know why, to make a few quid, if you want to know what it feels like to be mugged buy this DVD and you'll realise! it shouldn't even be allowed to carry the title Night Of the Living Dead George A Romero must be livid his highly original work getting used as and excuse to sell this rubbish!!I have to make this review at least 10 lines OK it looks like it's been filmed on a phone, the characters in the film are very flimsy and the actors playing them must have been chosen in a raffle of some sort, or responded to an ad in the local paper, I didn't care what happened to the characters I just wish they would all get killed so I wouldn't have to hurt my eyes anymore watching this rubbish, I have seen a lot of films not all of them good be warned this is the first time I've been moved to write a review, be afraid be very afraid.
- kickboxking
- Jun 7, 2013
- Permalink
Welsh writer/director James Plumb sure has balls to name his film after George Romero's classic zombie movie, but sadly he doesn't quite have the talent to do the title justice: his writing skills aren't all that bad, the film's familial drama being reasonably effective thanks to believable dialogue bolstered by surprisingly convincing performances, but his project as a whole suffers from a lack of decent zombie action, poorly judged camera placement, weak editing, and one or two scenes crippled by a severe lack of logic from the characters.
After a false start ala Hitchcock's Psycho (which actually provides the best moment in the film), the plot centres on a family trapped in their rural home by a plague of zombies, and as tension mounts and their number slowly dwindles, the characters begin to reveal their flaws and secrets, and relationships break down. This interaction of characters works fairly well, but the film's flaws are too numerous and impossible to ignore (individually, some of the following may sound like petty niggles, but together they really serve to irritate) Firstly, Terry Victor as Gerald sports eyebrows so bushy that zombies would be hard pushed to get close enough to bite him (and as it happens, they don't). Also rather frustrating is the fact that no attempt has been made to fortify the house—hell, they don't even lock the back door after going outside! Furthermore, the family seem a little slow on the uptake, not realising that the 'crazies' are in fact the dead brought back to life (a headline in the newspaper shop in the first scene states that The Dead Live—haven't they been following the news?).
Then there's the technical issues: the overuse of canted angles, which looks like Plumb forgot to lock-off his tripod properly, and inappropriate low POV shots, as if the the camera was left on the ground still running between takes, all of which give the film an air of amateurishness.
But it's back to Gerald for my biggest complaint: when faced with a gang of machete wielding chavs, the bushy-browed fool stops his car (instead of ploughing straight through them) and pays for his stupid mistake with his life. It's dumb beyond belief.
While not nearly as bad as many of the other reviews make out (I reserve my '1/10's for completely unwatchable dross that actually makes my eyes hurt), the film is certainly undeserving of its 'Night of ' title.
After a false start ala Hitchcock's Psycho (which actually provides the best moment in the film), the plot centres on a family trapped in their rural home by a plague of zombies, and as tension mounts and their number slowly dwindles, the characters begin to reveal their flaws and secrets, and relationships break down. This interaction of characters works fairly well, but the film's flaws are too numerous and impossible to ignore (individually, some of the following may sound like petty niggles, but together they really serve to irritate) Firstly, Terry Victor as Gerald sports eyebrows so bushy that zombies would be hard pushed to get close enough to bite him (and as it happens, they don't). Also rather frustrating is the fact that no attempt has been made to fortify the house—hell, they don't even lock the back door after going outside! Furthermore, the family seem a little slow on the uptake, not realising that the 'crazies' are in fact the dead brought back to life (a headline in the newspaper shop in the first scene states that The Dead Live—haven't they been following the news?).
Then there's the technical issues: the overuse of canted angles, which looks like Plumb forgot to lock-off his tripod properly, and inappropriate low POV shots, as if the the camera was left on the ground still running between takes, all of which give the film an air of amateurishness.
But it's back to Gerald for my biggest complaint: when faced with a gang of machete wielding chavs, the bushy-browed fool stops his car (instead of ploughing straight through them) and pays for his stupid mistake with his life. It's dumb beyond belief.
While not nearly as bad as many of the other reviews make out (I reserve my '1/10's for completely unwatchable dross that actually makes my eyes hurt), the film is certainly undeserving of its 'Night of ' title.
- BA_Harrison
- Nov 1, 2013
- Permalink
Don't you just hate those reviews that say blunt things like 'This film is rubbish!'
I try to give a little more information than that, but, I have to say, that that is the crux of my review. For those ten people out there who don't know, the title of 'Night of the Living Dead' comes from the sixties zombie film, made by George Romero film and sporting the same name. The original sixties version is largely considered to be the 'start' of the modern take on the undead. This film, ie. The 2012 version where the film-makers have stuck the word 'Resurrection' on the end has NOTHING to do with the original or the official sequels spawned from it.
It is a 'homage' to George Romero's classic. Therefore it takes the best bits and tries to give them a 'fresh' new spin. And it fails.
Saying it's made on a 'shoestring budget,' would be an overstatement. I doubt they had a budget at all. The actors (and I use that term loosely) seem to be straight out of the amateur dramatics society and the camera is mainly hand-held all the way through, making it seem like your old home video footage of your holiday to Spain when you were a child.
One plus point: the gore is reasonable in the few places it's used, plus there's quite a shocking moment early on that I doubt many will see coming.
However, a couple of nice touches do not make a movie. The rest is just awful.
Don't be lulled into thinking it'll be good just because the film-makers stole a classic's title. It's just a poor attempt at cashing in on the name. If you like British zombie movies then stick to the 28 Days Later pair, or Shaun of the Dead if you want your gore with some light-hearted moments in it.
http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/
I try to give a little more information than that, but, I have to say, that that is the crux of my review. For those ten people out there who don't know, the title of 'Night of the Living Dead' comes from the sixties zombie film, made by George Romero film and sporting the same name. The original sixties version is largely considered to be the 'start' of the modern take on the undead. This film, ie. The 2012 version where the film-makers have stuck the word 'Resurrection' on the end has NOTHING to do with the original or the official sequels spawned from it.
It is a 'homage' to George Romero's classic. Therefore it takes the best bits and tries to give them a 'fresh' new spin. And it fails.
Saying it's made on a 'shoestring budget,' would be an overstatement. I doubt they had a budget at all. The actors (and I use that term loosely) seem to be straight out of the amateur dramatics society and the camera is mainly hand-held all the way through, making it seem like your old home video footage of your holiday to Spain when you were a child.
One plus point: the gore is reasonable in the few places it's used, plus there's quite a shocking moment early on that I doubt many will see coming.
However, a couple of nice touches do not make a movie. The rest is just awful.
Don't be lulled into thinking it'll be good just because the film-makers stole a classic's title. It's just a poor attempt at cashing in on the name. If you like British zombie movies then stick to the 28 Days Later pair, or Shaun of the Dead if you want your gore with some light-hearted moments in it.
http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/
- bowmanblue
- Jul 19, 2014
- Permalink
- mcurrell25
- Dec 28, 2013
- Permalink
Well first of all, I don't really understand how this movie could even be allowed to carry the title "Night of the Living Dead", as it was a weak movie in comparison to Romero's timeless classic.
And how the movie have managed to score such a low rating, doesn't really come as a surprise, because this movie was nothing overly impressive. When I first heard about the movie I was thrilled, and had my hopes up. Why? Well, because of the title "Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection", it does have some big shoes to fill out, but it failed horribly to do so.
The story was simple and easy to follow, but it was rather pointless and didn't really peak at any point, and it didn't really throw any bones to the audience - in overall, a very uninspiring movie experience.
For a zombie movie, then there were surprisingly few zombies in the movie. And those that were there, weren't particularly scary, threatening or zombie-like. Apparently when you die, your eyes become shrouded by horribly fake contact lenses. That was just hilarious. The contact lenses they had opted to put into the eyes of some of the zombies wasn't even remotely anything near those milked-over eyes of the deceased - it was party contact lenses at best.
The acting in the movie was nothing spectacular, and it was clear that it was a low budget semi-amateurish movie, because it was like watching inadequately trained stage thespians trying to take their talent to the big screen.
Effects-wise and gore-wise, then "Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection" is nothing spectacular or particularly impressive. It didn't really make much use of either special effects or gore. So for all us gore-hounds, then our depraved cravings is better satisfied elsewhere.
However, for a low budget movie, then "Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection" isn't amongst the worst of low budget movies. There are far more questionable and ridiculous zombie movies out there. Just don't get your hopes up for this movie - as I did - you'll crash and burn fast and hard on this one.
I am giving this movie a 4 out of 10 rating because it was a good-hearted attempt at making a zombie movie on an amateurish level. The movie did have some good points here and there as well, but it just had set itself too far up by brandishing the "Night of the Living" title. Perhaps the movie should just have been named "Resurrection" or something else without the "Night of the Living Dead" title.
And how the movie have managed to score such a low rating, doesn't really come as a surprise, because this movie was nothing overly impressive. When I first heard about the movie I was thrilled, and had my hopes up. Why? Well, because of the title "Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection", it does have some big shoes to fill out, but it failed horribly to do so.
The story was simple and easy to follow, but it was rather pointless and didn't really peak at any point, and it didn't really throw any bones to the audience - in overall, a very uninspiring movie experience.
For a zombie movie, then there were surprisingly few zombies in the movie. And those that were there, weren't particularly scary, threatening or zombie-like. Apparently when you die, your eyes become shrouded by horribly fake contact lenses. That was just hilarious. The contact lenses they had opted to put into the eyes of some of the zombies wasn't even remotely anything near those milked-over eyes of the deceased - it was party contact lenses at best.
The acting in the movie was nothing spectacular, and it was clear that it was a low budget semi-amateurish movie, because it was like watching inadequately trained stage thespians trying to take their talent to the big screen.
Effects-wise and gore-wise, then "Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection" is nothing spectacular or particularly impressive. It didn't really make much use of either special effects or gore. So for all us gore-hounds, then our depraved cravings is better satisfied elsewhere.
However, for a low budget movie, then "Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection" isn't amongst the worst of low budget movies. There are far more questionable and ridiculous zombie movies out there. Just don't get your hopes up for this movie - as I did - you'll crash and burn fast and hard on this one.
I am giving this movie a 4 out of 10 rating because it was a good-hearted attempt at making a zombie movie on an amateurish level. The movie did have some good points here and there as well, but it just had set itself too far up by brandishing the "Night of the Living" title. Perhaps the movie should just have been named "Resurrection" or something else without the "Night of the Living Dead" title.
- paul_haakonsen
- May 18, 2013
- Permalink
- hannahmjones24901
- Jul 11, 2013
- Permalink
So many thoughts are flying through my head watching this movie, most notably how a film could be produced so poorly and approved for release. Perhaps that is the logic these days...Design a flashy cover, capitalize on a popular film title (i.e. Night of the Living Dead), and not give a damn about the quality/production of the film. I invested $20 on this movie somehow knowing in the back of my mind, that this would be a total and complete failure...and to my very surprise, IT WAS! Zombie film after zombie film, they all continue to outdo one another in terms of creating the most unrealistic, boring, waste of time. I simply cannot waste any more of my time or energy into this film, but on a final note if you want a classic zombie film, look no further than Tom Savini's Night of the Living Dead.
Night Of The Living Dead: Resurrection. The film wasn't without it flaws but it works nicely enough as a homage to the original film.
I felt a little under whelm by it. I wanted more from it. There were times I found the characters interesting and others not so. There was some lovely camera work and direction but there was also some lighting issues. It wasn't anything I not seen before from a genre that been done a lot by independence film makers. You still get everything you would want from a zombie film but with the market so wide the film really needed to push it self a bit more. Despite the film being a bit dark in places to see what was going on it still added a nice feel to the over all the film. The zombies were often seen in the shadows which really added to the film.
The film overall is stills miles better than Night of the Living Dead 3D. NOTLD: Resurrection is one of those films you have to take for what it is. It miles better than a lot of low budget films but I would have likes to have seen something much more from it. You have to give credit to the markers of the film for what they did on a low budget and the respect they had for the original source material.
Hopefully if they do make another they can fix the flaws as I truly believe the film had potential to be something great. Just this time around it just miss the mark. Overall nice try.
I felt a little under whelm by it. I wanted more from it. There were times I found the characters interesting and others not so. There was some lovely camera work and direction but there was also some lighting issues. It wasn't anything I not seen before from a genre that been done a lot by independence film makers. You still get everything you would want from a zombie film but with the market so wide the film really needed to push it self a bit more. Despite the film being a bit dark in places to see what was going on it still added a nice feel to the over all the film. The zombies were often seen in the shadows which really added to the film.
The film overall is stills miles better than Night of the Living Dead 3D. NOTLD: Resurrection is one of those films you have to take for what it is. It miles better than a lot of low budget films but I would have likes to have seen something much more from it. You have to give credit to the markers of the film for what they did on a low budget and the respect they had for the original source material.
Hopefully if they do make another they can fix the flaws as I truly believe the film had potential to be something great. Just this time around it just miss the mark. Overall nice try.
- navarrolisandra
- Jun 13, 2013
- Permalink
Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection (2012)
* 1/2 (out of 4)
Ultra low-budget film about some family members trying to survive inside their home while there are zombie attacks going on outside. This film was shot in Wales, which is one reason why it stands apart from countless other rips of the George A. Romero classic. Those expecting or wanted a direct remake are going to be disappointed because this is yet another case where the title is simply being used to gain some attention and push some added sales or rentals. I guess you can't blame them for using the title since there's no question that it's going to get the attention they need. With that said, I really didn't find this to be as horrible as many others did. Yes, the low-budget certainly doesn't do any favors for the film but then again, should this be an excuse since Romero was able to do so much with so little? I think there are a couple good things going on here and that includes the first big twist that happens in the story. I'm going to avoid spoiling this for those who do decide to watch the film but the rug is pulled out from the viewer and it caught me off guard. The second thing I liked about the picture is the fact that they did try to do something new instead of just giving us stuff we've seen countless times before. I'm sure a direct remake would have been much easier but the filmmakers went for something different. That "new" thing doesn't always work for a couple reasons. One is that these characters keep getting bitten because they do incredibly stupid things, which just get annoying after a while. Another issue is that the family issues that get so much attention just aren't all that memorable or good enough for you to care about them. There's also a moral debate on if zombies or humans are more evil but I'll leave that up to you. The performances aren't all that bad, there are some good gore effects and the pacing really isn't as bad as one might expect. Still, this film is only going to be for those who must see every zombie film out there.
* 1/2 (out of 4)
Ultra low-budget film about some family members trying to survive inside their home while there are zombie attacks going on outside. This film was shot in Wales, which is one reason why it stands apart from countless other rips of the George A. Romero classic. Those expecting or wanted a direct remake are going to be disappointed because this is yet another case where the title is simply being used to gain some attention and push some added sales or rentals. I guess you can't blame them for using the title since there's no question that it's going to get the attention they need. With that said, I really didn't find this to be as horrible as many others did. Yes, the low-budget certainly doesn't do any favors for the film but then again, should this be an excuse since Romero was able to do so much with so little? I think there are a couple good things going on here and that includes the first big twist that happens in the story. I'm going to avoid spoiling this for those who do decide to watch the film but the rug is pulled out from the viewer and it caught me off guard. The second thing I liked about the picture is the fact that they did try to do something new instead of just giving us stuff we've seen countless times before. I'm sure a direct remake would have been much easier but the filmmakers went for something different. That "new" thing doesn't always work for a couple reasons. One is that these characters keep getting bitten because they do incredibly stupid things, which just get annoying after a while. Another issue is that the family issues that get so much attention just aren't all that memorable or good enough for you to care about them. There's also a moral debate on if zombies or humans are more evil but I'll leave that up to you. The performances aren't all that bad, there are some good gore effects and the pacing really isn't as bad as one might expect. Still, this film is only going to be for those who must see every zombie film out there.
- Michael_Elliott
- Jun 11, 2013
- Permalink
- ArchieIsCool
- Jun 30, 2013
- Permalink
- nogodnomasters
- Apr 27, 2018
- Permalink
- aj_schepis
- May 2, 2014
- Permalink
I'm generally up for a good zombie movie. The original NOTLD and the '90s remake were both great. Somehow, I'd never heard of this edition. I noticed it while flipping stations, it was near the end, but I thought I'd check it out to see if it's something I'd want to watch in full. It's not!
Normally, I wouldn't judge a movie based upon about 20 minutes of viewing; however, I am making an exception. I'm pretty sure some middle school students hastily threw this movie together late on a Sunday night to get credit on Monday for a project they had weeks to do. There is no way that a professional filmmaker made this movie. I think it was attempting to be suspenseful and intense, but it was just weirdly slow for no reason, nonsensical, and non-linear.
This film isn't even watchable from a campy perspective. It's just plain boring and idiotic. Everybody involved in this catastrophe should punch him or herself in the face. Utter, utter garbage!!! I can't even begin to imagine wanting to watch the whole movie, and I'm generally pretty open-minded about what I watch.
Normally, I wouldn't judge a movie based upon about 20 minutes of viewing; however, I am making an exception. I'm pretty sure some middle school students hastily threw this movie together late on a Sunday night to get credit on Monday for a project they had weeks to do. There is no way that a professional filmmaker made this movie. I think it was attempting to be suspenseful and intense, but it was just weirdly slow for no reason, nonsensical, and non-linear.
This film isn't even watchable from a campy perspective. It's just plain boring and idiotic. Everybody involved in this catastrophe should punch him or herself in the face. Utter, utter garbage!!! I can't even begin to imagine wanting to watch the whole movie, and I'm generally pretty open-minded about what I watch.
It is physically impossible to describe how bad this so-called movie is. Seriously, you've got to wonder this thing even made it past rehearsals let alone ended up on celluloid. The only good thing I can say about it is that it ended.
This sequence of pictures deserve 0.02 KB of swf file to this world, not worth any physical storage. The very non experienced herd of pictures and sounds gathering-i'm not use the word "movie" for this worse than garbage sh*t, is do nothing to any kind of media production. Not worth even a clip. Can't help to think that the production came out of Movie Maker which even some 5 years old boy/girl can give more inspirations.
I see full of disharmony in every single second. The way of camera angel usages, timings, amateur technics of making movie, ridiculous actings, non sense plots ... it's all go well with unsystematic outcome.
Try it yourself and see if it gives value to your ever worst nightmare to what extension.
I see full of disharmony in every single second. The way of camera angel usages, timings, amateur technics of making movie, ridiculous actings, non sense plots ... it's all go well with unsystematic outcome.
Try it yourself and see if it gives value to your ever worst nightmare to what extension.
To tell you the truth, it wasn't bad. Remember, this is a zombie flick, so if you are expecting gone with the wind then you the viewer are flawed.
This short film has solid effects that aren't too gory but essential. It actually has character development in a short time. No wasted storyline and it gets the story across.
Again, it's a zombie flick that gives the audience that exact field. It's time-frame only reflects a half day and it is full of different perspectives. So it's a good film that does it's job.
This short film has solid effects that aren't too gory but essential. It actually has character development in a short time. No wasted storyline and it gets the story across.
Again, it's a zombie flick that gives the audience that exact field. It's time-frame only reflects a half day and it is full of different perspectives. So it's a good film that does it's job.
- smiling_happily_guy2002
- Apr 2, 2020
- Permalink
If you're one of those who treats the original NOTLD as the greatest movie ever made and any attempt to match it is sacrilege then don't watch this. If you're able to get off your NOTLD high horse or if you're capable of taking this movie at face value then it's not too shabby.
- tpeters103
- Oct 18, 2019
- Permalink
- Leofwine_draca
- Jun 1, 2021
- Permalink