Review of Night of the Living Dead (1968) by Movie G — 23 Aug 2011

What can you really say about George Romero? He's pretty much the zombie film equivalent of God. For nearly 50 years now he's been defining the genre with his brilliant combination or vomit inducing gore, scares, dark humour and brilliant social commentary. It all began in 1968 though with his 1968 debut "Night Of The Living Dead". It wasn't the first zombie movie ever, there were some older ones like White Zombie and Revolt Of The Zombies, but it was really the movie that gave us the idea of what a modern zombie is, from the greyish skin tone, flesh eating qualities, or that slow, awkward walk, it's pretty much the most important zombie movie ever made, but is it the best? I would sadly have to say no. It's still a fantastic movie and in terms of scare factor hasn't aged a bit, but unfortunately it has its share of problems.

One of the real highlights is the films abrupt opening. No title cards for studios or FBI warnings or anything, it just starts right in. This may actually depend on the DVD thought since it's now a public domain movie so about 50 different versions exist, if you have to get one, get the Millenium edition. Regardless of this, it still starts with a bang. You'd probably think we'd get some backstory right? Maybe a little explanation of where the zombies are coming from or why they're like that, but no. We just see Barbara and Johnny walking through a cemetary. How do we see the zombie? Does he jump out and attack them? Do other people yell for them to run? No, we briefly see him walking in the background, slowly approaching them. This is one of the best parts of the movies, and one of the scariest because it's so unexpected. There's no buildup at all, and it really does catch you off guard. From here Barbara retreats to a nearby farmhouse where she and some other stragglers try and make their stand against the undead.

Interestingly enough, the word zombie isn't said once in the entire movie. They're generally just referred to as "those things", or towards the end "ghouls" which sounds ever dumber than zombies. Somehow this film got thrown in with the zombie genre, I gues because of the general idea behind what the things do, but even no matter what you call them it still really isn't a zombie movie. Night Of The Living dead is about 10% zombies, and 90% character study, which I like. It's all about how people can react to a kind of crisis like this, and seeing all the different reactions clash is fantastic, and seeing the countless arguments just builds up the nervous tension.

This is all thanks to the terrific acting, a rarity in independent horror movies. Duane Jones is the main hero Ben, and he is just captivating. Judith O'Dea plays the traumatized Barbara, and while it's a little stereotypically crazy and cheezy, but she still grabs your attention. Karl Hardman is the father who is trapped in the house, and he's great aswell. Watching him try to decide what to do to save his family is awesome. The rest is solid, especially the zombies oddly enough. One thing I thought was odd was Keith Wayne as Tom. He was a little over the top and reminded me of Robin from the 60s Batman series.

One of my only complaints about Night Of The Living Dead is the lighting. Now I always complain about old black and white mvoies being overly lit, but this movie uses natural lighting and it just doesn't work. When there's a light shining on something, it gets so bright that the entire screen is just like a white blob. But it's equalled out by the darkness. When ever things get in the darkness, it's the exact opposite, you can't see a thing, and I like that. There's on shot in particular of the zombies attacking the truck and the camera is inside, and the black and white just makes it so creepy.

Another thing that it's easy to pick on is the special effects. Yes they do suck, but it was 1968, and it was done on an incredibly tiny budget so I won't go there. You understand what they're supposed to be so deal with it. Sure it's no Tom Savini work, but it works, and it was shocking for its time.

What surprised me the most was how well this film held up with it's scariness. You are hardlucked to find many older horror movies that still scare you. There are the slasher films which we are so used to now that they're predictable. There's the religious type thing with The Exorcist that doesn't really work anymore because most people aren't that religious anymore, there's the monster movie type things from way back that are just plain tame enough to be kids movies by todays standards, but this movie is every bit as terrrfying, simply because the kind of thing it's about is still not often seen. The idea of people eating people is still unbelievably unsettling, and just plain disgusting. It out grosses Saw anyday. And just the idea of being surrounded. No matter what you do, you know you aren't making it out alive. Just that odd feeling you get, it makes it feel so brutal. Night Of The Living Dead won't have you screaming for sure, but it's an atmospheric kind of movie that more just makes you feel scared than literally frightened.

Another surprising thing was the music. Almost all of the music taken for the movie was just stock music or public domain stuff from other movies that could be purchased cheaply, or be free. What's surprising is how well it's placed, and how well it works. It's playing almost constantly and just adds to the mood of it.

Finally we get to George Romero. The script was written by Romero and John Russo, and while corny at times, is actually pretty great. This is a classic example of a movie being unintentionally a social commentary, and just the fact that they did that without even knowing could be seen as dumb luck or a stroke of genius, I like to think of the latter. It's true that most of it came from just the idea of a black man being the lead, but the like the rest of the films in the series, the zombies always reflect society in it's time. Romero does a kickass job with the direction and the camerawork is all terrific. There's just something about independent horror movies. It's like that cheap, shaky camera jsut makes it feel like a documentary, which makes it all the more scarier. George Romero is a horror legend, and while I do prefer his sequels, you must show respect for his work on this movie.

I've mostly praised this film so far, so why only an 80%? Well the fact of the matter is that Night Of The Living Dead has some serious pacing issues. The first hour or so of the movie is incredibly dull. All it is is people arguing. Sure I loved the character study aspect of it all, but it could have been nice to throw in a bit of action ever 15 minutes or so. The last half hour is like the definition of a climax, and it's just over the top insane, leading to a shocking but brilliant finale. It's uneven, but it can be forgiven. This movie just really lacks the fun of its sequel Dawn Of The Dead, which some praise, but if you're looking for the serious one I'd say watch Day Of The Dead.

I have one other complaint, and it's really more just a general wondering. Did anyone else who has seen this notice that the entire thing takes place at night, but whenever they watch the live TV news reports they're always in the day? It's just bizarre.

Night Of The Living Dead is still a great movie though. While it may look outdated and lose a lots of it's social relevance, it's still entertaining and scary, and it is a must see for any horror fan, or even most movie fans thanks to its status as a classic.