I like slow zombies for being more like a force of nature rather than a group of athletic psychopaths. And yeah, a lot of time in the Romero movies it’s less the zombies that are the danger in the end than that the people screw themselves over in argument.

That about sums up why I didn’t love it (and why I did love 28 Days Later). Even when there were a whole lot of them, with a boarded up house and some weapons, it appeared that the survivors would be just fine. At a few points in the movie, it felt like one of the characters should have said something along the lines of, “Hey, we’re secure now, despite the hundreds of walking corpses outside, who’s up for a game of Scrabble to help the night move on?” That’s in stark contrast to 28 Days Later and other “fast” zombie movies, where the suspense never lets up; if the zombies (or infected, what ever they may be called) know where you’re at, you’re in trouble.

I didn’t hate Night, though; I appreciated it for laying some very clear foundations for later stuff, and there were some wonderfully funny lines and situations. The news guy who was casually talking about corpses hopping up and walking around made me laugh every time he appeared.

I’ll be checking out the sequels and remakes, probably soon.

Agreed that they could probably survive quite a ways with a bat and a crowbar, though. Well, those not injured or catatonic, anyway. Really in the Romero zombie movies they’re not much a danger until there’s a LOT of them or you let yourself get cornered.

If you didn’t like the original I doubt the 1990 remake would change your mind, but there are some interesting differences. Storywise the biggest one is that rather than quickly going crazy and being useless, Barbara gets over it and becomes one of the more forceful gun-toting characters.

Knock on wood, I’ve had mine for about a year now and it’s still working fine.

I love it otherwise. I just hope they’ll say, “Sure , we’ll honor you and fix this since you have a couple of other Acers.