Night of the Living Dead 3D (2D Version) (2006)

There was no reason to make this film. Just because you can doesnt mean you should. Surprisingly, this cheap cash-in hit theaters before the 3D craze, but its performance matched its quality. Now, the zombie make-up isnt as bad as many would lead you to believe, and there are a few moderate gore scenes, but make no mistake that this is a terrible, terrible film. There isnt a single unscripted or relateable character in the entire cast, and there certainly arent any significant changes made to the plot that warrant a third attempt on the original. Though this viewing was in ground-breaking 2D instead of the intended 3D, the gimmicky trend should only serve to enhance the viewing experience rather than having the entire film rely on it. Since it wasnt any good in 2D, one can only assume it would have been bad in 3D outside of a few presumably underwhelming effects. The film should have been called "NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD 3F." Fail. Zombie films that are worse than it: RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 4, HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2. Films that are better: All.

Rating: 5/10.
Gore: 5/10.
Number of views: 1.

HorrorBlips: vote it up!


  1. I agree, this film was totally pointless. Not sure what the producers thought they were cashing in on. If Romero and co. couldn't cash in on a NotLD remake in '90, what made these douches think they could? But 5/10, really? I would give it a 2, and that's solely based on Sid Haig's performance.

  2. was this one with Sid Haig?

    if it was then i saw it too and it made my brain sad.

  3. A 5 is a solid Fail in my book, something has to reach an all time effortless and carelessness in order to earn a fair 2, but that being said a 5 is giving the filmmakers a lot of credit that may be undue.

    Wiec this is most certainly the Sid Haig film, its just too bad I didnt get to see him in his full 3D glory