Night of the Living Dead (1968)

PRESS

1968

Film Daily 21 October 1968 p.7 (USA)
This is a pearl of a horror picture (…) At times the film is shocking in its display of the horrible. Those with queasy stomachs will find some of what goes on in the picture hard to take. There is (sic) a number of scenes that perhaps go too far in their realism… Streiner and Hardman produced the film effectively with a keen eye to boxoffice values. George A. Romero directed excitingly from a screenplay by John A. Russo marked with considerable skill. The performances are good, with Jones and Hardman carrying the burden of the acting. Both are standouts. - Lous (sic) Pelegrine

Motion Picture Herald vol.238 no.44 (30 October 1968) p.54 (USA)
(I)t's not really too bad for a horror movie (…) It has a few somewhat effective moments, when Duane Jones, for example, as the organizer-hero, dies at the hands of those sent to save him, or one or two of the ghoul scenes. But there are also overplayed, bad taste scenes of hollow-eyed deads gorging on limbs and bones… The horror film buff will probably like this film; the general audience will not be greatly excited… Night of the Living Dead may cause a few memorable moments, as many from nauseating flesh-eating as from calculated film work, at least. - Tony Vellela

Variety 16 October 1968 p.6 (USA)
Until the Supreme Court establishes clearcut guidelines for the pornography of violence, Night of the Living Dead will serve nicely as an outer-limit definition by example. In a mere 90 minutes, this horror film (pun intended) casts serious aspersions on the integrity and social responsibility of its Pittsburgh-based makers, distrib Walter Reade, the film industry as a whole and exhibs who book the pic, as well as raising doubts about the future of the regional cinema movement and about the moral health of filmgoers who cheerfully opt for this unrelieved orgy of sadism… No brutalizing stone is left unturned; crowbars gash holes in the heads of the "living dead," people are shot in the head or through the body (blood gushing from their back), bodies are burned, monsters are shown eating entrails and - in a climax of unparalleled nausea - a little girl kills her mother by stabbing her a dozen times in the chest with a trowel and the remainder of the cast (living living that is) suffer similar disgusting fates. While all these set-pieces are staged with zestful realism, the rest of the pic is amateurism of the first order… John A. Russo's screenplay is a model of verbal banality and suggests a total antipathy for his characters (particularly the women, all blithering idiots), if not for all humanity. On no level is the unrelieved grossness of Night of the Living Dead disguised by a feeble attempt at art or significance. - Beau (real name: Lee Beaupre)

1969

Interview vol.1 no.4 (1969) p.23 (USA)
Night of the Living Dead may well be the only horror film in the world that is actually horrible… There are so few flaws that lingering on them would be meaningless. The point of the film is to terrify, and it does because of the screenplay by John A. Russo, masterful camerawork and direction by George A. Romero, and performances, all by unknowns, that perfectly create conflict and suspense… Some people laugh when the film ends, but not because it is funny or badly done. They laugh because they can't believe what they have seen. Some leave silently, looking as though they're about to vomit… Night of the Living Dead was re-released recently as a co-feature. It should open at an art house and run for at least a month, because it is a work of art. - George Abagnalo

Kine Weekly no.3241 (22 November 1969) p.22 (UK)
There is a touch of the horrific here in the supposed eating of human flesh but on the whole it is just a simple and rather crude piece of sensationalism (...) With a handful of zombie-like creatures, a few hideous masks and a skull in the cupboard, this flight of fancy is a shocker only for the very easily impressed (...) (I)t is altogether too far fetched to be taken seriously and, for the great majority, it is likely to fall somewhat flat. It may conceivably satisfy those who are attracted by the title. (...) The Overall atmosphere is suitably sombre.

1970

Films and Filming vol.17 no.3 (December 1970) pp.53, 56 (UK)
The pace is sharp and the tension unrelentless, and the standard techniques of introducing calmer moments to sooth the nervous system has produced all the desired effects. We are made to endure for longer than is normal, the ordeal of its nightmarish sequences, but these superbly sustained moments never weaken. Courage has abounded in the making of this film and the risks have yielded high dividends… Romero makes a strong case for the value of the horror film as a suitable vehicle for sound dramatic expression. The film successfully achieves the sought after heights of artistic integrity without carrying the burden of pretence, and completely satisfies all the demands made upon it within the narrow limits of its production… The film is modest in its intentions, but manages to go deep without pursuing a course of either warnings or messages, it only waves a flag for the cult it embodies. Its title does little to draw attention to itself as it does not distinguish enough from others of its type. But like so many other films of today which are worthy of attention, it will stand a chance if you see it and pass the word around. - Richard Weaver

Monthly Film Bulletin vol.37 no.432 (January 1970) pp.8-9 (UK)
Despite a shaky start and a few subsequent lapses occasioned by the manifestly minimal budget, this is probably the best and most minatory example of invasion by mutant since Village of the Damned and Invasion of the Body Snatchers… Conventional expectations are flouted all the way: our heroine remains transfixed throughout, barely uttering an intelligible word; the resourceful hero (a Negro, to boot) does everything that a good hero should and yet his every act leads his charges further into disaster; the juveniles, a pair of handsome young lovers, are burned into a cinder in an exploding truck almost as soon as they take their rightful places in the story; and even when civilization shows its resourcefulness in getting the better of the invaders, human failings still call the tune as a sharp-shooter, demonstrating his skill as though enjoying an early morning duck-shoot, draws a casual bead on the last survivor. It would be a pity to invite deception by making too much of a film which is modest in every way (functional direction and camerawork, above average acting only from Duane Jones), but it is a real pleasure to see science fiction having the courage of its convictions, and also having the good sense not to trumpet its implications but to let them emerge naturally. - Tom Milne

Sight and Sound vol.39 no.2 (Spring 1970) p.105 (UK)
How can such a tale be worthy of attention? We apply to comedies for chuckles; if you do like horror films, this may well be the most horrifying ever made. Romero was offered a budget for colour; he preferred shooting in black and white; the result is a flat murky ambience which is perfect for the ramshackle American Gothic landscape where the events occur. He eschews comic relief, explanatory scientists, romance, distractions of any sort - all the conventional elements usually tacked on to horror films to relieve tensions and which usually merely dilute interest… Perhaps the secret of our involvement in this grainy Grand Guignol is to be found in a recent interview with Romero. He states: "Most of the people were actually from the small town we shot in … we had quite a bit of co-operation from people here in the city - the police and city fathers… happy to have guns in their hands." Who are these ghouls, who are these saviours, all of them sop horrifying, so convincing, who mow down, defoliate and gobble up everything in their path? In the film a local TV station sends out a warning message: "The ghouls are ordinary people… but in a kind of trance." (Indeed, some of them are just little old ladies in tennis shoes and runny make-up.) Many of these ordinary people, in all the trance-like security of their "silent majority" can be seen these days, afternoons at 2.30 evenings at 8, clutching hard tickets and cramming their popcorn in front of a large Broadway screen where Fox's Patton is doing landoffice business. - Elliot Stein

1971

L'Incroyable Cinema no.5 (Autumn 1971) pp.4-6 (UK)
So much of this film is superb, that it is difficult to single out any one aspect for praise. The acting and characterisation do much to convey the story as authentic, not just plausible. This is certainly helped by the direction, which, coupled with the camera work and lighting is what gives it the classic touch. Camera angles and movement are perfect, giving at times a "really there" newsreel effect and at others a nightmare quality… There are periods of sheer, nerve jangling terror, which are prolonged almost to a point where the audience begins to feel the strain. They are interspersed with periods of uneasy calm when many of the audience are groping for cigarettes or fresh finger nails. - Ray Lesenger

1999

Starburst no.256 (December 1999) p.65 (UK)
credits, illustrated review of 30th Anniversary Edition (by Alan Jones)
Filled with subtle irony, documentary-style realism, trendy anti-American statements and graphic gore for the era, Night of the Living Dead powerfully broke the quaint Hammer mould of the Sixties and made Horror grow up. - Alan Jones

2000

Empire no.130 (April 2000) p.146 (UK)
The horror that spawned two sequels (and there's now talk of a third), one re-make and countless, inferior imitations is, and always shall be, forever and ever, the pinnacle of zombie movies. Terrifying in its simple audacity, it boasts some of the most heart-stopping moments ever committed to celluloid. God bless George A. Romero

2001

Starburst no.269 (January 2001) pp.86-87 (UK)
George A. Romero's 1968 debut is regarded as a release which shaped a whole new wave of Horror. Certainly it was influential, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's aged well, and this watches more like an episode of the original Twilight Zone (especially thanks to the black and white footage) than cutting edge Horror… As a psychological Horror, this does have its value, but then that's not what Night is known as, Its reputation as gore pioneer is frankly baffling. - Ian Atkins

Last Updated: 15 October, 2008