Which version of Night of the Living dead is best?

[uscmbuzz]

Ok now as far as the original "night of the living dead movie " which version is the best to buy.. I heard there was a color version which I would think was neat.. but then there is a version that the ending was changed or something and I have heard avoid it like the plague.. very confusing.. can anyone shed some light on the versions.. Thanks..

 

[RJMacReady16]

From wiki:

The first revisions of Night of the Living Dead involved colorization by home video distributors. Hal Roach Studios released a colorized version in 1986 that featured ghouls with pale green skin.[80] Another colorized version appeared in 1997 from Anchor Bay Entertainment with grey-skinned zombies.[81] In 2004, Legend Films produced a new colorized version. Technology critic Gary W. Tooze wrote that "The colorization is damn impressive", but noticed the print used was not as sharp as other releases of the film.[82] In 2009, Legend Films coproduced a colorized 3-D version of the film with PassmoreLab, a company that converts 2-D film into 3-D format.[83] This version will receive a full theatrical release in Europe, followed by a limited theatrical release in the United States[84] According to Legend Films founder Barry Sandrew, Night of the Living Dead is the first entirely live action 2-D film to be converted to 3-D.[85][86]

In 1999, co-writer John A. Russo released a modified version called Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary Edition.[87] He filmed additional scenes and recorded a revised soundtrack composed by Scott Vladimir Licina. In an interview with Fangoria magazine, Russo explained that he wanted to "give the movie a more modern pace".[88] Russo took liberties with the original script. The additions are neither clearly identified nor even listed. However, Entertainment Weekly reported "no bad blood" between Russo and Romero. The magazine, however, quoted Romero as saying, "I didn't want to touch Night of the Living Dead".[89] Critics panned the revised film, notably Harry Knowles of Ain't It Cool News. Knowles promised to permanently ban anyone from his publication who offered positive criticism of the film.[90] A sequel called Children of the Living Dead followed in 2001.[91]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Living_Dead#Revisions

Just can't beat the 1990 version though.

 

[preeny101]

Go original. B/W FTW

 

[GrueSam]

 

[Dash]

BW all the way.

 

[karamazov80]

The 1990 version was directed by Tom Savini and starred Candyman. What could go wrong??

 

[GrueSam]

It's good but I absolutely adore the orig.
And it truly was original!

 

[furystorm]

Original black and white!

 

[cr0w]

Original B&W. I don't know what DVD versions are out there now, but a few years ago I picked up the Millennium Edition, linked here.

https://www.amazon.com/Night-Living-Millennium-Chilly-Cardille/dp/B00005Y6Y2

This is, hands down, the best DVD version I've found yet. Stay far, far away from the 30th anniversary edition, which featured added scenes and such, which was a piece of garbage.

 

[Darth Waller]

Here's a comparison of the different DVD versions of the original movie. I hope the US gets a Blu-ray release soon.

https://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare5/nightlivingdead.htm

 

[NosferatuBill36]

They are both good, but I PREFER Tony Todd's version of "Ben" and the film's version of "Cooper" over the original.

Either one is great. Can't go wrong.

 

[cr0w]

The remake is a very, very good film. I prefer it to the original, myself. Mainly because Barbra in the original is a friggin' annoying idiot harpy.

 

[Bezzerkerr]

I own and have seen the B & W & the 1990 SAvini remake about 5-10 Xs each.

I prefer the SAVINI remake, but an argument can be made for the original

 

[King Darkness]

Savini's remake was the first version I saw so for me its the go to. I saw the original sometime after and while it is THE classic zombie movie I still prefer Savini's remake.

 

[GrueSam]

I hear ya, King- and on the flipside is that if you'd seen the orig first, loved it and then watched it many many times, then you can appreciate a great remake but it is still 'just a remake'...

 

[uscmbuzz]

wow I didnt expect 4 responses much less 14 thats great thanks for all the help guys.. yea the reason the question came up is I was at a resale shop yesterday and found the "GoodTimes" digitallyremastered version for $3 and was gonna buy it cuz its better then my $1 store version from Digiview. Then my buddy tells me on the phone It probably aint much better . YOu dont need several versions of the same movie get the color version . Relizing I already have the different remakes and such I figured I would leave it and try and find out about the improved versions of the movie.. so yalls responses are much appreciated..Thanks..

Ofcoarse I also feel like an idiot as I always enjoyed the B/W version and a digitally remastered version I would probably like.. argh..I shoulda bought it.. I knew it was a mistake to leave it.. I coulda bought it and got rid of my digiview version..

 

[Gruson]

original for sure. Classic and started it all.

 

[GrueSam]

You're welcome, Buzz!

original for sure. Classic and started it all.

 

[makavelli]

original one!!

 

[Reinhardt]

Blu-ray version looks pretty good! Will wait for that one.