Arrived at the grave to his father, Barbara and her brother Johnny faced a strange aggressive man who, without saying a word, joined Johnny in a fierce battle, and then began to pursue and the girl.

Arrived at the grave to his father, Barbara and her brother Johnny faced a strange aggressive man who, without saying a word, joined Johnny in a fierce battle, and then began to pursue and the girl. In search of protection, Barbara fell into an empty house, where the young boy Ben soon burst. Turning on the TV, they found out that there was a general epidemic in the country - the dead were "alive" and began to kill all people in their field of vision, after eating the flesh of their victims. And the house, meanwhile, is in a dense ring of terrible creatures.

In 1968, a relatively young 28-year-old American director, George Romero, forever inscribed his name in the history of cinema, making the first full-length film about the "living dead", which later became a cult example and a support for the subgenre of "zombie horror." Even more respect for Romero begins to experience, knowing how many obstacles he managed to overcome in order that this film was finally withdrawn. The budget picture was not just modest, but almost zero. Actors were recruited almost for free from nearby theaters, the crowd was content with T-shirts with the inscription "I was a zombie", as a blood used a chocolate syrup, and as one of the big investors of the film is a local butcher who provided for the filming of offal animals. All this proves that it is not necessary to have millions to become a pioneer, if not a genre, then, at least, of any current. And in this sense, of course, I express my respect to George Romero, although such cases are often an example of a successful "blind shooting."

However, in contrast to the many reviews in the network, which are built taking into account the contribution of the film in question to the development of cinematography, I always on the contrary try to abstract from this contribution. What is this, "Night of the Living Dead", if you try to forget about what trace this tape left in the history of cinema? A good thriller with a fairly average acting, poorly set fights, an acceptable level of suspense and a more or less unexpected but controversial ending. The main drawback of the film is, of course, the actors. And if the central character of Ben was played well by Dwayne Jones, then the work of Keith Wayne (the young fellow-auto mechanic) and Carl Hardman (a harmful peasant-protagonist) raises certain questions, and Judith O'Day's game, which portrayed Barbara, with whom everything actually began , it's just a quiet horror. The second negative, which, incidentally, contrary to popular opinion is not at all connected with a low budget, is the staging of fights and open confrontations. Everything is slow, everything is unnatural, you do not believe everything. What did you do? Actually, the living dead themselves were very convincing and at times even provoked genuine fear. Gloomy, swaying, horror-struck figures with a fierce fire in their eyes - that's what actually became the forerunner of the whole genre.

"Night of the Living Dead" is certainly obligatory for viewing the film for those who are interested in the history of the development of the horror film genre. It is also a perfect counterexample for all who believe that without a lot of money it is impossible to make a decent picture that will forever remain in the annals of history. In all other respects it is nothing more than one of many more or less decent "horror films" of the middle of the 20th century.

7 out of 10