Nigel P This doom-laden cheap and nasty production comes from Andrew Jones, who produced and co-wrote it. Jones is a prolific film-maker who has made a name for himself producing micro-budget horrors through North Bank Entertainment; his most successful projects involve demonic doll 'Robert', who has starred in three films so far, with more to come. His productions polarise opinions – on the whole, I've enjoyed them, with only 'Silent Night, Bloody Night: The Homecoming' and 'The Amityville Asylum' (both 2013) disappointing. 'Resurrection' is one of his first productions, and as such, has mixed results – and it IS nasty.In common with low-budget projects, the sound levels are erratic. Loud moments are followed with very softly spoken dialogue that is occasionally incoherent. Lee Bane, who stars in many Jones productions, is sadly guiltier of this than anyone, although his indecipherable ruminations are hardly the fault of the actor. He plays Kevin, a member of a fairly dysfunctional family, even without the influence of the current apocalypse.He's married to pregnant Jenny (Rose Granger), but seemingly having an affair with her young sister. There's Mum and Dad too, and a teenage son. The influx of living dead only add to the complications.One thing that annoyed me about this is that the characters seemingly know that once you are bitten, you become a zombie. This ruling is either forgotten or disregarded adding to the jeopardy, but making the characters inconsistent and seemingly stupid.Interestingly, however, the 'normals' outside pose an even bigger threat. Dad Terry travels alone at night to get help (always inadvisable) and meets a group of these thugs, who have taken the law into their own hands. Rather than run them down, he stops, something that doesn't him any favours.This is a mixed bag, really. There are scenes of gore that turn the stomach, and Director James Plumb makes the most of his lack of budget to produce a raw, grainy, unglamorous horror show.In a a vague homage to the Romero original, the character of Ben (Sule Rimi) seems destined to be the hero of the piece with a knowledge and resolve that would appear to earmark him as a main player. Like the Ben featured in 'Night of the Living Dead (1968)', played by Duane Jones, he is also unexpectedly shot and killed when the others mistake him for a zombie.

navarrolisandra Where to start... 1) Very little zombie action, which is a terrible crime. 2) Very poor story line. Sometimes nothing was happening and it was hard to stay awake , and others time too much was happening and it was hard to understand (though most of the time nothing good was happening. 3) The actors were not convincing at all, and if anything made the movie worse... (Which I was surprised that was even possible!) 4) George A. Romero would be very displeased. (honestly how can you pay tribute to such a classic movie with such distasteful content) All in all, there was absolutely nothing good/positive I could possibly say about this movie. DO NOT waste your time. It's just that BAD. You would be better off watching night of living dead 3D.

Michael_Elliott Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection (2012)* 1/2 (out of 4) Ultra low-budget film about some family members trying to survive inside their home while there are zombie attacks going on outside. This film was shot in Wales, which is one reason why it stands apart from countless other rips of the George A. Romero classic. Those expecting or wanted a direct remake are going to be disappointed because this is yet another case where the title is simply being used to gain some attention and push some added sales or rentals. I guess you can't blame them for using the title since there's no question that it's going to get the attention they need. With that said, I really didn't find this to be as horrible as many others did. Yes, the low-budget certainly doesn't do any favors for the film but then again, should this be an excuse since Romero was able to do so much with so little? I think there are a couple good things going on here and that includes the first big twist that happens in the story. I'm going to avoid spoiling this for those who do decide to watch the film but the rug is pulled out from the viewer and it caught me off guard. The second thing I liked about the picture is the fact that they did try to do something new instead of just giving us stuff we've seen countless times before. I'm sure a direct remake would have been much easier but the filmmakers went for something different. That "new" thing doesn't always work for a couple reasons. One is that these characters keep getting bitten because they do incredibly stupid things, which just get annoying after a while. Another issue is that the family issues that get so much attention just aren't all that memorable or good enough for you to care about them. There's also a moral debate on if zombies or humans are more evil but I'll leave that up to you. The performances aren't all that bad, there are some good gore effects and the pacing really isn't as bad as one might expect. Still, this film is only going to be for those who must see every zombie film out there.

Paul Magne Haakonsen Well first of all, I don't really understand how this movie could even be allowed to carry the title "Night of the Living Dead", as it was a weak movie in comparison to Romero's timeless classic.And how the movie have managed to score such a low rating, doesn't really come as a surprise, because this movie was nothing overly impressive. When I first heard about the movie I was thrilled, and had my hopes up. Why? Well, because of the title "Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection", it does have some big shoes to fill out, but it failed horribly to do so.The story was simple and easy to follow, but it was rather pointless and didn't really peak at any point, and it didn't really throw any bones to the audience - in overall, a very uninspiring movie experience.For a zombie movie, then there were surprisingly few zombies in the movie. And those that were there, weren't particularly scary, threatening or zombie-like. Apparently when you die, your eyes become shrouded by horribly fake contact lenses. That was just hilarious. The contact lenses they had opted to put into the eyes of some of the zombies wasn't even remotely anything near those milked-over eyes of the deceased - it was party contact lenses at best.The acting in the movie was nothing spectacular, and it was clear that it was a low budget semi-amateurish movie, because it was like watching inadequately trained stage thespians trying to take their talent to the big screen.Effects-wise and gore-wise, then "Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection" is nothing spectacular or particularly impressive. It didn't really make much use of either special effects or gore. So for all us gore-hounds, then our depraved cravings is better satisfied elsewhere.However, for a low budget movie, then "Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection" isn't amongst the worst of low budget movies. There are far more questionable and ridiculous zombie movies out there. Just don't get your hopes up for this movie - as I did - you'll crash and burn fast and hard on this one.I am giving this movie a 4 out of 10 rating because it was a good-hearted attempt at making a zombie movie on an amateurish level. The movie did have some good points here and there as well, but it just had set itself too far up by brandishing the "Night of the Living" title. Perhaps the movie should just have been named "Resurrection" or something else without the "Night of the Living Dead" title.