What is most readily striking about 'Night of the zombies' is how incredibly low-budget it is. If you want a low-grade B-movie, this is the flick for you; to read a little bit about the production history cements the impression that the viewing experience immediately imparts. Scenes filmed indoors often suffer from extremely poor lighting, to say nothing of outdoor scenes filmed at night. Given the delivery and general displays of acting we see, one could be forgiven for thinking that the cast is filled with non-professionals - friends and neighbors of filmmaker Joel M. Reed - though this isn't really the case. It's not just the actors, though - scenes at large feel plainly inauthentic in their realization, most of all when even the slightest modicum of action or violence is involved. Dialogue is at turns sloppy, halfhearted, lazy, and or unconvincing. Editing is at best questionable, tending to echo the dialogue in its deficiency. And so it goes, from one element to the next.
With that in mind, one can't claim that the filmmakers had any intention beyond mild, schlocky entertainment. Why, the movie even demonstrates self-awareness. Consider the introduction into the narrative of the token female character, discussed by two male characters: "They always bring a dumb blonde along on missions like this." "Who's 'they?'" "The movies!" (Bear in mind that this isn't the only stereotype employed, or instance of sexism.) Consider as well: what plot we get in the first half of the movie is meager, develops slowly or is otherwise less than stimulating, and could have been trimmed significantly without sacrificing any substance. Then, almost exactly at the halfway point, comes a noteworthy piece of dialogue: "Why do I have to sit here and listen to this insipid repartee? ... Let's get on with it, shall we?"
Of course, the shortcomings that moderate our enjoyment don't particularly improve. Even as more concrete eventfulness picks up, and meaningful narrative - the reveal of plot points within the last half hour is distinctly inelegant, and the story as it plays out before us becomes disjointed. But I'll say this: though modest, the makeup for the zombies isn't bad. Likewise for the contributions in wardrobe. Above all, the core idea behind 'Night of the Zombies' is actually a pretty great concept for a B-movie. I rather think that, given a more generous budget - or at least more careful consideration in the screenplay - this could have been better than average. Despite the fact that it just rather trails off (into unnecessary stock footage, no less), I rather like the ending, too. Still gravely imperfect, I think there's enough strength in the second half to somewhat compensate for the weakness of the first, and save the picture from totally sliding into the rubbish pile.
Don't get me wrong - this is far from a horror classic. On the one hand, considering the nature of the production, I think I'm being too harsh; on the other hand, in the grand scheme of things, maybe I'm not being harsh enough. Suffice to say that only B-movie fans may at all find this worth their time, and even that is debatable. Yet there was definite potential here - to which the limitations of cast, crew, and finances alike denied fruition. It's not especially good, but you could also do a lot worse: don't go out of your way to watch 'Night of the zombies,' but if you happen to chance across it, there are worse ways to spend 90 minutes.
With that in mind, one can't claim that the filmmakers had any intention beyond mild, schlocky entertainment. Why, the movie even demonstrates self-awareness. Consider the introduction into the narrative of the token female character, discussed by two male characters: "They always bring a dumb blonde along on missions like this." "Who's 'they?'" "The movies!" (Bear in mind that this isn't the only stereotype employed, or instance of sexism.) Consider as well: what plot we get in the first half of the movie is meager, develops slowly or is otherwise less than stimulating, and could have been trimmed significantly without sacrificing any substance. Then, almost exactly at the halfway point, comes a noteworthy piece of dialogue: "Why do I have to sit here and listen to this insipid repartee? ... Let's get on with it, shall we?"
Of course, the shortcomings that moderate our enjoyment don't particularly improve. Even as more concrete eventfulness picks up, and meaningful narrative - the reveal of plot points within the last half hour is distinctly inelegant, and the story as it plays out before us becomes disjointed. But I'll say this: though modest, the makeup for the zombies isn't bad. Likewise for the contributions in wardrobe. Above all, the core idea behind 'Night of the Zombies' is actually a pretty great concept for a B-movie. I rather think that, given a more generous budget - or at least more careful consideration in the screenplay - this could have been better than average. Despite the fact that it just rather trails off (into unnecessary stock footage, no less), I rather like the ending, too. Still gravely imperfect, I think there's enough strength in the second half to somewhat compensate for the weakness of the first, and save the picture from totally sliding into the rubbish pile.
Don't get me wrong - this is far from a horror classic. On the one hand, considering the nature of the production, I think I'm being too harsh; on the other hand, in the grand scheme of things, maybe I'm not being harsh enough. Suffice to say that only B-movie fans may at all find this worth their time, and even that is debatable. Yet there was definite potential here - to which the limitations of cast, crew, and finances alike denied fruition. It's not especially good, but you could also do a lot worse: don't go out of your way to watch 'Night of the zombies,' but if you happen to chance across it, there are worse ways to spend 90 minutes.