Thursday, February 7, 2013

Top Ten Reasons Why I Don't Recommend 'Night of the Living Dead 3-D: Reanimation'

I was going to write a review for this film, but I don't feel like it.  Why?  Well, this movie is terrible.  Seriously, I did not like it.  For those of you who don't know, here's a basic summary.  In 1968, George A. Romero made the seminal classic Night of the Living Dead.  However, a legal snaffu rendered his Copyright on the film moot, putting it into the Public Domain.  So, in 1990, he helped put together a Remake, which was actually Directed by Tom Savini.  It's good.  In 2006, a guy named Jeff Broadstreet made ANOTHER Remake called Night of the Living Dead 3-D.  This is not to be confused with Night of the Living Dead: Origins 3-D, a film that's apparently in Production.  In 2012, he made a sequel...I think called Night of the Living Dead 3-D: Reanimation .  This is not to be confused with Night of the Living Dead Re-Animated, a 2009 film that pays homage to the original, nor is it to be confused with Night of the Livind Dead: Resurrection, an Indy film.  It seems to show the outbreak happening for the first time, so it may actually be a Remake.  I'd diagram it more...but I really don't care.  This film has a ton of problem- just in the first half alone.  Yes, I stopped watching after 46 minutes, so for all I know Jesus Christ himself comes down and saves all of our sins.  Oh well.  Rather than do a review, here's a list of reasons to avoid this film (which is on Streaming via Netflix right now)...
1. Why is this a thing?  Seriously, why remake a Remake of a Remake of a good film.  It just makes you seem like you only have one idea- George A. Romero's!
2. The Brothers.  While I don't hate Andrew Divoff and I like Jeffrey Combs, they do not look like brothers.  This is a big distraction from your two better actors.  That leads me to this point...

3. The Other Actors.  Look, I don't really hate Sarah Lieving.  The problem is that she never really shows any range.  In this film, she really just looks judgmental and/or confused.  Oh and the other people at the Morgue are not interesting- at all.
4. Sarah Palin?!?  Seriously, there's a sub-plot involving a character called Sister Sarah on Fix News.  This is where I go to for my political commentary- a Remake of a bad movie which was a Remake of a good movie!
5. The bad, unfunny Satire.  Seriously, Fix News?  That wouldn't pass for a fake parody of Fox News.  They have a scene which the characters use the phrase 'Teabaggers' (which is funny), as if that is a relevant and new in 2012.  In 2010, sure.  Now...not so much.  Later, Combs (who's stuck with most of the 'humor' here) references 'The Grudge Report.'  You changed one letter- that's not clever!

6. Zombie Non-Action.  I can't speak for the rest of the film, but there's almost NO action in the first half.  There are- I believe- two or three kills involving Zombies in that whole part.  It's build-up, yes, but you did want people to finish your film right?  Speaking of which...

7. Hurray for 3-D?  Granted- I didn't watch this film in 3-D.  If I wanted a headache, I'd just get drunk and hung over.  That said, it's easy to spot a 'made for 3-D' scene in a film (i.e. half of Tin-Tin).  How many are in the first half of this movie?  One.  Yeah.  Sure getting your money's worth on that Blu-Ray 3-D purchase, huh?
8. Let's stop the Plot.  While the 'brothers' are discussing the Zombie problem, the rest of the main Cast is getting high.  Lieving imagines the guy they were preparing for his Funeral getting up and smoking pot with them.  The point of this is...what?  You almost have no plot, so by all means stop that cold.
9.  The Plot.  Remember that whole thing from Night of the Living Dead 3-D where Sid Haig made zombies by burying them with toxic waste?  Well, that's the plot of this one too.  I gave this the benefit of the doubt as a sequel, but their dad isn't Sid Haig.  So yeah, this is just a rehash...of a dumb story.  Seriously, this sucks.

10. Meta Writing for the Win!  The straw that broke the camel's back is a scene where Combs talks about Zombie Outbreak Conspiracies.  He mentions Outbreaks in 1968, 1978, 1985 and 1990.  Yes, they're referencing Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Return of the Living Dead and the Remake of Night.

One- note how they ignore Day of the Dead, as it's about A WORLD-WIDE OUTBREAK, but do include Return, which itself says that Night happened, but not Dawn.  Also note that three of those films had no explanation for the Zombies.

The real kicker, though, is when Combs asks if they are fast or slow Zombies.  When told that they are slow, he replies 'Oh, Romero Zombies.'

You can't pull that crap unless you're supposed to be a real Comedy.  This is just...crap.

So, in summary, do something else with your 46 minutes.  It will be better spent than mine.  Feel free to tell me if the rest of the movie is better.  I doubt it.

Next up, one Frank Henenlotter film deserves another.  After a (crap) Zombie film, how about one about brains?  Stay tuned...


  1. I didn't enjoy the movie either, and stopped paying attention around the time you stopped watching, but I can help on one point: This is supposed to be a prequel to Broadstreet's 2006 NOTLD 3D. Andrew Divoff is playing the same character Sid Haig did.

  2. To quote Hermes from 'Futurama': 'That just raises more questions!

    Seriously, this is a Prequel. That makes perfect sense, given that Haig seems surprised about the Zombies in the 2006 film.

    It all comes make me even more confused.

    By the way, Divoff is playing Haig? What happens to him to possibly make him look so different?!? :-)