PDA

View Full Version : Night Of The Living Dead 1990 Uncut



DREAMASTER
08-12-2007, 11:19 AM
Will we ever see the Uncut version of this remake. For all I know there are more stuff that was cut and left out than the deleted scenes found in the standard edition.

Roswell
08-12-2007, 11:23 AM
I highly doubt you'll see an uncut version of the remake. It wasn't really a hit and they usually only go back and do unrated version of films that were big hits.

Spookshow
08-12-2007, 11:25 AM
I'd love to see it though. I actually like the remake more than the original.

Shamrock-Robot
08-12-2007, 02:51 PM
I would love to see it too, From what Ive heard the gunshots are alot more gorier, I love a good messy gunshot effect in a movie.

Chomp_on_this
08-12-2007, 02:58 PM
I highly doubt you'll see an uncut version of the remake. It wasn't really a hit and they usually only go back and do unrated version of films that were big hits.


I'd say quite the contrary. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 bombed at the box office and with critics, yet it received an Unrated DVD re-release. I can literally name off dozens of movies in which case they received Unrated DVDs while not being a so-called "hit".

Khan
08-12-2007, 03:00 PM
If they released an "uncut" version, I would be sure to get it.

Shamrock-Robot
08-12-2007, 03:02 PM
This movie does have a cult following, While it may not be huge it does have one, And if this films following grows we will probably see the uncut version.

Chomp_on_this
08-14-2007, 03:27 PM
Plus the 40th Anniversary of the original is coming up...who knows we might see a new version of both?

Khan
08-14-2007, 03:31 PM
Time to triple dip for me!

mike32
08-14-2007, 06:56 PM
I just watched this film tonight! Werid! It wasn't uncut though.

Shamrock-Robot
08-14-2007, 07:57 PM
I actually stumbled across a bootleg version of this film for sale on a website, It says its the workprint version, So it may very well be the uncut version, I cant say which site i found it on but I seen it.

wyatt s
08-14-2007, 08:37 PM
Eh, I kind of like that the theatrical version of this film doesn't show all that much. I suppose it could be said that it's tame, but to be honest with you I think it works well for the flick. It realy does add something to the film in my opinion.

Chomp_on_this
08-15-2007, 04:46 AM
To tell you the truth I really didn't enjoy the remake at all.

mike32
08-15-2007, 02:51 PM
:hugegrin: I totally agree with you, it is what we don't see that makes it fun. Thats just my opinion but I don't need all that gore.



Eh, I kind of like that the theatrical version of this film doesn't show all that much. I suppose it could be said that it's tame, but to be honest with you I think it works well for the flick. It realy does add something to the film in my opinion.

Chomp_on_this
08-15-2007, 05:31 PM
What the hell is a zombie movie without any gore? That's like peanut butter without jelly.

Khan
08-15-2007, 05:35 PM
It isn't a zombie movie at that point.

Samo
08-18-2007, 06:56 PM
Ahh, man! I came across this thread thinking that there is a uncut version of this film, nevermind.. LOL!

I would love to see an uncut version.. If they do have one, Anchor Bay will indeed be the ones to obtain the rights to re-release it.

DREAMASTER
09-01-2007, 07:11 AM
What the hell is a zombie movie without any gore? That's like peanut butter without jelly.

Agreed 100%!

DREAMASTER
09-01-2007, 07:13 AM
Ahh, man! I came across this thread thinking that there is a uncut version of this film, nevermind.. LOL!

I would love to see an uncut version.. If they do have one, Anchor Bay will indeed be the ones to obtain the rights to re-release it.

There is. For quite some time I read in sites that the original version suffers from many cuts adn was not the final version intended by Tom Savini.

See here in this site in the bottom of the page: http://www.dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=2141

Khan
09-01-2007, 08:09 AM
I wouldn't mind the deleted scenes being restored.

wyatt s
09-03-2007, 01:43 PM
It would certainly be interesting to see the movie with the deleted scenes intact. The movie is great already. Having the gore added back in may actually be an imporvement, but who's to tell

rxfiend
09-05-2007, 12:26 PM
I'd say quite the contrary. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 bombed at the box office and with critics, yet it received an Unrated DVD re-release. I can literally name off dozens of movies in which case they received Unrated DVDs while not being a so-called "hit".

TCM2 was always unrated.


I have a workprint of NOTLD 1990. It features extra gore and and some extended scenes, among other things. the extra gore really isn't much and you're not missing a lot. Personally I think the R version is fine as is.

HalloweenBK
09-07-2007, 07:55 PM
i have the old version on DVD :)

TheShape'78
09-09-2007, 09:20 AM
i wasn't aware of this until just recently, but i after watching this the other day i saw Bill Moseley (the devils rejects) in the credits as playing Johnnie. i have watched the remake countless times and never picked up on the fact that that was him. was anyone else aware of this, or am i just super late on gaining knowledge of this.

also, an uncut version of this film would be pretty cool. more blood and gore.

-mitch-

Rich
09-09-2007, 10:51 AM
I would love to see it. I think it would be awesome if Columbia released a nice special edition where you get the "R" and "Unrated" cuts of the remake plus a nice rematered version of the original with it, plus all the extras from the remake plus new interviews, docs, and extras. I don't see that happening, but damn it would be nice.

Khan
09-09-2007, 10:53 AM
I would like that as well.

DREAMASTER
09-26-2007, 01:36 PM
Me too.

shawn31
09-26-2007, 02:44 PM
i just found both movies the other day. I would like to see that.

Silverpsycho
09-28-2007, 01:40 PM
I too would love to see an uncut version but like many have said here, I doubt it will happen. If it does, it will be a welcome surprise and I will most definitely buy a copy.

Chomp_on_this
01-21-2008, 06:36 PM
I watched this movie again the other day, and I have to say its pretty weak. In fact, I've believed this ever since my first time viewing it. This movie is just a bore. And I realize the fact that I am in the complete minority, but I think this flick is overrated. I love Tony Todd and Tom Towles, but the acting in this flick was horrible. The only believable character was Tom.

Savini's direction was pitiful, and quite frankly I haven't the slightest clue as to what he was thinking when he filmed some of these effects. Savini always talks about being a magician and fooling the audience when trying to pull off an effect. Well, I sure as hell wasn't fooled by any of the dummy usage in this flick. The "Johnny" dummy and the "fat zombie " dummy looked absolutely atrocious. And Savini didn't even attempt at hiding the fact...rather he zoomed in. LoL.

I dunno...I just don't understand why this film is so well received amongst fans. I think its possibly one of the worst "serious" zombie flicks I have ever seen.

DREAMASTER
08-30-2008, 10:52 AM
I finally bought this movie a month ago and I must say I like it, although I think the light at night is too much, should be more dark and show some zombies from a low point and of course more gore, hey the zombies in Michael Jackson's Thriller look more frightning ;)

spindrift68
08-30-2008, 12:11 PM
I think Savini's NOTLD is a good film, but nowhere near as great as the original. The only characters I really liked in the remake were Ben & Barbra. Judy couldn't ever shut the fuck up for 2 seconds, Tom was just a stupid asshole, and the Coopers were pricks. Yes, Harry was a prick in the original too, but he was more of a coward.

Twisted Sister
08-30-2008, 12:21 PM
It has it's good and bad points with me. I enjoyed Tony Todd's performance as Ben, and even Barbara's characterzn but the rest not so much. As far as the Zombies, I thought they were pretty scary myself. "Mr .McGruder" gave me nightmares for weeks. The little girl was also frightening.
I prefer the original, but I really like the remake.

Torgo
08-30-2008, 12:29 PM
I dunno...I just don't understand why this film is so well received amongst fans. I think its possibly one of the worst "serious" zombie flicks I have ever seen.

I just really like the atmosphere in this flick. That's probably why it rates so high with me.

Diary of the Dead is probably the worst I've come across.

Khan
08-30-2008, 05:05 PM
Diary of the Dead is probably the worst I've come across.

So would you say that you like House Of The Dead more?

Ravenheart
08-30-2008, 05:22 PM
I just really like the atmosphere in this flick. That's probably why it rates so high with me.


Same with me.I rate it almost as high as the original.

Torgo
08-30-2008, 05:35 PM
So would you say that you like House Of The Dead more?

Haven't seen that.

Khan
08-30-2008, 05:42 PM
You may not like Diary Of The Dead, but it looks like a masterpiece compared to House Of The Dead.

I really liked Diary, but I wouldn't put it at the same level as Night, Dawn or Day.

Torgo
08-30-2008, 05:51 PM
You may not like Diary Of The Dead, but it looks like a masterpiece compared to House Of The Dead.

I really liked Diary, but I wouldn't put it at the same level as Night, Dawn or Day.


Me hating Diary has more to do with my hatred of the Blair Witch/Cloverfield style than anything else. Altho the acting was pretty atrocious, and that's kind of a death blow for a movie that's trying to look "real."

It doesn't even compare to Night Dawn or Day. Land I'm not a huge fan of either.

Altho I'd bet one of John Russo's Night of the Living Dead "sequels" would make Diary of the Dead look like a masterpiece as well. And i don't mean Return of the Living Dead cuz I love those, I'm talking of Children of the Living Dead, mainly. Or even that 30th Anniversery edition of Night.

Khan
08-30-2008, 05:57 PM
The 30th Anniversary version is an abomination.

The new scenes ruin the film.

I do prefer Diary over Land, as it doesn't have the fingerprints of the a big studio.

HTrooper
09-06-2008, 05:54 AM
I had read somewhere that they are releasing an uncut/remastered version of Savini's remake, but cannot find the site (or remember-yeah, thats it!) I read it at.

Does anyone remember hearing this at another site, or even in a mag?

DREAMASTER
03-29-2009, 01:19 PM
That sounds interesting.

DREAMASTER
03-29-2009, 01:42 PM
I found this a few minutes ago in another forum:


evilzombie20

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1990) - Workprint Edition

Hey folks, well I did some searching on the boards and I found a TON of threads about this film, also found a link to a petition to get it released uncut, but ultimately I decided to start a new thread about it mainly because most of the threads concerning this film are buried and none really go into the workprint edition of the film.

After quite possibly the longest run on sentence in the planet, I shall continue.

A few months back I had received a copy of the NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD workprint from a good friend of mine. Upon receiving the DVD containing the supposed "strong uncut version" of this classic remake (never thought I'd hear ANYONE say that) I was beyond excited. After seeing the behind the scenes documentary on the official release and hearing about all of that footage that was supposedly cut out to give the film an R rating, avoiding the dreaded X, how could I not be?

So since I've had the workprint I've seen a few mention it here and there but no one has really actually seen it, they've just talked about it thinking it's this big thing with all this missing footage. I've also never seen anyone break it down at all as I have with the RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD workprint, which I did manage to put together here*. So I decided, what the hell might as well get on with it...just don't expect a long list.

Well the film starts off the same, has a few extra shots of Barbara in Johnny driving and temp music. The score as far as I can summit was actually taken from random bits of library music as well as tracks from PHANTASM, and cues from HALLOWEEN II. I'm sure there was more from other films in there but these were the ones that really stuck out the most.

The film really continues on as normal, Barbara and Johnny are attacked, Barbara flees to the house, Ben shows up, and the zombie attack ensues. Here's where we get one difference, finally, after Barbara plows Uncle Reg with the fire poker, we see her pull it from his head with a nice hunk of flesh dangling from it.

After that, the film pretty much stays the same yet again until the zombies start to break in. The only differences here are two well known ones involving two supposedly gory head shots featuring two main zombies. Well what sounds like the score to ZOMBIE 4 in the background is following by two very tame head shots, by today's standards anyways, with Mr. McGruder and the window zombie. After that the film pretty much stays the same.

The next difference is when Barbara looks out the window while Ben is yelling at Ben to open the cellar door. In the theatrical version, we see a crowd of zombies by an old building festering in the distance, in the workprint we see the silhouette of one zombie walking in the bushes. This same zombie would later on be seen outside when the group goes out to find the keys while being followed by two buddies. I found this shot to be much more effective and creepy but the shot used in the film isn't too shabby either.

(Just a quick note, I will be posting pics from the workprint tomorrow, it's 6 am right now and this is just a quick thing to do before bed but tomorrow, pics will be here.)

Okay so after finding the keys, the order of the next turn of events is altered slightly. In the theatrical version, after the group comes back inside, we see Helen go downstairs to check on Sarah to find her lying on the makeshift table and then Tom goes to check the window to see how many zombies are outside - what actually makes less sense now that I'm thinking about it is he sees the same thing Barbara saw outside the kitchen window when it's a completely different few on the other side of the house! Guess they should have left the original shot there after all...

Anyways, in the workprint, those events are switched around, instead we see Tom run to the window then Helen goes downstairs to check on Sarah. Then the film continues on the same until Tom shoots the crispy zombie in the head. The zombie's head explodes in a mass of gore and falls to the ground.

Okay so after that, the truck goes boom, Ben runs back to the house, the zombies attack en masse and as Ben and Cooper are duking it out, Barbara dispatches of a zombie coming in the doorway - in the theatrical version you can barely make out the zombie's body on the porch, and after that...well that's it.

The film stays pretty much exactly the same and there's no more gore.

SO you can imagine my disappointment to discover that all of the gore that was cut out amounted to about 30 seconds and the only other differences in the film were some edits and one alternate shot. Now generally when a workprint is obtained, there are a TON of differences between the released version and the workprint version. I guess I shouldn't complain too much since only 30 seconds of gore was trimmed from the film and only one shot was replaced but for God's sakes if you're going to complain about gore being cut out of your film at least don't make it sound like half the film's missing! The way Tom Savini and co. were talking about it in that interview I was imagining buckets, and buckets of gore left on the cutting room floor. I felt like I had been cheated, that the public deserved better, and unrated version; DEATH TO THE HEADS OF COLUMBIA/TRI-STAR (now Sony pictures).

Well, I guess now that I've seen the footage and whatnot, I have one simple statement; the added gore makes absolutely, 100% NO difference. The film still is effective with or without the heavy gore. Realistically, it looks and feels better without it. First off, a good portion of the gore that was taken out was head shots, zombies wouldn't have liquid blood in their system because hours after death your blood begins to coagulate and it hardens up. So since most of the zombies in this film show rot, you would expect they've been dead for a while therefore there wouldn't be very much blood if any damage was done to them. Granted, I don't fault any zombie film for having blood spray out of a 50 year old corpse that's lunging to eat someone, hey the splashier the better, but having no blood makes the film feel slightly more realistic. But let's be honest here, the amount of blood that actually comes out of the zombies' head in the workprint is very minimal so I guess either way it wouldn't really matter but I just don't feel it's right for people to think they're missing so much when they're really missing next to nothing at all.

Which brings me to my next point. Earlier in this post I said I found a link to a petition to get the film released uncut. I haven't checked to see how many people have signed this petition but I'm sure there's not too many - then again, could be wrong. Well here's where I become the bad guy and bring bad news.

According to a trustworthy source, who shall remain nameless per his request, the film was never mastered with the gore scenes intact. The workprint version was made to show to the studio and that later on was submitted to the MPAA which cut the head shots out - as we know - or digitally removed the gore in the film, the window zombie is the most popular of this treatment. So there is no unrated cut of the film. After the cuts were made, most know Savini didn't fight for the film so any cuts that were made were done and done, the film was then mastered, the real score was cued up to it, redubs were done and within a few months it was ready to be released. Point? Well, the only way these cuts exist are on unmastered rolls of film or on a 9th generation bootleg workprint. The thought that Sony would even entertain the idea of re-inserting these scenes is beyond ridiculous. They would have to completely re-master the film, re-score it, cue everything back up and frankly; there's just not a market for that.

The film unfortunately did not do well when it came out and even though over the years many, including myself, have loved this film since they saw it - realistically there's just no market for an uncut version. At least not enough of one to merit Sony justifying putting it out. So for anyone out there who feels up to starting a petition to get the uncut version release, remember these two things; 1) there is no "uncut version", there's a workprint from a shoddy video and one small reel of film in Sony's vault somewhere which in order for them to re-insert said reel they'd basically have to re-cue the film's score, dubbing, etc. i.e. too much work for them to care. 2) It's not going to happen. There's no market for this film. It's in budget bins all over the country and at most sells for $9.99 at your local Music and Movie store. The edition we have now is probably going to be the only edition. Get over it. The scenes you see in the documentary included on the disc is really all you're missing.

So in closing the workprint is honestly almost completely the same film as the one circulating through the general market. There's very little differences between both versions and the differences there are aren't something I can honestly justify bitching about. The R-rated version has worked fine for me for years and will continue to do so in the years to come. If Sony happens to re-issue a disc come it's 20th anniversary with these deleted scenes included as a special feature, AWESOME! I would never say no to another edition to this film, actually I'm on my third copy so having it re-released would certainly help my cause in buying it again, but just don't expect said scenes to be put back in the film. Unless you want to see a severe quality and audio drop out. Then they might put the scenes back in.

The Frightmaster
05-28-2009, 01:39 PM
I would like to see an uncut version. I saw some uncut stuff on the special features. I like my zombie movies to be gory. lol

I thought the remake was pretty good. I found it a little slow at times and some of the acting was a little off, but overall I enjoyed it. It's not my favorite zombie film, but it's definitely not the worst.

Khan
05-28-2009, 01:43 PM
Now you have to watch the original classic that gave birth to the zombie sub-genre. ;)

TouchMe4Money
05-28-2009, 02:20 PM
FN, you haven't seen the original?