ThiefHott Too much of everything

ScoobyWell Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Cem Lamb This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

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!

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.

InaneSwine Night of the Living Dead owns its reputation as one of the most important horror films ever made. Most modern horror films go intensely overboard on both the gore and the pace, while forgetting to include any actual drama for characters to face. George A Romero proved with this film, almost fifty years ago, that he knows how to scare an audience, and really make them think.

gorf Casting a black man as the main character in a horror film during the 60s was a bold move. Too bad he had to star in Night of the Living Dead.Night of the Living Dead has some genuinely suspenseful parts, especially at the beginning, when Barbara is attacked by a zombie. The fact that we don't really know why the dead are rising from their graves is also frightening. Unfortunately, Romero decided to add unnecessary scenes of cannibalism, and a zombiefied child who stabs her own mother to death. We already know from the radio announcer that the zombies eat their victims, and the thought of it is disturbing enough, we don't have to see them play with intestines or sink their teeth into livers.Night of the Living Dead took a giant step forward by having a black lead character, but two giant steps backward with the unnecessary guts and gore. Suddenly, horror movies started to focus more on violent and disgusting scenes than meaningful stories. In a way, movies like NOTLD ruined the horror genre. It doesn't help that the movie becomes insanely boring after a short while. And the ending is just depressing, it makes the entire movie pointless.The only way I could recommend NOTLD is as a sleeping aid.