Night of the Living Dead backdrop
Night of the Living Dead poster

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD

1968 US HMDB
October 4, 1968

A ragtag group barricade themselves in an old Pennsylvania farmhouse to remain safe from a horde of flesh-eating ghouls ravaging the Northeast.

Cast

👍 👎 🔥 🧻 👑

Comments

Comments (0)

Crew

Production: Russell Streiner (Producer)Karl Hardman (Producer)
Screenplay: John A. Russo (Screenplay)George A. Romero (Screenplay)

REVIEWS (1)

Francesco Mirabelli
Francesco Mirabelli
Barbara and her brother Johnny go to the cemetery to visit a relative's grave, but they are attacked by some zombies. Johnny loses his life in the struggle, while Barbara manages to reach a seemingly uninhabited farm. Shortly afterward, a young black man, Ben, knocks on the farmhouse door and proposes to barricade themselves to avoid the attacks of the zombies, who in the meantime are surrounding the farm. The two fugitives will soon discover that in the cellar of the house there are five other people hiding, but instead of helping each other, tensions arise among the inhabitants of the house. A fundamental work of horror cinema, a film that goes beyond simple genre cinema and stands as a notable example of Cinema tout court. Despite its importance, 'Night of the Living Dead' was made by chance, thanks to the decision of the twenty-eight-year-old George Romero, a young documentary filmmaker, and his friend John Russo, to produce a low-budget science fiction film. The first subjects written by Russo, almost Ed Wood-style science fiction, were fortunately discarded, and the final screenplay was based on an idea by Romero derived from Richard Matheson's novel 'I Am Legend'; a literary work already adapted for the big screen in 1963 by Ubaldo Ragona with 'The Last Man on Earth.' Finding a financier in the advertiser George Hardman (who played the odious Mr. Cooper and was also responsible for the film's music), filming began in June 1967. It was shot on weekends whenever money and film stock could be gathered; the actors, with the exception of Duane Jones and Judith O'Dea, were all non-professionals. After 7 months and a final investment of just $117,000, the film was completed. It was not easy to find a distributor, given the characteristics considered unappetizing for the work, such as the choice of black and white, the absence of a love story, a tragic ending, and 'even' a black protagonist. The interest of the Walter Read Organization allowed the film to circulate in suburban theaters and the drive-in circuit. Thanks to word of mouth, the film quickly became a cult, it was even included in a review dedicated to the best cinematic debuts organized by the Museum of Modern Art in New York and in the end managed to guarantee a worldwide box office of 30 million dollars (a figure from which Romero and his associates saw very little, most of it was pocketed by Mr. Walter Read). With 'Night of the Living Dead,' the old strand of gothic horror, exemplified by Hammer films, comes to an end, and the season of so-called new horror begins. This leap in quality is not to be sought so much in the gruesomeness of the images shown, in the film there is blood but it is not shown with particular ostentation and the choice of black-and-white photography inevitably tends to depower the gore images (from this point of view Romero will do qualitatively and quantitatively much more with subsequent films, especially in the finale of 'Dawn of the Dead,' a real orgy of offal in the air). The change in the way of understanding horror is mainly a matter of content. We move from conventional haunted castles and dusty crypts, a picturesque and alien world, a sort of comforting elsewhere, to our world. In the tragic odyssey of the 7 characters in the film, in their mutual brawling with each other, we see ourselves and the world in which we live. Regarding the plot, Romero extracts from 'I Am Legend' the theme of the siege by nightmare creatures. While in Matheson's novel the besieging beings are vampires described in a rather conventional manner: they move at night, have an aversion to mirrors and garlic, and are eliminated by piercing their hearts; in Romero's film the so-called 'monsters' are imagined in such a way as to be very similar to humans, a similarity that is their most unsettling characteristic. The Romerian zombie is not simply a 'monster,' it is above all a 'symbol,' a particularly powerful icon, readable at different levels. The living dead have been interpreted in various ways. The representatives of a new society that devours the old (depending on the point of view, the thing can be seen in a positive or negative light). The disinherited and marginalized, or in other words, most human beings, who rebel against the status quo. The symbol of conformism: they are many and they are stupid, but they are the majority and sooner or later everyone becomes like them. In the documentary 'American Nightmare,' Romero also provided another interpretation, according to him the zombie represents the thing he fears the most: people. Multiple and contradictory readings, it is not said that one should be privileged, and it is also this that makes the film great (this ambiguity reminds one of another great example of fantasy cinema 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' by Don Siegel, in which the body snatcher could be seen both as the bogeyman of communist massification and as the emblem of the conformism of 1950s American province). 'Night of the Living Dead' is a film made in 1968, a historical period rich in political and cultural ferment of which the film consciously reflects certain themes. The institution most targeted is that of the family, between vague incestuous impulses between Johnny and Barbara and family nuclei symbolically 'in decomposition' like that of the Coopers, whose daughter Kate, bitten by a zombie, progressively turns into a zombie intent on tearing her parents apart. The media do not fare well either: considered extremely valuable by the protagonists, they only spread confused and substantially useless news. Overall, the film is burdened with Romero's anthropological pessimism; unlike classic siege films, the precarious situation does not manage to unite the characters, who instead of joining forces attack each other and make their condition even more desperate; as if to say that the much-praised human rationality is actually useless against selfishness and the innate destructive impulses of human beings. Beyond all the messages present, intentionally or not, in the film, the main merit of 'Night of the Living Dead' is that it is a genuinely terrifying film. A terror that insidiously creeps in until the viewer realizes that in the fear of dying of the human characters and in the death already in progress of the zombies there is nothing but the reflection of oneself and one's destiny. An extraordinary film, an example of what horror cinema can be in the hands of a great director.
👍 👎 🔥 🧻 👑

Comments

Comments (0)

Where to Watch

Stream

Cultpix Cultpix
Chilling Chilling

Rent

Apple TV Apple TV
Amazon Video Amazon Video
Google Play Movies Google Play Movies

Buy

Apple TV Apple TV
Amazon Video Amazon Video
Google Play Movies Google Play Movies

COMMUNITY REVIEWS (3)

Nathan

Nathan

5 /10

Night of the Living Dead is without a doubt a fantastically innovative film; creating the modern day interpretation of a zombie and forever changing the genre as we know it. There is a lot to like about this film, but unfortunately the limitations of its time hold it back, resulting in a somewhat boring viewing experience.

For starters, the story was pretty good. I really enjoyed how the plot focused on a single group of survivors and their thought process as they attempt to deal with the horror and panic of the dead reanimating. There was a tremendous amount of lore delivered via telecommunication broadcasts that I thought added to the movie perfectly.

The performances were uneven, some were quite stellar, particularly Duane Jones and Karl Hardman. But Judith O’Dea was quite bad. I’m not sure if it was her performance or the way her character was written but it was just bizarre to see her body language and gestures throughout the film. The beginning chase scene with her was fantastic, with some stellar cinematography. But after that, the way she portrayed shock was laughable.

The action in this movie was bad, with punches being all too slow and clunky. I would imagine this movie was quite scary for the time, but with modern day horror constantly elevating, I hardly found myself unnerved. Overall, this movie is Time Capsule for horror and the genre has taken so much from this film throughout the years, but unfortunately it’s legacy far outweighs the entertainment the film brings.

Score: 54% | Verdict: Average

Filipe Manuel Neto

Filipe Manuel Neto

5 /10

The film that practically founded the zombie subgenre.

As I've said on other occasions, I'm not a fan at all of films about zombies and similar creatures. It's a type of horror cinema with a strong graphic appeal that doesn't really captivate me. However, I confess that I liked this film. It is much more moderate in its approach to these types of monsters, and effective in building tension and suspense. It's not scary (I believe it was very scary at the time, but these are different times), but it's entertaining.

The story told doesn't give us much explanation: we see two brothers who visit a grave in an isolated cemetery and, upon returning to the car, they are chased by what looks like a very disturbed man. It's obviously a zombie, and we know it, but the characters don't know and are extremely confused by what happens next: a growing group of zombies attacks them and forces them to seek shelter in a nearby house, where shortly afterwards they realize that they are not alone and, thanks to radio and television, that the problem is not just there, but it's national.

George Romero was very intelligent in the way he conceived and wrote the film, which is an entirely independent production and the result of the ingeniously of everyone involved. It is an innovative work, it was one of the first films to bring zombies to the horror universe and the influence of “Carnival of Souls” is very clear in the cinematography, in the way the sound and soundtrack were worked on. The short budget forced the production to be very pragmatic and efficient, to do a lot with little and prioritize credibility and authenticity. I would like to highlight some effective effects such as the flesh eaten by zombies, fake blood and Molotov cocktails. The design of the sets and choice of filming locations is also to be congratulated.

The cast has a few points in its favor, but it is essentially amateur and only tries to do what has to be done. Despite being a minor issue and not usually subjected to reflection, it seems significant to me to highlight the choice of a black actor for the main role. Duane Jones, in the film of his life, does a very well done job, with great commitment and that fulfills everything necessary. Karl Hardman is just annoying and the two actresses, Judith O’Dea and Marilyn Eastman, don’t really add anything positive to the film, simply appearing helpless the whole time.

CinemaSerf

CinemaSerf

6 /10

"Barbra" (Judith O'Dea) and her brother are laying some flowers at a cemetery when they espy a man wandering around aimlessly. He suggests it's really a zombie and boy how right he is. She manages to flee to their car but, oh, only if she could have just steered the thing - we might not have had a film! She hits a tree, though, and now dazed and suffering from shock has to take shelter in a nearby house where she gets an hint of what's marauding around outside. Luckily, "Ben" (Duane Jones) also finds the house and with a few emerging from the safety of it's cellar, they proceed to fortify the place as best they can and sit it out. It's soon clear from the television and radio reports that this is an epidemic and that those critters are resurrecting themselves and eating their victims. "Tom" (Keith Wayne) and girlfriend "Judy" (Judith Ridley) decide their best hope is to get the truck parked outside gassed up so they can all escape to the nearest town - but will that work? This film is almost as old as I am, and I am afraid to say it hasn't really aged an whole lot better. Much of the sense of peril comes from the frantic dialogue at the start and the scary elements are now more comical than menacing - especially towards the end. The regular use of the television reportage is useful at first but then seems more designed to pad out this thin story for a ninety minutes that I felt looked more like a TV movie that was just too contrived. It was good to see it on a big screen, but I really don't think I'd bother to watch it again.

Reviews provided by TMDB