| Overall Grade: |
C- |
|
| Story: |
C |
|
|
| Acting: |
D |
|
|
| Direction: |
C- |
|
|
| Visuals: |
C |
|
|
A "Cult Classic" Doesn't Guarantee a Good Movie
by M.E.H (movies profile)
Apr 21, 2008
19
of
36 people found this review helpful
I'm not exactly sure how this movie became a cult classic. Perhaps it's because of how cheesy everything is. Or maybe the fact that this is apparently the inspiration for every zombie movie to be made since 1968 is what makes this such a "cult classic." Then again, the 1960s is when marijuana started to become popular, so that might explain the popularity of "Night of the Living Dead."
The story is sort of stupid, but for a horror movie, it isn't too bad. Basically, the dead are coming back to life after a probe returns from Venus with a high amount of radiation. Obviously, biology isn't the typical screenwriter's forte, but we all know that in order to physically function, the radiation would have needed to affect the heart and the lungs of a dead body as well as the brain. But I digress. By today's standards, "Night of the Living Dead" is really moronic.
The acting is especially bad. With the exception of Duane Jones as Ben, the characters are REALLY, REALLY, REALLY annoying. You're not supposed to find yourself apathetic when zombies get certain people. Everyone hams it up, but there's nothing added to flimsy characters. Laughing at how dialogue is spoken and how some of the characters react isn't a precedent that a "cult classic" should set.
Part of the blame for the acting lies with the direction. Instead of focusing so much on making the zombies look cool, George Romero should have given his actors (amateurs) better guidance with regard to the idiosyncracies of the characters. Since Romero is also the writer, he could have found a way to make the execution of dialogue seem realistic instead of appearing as if it's staged in a cheesy zombie movie. A lot is said when the zombies outact most of the main characters. Worst of all, this movie commits the sin of feeling overlong, in spite of clocking in at an hour and a half! Can we say "condensation," Mr. Romero?
The visuals are what everybody raves about when discussing the merits of "Night of the Living Dead." For its time, the make-up is really good. The rest, particularly the synchronization of the spoken words with lips moving, leaves a lot to be desired. Obviously the budget is really small, but shouldn't there be a priority placing synchronization higher up than at the bottom of the barrel?
Overall, "Night of the Living Dead" is a horrible disappointment. The movie doesn't match its hype and is almost painful to watch. The lesson I've come out of this with is that just because a movie is considered a "cult classic" doesn't mean that it's going to be a good movie or even a mediocre movie. To me, "Night of the Living Dead" falls somewhere between mediocre and awful. The visuals, plot, and acting show a poor effort on almost everybody's part. Consequently, I've given this movie a "C- grade." |
My Public Profile 
