Night of the Living Dead: Re-Animation (2012)

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

This is a prequel to Night of the living dead (2006). Night of the living dead (2006) is an awful movie. And this is worst. Night of the Living dead (1968) is a great movie. Night of the living dead (1990) is a great movie. The sequel to Night of the living dead (1968) Dawn of the Dead (1978) is a great movie. Third part to the series Day of the Dead (1985) is also a great movie. The fourth part to the series Land of the dead is also a great movie. But this is just awful. The story line is awful. The ending is also very awful. It is not scary at all. I would not say it is a 3. It is not that good. It is so bad 3 is overrating it a little. Do not see this movie. It is not a good movie.

Honestly I'm a little surprised this movie has gotten so many negative reviews. It's not a blockbuster and I don't believe it was intended to be. If you are a watcher of B horror then I think there's a decent chance you might enjoy this flick. True, if you are expecting a lot of action, you may be disappointed, however, I have seen a lot worse in the way of zombie horror. The zombies are pretty repulsive as one would hope, and the characters are identifiable. The lead character is a creepy John Waters/Vincent Price type with whom you almost empathize between his affection for family yet you cautiously fear for his possible instability. There is a definite element of dark humor but more pervasive is the hope that the plot will build to something exciting which it sort of fails to do. Not all zombie movies are meant to satisfy in the same way. Personally, I do not regret the hour and a half I spent watching this story about a mysterious mortician and his experience with the living dead.

I had heard much good about this movie; little was I aware that it was for the original. The new iteration of it is so poorly done; the acting is horrible, the story is drawn out way beyond reason, the special effects could have been done by elementary school children and overall it's 84 minutes of my life I could have spent better and far more enjoyable on painfully plucking my facial hair, DIY dental work or basically just about anything else. Matter of fact, I created an account on IMDb for one purpose - to write this review. You may ask why I gave the movie 2 stars? Well, the story in and of itself is good. It's just playing it out that just does not work. Steer clear!

After inheriting the family mortuary, a pyrophobic mortician (Andrew Divoff) accidentally exposes hundreds of un-cremated bodies to toxic medical waste...We have ourselves a great cast here: the legendary Jeffrey Combs, the lovely rising star Robin Sydney, the under-appreciated Walter Phelan and the multifaceted Andrew Divoff. If you watch this movie for no other reason, it should be for the cast.I liked the use of the name "Christie Forrest", and references to the other Romero films. I especially liked the mention of the "gorier" 1990 outbreak similar to the 1968 one. Horror fans wink and nod.My biggest complaint is the inclusion of Fixd News and Sister Sara -- this was lame and not necessary... politics should generally stay out of film unless necessary (satire is good, cheap shots are divisive). If done right you get John Carpenter's "They Live" where the message is timeless. Here, we have a Sarah Palin joke that should never have been included -- she is already old news now (2012) and someday will be completely forgotten... why pick on her and Fox?