Night of the Living Dead 3D (DVD, 2007)

This was a pretty good re-make of the original. The 3D was pretty awesome too. Especially the blood squirts! Its one to definately own if you are a major horror movie collector!

I have to say that at first I was a little skeptical but theres only been a few re-makes done right! But after watching this i was impressed!! I really enjoyed this movie and you will to..

I'm a huge fan of George A. Romero's Night Of The Living Dead and his sequels he's done for the past 40 years. Thanks to him, we truly know the horrific world of Zombies with great detail & know what a frightening place it can be trapped within. But due to a copyright snafu, anyone could release it, even as far as remaking it.

First a little history: back in 1998 Anchor Bay & John A. Russo decided to release a 30th Anniversary version of the classic, but instead of just re-releasing the same old print like every other DVD company, shot & added new footage in with the old, creating a new subplot that not only hurts the original film, but bastardizes the social commentary that was laid down in the first place. The fans were not pleased.

However when it came to complete remakes, at least someone got it right even before this. In 1990, with Romero's personal guidance and FX genius Tom Savini at the helm, they made a Night Of The Living Dead that stayed close to the original script giving those 90's audiences an update that not only they could be proud of, but better in some aspects of gore and production values. So after one well-done remake & one learning mistake in what not to do to a classic, could it ever be re-done again?

Apparently not. In 2006, with director Jeff "Corman Wanna-Be" Broadstreet in the chair, they decided to give it a go again, of course without any needed consent by Romero, but this time with a twist: Let's try to make it in 3D! 3D? Really? Sounds like a curious idea, but it truly falls flat here.

To be blunt NOTLD3D is a travesty. Shot on a non-existent budget, this has to be the worse "reimagining" of a movie since 2001's Planet Of The Apes. Sure, most of your favorite characters are here, but this time mixed around and played by actors who are so stiff, it's hard to tell them from the actual zombies. And the story is so slow and boring that it seems like a 3am viewing of something you'd expect to see on Sci-Fi channel. Also, while the gore factor on the '68 original was minimal at best, 36 years later you still don't see much, if anything at all, but not for MPAA reasons but financial ones, and in fact halfway through it I wondered why was this rated "R' in the first place. It's new plot-twists were lame, the sets boring, and the cameo by newly crowned Horror icon Sid Haig (who in my opinion isn't that big of a deal in the first place) is completely unnecessary that only helps in establishing that this was the ultimate in movie cash-ins.

So it's main appeal has to be it's 3D, right? Wrong. Instead of using 3D's latest technology Stereoscopic (that's with the "shades of gray"), they went with the outdated Anaglyphic type (red/blue) which in turn turns the entire movie into a purplish-hue mess. And don't expect anything to "jump" out at you. When it does work, and it's rare, it only gives backgrounds depth, meaning it makes your image look deeper, not closer. Also it should be noted, outside of the behind-the-scenes features, this whole disc is in 3D, meaning that without the glasses, it's unwatchable. There is NO 2D version on the disc included like it should have been (that version is released separately), so once those glasses go it's the ultimate coaster.

So to sum up, bad movie, bad 3D, bad idea. It was remade well already back in 1990, and eight years later was already given a gimmick that didn't work either. NOTLD3D is one dead movie that should have stayed buried.
(RedSabbath Rating:3.0/10)

Well i like the fact that its 3d and the 3d actually works with the glasses, i mean wow the zombie looked real. but i dont like the fact you cant turn off the 3d, so you have to get a 2d version if you want to watch it without the annoying cardboard glasses. I dont rate Remakes that well. THINK original PEOPLE, dont make any more remakes. KING KONG.. sucks, all remakes SUCK. make something new.. so anyways enough RANTING, movie is SO SO. good a few times but sits on the shelf waiting for the lonley rainy day.

The 3d effects are mediocre at best as most of the film is shot during the nighttime and visually it is a headache to watch.

I've also seen better acting in those after school specials that were aired during the 80's.

Avoid this movie at all costs. As a big fan of the zombie film genre I was tremendously dissapointed in this film.

I enjoyed this film only for the special effects and Sid Haig. The zombies looked great but the acting and the plot was terrible. Sid Haig was the only actor that was amazing.

Taken From The Zombie Memorabilia Website: ARCHIVES OF THE DEAD

This remake is quite good but not as good as original, hard to improve on a classic such as this. It was a lot of fun though, the 3D stuff really come at you sometimes. I would recommend this movie. Don't let the kids see it, kind of gory and some naked stuff.
Old Al from Florida

Big kudos to the seller for offering this curio at a reasonable used price.The only reason I haven't used it for a coaster is that I collect 3D films even if they stink and brother does this one have a foul aroma. Shot on a new 3D camera system that really only looks good polarized(non red and blue grey glasses)this sort of remake of the gut munching drive in classic does little but oslidify one's admiration of the original. Fan's of Sig Haig will be disapoint to find that he's only in a bout fiteen minutes of the movie and he doesn't nearly pile on the evil charm that he did in the Rob Zombie movies or his early Blaxploitation films. Most of the characters here get killed so easily that you would root for the zombies if they weren't so poorly done. There are some so-so attempts at gore and humour but most of the film falls flat on it's face and unlike the reanimated dead does not get up. Might be Okay on a drunken party night but otherwise a huge bummer.
The four star seller was wise to dump this in such a professional manner.

I felt this was a good remake, and was happy that this was not a formal remake. I have viewed both the 2D and 3D versions, and I enjoyed the storyline and character development. I decided to buy this item because I am a huge fan of the zombie genre, and Sid Haig always leaves a lasting impression in all the movies he has starred in. The support cast was decent-good, and I like that in the movie, they had footage of the original "Night of the Living Dead". If you are a Romero fan, if you've seen the original, the 25th anniversary edition, or the early '90's colorized version, then this offshoot is for you. I would love to see Rob Zombie do a remake as well, like he did with his stand alone production of "Halloween". Take Care.

Great movie, especially in 3d format. Zombies jumping out of your screen at you left and right. Could have been a little longer of a film, but i am sure that was due to budget issues. Still a great movie non the less!

I like zombie films, and I have nothing against remakes if they're done well. The 1990s remake of NOTLD with Tony Todd was better than the original in two respects: it was in color, and Barbara grew a backbone. I looked forward to the 2007 version, figuring the story would be even more up-to-date, but I was bitterly disappointed.

It starts out well, with the familiar scene of Barbara and Johnny driving through the cemetery. Then it degenerates into something from the 1970s. The women look like fugitives from a porno film and have little acting ability. One busty blonde has a gratuitous nude scene. The farmhouse is a marijuana farm, with everyone sitting around the TV getting high...it's actually jarring when characters mention cellphones, because cellphones didn't exist in the 1970s, and the film has the grainy look of a 1970s TV movie. One character is referred to as a "junkie," a term most twentysomethings would not use in 2007. A couple of times, zombies shuffle in through an open door, and the people shove them back out, sometimes getting bitten in the process. The rest of the time, the people sit around talking and getting high. The sense of immediate danger that comes across so well in both the original and the 1990s remake is totally missing here. The characters are pretty safe unless they are stupid enough to go outside, approach a zombified loved one, or follow the Zombie Master to his lair. Fortunately for horror fans, the characters are indeed that stupid; otherwise, the film would be completely lacking in gore.

This version does add one element missing from the first two versions: The Zombie Master. Yes, we get an explanation for why the dead are rising and who's behind it all! Unfortunately, it's a really lame explanation and the Zombie Master plays it for laughs, so the audience has a hard time believing he's evil enough, or smart enough, to raise zombies. Summary: If you liked the other versions, you'll want to watch this one, but I doubt you'll want to watch it more than once.

Really, REALLY BAD !!! If scary, creepy movies turn you on, you will be left limp with boredom. It seems that any time you see Sid Haig in a movie, you can rest assured that it will be a stinker, with the possible exception of, maybe, House of A Thousand Corpses. The 3D sucks. Save your $$$ !!! As Nancy Reagan said, "Just Say No!".

I love scary movies, and particularly zombie flicks.But I've yet to watch a film that can surpass Romero's remake of Night of the Living Dead(1990).

So to make this short and sweet for you, other than the fact that it's in 3D, there is really no point in seeing this unless you are captivated by horrible acting,horrible dialogue, involvement of weed,and 3D.

Also even the 3D is terrible, the stereoscopic projection is nothing to be amazed by when watching this film. Like many of us, the glasses will also give you headaches and eye strain after watching for 5 minutes. I've been wanting to try it out with the glasses that they give you when watching 3D movies in the theaters. But I've been too lazy and have no desire to even pick up the movie again to test it out, even for a minute.

That's how bad it is,I was curious about this movie, and I should've known what I was getting into. Anyways none the less, it was an experience that I hope to never have again.

I have always been interested in 3D movies, ever since back in the 50s when they really first began in earnest, but with the polarized lenses, not the cheap make over with red and green lens, as as with this movie. The graphics were below average, and due to the fact that it was practically all night scenes, not very well in its use of 3D. Now if you want to see one that will knock your socks off, go see "My Bloody Valentine" which was recently released in theaters. Hope that one makes it into DVDs. This one may have been better had it been polarized, so I'll try looking around and see if there are any in that version.