Night of the Living Dead

Don't waste time by drawing comparisons between Romero's black-and-white original and Savini's spoofy vision. Romero's work, shocking at the time mostly because of its extreme gore and bleak finale, seems dated and narrow when viewed now. Savini's Night of the Living Dead, with its phosphorescent colors and loopy, frenetic pacing, is vastly more entertaining. [19 Oct 1990, p.12]

The film can't simply be discounted as a skim job on the original; Romero's dark social commentary, which grew in impact over his entire Dead trilogy, is still very much present here, even if it no longer has the same bite and urgency. Read full review

The story faithfully follows the original except for the bonehead decision to replace the ending with a ‘meaningful’ twist that reeks of pretentiousness. Read full review

The primary difference between the original and the remake is that the latter is in color, though a deliberately subdued color. In addition, the zombies created by Everett Burrell and John Vulich, are far more elaborate than those in the first film. Read full review

Particularly because Savini obviously feels a responsibility to the original, it's impossible for this new film to unfold with any sense of discovery or surprise. It's almost all just at the level of dutiful replication. [19 Oct 1990, p.35]

It's still a sick kick to see the little girl (with braces, no less) sink her teeth into her own mother. But doing a Sunset of the Dead might have been a more appetizing idea. [23 Oct 1990, p.6D]

Romero's remake jettisons just those qualities that lent class to the 1968 original. [5 Nov 1990, p.79]

Romero and his original partners apparently made no money from the original, and Romero admitted to the Wall Street Journal that the reasons for remaking the film were "purely financial." It shows...This Night of the Living Dead is resurrected, but it's never brought to life. Read full review