Review of Night of the Living Dead (1990) by Steve M — 20 Apr 2011

Well it's a well known fact among horror fans that remakes of horror classics are allmost never good and usually turn out to be completely unwatchable. I'm really not a fan of remakes ive allways thought they were just pointless well maybe under certain circumstances they could be necessary like if the film that they were remaking was a crap film with potential, like if something had a very interesting story and didn't excecute it well then it would be understandble to remake it. But here I get to my point if a film is regarded a classic or even a masterpiece then why would you remake it? just leave it as it is allmost every horror classic has been remade even "Psycho" I mean wow that's just ridiculous.

George A. Romero was actually part of this film here which could be the reason that it wasn't anywhere near as bad as some other horror remakes like for example the remake to "A Nightmare On Elm Street" is one of the worst horrors of all time and is my personal most hated remake and "Craven" had nothing to do with it. It seems because of Romero this film managed to be better then most remakes. But there's a big problem with this it actually seemed dull and boring most of the time I dont really see a point in it since it was hardly any different then the first they repeated most of the scenes and none were done better this time around. Alot of the scenes that were unforgettably creepy were pulled off in such a dull way in this film and the zombies are nowhere near as creepy the film is also not the least bit scary more laughable then anything.

The change they made to this was that they left alot of the.

Social and economic undertones that the first had out but something that was so great and memorable about the first was exactly that. The acting in this one by the two main characters was not particulay good but might actually be slightly better then on the first which had some ridiculously corny acting but the people portraying the zombies on this were a joke comperad to the original. It was directed by "Tom Savini" who appared in a whole lot of cameos in horror films and was actually in "Romero's" "Dawn of The Dead" which is quiet interesting.

It might seem pointless to review this since the fact that it wasn't as good as the original probably seems obvious but this is actually well known to be a "Remake that's actually good" but i'm curious to know why, it's nothing but another remake to me. It did start off quiet intersting but kept decreasing in quality as it kept going on a very boring and uninteresting film which is however more tolarable then a number of remakes but that doesn't change the fact that it sucks. Once again what's the point in remaking classics?