An appropriate question arises when anyone remakes a classic movie. Why? Why would anyone wish to tamper with something beloved by fans? Sure, some have been pretty good, and there are a few masterpieces that surpass the originals, but most remakes do little but sully the reputation of their forefathers.
George Romero, on the other hand, had legitimate reasons for the 1990 remake of his 1968 classic, Night of the Living Dead. One, Romero barely made a nickle off of the original. It was tied up in litigation for a long time, and the movie was in the public domain since the dawn of VHS. Why shouldn't he try to get a few well-deserved bucks from his trendsetting film?
The other good reason ties to the first one. There was talk going around about a NotLD remake, so again, if it was going to happen anyway, he should be the one to do it. Romero's career wasn't exactly on fire at the time.
So Father George cooked up a deal with Menahem Golen--yes, one of the Cannon guys---and got the project off the ground. Tom Savini was brought in to direct from a new Romero screenplay.
Horror was on the downswing in 1990, and the Living Dead remake didn't set the box office aflame. I guess it made its money back, but critics were ruthless, and many fans were disappointed.
I missed this one in the theater and caught it on the day of its VHS release. I liked the movie, even if I wasn't blown away. I typically watch horror movies more than once, but I haven't seen it in all the nights, dawns, and days since then.
I finally saw Night '90 on DVD today. I still like it, with reservations.
I've heard the entire production was plagued with problems. Savini repeatedly described it as the worst experience of his life. The whole thing feels rushed. I can't fault Romero's dialogue, but the conversations between the characters feels forced and stagey.
On the plus side, the whole thing looks good, and Patricia Tallman alone makes the movie worth sitting through. She's closer to Weaver's Ripley than the shrinking violet Barbara from the original. Tony Todd is good in the Duane Jones role, and while I like Tom Towles, his performance is a little jerky.
The script wisely changes the shock ending of the original Night of the Living Dead. We'd seen that and it would no longer surprise audiences. A disquieting epilogue is used instead, with a crowd of Proud Boy types taking delight in torturing the living dead ghouls.
The gore effects are well done, but fairly minimal. The filmmakers were apparently trying to make a good story instead of a gorefest.
I could be more critical, but I had fun traveling back in time to an era where zombies were still fresh. The genre began to stink like rotting flesh in another decade or so. Nothing can ever replace the experience I had of seeing Night on a blurry TV set way back in the '70s, but Night of the Living Dead 1990 is a loving, polychromatic revision of the darkest night in horror history.
Written by Mark Sieber
George Romero, on the other hand, had legitimate reasons for the 1990 remake of his 1968 classic, Night of the Living Dead. One, Romero barely made a nickle off of the original. It was tied up in litigation for a long time, and the movie was in the public domain since the dawn of VHS. Why shouldn't he try to get a few well-deserved bucks from his trendsetting film?
The other good reason ties to the first one. There was talk going around about a NotLD remake, so again, if it was going to happen anyway, he should be the one to do it. Romero's career wasn't exactly on fire at the time.
So Father George cooked up a deal with Menahem Golen--yes, one of the Cannon guys---and got the project off the ground. Tom Savini was brought in to direct from a new Romero screenplay.Horror was on the downswing in 1990, and the Living Dead remake didn't set the box office aflame. I guess it made its money back, but critics were ruthless, and many fans were disappointed.
I missed this one in the theater and caught it on the day of its VHS release. I liked the movie, even if I wasn't blown away. I typically watch horror movies more than once, but I haven't seen it in all the nights, dawns, and days since then.
I finally saw Night '90 on DVD today. I still like it, with reservations.
I've heard the entire production was plagued with problems. Savini repeatedly described it as the worst experience of his life. The whole thing feels rushed. I can't fault Romero's dialogue, but the conversations between the characters feels forced and stagey.
On the plus side, the whole thing looks good, and Patricia Tallman alone makes the movie worth sitting through. She's closer to Weaver's Ripley than the shrinking violet Barbara from the original. Tony Todd is good in the Duane Jones role, and while I like Tom Towles, his performance is a little jerky.
The script wisely changes the shock ending of the original Night of the Living Dead. We'd seen that and it would no longer surprise audiences. A disquieting epilogue is used instead, with a crowd of Proud Boy types taking delight in torturing the living dead ghouls.
The gore effects are well done, but fairly minimal. The filmmakers were apparently trying to make a good story instead of a gorefest.
I could be more critical, but I had fun traveling back in time to an era where zombies were still fresh. The genre began to stink like rotting flesh in another decade or so. Nothing can ever replace the experience I had of seeing Night on a blurry TV set way back in the '70s, but Night of the Living Dead 1990 is a loving, polychromatic revision of the darkest night in horror history.
Written by Mark Sieber
The author does not allow comments to this entry
No comments