Stometer
Save your money for something good and enjoyable
Hayden Kane
There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes
Caryl
It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.
jacobjohntaylor1
This is not a good movie. It has an awful ending and an awful story line. The original Night of the living dead from 1968 is a good movie. The first remake of Night of the living dead from 1990 is also a good movie. But this second remake of the Night of the living dead is not very good. The sequel to Night of the living dead Dawn of the Dead (1978) is a very good movie. The third movie Day of the Dead (1985) is also a good movie. The fourth movie Land of the dead is also a good movie. But not this movie. 3.2 is overrating it. This a bad movie. Do not waste your time. And do not waste your money. This is a very bad remake.
FlashCallahan
Barb and her brother Johnny arrive late for the burial of their aunt -- and walk straight into a nightmare,with zombies... Barb flees the cemetery and is rescued by Ben, a local college student. The two seek refuge in the nearby farmhouse, where the laid-back residents aren't remotely prepared to have their lives turn into a nightmare.....It's only an hour and fifteen minutes long and Sid Haig is int, so I thought to myself 'why not?'. Its short and it would be funny to spot where all the 3D should have been.It starts off okay, we have references to the original Romero version, and the zombie action kicks off almost instantly. And then there more references to the original, by way of showing the original on TVs scattered across the movie, and this continues throughout..The film soon becomes tiresome, very quickly. We get the usual trope characters, nudity for no good reason, and really poor performances.Even the 3D parts are pointless, as there are hardly any in the movie. One saving grace is that I didn't see it in 3D, that would have been the iceberg on the proverbial cake.Of all the Romero remakes and sequels, Day of The Dead 2009, and Survival of the Dead included, this has to be the worse one I've ever seen.Really pointless, and a waste of time, even at this short length.
blly_grm
Let me start with this, every time I see someone or hear someone discussing a bad movie, if there is a reputable actor in the film, almost without fail, someone says "Why would so and so..." or "I can't believe so and so did this movie". That irritates me to no end, because it is a stupid question, usually meant rhetorically, with no expectation of a legit or relevant answer. Well I guess I'm Albert Einstein. People...Actors need to work to eat and survive. It's that simple, so don't question why Ving Rhames does Zombie Apocalypse 2012, and don't question why the great Sid Haig is in this crap-fest.Now, on to the real issue. Theft. Another filmmaker totally devoid of integrity, discovers the so-called public domain status (which myself and others whole-heartedly refute)of Night of the Living Dead and he gets a brainstorm,..oh donkey dung, did I say brainstorm?? I meant he has a brain-Fart!!! Night of the Living dead belongs to the people who created it. Someone claiming to be an artist and then stealing from other artists is disgusting. It's an outright Us VS.Them situation. And Jeff Broadstreet you have defined yourself as one of them. You make me sick.Fans and supporters of the real Night of the Living Dead...Boycott this Garbage. I give it a minus infinity out of ten. This guy made money, no one from Image Ten or the original film made squat from it.
surface6669
This film was basically unwatchable (I was rooting for it to just END towards the end of the movie), and I found it to be personally offensive that they would try to ruin a classic movie like "Night of the Living Dead" by "re-imagining" it in this crappy way. The ending of the movie was just a pile of baloney IMO.The film starts out promising, with some clever nods to the original movie in the first couple of scenes, but it goes waaaaay downhill after that. There are so many plot holes in this flick that I can't even count them. Basically, I think they were hoping that just having Sid Haig in a very few scenes could carry the movie, but they failed miserably. The acting is God-awful & unimaginative. There are many scenes in this movie that do nothing to move the "plot" along.Some of the creature effects are pretty cool, but the other "special" effects are amateurish at best. I didn't watch the movie in "3D", but I don't think that I missed anything. I also paid zero dollars to see this piece of trash, and I still feel like I deserve a refund!
