“There’s another one for the fire.”

Drake’s rating: This time with copyright!

Drake’s review: So if you’re a horror fan you probably already know this story, but for those who came in late here it is: Back in 1968, writer John Russo and director George A. Romero came together to create a horror film about the dead rising and feeding on the living. It was a stark film shot on a shoestring budget, with a mixed cast of amateur and professional actors, and both horrified and fascinated audiences then and now. It became the definitive zombie movie, and it laid the foundation for countless films, books, TV shows and comic books to come.

And that film was Night of Anubis.

Well, that was the original title, anyway, until wiser heads prevailed and changed the name of the film to be the much more macabre Night of the Flesh Eaters.

Which, yeah, also kind of sucked. So it was back to the drawing board once more, and the third time was the charm. Unfortunately, the overworked artist in charge of the title cards overlooked the simple fact that, in 1968, a proper copyright notice had to be posted on a film or else it went into the public domain upon its first exhibition. Which was exactly what happened to Night of the Living Dead. And unfortunately that copyright omission meant that the creators of that classic film saw very little in the way of profits from it.

So it was that Romero and Russo teamed once again in 1990 and, funded by former Cannon Films head honcho Menahem Golan, created a remake that would not only stave off unofficial efforts, but also guarantee some earnings for those involved. Now remakes of classic movies are almost always controversial, and this 1990 update of the original Night of the Living Dead is no exception. In fact, critics and fans alike latched onto the aforementioned monetary reasoning for the remake and ran with it, claiming that the 1990 film was nothing more than a money grab by all involved.

And that’s not exactly fair, given that filmmaking is a profit-driven business, for better or worse. Still, that stigma attached itself to 1990’s Night of the Living Dead with a particular intensity, and it quickly faded from view, becoming the black sheep of Romero’s zombie flicks, made even more illegitimate in most circles as it was not even directed by Romero himself but by renowned special effects wizard Tom Savini instead.

Still, there’s a nice horror film here. Following the original story, a woman named Barbara (Patricia Tallman, Army of Darkness) flees from her mother’s grave after her brother is murdered by a bloodthirsty ghoul. Coming across a man named Ben (Tony Todd, Candyman), the two take refuge in a farmhouse where they encounter several other people hiding from the oncoming zombie apocalypse, and conflicts ensue as the disparate survivors clash with each other as well as the ravenous undead.

So, pretty much the same film, right? Well, yes and no. The basics are there, but the struggles differ. The original Night of the Living Dead was foremost about the conflicts of the era. It was about the Vietnam War and the burgeoning Civil Rights movement. The microcosm of the clash inside the house, with the living versus the dead as well as the living versus each other, was a reflection of the tensions going on in the world outside of the movie theater.

In the 1990 film, the characters once again fight, argue and die, but the conflict is much more generalized. Ben and Harry Cooper (Tom Towles, House of 1000 Corpses) still hate each other, but it’s less about a racial divide and more about two guys who both want to be right, no matter the cost.

In a major departure from the original movie, it’s Barbara who takes the lead here. Fed up with the men’s infighting and arguing, she doffs her skirt in favor of pants*, grabs a rifle and starts blasting away. And you think, for a moment at least, as Barbara and Cooper’s wife Helen (McKee Anderson) take the initiative, that perhaps a battle of the sexes will ensue and take the place of the conflicts from the original film. But that never really happens, even though the foundation for it is sitting right there, just waiting for someone to capitalize on it.

It’s a missed opportunity, and it costs the film its depth. Lacking the significance of the original, 1990’s Night of the Living Dead is still a pretty darn good zombie film, but that’s all it is. And honestly, in and of itself that’s enough. It’s entertaining, it has some great effects and latex work and is one of the better horror remakes. But the remake of a classic forever has the Sword of Damocles hanging over its head, and simply being good will never be enough, especially in an age where the original is perpetually available.

It’s a fun zombie flick, to be sure, but at the same time it’s a missed opportunity to not only remake a classic, but to truly update its themes for a new audience. With that said, it’s still miles ahead of Romero’s post-Land of the Dead zombie films. I mean, a zombie going horseback riding? Geez, George…

*I have no idea if this is meant to be a symbolic gesture, or merely a practical one.

Intermission!

• So overall, I do like this movie. I think Patricia Tallman is terrific in it, but I just wish her part, especially her transformation from frightened bystander to capable asskicker, had been fleshed out. As it is, she’s screaming and crying, then the pants go on and POOF! She’s ready to throw down with man and zombie alike. I dunno, maybe those were +2 Pants of Bravery.
• Granted, Tom Savini himself has said that maybe 40% of the movie he wanted to make made it onto the screen, so it’s possible most of Barbara’s story was cut.
• “So, smart guy,” I hear you ask, “where does this one rank in the Romero zombie library?” Actually, it’s Justin asking me that, and he’s tapping me with a vanadium finger while he does it. As I bruise easily, I’ll go with middle of the pack. It’s not the top-tier watch that the original NotLD or Dawn of the Dead are, but it’s SO MUCH better than Diary of the Dead and (ugh) Survival of the Dead. It’s a pretty tight little zombie movie that doesn’t ask too much of the viewer, and it’s a very worthwhile popcorn flick.