Night of the Living Deads serie

[SolkaTruesilver]

Hi. Learned about this movie while searching Zombie Apocalypse on TvTropes (thank you, Zombie thread!)

I wish to know the following:

1) Is the original worth watching?
2) Is all the other after Dawn worth watching? (I am sure Dawn is, since there was a remake)
3) Is the remake worth watching?

[Starscream]

1) Yes. And it's public domain, so you can watch for free online. I watch it at least once a year, usually around Halloween.

2) The original Day of the Dead? Yes. Almost as good as Dawn. Much better special effects, too (thank you, Mr. Savini.) Land of the Dead is pretty good, but not terrific. Haven't seen Diary of the Dead.

3) Sort of. It's not a bad movie, but the original is much scarier.

[Dienekes]

Yes
Yes
Not as resounding a yes.

These movies are fun, definitely give them a look if you're into this sort of thing

[comicshorse]

There's also the latest 'Survival of the Dead' but that has gone straight to DVD and ganered some pretty poor reviews

[Mauther]

1) Is the original worth watching? Absolutely. Its one of the core horror movies. Even if you don’t like it, you need to have seen.
2) Is all the other after Dawn worth watching? (I am sure Dawn is, since there was a remake)
Debateable. The quality varies greatly. Overall, the more money Romero got the worse his movies got. Additionally, it depends on how much you like to be preached at in a horror film. Original “Night” is just about flawlessly executed within the boundaries of its budget and the social commentary is certainly there but its subtle and effective. Original “Dawn” is a whole lot of fun, and while I love watching it, it really hasn’t aged well. The evil consumerism message is really in your face, but it works well within the plot. “Day” is bad, I’m sorry but its just bad. There’s nothing original (except Bud and he’s stupid), scary, or fun in the entire script. Save your self the time if you want early eighties apoco-horror go with “Night of the Comet” instead. Remake of “Night” is ok, but doesn’t improve on the original at all. Its fun to watch because you have a remake by the same director as the original with a greater budget and a better cast and it still fails to match the original. The social commentary is much heavier in this version, and curiously Romero chose to reduce the fear factor of the zombies and emphasize the humans so that they are the real threat. Pass on the remake of Night. Remake of “Dawn” is enjoyable, but its not Romero. Its much more of an action movie, and the social commentary is much reduced. I actually think the remake is better than the original (heresy! I know) but I would rate both versions as highly watchable. “Land” of the dead is an interesting concept, and an OK film. It doesn’t make a lot of sense, and the social commentary about greed and class warfare are so disctracting they might as well be dry humping your leg through out the film. Its still enjoyable, but its not a good movie. “Diary” is crap. Romero should cut off a finger for making that movie. I’d rank them: Night, Dawn (remake), Dawn, Land, Day, Night (remake), then finally “Diary”
3) Is the remake worth watching?
No. See above. It’s a glaring illustration that Patricia Tallman can’t act, no matter how hot she was at the time; that Tony Todd can’t save a film no matter how cool he is; and that Tom Savini can’t direct, no matter how awesome he is in general.

[thubby]

2) The original Day of the Dead? Yes. Almost as good as Dawn. Much better special effects, too (thank you, Mr. Savini.) Land of the Dead is pretty good, but not terrific. Haven't seen Diary of the Dead.

i liked it, but it wasn't great.
it's shot from first person perspective, but it doesn't have the "lets throw the camera at a wall" moments of cloverfield and blare witch. (the person we're seeing from is mercifully a film director/cameraman)

[SolkaTruesilver]

No. See above. It’s a glaring illustration that Patricia Tallman can’t act, no matter how hot she was at the time; that Tony Todd can’t save a film no matter how cool he is; and that Tom Savini can’t direct, no matter how awesome he is in general.

But you rated Dawn (remake) higher than the original...!

To everybody: Thank you for your input! I think my girlfriend will appreciate :smallcool: She is a sucker for horror movies...

[Tyrant]

I'm going to have to disagree with Mauther. I believe the remake is worth watching. I honestly don't find it any more preachy than the original. I also prefer the differences in the characters. Primarily Barbara. It was nice that she was an actual character and not just a bump on a log waiting to be eaten. Ben's fate pretty well sucks in both. I found Harry's fate far more satisfying. In fairrness though, I do give it more points for being in color as well.

I also think Day of the Dead (the real one, not the "remake" that came out on DVD with Nick Cannon among other people and not Contagion) is worth watching. You just need to know going into it that it is pretty bleak. It's a look at a small group that believe they are likely the last living people on Earth and things aren't looking good for them.

Land of the Dead is okay, but nothing great. It shows that the folks in Day of the Dead weren't the last people on Earth. It also shows that a reasonable chunk of the last people are jerks. Go figure.

If you are going to watch them, I would watch them in order. Once you are through the 4, then consider the remake of Night and the remake of Dawn. If you still have an interest, look in Diary. It isn't terrible. Like someone else said, it's handheld but the person holding it is supposed to be a film student so it looks okay. It takes place at the start of the outbreak, so you have multiple origin stories to choose from.

As for some other movies that sound like they are part of the series but really aren't, you have:
1) Return of the Living Dead 1-5
2) Dawn of the Living Dead
3) Flight of the Living Dead
4) Zombie Diaries
5) Day of the Dead: Contagion
6) Zombie 1-?
7) Hell of the Living Dead
8) Shaun of the Dead
9) Night of the Living Dead 3-D

1) The first one of these was a decent enough zombie movie. It has it's funny moments. The zombies are also just about the worst possible type to face. They can talk, they can run, the only way to kill them is to completely destroy them which will likely just create more of them. The second one attempted to go farther along the humor route and it's hit and miss. The third went all serious. The 4th and 5th are trainwrecks.
2) I never saw this one unless it has other titles I don't know about.
3) I never saw this one, though with the absurd premise I'm not sure how I have avoided watching it so far. it's probably bad.
4) This is the English version of Diary of the Dead (and I think it was filmed first). It's zombies in England without humor. It gets bleak towards the end.
5) Terrible. Avoid.
6) I mention these because Dawn of the Dead was known as Zombie in some overseas markets. So, some Italian director(s) made more movies with the same title claiming they are part of the same series when they are not. The first one that is not just a repackaged Dawn of the Dead is known as Zombie, or Zombie 2. It features voodoo Zombies (though it is set up in such a way that it could be a prequel to Night) and it's most advertised moment is a zombie fighting a shark. If you like italian horror, this one might be worth checking out.
7) This is another Italian zombie movie and it has numerous alternate titles. This is the title the DVD seems to use. This one is a "start of the outbreak" story. I wouldn't be suprised if the makers of Resident Evil hadn't seen this movie before making the game given how it all starts in this one. The defining feature of this movie is the use of stock wildlife footage at random moments. This is not a great movie. It does feature at least one really gruesome kill at the end though. Watch this one at your own peril.
8) If you haven't seen it, it's a great movie. Not only is it a very funny parody of zombie movies, but it is actually one of the better zombie movies out there. It helps to have seen other movies in the genre to get some of the jokes (use of the "z" word, if I recall correctly the music over the credits, several others) so if you haven't seen it I would save it until after some of the others.
9) In the interest of fairness, I watched this in 2D. From what I saw, I don't think any number of additional dimensions could help this movie. It is a mess of a remake. I would avoid it.

[Mauther]

But you rated Dawn (remake) higher than the original...!

I'll admit its a coin toss between the two. I think the improved production quality really puts the remake ahead. Plus a lot of people have a hard time taking horror films from the late 70's/early 80's seriously because of the clothing/hairstyles/dialogue etc. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Dawn original recipe. But there's too many times where it segues into camp (the homoerotic cop buddies, the biker gang, the polka music "The Gonk" played in the mall) for me.

As for the comparison between the two versions of Night
I didn’t like the transition of Barbara from coward to gungho hero. I agree she was just about useless in the original, so I can see why some people would appreciate the change. But first of all Talman really stunk up the place acting wise, plus I’m really tired of the Sarah Connors knock off heroine. Its possible to make a strong female character without making her kick ass. Plus they make Barbara look good at Ben’s expense, and nobody puts Tony Todd in the corner like that. For me the real problem though is they essentially remove any fear aspect to the zombies by having Barbara walk around them to escape. It basically plays right into every complaint people have about zombie movies.

[Tyrant]

As for the comparison between the two versions of NightI didn’t like the transition of Barbara from coward to gungho hero. I agree she was just about useless in the original, so I can see why some people would appreciate the change. But first of all Talman really stunk up the place acting wise, plus I’m really tired of the Sarah Connors knock off heroine. Its possible to make a strong female character without making her kick ass. Plus they make Barbara look good at Ben’s expense, and nobody puts Tony Todd in the corner like that. For me the real problem though is they essentially remove any fear aspect to the zombies by having Barbara walk around them to escape. It basically plays right into every complaint people have about zombie movies.

I didn't see her as a gung ho hero type (though I can see where someone would) for a few reasons not the least of which is that she didn't save the day. I saw it as someone who was thrown into a horrible situation and didn't just fall apart like a house of cards. As for Ben, I thought he was portrayed as a compassionate guy. He knew, just as she did, that they could walk past them but he wouldn't because of Harry's injured daughter. Even though Harry was a complete jerk, Ben wasn't going to just abandon them. That's admirable considering Harry would feed him to the zombies if it would help him. As for just walking past them, I liked it. It illustrated so well that the zombies were never the real threat and that had they simply worked together they probably could have all gotten out of there. Or most of them could have gone for help anyway. That was really the only part that was close to preachy for me, but that's a somewhat recurring theme in zombie movies (other people being the real threat) so I tend to assume it's going to crop up.