I wasn’t born yet when George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead was first released in theaters, but I’ve wished many a night that I was old enough to have seen this classic horror film on the big screen. Night of the Living Dead simply changed the film industry forever and showed that horror was taking an uncharted road toward realism, brutality, and true terror. Before Romero’s film, horror often echoed the classic 1940s Universal style or the technicolor Hammer Films. Night of the Living Dead became the torchbearer of what would soon evolve into the splatter and exploitation films of the following decades. The influence this film has had on horror filmmakers is still ongoing.
Zombie films existed long before Night of the Living Dead, but they mostly depicted the traditional Haitian voodoo variety—with zombies as heavily drugged victims forced into slave labor for merciless masters. Romero changed all that in 1968. Made on a shoestring budget even by the standards of the time, Romero and his friends decided to make their own horror movie. The premise was simple: radiation from a returning Venus probe (though later films in the series abandoned that explanation for something more vague) somehow reanimated the recently deceased—though these zombies only had the most basic motor skills. That alone was terrifying enough. But Romero took it further by giving the zombies a new motivation: an unending hunger for the flesh of the living. With this, Night of the Living Dead marked the birth of horror at its most extreme.
The story was heavily influenced by Richard Matheson’s apocalyptic vampire novel I Am Legend, and Herschel Gordon Lewis’ Blood Freaks and Two Thousand Maniacs. Matheson’s novel contributed the idea of an encroaching horror besieging the survivors, while Lewis’ films provided an unflinching portrayal of exploitative violence and gore. Lewis didn’t shy away from gore, but Romero was the first to put a solid story behind the carnage.
The film opens simply enough, with a brother and sister heading to a rural cemetery to visit their dead mother. Right away, it takes on a disturbing tone, as both siblings come under attack from what seems to be a transient. Barbara, played by Judith O’Dea, flees for her life, with her brother Johnny already down. The tension of the opening sequence still makes my pulse pound every time I watch it. Soon, the story introduces the strongest character: Ben, played by Duane Jones in what became his signature performance. But even as strong-willed and level-headed as Ben is, he shares flaws that lead to critical mistakes later. The rest of the cast follows: Harry Cooper (Karl Hardman), his wife Helen (Marilyn Eastman), their injured daughter Karen (Kyra Schon), and the local couple Tom (Keith Wayne) and Judy (Judith Ridley). As the farmhouse becomes surrounded by a growing horde of undead, attracted by their noise, you’d expect the group to band together to survive the night until help arrives. But instead, misunderstandings and bitterness divide them, escalating into open conflict and self-preservation without concern for others.
The infighting and inability to cooperate is Night of the Living Dead’s strongest message—a bleak reflection of human nature in times of upheaval. The characters are fully realized, complex, and rare for horror films of that era. Their realistic portrayal makes their conflicts hit harder. After watching them fall apart, it’s easy to judge them as foolish, but realistically, many others faced with the same pressure might behave just as destructively. Romero’s harsh commentary on humanity’s failure to unite has led to conflict throughout history, and the film points this out in the bluntest, most brutal way possible.
The horror of Romero’s film is intensified by an economic choice. Color film was available in the 1960s but still expensive; only major studios or wealthy independents could afford it. Romero instead used black and white, helped by his background in documentary filmmaking, which made film stock easier to procure. This gave Night of the Living Dead its signature cinéma vérité look—grainy, raw, and immediate, like 8mm home movies of the era. Combined with Romero’s economical editing and minimalist, bass-heavy soundtrack, the film gains a life of its own. Its creeping dread was so tangible, I’m surprised more viewers didn’t walk out when it first played. The horror lingered long after watching.
There really isn’t much to complain about this film. Horror fans were given a movie that went well beyond exploitation. It also opened the door for a new generation of filmmakers who saw that movies could be more than entertainment—they could express social, political, and economic truths of their era. Night of the Living Dead had it all. It told audiences young and old that the era of silly, fantastical horror was over, and a new wave of realistic horror was about to descend. It didn’t shy away from violence. Flesh was ripped from limbs; intestines and organs were shown being handled and devoured. This “Vietnamization” of film violence launched a new era in what filmmakers could depict. But in 1968, this was the kind of violence usually reserved for drive-in exploitation fare—and initial audiences were unprepared. Not just adults, but 11- and 12-year-olds saw this as part of Saturday morning double features. One moment they were watching Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers, the next they faced flesh-eating ghouls and damning social themes bombarding their minds.
1968 is now seen as a turning point in filmmaking history. Night of the Living Dead influenced not just horror directors but filmmakers in all genres. It’s no surprise the film lives in the Smithsonian National Film Registry as a work that reshaped filmmaking art. Decades later, it still shocks first-time viewers and delights devoted fans. Night of the Living Dead didn’t just usher in a new era of horror and cinema; it announced the arrival of a genuine guerrilla auteur, a master of his craft.
Through the Shattered Lens 
With all the disturbing moments and memorable scares in Night of the Living Dead, the thing that always sticks in my mind is the fact that, when all is said and done, Harry was right.
LikeLike
Yeah, that was a real kick in the gut especially for people who were probably rooting for Ben.
LikeLike
This is, hands down, Romero’s most effective work. The overrated “Dawn” 10 years later was more gruesome (toward the end) and was a debatably apt social satire, but it was not nearly as scary and disturbing as “Night”. NOTLD almost plays like the “found footage” style films of which we’ve seen perhaps a bit too many lately. The minimalist production, black and white appearance, and decidedly un-Hollywood cast make this film grittier and more visceral than the sequels. And Duane Jones is great in the lead role. Some of the scenes (i.e. – the one involving the young girl and her mother) are truly unsettling, and the ending just rips the floor out from under you. As the reviewer observed, this one stays with you long after the credits roll.
LikeLike
I agree with you that this is the most effective of the original trilogy. I think part of that comes from the fact that the film is so barebones. Romero and company didn’t have the money or the time to explore other avenues in storytelling. I think Dawn is still his most polished work. It’s horror is so close to being so existentialist that some people don’t really see it until the ultra-violent finale.
I always put Dawn ahead of Night in terms of overall execution, but then all three were done so well that one picking one over the other two won’ be wrong. My favorite of the three is actually Day. To me Day was pretty much Romero at his most nihilistic and pessimistic.
LikeLike
I think “Day” is unfairly maligned. I found it more engrossing than I had expected, based on some critiques I had read. The plot had advanced to a logical place, and the related issues were interesting.
I agree that the low budget of NOTLD worked in its favor.
I guess what I found a bit disappointing about “Dawn” was that it is almost a campy comedy, with some serious gore thrown in. I get the jab at consumerism, but it is less of a horror movie and more of a satirical social statement. Which is fine. One could say all of Romero’s zombie movies have that element to them, to varying degrees. I was just expecting a grimmer, scarier narrative and style. Since I saw it long after it was released, I did enjoy the 70’s vibe it had, which was apparent from the very beginning of the film.
LikeLike
I think Day gets less love from fans of the trilogy because it was such a downer. There was no one person that the audience could sympathize and feel for. I think this was done deliberately by Romero.
Again this goes into his take of trying to figure out why people just can’t work together for a common purpose to survive. I loved it just for that alone. It’s not very Hollywood and goes against generally accepted characterizations and storytelling techniques.
As for Dawn, it’s the most intellectual of the three and actually the hardest to figure out. Yeah, it is quite campy and comic book-like in most of it’s running time, but then I think that’s where the existentialist theme Romero was going for fail to latch onto people. Dawn was an existentialist horror and nightmare when one peels away the black humor and over-the-top gore/violence.
LikeLike
That’s a great analysis. Having established that, what did you rhink of the 2004 remake (Zack Snyder)?
LikeLike
I liked the Snyder remake. I’m not against remakes as long as they turn out well. Where Romero’s Dawn was more heady and gave much to chew on, Snyder’s was more action-horror. I know many who prefer the remake because it is faster-paced.
I will say that the opening 10 minutes is one of the best film opening sequences of the past 20-25 years. I just think that people who try to compare the original with this remake is trying to compare apples and oranges.
LikeLike
I agree with all of that. Snyder’s version was somewhat of an adaptation, thus creating the contrast and difficulty comparing you cited. Also, you have to assess a film in the context of the time at which it is released.
So if I may stray a bit further still from the original topic, given your stated reasons for liking “Day of the Dead”, what did you think of “The Mist”?
LikeLike
The Mist is another film I really, really love. Despite some flaws and over-theyop acting that film was very strong and definitely like Romero’s dead trilogy in that human instinct to fight hampers survival. Also, the film literally says that sometimes the best plans are not always the ones to keep people alive.
LikeLike
Agreed. It’s a great creature feature, as well as a great expose of human nature, and as the latter, on more than one level. And bringing the discussion full circle, like Night Of The Living Dead, it has a jolting ending that haunts the attic of your mind, and rattles its chains for a long time after the film has ended.
LikeLike
Pingback: Horror Classic Review: Night of the Living Dead (1968) | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Horror on The Lens: Night of the Living Dead (dir by George Romero) | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Lisa Reviews An Oscar-Nominated Horror Film: Jaws (dir by Steven Spielberg) | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Horror Film Review: Martin (dir by George Romero) | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Horror on the Lens: Night of the Living Dead (dir by George Romero) | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Happy Birthday, Arleigh! | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Horror on the Lens: Night of the Living Dead (dir by George Romero) | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: 10 Horror Films That Should Have Been Nominated For Best Picture | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Rest in Peace, George Romero | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Horror Scenes That I Love: Karma Get Revenge On Johnny In Night of the Living Dead | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Horror on the Lens: Night of the Living Dead (dir by George Romero) | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Lisa’s Week in Review: 3/19/18 — 3/25/18 | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: 16 Trailers In Honor of George Romero | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Lisa’s Week In Review: 7/16/18 — 7/22/18 | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: The TSL’s Horror Grindhouse: Diary of the Dead (dir by George Romero) | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Horror on the Lens: Night of the Living Dead (dir by George Romero) | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Lisa’s Week In Review: 10/28/19 — 11/3/19 | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: 4 Shots From 4 Films: Special George Romero Edition | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Film Review: There’s Always Vanilla (dir by George Romero) | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Horror Scenes That I Love: The Interview With The Chief From Night of the Living Dead | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Lisa’s Week In Review: 10/19/20 — 10/25/20 | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Book Review: Night of the Living Dead by John A. Russo | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Lisa Marie’s Week In Review — 10/25/21 — 10/31/21 | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Lisa Marie’s Week In Review: 6/27/22 — 7/3/22 | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Lisa Marie’s Week In Review: 10/31/22 — 11/6/22 | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Lisa Marie’s Week In Review: 10/28/24 — 11/3/24 | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Happy Birthday, Arleigh! | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Horror Film Review: The Hideous Sun Demon (dir by Tom Boutross and Robert Clarke) | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Horror Review: Dawn of the Dead (dir. by George A. Romero) | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Horror Review: Day of the Dead (dir. by George A. Romero) | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Horror On The Lens: Night of the Living Dead (dir by George Romero) | Through the Shattered Lens