Leftovers of the Dead: Night of the Living Dead 3-D (2006)

Was this really necessary?  I mean, honestly?  The 1968 film Night of the Living Dead is considered by most to be a classic (I thought it was alright) and, due to a Copyright mix-up, has been available as a Public Domain film for decades.  On top of that, the film spun out a series of films, as well as a spin-off of that series, many remakes of those films and even a confusing side film that has nothing to do with anything.  Oh yeah, they also did a remake of it in 1990, making this the second remake!  So what's new here?  For one thing, no cast members are involved in this production (as far as I can tell).  Secondly, this is the 'modern' version of the tale, although they still cop-out on the cell phone thing.  Finally, this film was made in 3-D...an effect utilized about four times in the film.  Way to make people get headaches for almost no reward!  Prepare for the horror of blandness that is...

* Our lead heroine is pretty proactive here, a trait carried over from the 1990 film.  Her brother, however, doesn't die in the graveyard.  No, he leaves her to die and drives off.

* There's no black guy in the film.  I mean, I guess it's not a requirement, but replacing him with a Southern hick feels like an intentional thing.

* A whole sub-plot involves Sid Haig, since he's the biggest star here.  Unfortunately, this leads to the film's biggest problem...

* Pointless 3-D Shot!!!!

* They explain the zombie outbreak.  They do a half-ass job of it, but they still do it.  Haig's mortician has a fear of fire- ha ha- and stopped cremating the bodies.  In addition, he took in 'military stuff' in the big pile, leading to zombies.  Lame!

* Oh yeah, they watch Night of the Living Dead on television.  That's so stupid!

Pointless 3-D Shot #2!!!!

* In a shocking twist, Haig turns on your surviving heroes.  Why?  To feed his zombie father, who has been that way for two years.  How does nobody know about this?!?

* In a weird twist, our heroine just sort of gives up on life and dies.  Why?  This outbreak is localized.  Just leave and...never mind, you're dead.  The End.

Pointless 3-D Shot- FINAL!!!!

Is there any need for this movie?  The plot for this movie is mostly the same as the original, save for a lot of stupid changes.  Why did they explain the outbreak if they didn't have a good answer?  Why did they do the 'keep the same names, but change the characters' trope?  Why did the plot have to involve pot farmers?  If you wanted to make a 3-D version of the film, why not just do a real remake?  Instead, we got a bunch of stupid scenes tied together with a loose version of Romero's plot.  This movie just sucks- plain and simple.  If you want to see a colorized version of Night of the Living Dead, track down one of the 80 colorized versions.  If you want to see an updated version, watch the 1990 remake.  If you want to see how much worse a Romero film can be, watch this one.

Up next, an actually-good remake of a Romero film.  See the film that furthered the nerdiest Internet debate ever.  Stay tuned...