On balance an excellent movie. I won't bother to rehash the plot, which has been amply covered by previous posters, but will say that the production values, acting, and script are all top-notch. I found this adaptation of the 1964 Hans Hellmut Kirst novel to actually be superior to the book (how many movies can claim that?). I think screenwriter Paul Dehn tightened things up a bit, plot-wise, but for those who still insist that "The Night of the Generals" is over-long, I would point out that distilling any 300+ page book down into even a 146 minute screenplay is no easy matter. I'd prefer a longer movie to a butchered storyline any time. My main complaint against the novel is that I simply didn't care for the writing style of Kirst, which I found very turgid. Of course, I admit that writing style is a matter of taste, but I'm glad the movie didn't slavishly follow the book in tone.

The switch of General Tanz from Wehrmacht to Waffen SS was a bit jarring, but historically speaking, is not without precedent. I think the reason they use this device was simply to further highlight Tanz' descent into evil and madness -- having him join a notoriously evil organization (whether such a move was cinematically necessary is debatable, considering Tanz' obvious lunacy).

The tanks used appear to be fairly good recreations of the Tiger tank (though not exact), which is refreshing after seeing so many modern American tanks pressed into service as German types by Hollywood. The sets are uniformly good, from the Warsaw Ghetto to the garrison of Tanz' division in occupied France (actual French fortifications of the period were used for the filming, just as they had actually been used by the occupying Germans during the war).

Unlike many posters, I found the subplot involving the Hitler assassination attempt in 1944 to be the high-point of the movie, lifting it from a mere murder investigation of prostitutes into the realm of one of the most interesting and important events of WWII. Had the plot succeeded, 10 months of bloody carnage on the battlefields and in the extermination camps would have been saved. The recreation of the bomb-plot is not completely accurate, but reasonably enough so. (Of course, it's best not to look too closely at the rather prominent lump on the side of Von Stauffenburg -- where actor Gerald Buhr's arm was hidden under his tunic!) But the including of the bomb-plot not only serves to tie together the storyline, but provides real excitement (even though we know it's going to fail).

Kudos to Omar Sharif for his portrayal of Major (later Lt. Colonel) Grau, though I agree that maybe he could have gotten alittle more screen-time (in favor of the over-abundance of scenes with nerdy Tom Courtney!). The Grau character itself is, however, alittle too "good to be true". While obviously seeing the point about contrasting murders large and small, I have to wonder just what really drives Grau in his pursuit of "pure justice"?

Grau simply comes off a bit too "holier-than-thou" for as high a ranking officer as a Lt. Colonel of Intelligence in the German Army. A truly principled man would not be serving such a despotic state in which justice had visibly been denied so many in Germany (starting in 1933)...to say nothing of murdering & enslaving neighboring peoples. If Grau were so high-minded, then how could he serve such a master? I would of found him more believable had he simply had some other motivation for pursuing the killer, such as wanting to further his career by landing a "big fish", or perhaps some smoldering resentment against "Army brass". The idea that Grau was so lily-pure that he yearned only that justice be served might be believed in some other army, but not Nazi Germany's! (Besides, even had he nailed Tanz for the murders, does anyone really believe that "Hitler's favorite" wouldn't have been quietly and quickly released? After all, this is Nazi Germany -- hardly a paragon of virtue!) Ultimately, in a strange turnabout, General Kahlenberg (Donald Pleasence) is doing more to fight evil by trying to rid Germany of Hitler than Lt. Col. Grau with his insignificant murder investigation.

As for all the comments about non-German actors portraying Germans and speaking English...I would think that everyone would be used to that by now, after 80 years of sound motion pictures! That the mostly-British cast doesn't attempt "authentic" (???) German accents is good. After-all, to be really "authentic", the actors would be SPEAKING German -- not English with faked German accents! And frankly, I find reading subtitles tedious -- so I don't mind "Germans" (or anyone else in movies) speaking English.

Finally, I agree that the switchbacks between WWII and 1960's can be alittle jarring, but it does serve the plot line, and is an interesting narrative style of both book and movie. I would also agree that the end of the picture, which takes place in the 1960's, is somewhat anti-climatic, especially after the shocking scene of Grau's murder. But it IS necessary to tie up the storyline which would otherwise be left dangling. Obviously Inspector Morand couldn't do anything back in 1944 in Nazi-occupied France, so to have him solve all the murders (including Grau's) in "modern" times is a good final touch (though one may wonder why he waited so long to do it -- after all, the war had been over for 20 years...perhaps he had his suspicions of Tanz all along, but no proof, until the Hamburg murder.) At any rate, "The Night of the Generals" is good enough to qualify as MUST SEE cinema!


If you are a history buff, like a murder mystery and into "what if" detective plots - you will love this movie. So what if a prostitute is killed in war torn Warsaw during the final stages of WW II? A German Military Police officer cares, and even with wars chaos begins a search for the murderer that goes into post war Germany. Great acting and twists make this above average. The German period uniforms look real and the irony of a single death standing out among the millions of lives lost during the war is striking as two former enemy detectives begin tracking the killer together. Their investigation ends with a bang.

Peter O'Toole is the aristocratic German General the title is named after, he looks the part and plays it to perfection. With a great supporting cast this a must see WWII drama.


This movie mixes several points together. They are not exactly seamlessly joined, true, but each is followable and interesting in its own right. In no particular order, we have the irony of ex-Wehrmacht officers and men doing quite all right in the 1960s Wirtschaftskwelle of Germany. One of the characters we've been following remarks that these damned Spaniards and Italians he now has working for him in his factory don't know how to make Volkswagons. Then there is the overall context in which the Germans are losing the war, but nothing much is made of this except to the extent that it generates a movement among (some of) the officers to eliminate Hitler, a movement about which Major Grau (Omar Sharif), investigating the slaughter of a prostitute, observes cynically that it took quite a while for the movement to develop since the army seemed satisfied enough as long as they were winning.

The French police officer who is helping him (the ever-sympatico Philippe Noiret) asks Major Grau why he is obsessed with tracking down the murderer of a whore in the midst of mass demise, and Grau says he resents the murderer's thinking he can play God. Noiret asks, "And you can?" Grau replies neatly, "My blasphemy is on a smaller, more secular scale." (Some of the dialog is pretty good.) Omar Sheriff gives what may be his finest performance on film. He may have been all masculine in "Lawrence of Arabia" but here he is effete, suggestive in the most delicate way of homosexuality. It's in the way he holds a cigarette, the way he dances up a flight of stairs.

The search for the murderer, whose identity is stupefyingly obvious shortly into the picture, provides a police procedural that forms the movie's spine or at any rate its notochord. There is even a romance that is not simply thrown in but is fairly well integrated into the plot and important to the outcome. The cast is good -- and what a caste! Peter O'Toole has been criticized for repeating his neurotic tricks from Lawrence of Arabia, but I didn't find it derivative at all. Lawrence was subtly mad. General Tanz is completely, screamingly, eye-twitchingly, dripping with sweatly, NUTS. There are two scenes in which Tanz enters a locked room to view "decadent art." One of them is a self portrait of Van Gogh. In each scene Tanz and Vincent stare back at one another, two psychotics, and "I know exactly who you are" seems to be written all over Van Gogh's scowling face. Both times Tanz is overcome and seems to dissolve into a myoclonic fit.

The novel by Hans Helmutt Kirst was a lot funnier than the movie, taking advantage of every opportunity to poke fun at German military precision. But there are still amusing incidents left in the film. When Grau meets Tanz at a fancy reception and begins to query him, Tanz leans forward with an expression of distaste and asks, "Are you wearing PERFUME?" Grau, never flappable, replies, "I use a rather strong cologne." I don't understand, though, why Tanz wears the uniform of a Wermacht general through most of the film, then shows up at his last confrontation with Grau dressed as an SS officer.

Maurice Jarre was writing effective scores in the late 60s. His "crazy music" sounds like an accompaniment to a marionette show that, when one thinks about it, isn't entirely inappropriate. The murderer meets his just end (while sensibly drunk as a skunk in the novel) but the story is fundamentally a tragic one. Too many deaths of good people. Too many lives ruined for nothing. What a shame the Hitler plot didn't work. It should ideally have been mounted back in 1938.


When the novel THE NIGHT OF THE GENERALS (by Hans Helmut Kirst) was published in the 1960s, it was a best seller. It has a very clever (devilishly clever) theme - when is a murder considered heinous? The plot is basically three levels or intertwined murder.

1) The organized murder (both normal and war crime) of World War II as practiced by the Nazi German Government.

2) The activities of a select band of German Generals (led by Field Marshall Erwin Rommel) to assassinate Adolf Hitler during a conference at Raustenburg, in July 1944, seize the German Government, and negotiate an end to the war with the British and Americans (probably not with the Communist Russians).

3) A series of apparently random prostitute killings across Europe (first in Warsaw) that appears to be linked to one of three leading German Generals: General Kallenberg (Donald Pleasance), Seydlitz-Gabler (Charles Gray), and Tanz (Peter O'Toole). The crimes are being investigated by Major Grau (Omar Sharif), who is as determined to solve this case as Inspector Javert was to capture Jean Valjean a century earlier.

Now, one can make a general statement (and it has been seriously made) that warfare is organized killing and murder and is no different from Jack the Ripper's activities (which resembles the activities of the prostitute murderer here). Yet while abhorring (or supposedly abhorring) the Rippers, Christies, Mansons, etc. in our society, people do still glorify and reward the officers and soldiers of armed forces (for the most part) who serve their countries. Rommel, for example, by his eleventh hour switch to support the Stauffenburg bomb plot, was technically committing treason - and was forced to commit suicide to protect his family from Hitler's full anger. But today, "the Desert Fox" is one of the few Axis generals to be regarded as great by both sides for his abilities, and a hero by both sides for his trying to get rid of a really evil madman. Yet that bomb plot actually killed two others in the bunker with Hitler who were closer to the bomb itself. Doesn't that (even if we don't want to think it) make Rommel an accessory to two murders?

Rommel is no more blamed for the deaths of Allied and Axis soldiers in his battles in North Africa than say George Washington and Lord Cornwallis are blamed for deaths at Yorktown. Yet their plans and orders set things up for such deaths - but we tend to ignore these. If people are blamed for wars it is the civilians or governments heads who are usually blamed.

And what happens with crimes that are government policy at the time. The issue is still cropping up in the U.S. actions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. With the Nazis, you have the Holacaust and various battleground horrors (i.e. "the Malmedy Massacres" during the Battle of the Bulge) that are not considered normal (if any warfare is normal) actions in war. Are the soldiers involved in such activities true criminals or are they considered "doing their duty". The answer depends on whether the country involved is willing to cover-up for them, and also successful in the war. Don't forget, we live in a post- Nazi defeat world. Had Hitler won, the war criminals would have included Churchill, F.D.R., and Eisenhower, not Goering, Hess, and Von Ribbentrop. Survivors in Nazi controlled Europe (no Jews or Slavs or Gypsies, or Communists or enemies of the Nazis) would have barely heard of the death camps and the Holacaust.

Here Major Grau is determined to find which of his three suspects is the murderer of the prostitutes. He has followed them across Europe. Tanz is the most ideological of the generals - a favorite of the Fuhrer. We see him destroying a section of Warsaw (presumably the ghetto) while being questioned by Grau. Tanz looks disdainfully at the Major and remains in his tank during the interview (looking downward at the Major). Kallenburg is the most secretive and mysterious of the three suspects - and we realize he is not as cooperative as he pretends to be. Seydlitz - Gabler is in a loveless marriage, and seems to hide behind his aristocratic lineage.

Grau does get some help from a French inspector Morand (Philippe Noiret) when the generals turn up in Paris. Morand actually makes some headway - he finds a crime being planned. But it is the bomb plot against Hitler. Grau hears this and laughs it off calling the plotters traitors (which again makes us wonder when is a crime no longer a crime and a murder what it is supposed to be).

Seydlitz - Gabler's daughter Ulrike (Joanna Pettet) is having a love affair with Corporal Hartmann (Tom Courtenay). Her parents are not thrilled by her romance with this untitled nobody. Hartmann is assigned to chauffeur Tanz around Paris while he is on vacation there. They go to one of the forbidden museums of impressionistic art there, and Tanz discovers a somewhat kindred spirit in Vincent Van Gogh's art style. In fact Tanz keeps returning to the museum day after day. Tanz's reaction to the paintings is one of the most effective moments of the movie.

In the end the case cannot be solved in wartime - it requires 20 years for the solution to emerge. And (although the audience does know who did it long before the conclusion) the end of the film shows that the sometimes a sense of disgrace can be brought about by the type of killing one gets tangled with.


I am surprised that some reviewers are a little disappointed with this great film. I found it to be hugely entertaining, with many surprising twists and turns. OK some of the accents are a bit questionable, for example; most of the lead actors playing German officers use an authentic accent, whilst others in minor roles don't bother with one. The only two pieces of casting I have a slight problem with is using quintessential Scotsman Gordon Jackson as Omar Sharif's colleague and an American unknown actor as the German news-reporter. Sharif himself is excellent as the dogged, principled investigator, but it is O'Toole who dominates the film. He is simply chilling and quite believable as the withdrawn, intensely private, psychotic 'Butcher' of Warsaw. Well worth watching.


Even more than some mid-' 60s to early ' 70s ones, this is a WWII film that plays around with all the rules. In the murder investigation, it gives you a pro-Hitler general who might not be the killer the detective is seeking, and an anti-Hitler one who MIGHT be. And a third one who's a semi-comical character. It's also full of surprisingly funny lines (especially from the Donald Pleasance character), of the understated kind - "Do you really think anyone's going to believe you?" "Naturally. I'm a general." / "Yes, he wasn't a wholehearted soldier. I imagine he's deserted." / "I'm shattered. What is the point of being a general when corporals wish to remain corporals?" And of course it has Omar Sharif as Grau, a genuinely admirable character, even though he's too reckless about his own safety (as in the last 1944 scene). And of course it's sort of left to the viewer as to whether he's right to be completely caught up in a single murder for two years of WWII itself. But as he himself says, he's concerned with the small scale rather than the large. (In the book, Grau WAS more concerned with things like the plot against Hitler, but I think the movie handled things in a more original way, as in the scene where he and Morand discuss the subject for a few moments, then Grau movies on to something else!) And Philipe Noiret as Morand, who doesn't care that Grau is a Wehrmacht officer, any more than Grau cares that HE'S in the French Resistance, not just because they're "colleagues", but because they're not just colleagues in a "grudging" way, the way it is in many similar stories. (In fact, the scene I just mentioned ends with a sort of "warm moment" between Grau and Morand.) And even though some people say that Peter O'Toole is miscast, he really draws you completely into the Tanz character. In one scene, Tanz even seems to enjoy perplexing Corporal Hartmann - he smiles slightly and says, "Any conclusions you may draw from my behavior are false." And every other actor, in big or small parts, seems to fit the character very well - Charles Gray, Coral Brown, Joanna Petit, John Gregson, Philp Noiret and of course Tom Courteney as Hartmann.


Just caught this last night and was expecting powerful drama based on IMDb reviews, but instead found a mess of a movie. Sorry. O'Toole (whom I like) gives new meaning to "over-the-top" acting and ruins the chances of the drama having a non-camp feel. Shariff is fine, but couldn't he even draw his gun when going into arrest the killer in Paris? Duh! The actors portraying the other two suspects (Gray, Pleasance) were given ZILCH to do w/ the story (unless you count the nonsense about killing Hitler), and it doesn't help that they're more recognizable to movie audiences as Blofeld #1 (You Only Live Twice) and Blofeld #3 (Diamonds are Forver). I kept expecting Telly Savalas (Blofeld #2) to show up in a cameo.

A really disappointing experience. Even the ending is campy!


I saw this film when it was first released and with its all-star cast, the lines were a block long at the 41st Street Sheridan Theater on Miami Beach.

The acting was out-standing, but the story-plot seemed sort of unrealistic. The film however was stolen by Tom Courtenay as a reluctant war-hero. Courtenay gives a brooding, emotional, sole-searching performance of a simple man caught up in the madness and terror of World War II.

The story line just goes off in two many different directions: serial killer, murder mystery, plot-to-kill-Hitler, madness, love story, the horrors of war, hero worship, and survival.

If you're a fan of Tom Courtenay this is a must-see. If you're not, rent another film.


I'm sorry folks, but the premise of The Night of the Generals was way too hard for me to swallow. I would have hoped that Peter O'Toole and Omar Sharif who were so good together in Lawrence of Arabia could have found a better joint project than this.

In my former working days at New York State Crime Victims Board, I got to learn first hand about the importance the police attach to murdered prostitutes. I did a couple of claims involving the victims of serial killer Joel Rifkin who if you remember was the postal worker who targeted working girls. Death certificates had to be amended to declare some of these dead women homicide victims. You don't declare them homicide victims no one has to look into their deaths.

That's how it is in peacetime America. I refuse to believe that in Nazi Germany at war, a Wehrmacht major like Omar Sharif, attached to their equivalent of the Judge Advocate's Office spends four years of World War II, trying to tie General Peter O'Toole to the murder of a prostitute. Having a taste for sadism and homicide didn't exactly disqualify you for a lot of work in Nazi Germany. I'm not sure what Sharif was trying to prove and I can't believe his superiors didn't give him other cases.

Sharif's hunt for O'Toole is worked into the story of the bomb plot to kill Hitler after the Normandy invasion. A whole lot of other players like Joanna Pettet, Coral Browne, Donald Pleasance and Tom Courtenay are along for the ride here.

Better they all missed this particular bus.


Few people know about this film and it has never received the critical attention it deserves. But do watch it. You won't be let down. It holds your attention from beginning to end. I also don't think there's been a film with so many actors cast against type. You could never imagine Omar Sharif and Gordon Jackson as German officers. John Gregson never lived down his Genevieve image, no shame in that, so it is actually quite shocking to see him as a Nazi assisting in plans for liquidating a ghetto ("I've ordered three times as many flame throwers just to be on the safe side"). Maybe it's not as realistic as Band of Brothers or Schindler's List but it was made 40 years ago. I wonder though why Harry Andrews wasn't credited? Was it because he was usually on the a British officer?


The year of release, the international cast and production, all misguided me when I sat to watch "the Night of the Generals", at night, on a French TV-channel (and it was a French-dubbed copy). I was vaguely waiting for a tedious pudding, full of villains and with some redeeming heroes, in a run-of-the-mill denunciations of Nazi craziness, 25 years later. Mislead.

The pace, the cinematography, the plots and their intertwining, some sorts of, er, modesty in the way to tell the story, all almost perfectly works.

I won't discuss some minor slips on the historical background. I could let me follow the characters, especially the minor ones (Inspecteur Morand, Fraulein Seydlitz), I finally agreed with O'Toole's performance (more "homme au masque de cire" than ever), enjoy some great lines (some reminiscent of "Monsieur Verdoux"), I found the romance between Hartmann/Courtenay and Syedlitz's daughter tense, subtly told and played...

I think the length of the movie is perfectly fit ; the last thirty minutes, in modern Germany, are very necessary and cynical in the right way.

Apart from the musical score (much too heavy and useless in the Varsovian part) and the very end - conventional and contradictory with what we are supposed to understand of Morand's quest -, the whole thing is a very good surprise.

Do not neglect this film. It's worth 145 minutes of your life.


This film is often overlooked among the great war films, but it fully holds up to the best and, at the same time, transcends the genre by offering much to those interested in classic detective themes. The cast is first-rate, and thanks to an excellent script and excellent direction, avoids the classic "walk-on" feel of many other films that have a profusion of well-known stars. Sharif is surprisingly good as the dedicated police officer, Courtney excellent as a sensitive yet firmly grounded young soldiers, and O'Toole is superb as the epitome of a ruthless SS officer. Pleasance offers a fine performance--to my mind among his very best--as a conscientious and basically decent officer. Based on an excellent novel by Hans Helmut Kirst, this film offers an excellent, gritty feel to Warsaw and Paris during the period of German occupation. It is thoroughly grounded in solid historical research, likely aided by Kirst's own wartime perspective. Well worth seeing!


I like II World War movies and I like Thrillers too. Night of the Generals is both, and both good. Actually, it has two plots that go along perfectly. On one side the historically accurate intent leaded by Col. Von Sauffenberg to kill Hitler on July 20, 1944, and on the other the murders of prostitutes by an unrevealed German general in Warsaw and occupied Paris that are investigated by a German officer who believes that "any time is good to catch a murderer" (even war time). Although the identity of the assassin -out of three suspects- can be anticipated early in the picture tension and interest do not decrease at all due to a strong direction by Anatole Litvak. As for acting the cast makes its job fair enough. Peter O'Toole plays really good his tortured character and Donald Pleasence is in high level too. No complaints on Tom Courtney, Charles Grey and Joanna Pettet's performances. The music score is also a credit. Omar Sharif's complete miscast as a German officer is the only flop I could find in such an interesting and well assembled movie. The Egyptian actor, no matter how hard he tries, can never be taken seriously in such a rol. This aside, the film is one of the best of all times in its genre.


Peter O'Toole stars as General Tanz, a crazed Nazi SS General bent on killing everything around him. His cold icy demeanor serves him well as he kills prostitutes on the side to pass the time when he is not butchering thousands on the battlefield, which is wherever he happens to be. Major Grau, played by Omar Sharif, is brilliant as the tracker of the 3 Generals who are suspects in the murder of a Warsaw prostitute and then, years later, of a Parisian prostitute, who is brutally mutilated in the same manner.

The Nazi Generals are all played by English actors in this film, but, oddly enough, it works. O'Toole is at his very best when he is seen to be going mad while viewing a self-portrait of Vincent Van Gogh when the artist was in an insane asylum.

This movie has a good script, something you don't see much of nowadays. General Tanz's precision efficiency is displayed in the crushing of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, a flamethrower spectacle which is visually stunning. Even more astonishing is the portrayal of the Nazi SS Reunion in Germany in 1965 marking the 25th anniversary of the formation of General Tanz's brigade to protect Hitler. This show of force and the powerful support these old cronies have in modern times is disturbing, to say the least.

There is even a subplot to assassinate Hitler by dissident Nazi Generals. This is woven into the story cleverly as Major Grau hounds his 3 favorite suspects. The lunacy of war on a grand scale, (since when is war not on a grand scale), is amply exposed in this one! A must see! Peter O'Toole is terrific as a crazed Nazi General who kills for the pleasure of getting away with it. Power has driven him mad. His abuse of it is telling in our modern age, issuing a warning to us all that the "would-be" dictator, who would trample on the rights and freedoms of individuals, is always in our midst and lurking about.

A film you will want to see and own in your film library!


I was really impressed by this movie. As stated earlier by others the movie was interesting till the end. The only glitch not mentioned at this site is the plot starting the story; appointing the killer as a Wehrmacht General, due to recognition of the red piping on the officers breeches. The German army had the strange habit of issuing/allowing red piping to all officers working at/(permanently)assingned to generals's staff's, making the group of suspects quite larger. In this story the makers could have better used the sighting of a glimp of a general's collar patch (these are typical for general's ranks, though the one of GeneralFeldmarschall differs, Rommel carried the wrong ones in this movie as well). Another remarkable fact is the name of the SS-unit; "Nibelungen". This unit actually existed, as the 38 SS-grenadiers division. The division was formed on 27 March 1945 from personnel and students of the SS-Junkerschule Bad Tölz (SS-military academy). The name 'Nibelungen' came from German mythology, which was the name of a lineage of dwarfs, who were defeated by Siegfried (which was in line with the "Wagnerian" and "Germanic" line of thinking by both Hitler and Himmler). Although the transformation of a "General-lieutnant der Wehrmacht" to "Obergruppenführer" is rather unusual and strange, the unit commanded by the character played brilliantly by O'Toole was already Waffen-SS in 1942 in the movie (but commanded by a Wehrmacht general at that time).

With this said i still much recommend this movie to all in favor of classic war-movies. Two thumbs up!


An undeserved BOMB of 1967, directed by A. Litvak co-starring the golden boys of five years earlier in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (GREAT FILM), with a great supporting cast - Pleasance, J. Pettet, Tom Courtenay, Charles Gray..etc., it was the wrong year to talk about NAZI officers being private pervert/murderers in a world that was concerned about MODERN issues...like who was Robert Wagner dating that Summer?

A 7 out of 10. Best performance = Mr. O'Toole. Sharif is modestly intense as Major Grau to O'Toole's General Tanz (great names) with sub-plots that flow over each other like babbling brooks in Alice in Wonderland (during WWII) in Europe. It's really an incredible experience without being ART or TRASH or POPULAR or JUNKY-FUN. Does that make sense? Well, it if doesn't, go watch TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN or SCHINDLER'S LIST, or TAZA SON OF COCHISE, or THE PENTHOUSE or DUCK YOU SUCKER ....or even KING'S ROW - or God forbid - BOLERO) which did prove to the world that Bo Derek looked exactly like John Derek's first two wives in face and body - Ursula Andres & Linda Evans, but I'm straying from the film, sorry.

Gripping, it covers a lot of territory in a HIGH-BUDGET setting (If this had been made a year later, instead of being pre-BONNIE & CLYDE, THE GRADUATE< IN COLD BLOOD, etc.) it would have been up for the Golden Boy Oscar come Spring, but that year between 1966-1967 (in films anyway) changed because of (what the great critic Stanley Kaufmann coined) "THE FILM GENERATION" was born. Young people in college or not, who lives were affected, not just by popular art (as the Beatles started out)..but into a whole majestic realm of thinking individually and still be a part of whatever movement touched your fancy. Sorry, I'm talking about America now and not the film.

Well worth your time..a lot of uniforms (mainly Nazis) and there's no German actors in the film and nobody pretends to have a German accent. Find this Movie!


This film worked for me in three different ways. First, the acting was strong, with lots of star quality. Second, the film worked better than most as a murder mystery. But what I most liked about the film was how it dealt with abstract issues as "justice." There were three layers to this portrayal: The first layer of course was the murder itself, and one of the things that makes this interesting is that although we don't know the identity of the killer, we know he is a German general. And then there is the identity of the murder victims, who are prostitutes. This primary tale of murder and justice was played out against the backdrop of World War II, with the time frame of the film including not only the war itself, but the Nuremberg trials and their aftermath. Finally, there is the murder of the holocaust, which also has an explicit portrayal in the film. What most appeals to me about "Night of the Generals" is that it weaves together these three layers of storytelling, without being heavy handed, and letting the actors and their actions speak for themselves. The film is definitely worthwhile.


Why on earth would anyone want to watch a murder mystery that

takes place within the hierarchy of Nazi military might? This film

answers that question.

After a Polish prostitute/Nazi agent is brutally stabbed to death, an

intelligence major, Omar Sharif, investigates. The three main

suspects are three Nazi generals: golden boy Peter O'Toole,

creepy Donald Pleasence, and family man Charles Gray. In the

middle of his investigation, Sharif is transferred to Paris, and does

not solve the case. Fast forward two years, and the three generals

find their duties also deliver them to Paris, where promoted

colonel Sharif eagerly awaits his reopening of the case. Gray's

daughter, Joanna Pettet, falls for a young corporal Tom Courtenay,

who is suddenly assigned to be O'Toole's driver and companion in

the city.

I really hate spoilers, so I do not want to give away too much more,

but the murderer is soon known, and the other two suspects are

embroiled in a plot to assassinate Hitler. When you think the film

is wrapped, the murders solved, and major character killed, the

plot moves to present day (then 1966-67) as the murderer strikes

again.

The entire present day subplot, while sometimes dramatic, and a

way to see what happened to the major players, is completely

unnecessary. It takes up the last half hour of the film and is

anti-climactic considering what has occurred before.

Pettet and Courtenay's romance is also a little silly. She plays the

stereotypical officer's brat who rebels by having an affair with an

enlisted man. I am the son of a now retired Air Force colonel, and

believe me, rebelling officer's children is usually a figment of

Hollywood's imagination.

The most interesting aspect of the film is the setting of a murder

investigation in the middle of Nazi occupied territory. Sharif's

character is no saint, either, but he shows more compassion than

his suspects. The fact that the embodiment of evil on earth would

be interested in removing one of their own makes for very

compelling drama. The murderer is not killing because he is a

Nazi, but because he is insane. There is no other motive offered,

and I do not think it is very important to the story anyway. This is a

serial killer film before the term "serial killer" was coined.

Most of the drama takes place in Parisian offices and bars, there

is little action save O'Toole's extermination of a Warsaw ghetto,

and a cameo by Christopher Plummer as Field Marshal Rommel

getting gunned down. Watching these incredible actors in full Nazi

regalia and saluting Hitler is unsettling, but the story and

performances are so moving. The film makers find a balance

where you cheer for the good guys, without cheering for a bunch of

Nazis.

James Bond devotees might want to check this out, since both

Gray and Pleasence portrayed Blofeld in 007 films, and O'Toole

proves why he is one of the screen's greatest actors (who never

won an Oscar). "The Night of the Generals" is a high minded

murder mystery that should entertain whodunnit and WWII fans

alike. I recommend it.

Although the video box I had rated this as (R), it might be closer to

a (PG13) for gun violence, mild profanity, some sexual references,

and some adult situations.


"The Night of the Generals" is a murder mystery with Valkyrie, the plan to murder Hitler, as a SUBPLOT. It doesn't exactly work like a Swiss watch movement. The search for the killer, led by Major (later Lt. Col.) Grau (Omar Sharif), gets lost for a time and Valkyrie is inserted rather late in the film. But the acting is superb, especially by Peter O'Toole as General Tanz, an utterly ruthless killing machine, Tom Courtnay as Corporal Hartman, who is assigned to show Tanz the sights of Paris, Donald Pleasance and Charles Gray as two other German generals who are suspects, along with General Tanz, in the murder of a Polish prostitute in Warsaw, and Phillipe Noiret as a high ranking French policeman who helps Lt. Col. Grau with his search for the killer. Christopher Plummer appears briefly as Field Marshall Rommel, but he isn't given much to do.

For a star of his caliber, Sharif is strangely passive in his role. The same cannot be said of O'Toole who is in utter control for most of his time on the screen but turns psychotic when confronting a painting by Van Gogh that exemplifies the latter's madness and lets loose the madness of General Tanz.

This isn't a great film, but it manages barely to sustain the suspense of the murder investigation and when the suspense is in remission, General Tanz successfully soaks up the viewer's attention. Happily, Tom Cruise is nowhere to be seen. Valkyrie is launched and fails without him.


(Some Spoilers) When a Polish prostitute is found brutally murdered in German occupied Warsaw German intelligence officer Major Grau, Omar Sharif,becomes obsessed in solving her murder. It's that the murdered woman Maria Covyenska was working undercover for German intelligence in finding and identifying Polish and Jewish guerrilla fighter. What's far far worse, in Maj. Grau mind, is that the person who murdered Maria was positively identified by an eye witness In him having a red stripe down his military trousers which is only worn by member of the German General Staff!

Maj. Grau narrows the killer down to three persons who, besides being German Army Generals stationed in Warsaw, can't explain their whereabouts on the night of December 12, 1942 which just happened to be the evening Miss. Covyenska was murdered! The three suspected generals are Gen. Tanz, Peter O'Tool, and Generals Kahenberg, Donald Plesence, and Von Seiditz-Gabler, Charles Gray.

Even though it's supposed to be a surprise we get to know who the killer is just by his unsavory actions both on and off the battle field and with those he deals with, German as well as Poles and Russians. Maj. Grau runs into the killer some two years later in Paris who commits the very same kind of crime and has his aid Lance Cpl. Kurt Hartmann, Tom Courter, set up and framed for it.

It's during that fateful summer of 1944 that Maj. Grau ends up getting involved with the other two suspected generals, guess who, in a plot to assassinate German Dictator Adolph Hitler! Maj.Grau also ends up making a fatal mistake, in him mistakenly feeling that the assassination was successful,in jumping the gun in trying to arrest the psycho killer German General.

Now twenty two years after the war ended Maj. Grau's friend in the French Resistance the former Insp. Morand, Philipe Nolret, who now works for Interpol finds an important link to both the Warsaw and Paris killings in the brutal and recent murder of a German prostitute in Hamburg. There's just one hitch to Insp. Morand's uncovering just who the killer is! The only man who can identify him Lance Cpl. Hartmann who's been missing, or dead, since he was forced to desert his German Army unit back in 1944. That's when Hartmann was to face a firing squad for a murder that he didn't commit but was framed for it by the person who did! The man who Insp. Marand is curtain is responsible in the murders of not only three prostitutes but his good fiend the late Maj. Grau himself!

Even though we in the audience already knew who the killer is well before he was discovered by both Maj. Grau and Insp. Morand it's still a big surprise when he's finally exposed at the end of the movie. Not in who the killer is but what he does when he sees that his act as a fine and upright German patriot and General, the youngest in the German Army at the time he committed his horrific crimes, is about to be exposed! Being outed as a mad dog killer to the many admiring German soldiers, in the elite Thor & Hammer Division, who served under him was the final straw that broke the camel's, or General's, back. That was far worse to him then facing a rampaging armored division of the Red Army!


It was based on a best-selling mystery novel that did Tom Clancy-style business, at a time when post-war Euro mystery writers (like Maj Sjowall and Per Wahloo - remember them?) were bringing the war back in revisionist ways. The Nazi-art theft theme was also a revisionist topic of the day.

The two stars who carry the picture hated producer Sam Speigel for past injustices, and hated the picture he had roped them into. O'Toole, in particular, thought it was a comedown to be directed by aging old-schooler Anatole Litvak, though Litvak does keep the Euro flavor consistent in this. O'Toole and Speigel biographies talk of the actor deliberately overplaying the Tanz role so as to sabotage the mystery element of the picture, though it's hard to see how restraint would have improved the role. (And while this pic isn't The Lion in Winter, it's also hard to see how it's worse than Beckett.)

Even as a kid, I admired the 'big concept' of the film: Murder is wholesale in Nazi Europe, yet one freak is buying it retail, and another has only as much morality (or perversity) as is necessary to obsessively hunt the small murderer, but not the larger ones. If the state-vs.-individual angle had been played up a little more, if a younger director had made it in an artier style, if it didn't disregard history in so many ways - people would be falling over themselves comparing this to Blow-up as a portrait of modern times. They'd also be talking stuff about low material redeemed.

Being closer in time to the war than pictures like The Good German (Ehhh!) gives the apparent offhandedness of the moral treatment of the material a contemporary edge, though. The war slips away into the past without notice, just as, to American eyes, it seemed to have happened in Europe. Only the singular prostitute murders survive as prosecutable crimes - not even as war crimes. O'Toole's Jack-the-Ripperish performance seems to tie the two eras together, and the ending, in which celebration of his public excesses is spoiled by discovery of his private ones, nails the theme in the same deadpan style the picture has quietly established all along. It's hard to fault Litvak in this, though another director might have emphasized the passage of time as a dramatic-psychological element.

Like the script of Gangs of New York, Night of the Generals crams in a lot of historical background (yes, with anachronisms like the Warsaw Ghetto action placed in 1942), but it never seems like butt-covering for an inaccurate foreground fiction as in Gangs. Hannah Arendt's 'Banality of Evil' trope is put to work, as all facts - even those of the Holocaust - become statistical fodder for the war machine that remade Europe, while only the personal murders that the Tanz character is hunted for disturb the placid hum of the post-war apparatus. So both Litvak and novelist Hans Helmut Kirst are creditable for a contemporary and distanced view of the war. Some transitions and plot points are not suavely or accurately handled, or humanely considered. But don't let bad screenwriter shorthand fool you into thinking this is a comic-book treatment of the war or the post-war era.

Compare the themes of individual and state action in Night of the Generals to those in Blade Runner, The Sixth Sense - even The Fugitive. Those pics have a Noir-ish 'victim mentality' akin to Camus' The Stranger, while Generals has an activist mentality like The Plague, presented in a similar deadpan-existentialist style, in the face of futility. However it came about collaboratively, it did come about.


I believe this movie is graced by O'Toole's and Sharif' best performances ever - very different from their roles in Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago. Even though it is extremely long (134 minutes), still you never notice the time passing. There are no epic scenes or battle scenes - mainly it is two to three people talking leisurely in each scene... still it somehow has some kind of magic that keeps your attention all the time. The main theme of the hunt for the prostitute murderer is intertwined with the terrible final days of the Reich, culminated together at the same time. Definitely a milestone in movie history. All the actors and actresses are fine, and the story is just amazing. 10/10


Wanting to re-visit the genre he created, George Romero approached Tom Savini to direct a remake of his 1968 masterpiece, Night of the Living Dead.

While the film follows the original closely, it does have some important changes. Notably the character of Barbara is no longer a gibbering vegetable but now much more balanced. Other changes help blend the film much better into Romeros Dawn and Day. The use of tools by the zombies for example, is lessened and removed at times, creating more continuity between Night, Dawn, Day and Lands time-line of the undeads abilities.

Some seem to automatically shoot down the remake in favor of the original, I've watched this version almost as many times as Dawn and Day, and believe the film tops the original in almost every way.

Although the groundbreaking nature of the original will always remain, Savini's Dead is a without doubt a classic Zombie flick and in my opinion a perfect first chapter in the Romero Dead series.


Make-up maestro Tom Savini's color remake of Romero's 1968 classic follows the original almost shot-by-shot,but it's of course not better film.This remake was clearly made for younger viewers who refuse to watch black-and-white films,no matter how good they may be.The result is passable,but it lacks dark atmosphere and mood of the original.If this version has anything to offer,it is Patricia Tallman("Army of Darkness")in an engaging lead performance as a tough,independent heroine.This is only my opinion,but I'm really fed up with "strong female lead" concept that every new horror film seems to have.The next thing I dislike in this picture is the lack of gore.For God's sake this film was directed by gore wizard Tom Savini-the man behind such hard-core splatter flicks like "Maniac","Nightmare" or "The Prowler".The violence is very tame-even by today's standards.However the acting isn't bad,the zombies are pretty scary and the film is never boring.Recommended for horror buffs all around the world.


I've seen every "Dead" movie many times, and I've even written a spec script for "Dusk of the Dead." Here's what's right and wrong with this remake of the 1968 classic.

***SPOILERS AHEAD *** SPOILERS AHEAD ***

1. RIGHT - Barbara getting strong. Looking at Romero's other films - "Dawn" and "Dusk," strong females like Fran and Sarah play tough, believable characters. The catatonic Barbara in "Night" '68 was way too weak, especially for a Romero film. Although the execution wasn't as good as I would have liked (more on that later), it was the right decision.

2. WRONG - The music. Though the original used library samples for its music, they were very well-picked and added a chilling side to the action, with very few hitches. Here, though, an annoying score sometimes takes the viewer out of the picture. Better to leave the music out altogether.

3. RIGHT - Playing on people's expectations. The opening cemetery scene is one heck of a shock. Shooting at a gas pump? Not a good idea:).

4. WRONG - Harry Cooper. The point of this film was to make Harry out to be a complete a--hole. He hits his wife, drinks, argues, and doesn't even sound rational. The original made Harry an angry, nasty guy, but he helped some (throwing the cocktails, etc.) and made some good arguments for staying in the basement. Here, all he does is shout at everyone - not fun.

5. RIGHT - Effects. Great makeup here, absolutely convincing. Much better than the average horror film.

6. WRONG - Pacing. When the house is being boarded, the zombies attack constantly, and overpower the humans several times. You'd have to be an idiot to stay up there if the zombies were THAT strong. The first one made staying upstairs a viable option.

7. RIGHT - The third option of just getting the heck away. With a rifle and a shotgun, it shouldn't be too hard to get everyone past the zombies and into the open.

8. NEUTRAL - The ending. Certainly a radical change for Barbara's character, but it makes sense in context of Harry's behavior.

9. NEUTRAL - Decreased role of TV/radio reports. It's nice to focus on the matter at hand, but seeing the wider view of things is fun, too. It's good that they didn't explain WHY the dead were rising.

There you have it. Comments from a die-hard "Dead" fan. The film is about a 6-8/10, depending on how you like the series in general. It's comparable to "Day," in other words.


The dead come back to eat the flesh of the living. A small group of people are holed up in a farmhouse. They have to fight the dead from getting in...and each other.

There was no reason (that I can see) to remake the 1968 classic "Night..." but George Romero (director and co-writer of the original) wanted it. He scripted it and got makeup artist Tom Savini to direct. The results are OK. It could have been a disaster but wasn't. It's not a scene by scene remake but it does have some of the original dialogue. Still it makes some pretty extreme changes.

Barbara in the first movie was little more than a basket case. Here she is strong and intelligent and can hold her own. It's never really explained how she became such a crack shot though. Tony Todd is a good actor--but not here. He has the unenviable job of playing the part that Duane Jones played so well in the original. He is good...but not enough. The other actors are all pretty OK--the same as the originals were.

There are some cute visual and verbal references to the first film and the gore has been upped drastically (though not as much as it could have been). There is also an eerie and very effective music score throughout the movie. I found this a little slow but that's because I've seen the first multiple times in the past. And this one tacks on a screamingly obvious "ironic" finale.

It's OK--but the original is still the best. I give it a 7.


Another zombie movie? How could there possibly be another variation on this tired horror theme? These were my thoughts as I slipped my money through the window at the ticket booth back in the fall of 1990. After all, I was a poor college student who had to take prudent measures in order to ensure that I had beer money when its all said and done. Not to mention the fact that I was quite a horror fan, in particular a zombie fan who was very familiar with the original Romero film. Needless to say this movie had a lot to prove in order to win me over. Well, it did. What Tom Savini and company were able to do out in the Pennsylvania countryside was nothing short of masterful. Of course I'm talking about horror here. This is no Cassablanca, but within its genre Night of the Living Dead is a standout. This film basically faithfully retells the original Remero story with the benefit of better make-up, special effects, cameras, lighting and cinematography. Notice I did not say better casting or acting. Aside from the actual story these are two areas that are partly responsible for the original's lasting success.


Makeup FX master Tom Savini took the role of director for this entertaining remake of George Romero's zombie classic.

Strangers must battle armies of zombies when they become isolated in a rural farmhouse.

While this remake rather wisely sticks to the basics of the original film, it does differ at some points. Besides being in color and having much more graphic gore, the heroine is much tougher in this version which ultimately leads to a different conclusion than that of Romero's film. Thankfully these changes don't hamper this solid retelling, as it manages to keep the spirit of the original film. The action is strong, the special FX are great, the direction is slick, and there's a nice slice of spooky atmosphere over it all.

The cast is a strong point as well. Tony Todd puts on a good performance, as does determined heroine Patricia Tallman. Tom Towles also does a good turn as a truly dis-likable refugee. Supporting cast McKee Anderson, William Butler, and Bill Moseley are also effective.

While no horror film will probably ever live up to Romero's classic Night of the Living Dead (1968), this remake certainly doesn't try to. It just serves well as a fun and frightening homage.

*** out of ****


Professional and surprisingly successful remake of George A. Romero's groundbreaking horror milestone with the same title, that retells  in color  the simplistic, yet still very unsettling premise of recently deceased corpses that rise from their tombs for unknown reasons, and go after the living. Remakes usually are a curse for us, horror fans, but "Night of the Living Dead" is a different story, since director Tom Savini obviously made this film because he wanted to tribute the original instead of using the idea of a remake as an easy excuse to further exploit a profitable franchise. This new version also is a full-blooded and genuine horror film with loads of tension (even though you mostly know what'll happen next, it's still scary), good acting (a lovely B-cast with names like Tony Todd, Tom Towles and Bill Moseley) and excellent make-up effects (although, it has to be said, the gore is a less outrageous than expected). Of course, the original can't be topped anywhere, since the initial shock-impact has gone and since Savini can't create the same unbearable atmosphere of mystery and despair. However, even if you swear by the original and know it by heart, I'd still like to encourage you to watch this version for the following reason: after about sixty minutes of sticking loyally to the original, Savini's "Night of the Living Dead" all of a sudden stops being a homage and NEW script-elements, either specifically added or recovered ideas that didn't made the final cut of the 1968 version, are brought in! Barbara's character, for example, is a much stronger female lead here that courageously assists Ben in kicking zombie-butt. The entire ending is different as well, and leans closer to the events in "Dawn" and "Day". In fact, you can almost state that the last half hour of Savini's film is a tiny third sequel, rather than a docile remake. Either way you look at it, this film is warmly recommended entertainment for horror fanatics.


Whereas Zack Snyder's recent remake of George Romero's Dawn of the Dead utilised only the bare bones of the original's script, Tom Savini's 90s version of Romero's Night of the Living Dead took far fewer liberties with its plot, opening almost exactly like the '68 horror classicwith a brother and sister being attacked by the undead in a rural graveyardand rarely straying from the original for the rest of its duration (bar a few subtle tweaks to keep things interesting).

However, although the film will undoubtedly feel extremely familiar to fans of the 'Dead' series, there is still much to enjoy about Savini's effort, and it is highly recommended viewing nonetheless.

Patricia Tallman plays Barbara, a young woman who seeks refuge in a farmhouse after the dead begin returning to life to devour the living. She is soon joined by natural leader Ben (Candyman's Tony Todd), who snaps Babs out of her catatonic state and begins to formulate a plan for survival. Problems arise, however, when more survivors emerge from the cellar and personalities begin to clash.

Savini's direction is workmanlike, but certainly does the trick as far as delivering the scares. Surprisingly, he doesn't allow gore to overpower the action, preferring to concentrate on characterisation and atmosphere instead (in fact, what little bloodletting there is tends to be rather restrained and those seeking excessive amounts of entrail eating would be better off looking elsewhere).

The cast are uniformly excellent, with Todd and Tallman making likable heroes, and Tom Towles being throughly despicable as a cowardly father; even the zombies are very good, with their awkward undead shuffling being quite convincing (so many films in this genre fail thanks to laughable zombie movements, don'tcha think?). The make-up is also rather nifty, with the ghouls sporting not-too-OTT dead complexions and hideous milky eyes, and several of the corpses featuring some nice individual touches (there's a drug-addict corpse with a needle in its arm, and one with a knife in his chest).

After plenty of exciting action, and some knuckle biting fracases between bickering blokes, Savini closes his film with a twist ending that differs slightly from Romero's original, but delivers just as much of a punch to the gut.

This version of Night of the Living Dead might not have been absolutely necessary, but considering that so many remakes end up being rather disappointing, fans of zombie films should be grateful that this one ended up in the hands of someone so knowledgeable and reverent of the genre. Thanks Tom! 8.5 out of 10, rounded up to 9 for IMDb.


Night of the Living Dead starts as brother & sister Barbara (Patricia Tallman) & Johnnie (Bill Mosley) visit their recently deceased mother's grave, there they are attacked by one of the living dead & Johnnie is killed although Barbara manages to escape on foot to a nearby farmhouse. There she is attacked by more of the living dead but a man in truck called Ben (Tony Todd) arrives & helps her, the truck is out of gas & they have no choice but to stay put. Then out of the cellar some more people emerge, together they decide to board up the house to try & keep the flesh eating living dead outside as they desperately try to come up with a plan of escape, as the night draws on tensions in the house escalate & the cannibalistic living dead outside rapidly grow in number...

Directed by Tom Savini this is absolutely brilliant remake of the George A. Romero classic Night of the Living Dead (1968) who actually turns in the screenplay for this, made years before the recent Hollywood fascination with horror remakes, The Hills Have Eyes (2006), The Omen (2006), The Ring (2002), Dawn of the Dead (2004), The Wicker Man (2006) & Black Christmas (2006) to name just six of the top of my head this '90 version of Night of the Living Dead is how it should be done & I thought it was a great film on many levels. The script stays pretty faithful to the original which to be fair I haven't seen in a number of years so the exact details of it are a little hazy, it starts out almost scene-for-scene although it changes things at the end. This treats the original material with respect & adds it's own ideas without drastically altering things which is how a remake should be I suppose, I really liked the ironic ending where the heroic Ben was in fact wrong & if they'd listened to the selfish Harry they would have all been rescued. The character's are very strong here & I particularly liked Ben who gets some really good dialogue as he tries to explain things from his own perspective & what he has seen prior to meeting Barabra. The film moves along at a great pace, it's never boring, it's as plausible as any film can be featuring flesh eating zombies, it's really nice to see a pretty intelligent horror film with good adult character's rather than annoying teens & a well thought out script.

This was the directorial debut of special make-up effects man Tom Savini & it perhaps comes as a surprise that this Night of the Living Dead remake is pretty tame in the gore department, there aren't even many gory head shots, there's a severed hand, a few rotten zombies & not much else but the story compensates. To be fair the filmmakers were forced to cut some of the gorier stuff to get the rating that they wanted, however there is a documentary on the DVD release with some of the gore shots that were cut out. There's a nice tension to the film, the in fighting between Harry & Ben together with the ever growing hordes of zombies outside.

With a supposed budget of about $4,200,000 this is very well made with good production values, impressive special make-up effects & very good acting especially Todd.

Night of the Living Dead '90 is a top film, it's how remakes should be done & is a fantastic homage to original that is a great film in it's own right. Definitely well worth a watch.


Having watched The Night Of The Living Dead 1990 Remake, I can say it's flat out terrible.

Tom Savini... good effects man... Horrible director.

But it wasn't the bad direction that bothered me as much as the writing. It was absolutely meaningless. The original worked together perfectly. But the ending of the remake was awful, and the least of it's problems. You see, the original film had a simple ending with a great message. Also, it came across very well that the lack of working together is what doomed them.

The only epilogue in the ORIGINAL is that when the "posse" comes the next morning, they see Ben in the window. He was the sole survivor, but they shot him in the head assuming he was a zombie. OK, good. Irony well done. It was simple and powerful. With this film, there is No surprise, no drama, no fright and we're off to the start of what is a VERY unfulfilling film when all is said and done.

Technically incompetent, badly directed, no clear focus, a bad script, a loose re-working of points that were strong in the original, turned into an unfocused mess of points that fail to emerge coherently.

Barbara is the survivor, this time. She escapes and comes back for help. This is done VERY unconvincingly, first of all. I mean geez. In the beginning, she could hardly do anything. But then after spending time with people that annoyed her to no end she suddenly gets survival skills OUT OF NOWHERE.

She says she can walk right past them. So... at this point if she was in there with people she wasn't liking that were fighting and arguing, why doesn't she? She just got done screaming at everyone saying they were fighting like 2 year olds. Yet, she stays. This is ridiculous for the next reason: The ridiculous thing is that she DOES leave and DOES walk right past them.

Yes... AFTER everything falls apart, and AFTER everything has gone from bad to worse, when the horror of it all is getting bad when they are ALL out there, THEN she just runs out there and gets away.

....makes no sense. None. She could have done this at any time, but it feels like she didn't until it was "convenient" for the writers. And she had MUCH less trouble out there than Ben had for 2 minutes! WHAT???? So OK.... THEN...

After Ben and Harry had their shootout, Harry locks himself in the attic while Ben, with the good common sense is the one that finds himself in the basement. He sees the keys to the gas pump which they thought they had but failed, and laughs.

OK... that ending worked well enough. But then it gets very stupid.

Barbara comes back the next morning, and sees Zombie Ben coming from the basement, and he's shot. ..........WHAT???? Well, there goes the intelligent ending to the first film. It didn't bother me so much that they "changed" it. Rather it's because they failed to HAVE an intelligent ending because of what happened next.

Barbara then finds Harry that made everything fall apart. He's glad to see her and he's alive. Yes, the selfish, troublemaking guy you hated was the sole survivor. Barbara puts a bullet in HIS head.

uhh............ OK. What a stupid ending.

I mean... what are we supposed to learn from this? That if you're selfish and you can't work with the others, then you'll survive, but then the other survivor will come back and shoot you? What an incoherent mess of an ending. There's no moral. Just some "haha he got shot" ending. The ending went on way too long. In the end there was no strong moral. No point.

Where's the irony? Where's the message? Where's the point? It's the least of the film's problems. Incompetent directing, a general disregard, and an "let's get through it" mentality, a sloppy lack of attention to detail of character development, sloppy story writing, plus more.

Rather just a rehashed concept from a superior film. These, classic characters, re-imagined as flat, uninspired characters who "go through the motions" and play their cardboard parts until the plot ends and the confused multiple mixed "messages" begin and last for 5 minutes more than original ever needed to make one, solid point. A lingering, confused ending with no real point is our reward for a full runtime of a shlocky and incompetent film based on a masterpiece of cinema. Why even release a film as bad as this?

There was no real mystery. Just a mindless action film with an ending that was tacked on. Nothing was horrific, and the film even sorta hits you over the head with "Well, you know what's going to happen. So here's some zombies." The intelligent commentary, all gone. Replaced with points that make no sense.

OK, it's fine that the timid, catatonic girl from the first one, took charge of her situation for once. But they made her TOO much into "G.I Jane" in this remake. It went too far, was heavy handed and everything. It was also poorly pulled off. I would have loved the idea if it was done right.

Oh what? Suddenly she gets a pair of pants instead of a long skirt, a gun, and suddenly she's Sigorney Weaver in Aliens?! If it had looked convincing or felt convincing, I would have got behind it. But it didn't. I could get behind nothing in the film.

It's not that the film couldn't have been remade, but if it was remade by someone who understood the concept and by a competent director and smart writing, it could have succeeded. The film fails largely due to the lack of these things.

And by that, I mean it REALLY fails. Nothing is done well in this film.


Pretty faithful remake (written by original NOTLD co-creator George A. Romero) of the zombie classic in which seven people are trapped inside a farmhouse while a plague of the flesh-eating undead beings roam rural Pennsylvania.

In updating this story, some changes are inevitably made: it's now in color, and the violence is more graphic and explicit. However, I actually enjoyed this a lot more than I would have expected to, given that remakes usually don't cut the mustard - especially when the original was just fine to begin with. Makeup effects veteran Tom Savini, making his directorial debut, does a respectable job. The movie moves at a decent pace and it's effectively gut-wrenching. The best change is that the heroine, played by stuntwoman/actress Patricia Tallman, becomes much tougher this time around. And genre superstar Tony Todd, who soon after was cast as "Candyman", is super in the lead. Actually, this cast has no slackers. Harry Cooper may be as much of a worthless jerk as he was in the original, but actor Tom Towles is completely successful at making him a one-dimensional character instantly deserving of our ire.

And because of an obviously bigger budget for improved makeup effects, the zombies look even better.

10/10


Barbara (Patricia Tallman) and her brother Johnnie are visiting their mother's grave in a cemetery in the country, 320 km far from their homes. There, Barbara realizes that dead persons are walking again. Barbara escapes from a walking copse, gets in a farmhouse in panic. Then she meets Ben (Tony Todd) in this house. They realize that there are other survivals inside the cellar. All of them get trapped in this house surrounded by dead bodies that eat flesh. The 1968 `The Night of the Living Dead' is, in my opinion, the best horror movie ever made. I have watched the original film more than ten times, and I intend to see it again and again. This remake was a wonderful surprise for me: It is also a great movie, with some minors modification in the story. The actors and the direction are sharp and many actors and actresses look like the original ones. I have watch this remake at least five time. Yesterday I bought the Brazilian DVD. This DVD is great: you have both versions (widescreen and fullscreen) and lots of extras. I regret only that the extras do not have subtitles, so Brazilians that can not speak English will lose this bonus. My vote is eight.


What a load of c***! The acting was lousy, the special effects could have been done better with a fork and bucket of water, as for the scenery well they could have at least done the house up a bit....Too much swearing and a on going plot that never develops were too much for me!! Even though I just managed to watch it the whole way through!! The end was rubbish too!! The acting could have been made better if monkeys were the stars!! What c***!

2/10 and that was only because the beginning was funny!!


In this faithful remake of the 1968 original "Night of the Living Dead" is satisfyingly enough to overcome sereval flaws moments of this remake. The remake is directed by George A. Romero long time friend:Tom Savini (Who is best known for his Make-Up effects work). The remake is penned by George A. Romero (Bruiser, The Dark Half), who re-wrote his original screenplay from the 1968 film. Which Romero wrote with John A. Russo back in 1968. The remake has a few new ideals with a different third act.

The remake has basically the same story about Barbara (Patrica Tallman) and her wise-cracking brother-Johnny (Bill Moseley) went to the graveyard to visit their Mother's grave. When Barbara is attacked by a strange man. Her brother tries to save her but he ended getting killed. She runs away to a nearby farmhouse and she finds herself with a sensitive but tough African American man (Tony Todd). Thinking that they are safe in that farmhouse but once it turns night. Barbara and Ben, their world turns upside down, because these strange people are trying to get in the house.

Then later... Barbara and Ben finds out that they are not alone in the house. When they find themselves with five other people (Tom Towles, McKee Anderson, William Bulter, Katie Finnerman and Heather Mazur). Thinking that they might have more hope but one of the survivors in the house finds out that these strange people are actually the living dead coming back to life and attacking (and eating) the living.

This film is a scene for scene remake of the Disturbing Original until near the end. Only difference, the remake is color with a tougher heroine and more potent violence. But the film in the film, it has almost none of the impact from the 1968 movie. This is familiar territory for Romero and Savini. Producers of the original 1968 film-Russell Streiner and John A. Russo are also producing this remake. Originally, this was not the film that Romero and Savini intended to be. In fact 30 to 40 % of George A. Romero's Screenplay wasn't filmed, because of Budgetary Reasons. Most people hated this remake, when it first came out (even i hated it). But over the years, the remake got better, thanks to sharp performances by Todd, Tallman and Towles.

The music score by Paul McCollough is a mixed bag. Sometimes the score works and sometimes it doesn't. But it does have a good music score at the end credits. Savini does let his actors overact at sereval tense moments, which almost makes the film funny unintentionally. This is certainly a flawed remake but better than expected.

The remake of "Dawn of the Dead" is more successful than the "Night of the Living Dead" remake. DVD Quality of "Night of the Living Dead" remake is very good with an fine anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1) transfer (also in Pan & Scan). The Dolby 2.0 Surround is good and clear sounding. The DVD has an commentary track by Savini (Which the Commentary has some dead air, Savini should have someone with him in the Commentary like Romero). The DVD has an amusing 25 minute feautrette and the original trailer. This is not the best horror remake but Romero and Savini come very close. If they filmed the entire screenplay from Romero, maybe it would have ease the flaws of this film. It is worth a look. Romero also Executive Produced the film. Followed by the remake of "Dawn of the Dead". (*** ½/*****).


I was wrong about this film when it was released in-1990, thinking it was just a lame-hijacking of George Romero's story by some moron. Boy, was I wrong! It was co-produced by (and given a slight-revision in the screenplay) Romero and John Russo, the co-creators of the original. With Tom Savini directing-it, you cannot-go-wrong here, it's incredible, and Tom wanted to make it gorier, but the distributors wouldn't allow-it. I think at-this-point Savini was burned-out doing the makeup-gig, and has continued-directing since this film, whenever he can. He should, he's great-at-it, and has a good-eye for composition and timing--both crucial to effective-horror. Coupled-with his makeup-expertise, he is just excellent as a horror-director. I recommend his recent DVD-production, it's classic-horror that looks professional and solid.

It should-be-noted that the film was made--in-part--to "shore-up" Romero's and Russo's (as-well as everyone who was involved-with the original) copyright to the original-film, which is only-fair--they have barely-been-paid for it since 1968. You know the little-copyright underneath a film-title in older-films? A distributor forgot-to-include this in the theatrical-prints, which is why you see DOZENS of shoddy-editions of the 1968-version. The Elite edition is the only-one to own, period. The only-downside is Elite should have wrangled an isolated-score function (which should be on all horror-films where the materials-exist to do it), as the original-score is very hard-to-find now.

The film? It's an excellent-updating! I'm not-sure it should ever be remade after this one, honestly, it's so basic in the look that I cannot see it becoming-dated anytime-soon. Ususally, it is VERY young-individuals who say something is "dated". What does this mean?! Dated. Nothing, it just means you watched bad-prints of a film, and it created a false-aesthetic in your mind. Where-else does it exist? Your coffee-table? Anyway, Tony Todd was the best-choice in this remake, he's a Shakespearian-trained actor, and possibly one of America's greatest-living-actors. He even equals Duane Jones, one of the best-heroes in film-history in the 1968-version. But what is so radical in the 1990-version is the character of Barbara (played-wonderfully by Patricia Tallman), who is assertive and a genuine-survivor, a big-step even for-Romero at the time. But don't trust me, look at other horror-films from-1990, and you tell me.

It should-be-noted that Bill Mosley is in the beginning-sequence as Barbara's brother, Johnny: "They're coming-to-get-you, Barbara. They're coming-for-you!" He's great! Overall, this is a worthy-remake that is gorier, freakier, and scarier in some-spots than the original. This is only due-to the constraints that faced the original--mostly because it was treading-virgin-soil! You can never top the 1968-version, it will never be done, because it was so revolutionary (still is) and original. It is THE original, and can be cited as truly kicking-off modern-horror as we know it today. The social-commentary should be obvious, and the film wears its politics openly, and proudly, as-it-should. Tom Savini's makeup-crew did an excellent-job on this film, and it had me cringing!I especially-thought they got the blood correct, it is usually-dark in real-life (ugh). If a remake doesn't say-something (anything) about the time we live-in, it isn't worth-much, but this film spoke (and speaks) well. The Columbia DVD is pretty-good, and has great-sound and an excellent-featurette.


A surprisingly good remake of the 1968 George A. Romero classic, directed by make-up effects artist Tom Savini, making his directorial debut.

Seven strangers barricade themselves in an isolated farmhouse while cannibalistic zombies walk the countryside. The heroine is stronger, the violence and gore are more frequent and disgusting, and the zombies are ugly, to say the least.

Sometimes characterized as a scene-for-scene remake, those critics should open their eyes a little wider because the end was completely different from the original, as was the beginning -- also taking the second paragraph's points into consideration as well.

Good job, Mr. Savini! George A. Romero also wrote the screenplay for this one, too. Yes, Romero and Savini make a great team!


It almost hurts to say that because of the fact that it is a remake, but it's true. With so many horror films being remade we lose the flavor of the original but the essence of the original is still here in this flick. With so many people from the first film being involved with the remake it's easy to just label it as an "update".

I find the characters to have a lot more depth in the remake. The zombies have more of a vacant sadness and the setting is a lot creepier. This is one film out of only a handful that I find truly scary, even to this day. It definitely stands the test of time and is bound to be just as much of a cult classic film as the original.

Not taking anything away from the original which is definitely a masterpiece. George Romero has gone above and beyond any other horror director in cinema history and Tom Savini is a welcome addition to the zombie tradition (now if he would just get back in the director's seat).

If you're looking for a fun, scary, thrill ride of a movie, look no further. Tony Todd and Patricia Tallman give the most memorable performances of their respective careers and Romero and Savini come through like a horrorcane and deliver the greatest horror film ever conceived.

With today being Halloween, this is my pick for a great creepy movie to watch on this Day of the Dead 2005.


I must say that i am surprised... I have now for the last two months or saw seen all of the films that are related to this series and this ends up as the second best. The original will always get credit, with all right, for being original but it it really lacks when it comes to acting, score, makeup etc. Savini, John A. Russo and Romero have really added was missing in terms of casting and script. The movie also gains a lot from not trying to be shocking. There are scenes in the original version where the movie really became to pretentious in that aspect. A thing that surprised me during the movie was the fact that the comments from media was largely removed. I can understand why they wanted to remove the babble about radiation from Venus or what ever it was. I bet Romero really regretted this part of the original NOTLD (with good cause) since there has was no mention of this in the remake. I was wondering though how they would tie up the ending. I must say that the new ending was much more in line with what could be read between the lines in the original. Anyway, it is of course not perfect. The acting by Tony Todd is good and Patricia Tallman as Barbara get better as the movie progresses. This can be said about the movie too actually, the beginning is not as gripping as it should have been much due to Barbaras overacting brother. All in all 7/10, treat your friends to this version if they are not die hard for classic horror. I really can not think of anyone i know who would sit through the original.


When you start to watch this film, it never gets boring. For those who have seen the original, you can see that Romero stayed very close to the original movie with alterations of course which looked like politically correct moves if you ask me. I will get to that later. From beginning to end we see what effect it has on a small group of people locked inside a house. Here the characters are very much like in the original with the exception of Barbara. Her character has changed while the girlfriend of Tom behaves very much like Barbara of the original, even though in the original the girlfriend acts totally different. The characters aren't very likable but we do begin to like to them because they do whatever they can to stay alive during this tragedy. Harry Cooper being the arrogant prick who wants to be in charge, but is defied by Ben who soul purpose is to stay alive and help those around him to stay alive as well. Barbara is the only character that has changed and had adapted to our social standards. At first she get's into shock over the tragedy of losing her brother and being attacked by creatures who appear to be not to be alive at all. But after she meets up with Ben, she starts to change to become as dominant as Ben is. I don't mind that, but it did the original some injustice by turning one of the leads into a dominant lead while in the original she was in shock throughout the movie and get's killed. I think most people might agree that of fear of being called a sexist or being un-PC, they changed Barbara's character. Like I said, I don't mind, but lately that is all we get shoved down our throats in horror movies these days. In most modern horror movies, the men and woman start as equal, probably the men being the dominant, but when tragedy strikes, the women take charge and survive while the men die. The feminists may complain that the original was to sexist because it portrays women as weak and defenseless. Whether or not the Barbara character was altered out of fear of being attacked by feminist groups, I don't know, but I do know that too many horror movies these days are about though, dominant female leads who survive the tragedy that befalls them while the men succumb to the tragedy. It is like women have to prove themselves that they can be emotionally and physically strong. We know that there are both men and women out there who are either one of those and sometimes both. But what is the point of killing of all the characters except of one female one? Oh well, it is probably my fault for not being politically correct all the time. I don't really care if I'm PC or not. Okay, I stop ranting now. Anyway I do recommend this movie to every horror buff in the world and fans of the original. There wasn't much gore present, but than again, there wasn't much gore either in the original. They insinuated the gore instead of showing it. although I do prefer seeing the gore, but the insinuation of it works very well. Afterall Alfred Hitchcok made his career from making movies where everything happens in the human psyche instead of on screen.


Updated remake of George Romero's 1968 classic, has better makeup and special effects than it's predecessor. The plot is virtually the same as a group of townspeople hole up in a shack as the "walkers" close in on them, forcing them to make life or death decisions; extremely graphic. Tom Savini was the makeup master of Romero's original Dawn of the Dead and he directs this remake which, by the way, is a better zombie movie than the average one out there on the video shelf. Personally, I found the modern version more enjoyable than the original. The zombies look scarier, Barbara isn't annoyingly scared stiff like in the 1st version, and its updated in color. Notably absent is the crummy acting and gags that have marred many zombie movies...I was 17 when this one was made and I don't recall it playing in theaters at the time. If your a fan of the original, give this one a chance, it comes with director commentary which compares it to the original. I highly recommend watching it at least once. (7 out of 10)


I haven't seen the 1960's version of this, but this is still okay for me. It gave me the creeps I swear. The zombies were very surprising from the beginning and came as a shock to the two, Barbera and Johnny. And then there is still Ben played by Tony Todd, this has got to be a cool role he plays and very good acting too, as he plays the loner from the city who seems to know how to fight these beings. His acting was very convincing and dramatic and the last scene of him was creepy, and really frightening! And it does seem very faithful to the original Night of the Living Dead, the farm, the people, and the dad Cooper, who is mean and disgruntled, very intense acting from him. And his famous lines were great and went like "a way in is a way out!" or "none of them yo-yos has got a car! Yo-yos! Ya bunch of Yo-yos!" Classic. Recommended to all fans of the dead trilogy, which no longer will be one as Romero is filming another, and to those who have seen the original, this one has many more surprises, which you will notice, watch it.


Night of the Living Dead (1990) was the feature length directorial debut of Special F.X. master/Actor/Stuntman Tom Savini. He made a fun remake/ update of the seminal zombie/apocalyptic horror classic. Even though the film had a low budget, the effects were amazing. Tony Todd and Patricia Tallman play the leads whilst perennial cult villain Tom Towles co-stars as well. The film for the most part is a scene-for-scene redux with a few changes (that I found quite refreshing I might add).

Some fans of the original have been critical of this movie for some reason. I was stoked when this movie came out and when I left the cinema I was satisfied with the end results. Tom Savini did very well and I hope he gets a chance to direct in the near future.

Recommended for genre fans


It probably is. I don't know what you cinema fans think, but I think this remake is even better than George Romero's original movie from 1968. When the original Night Of The Living dead came out, it was very scary, and also original... Even though nowadays zombie movies aren't the most original things ever, this one is probably the best one out there.

The story is the same from the 1968 movie. Seven people are trapped in a house, and out there, just zombies, lots of them. It looks like some radioactive disaster has happened, so all the dead are now back to life, and they are looking for food - human brains.

Tom Savini has always done an excellent job by doing make-ups in horror movies, and now he shows himself as a very good director (make-up is another important aspect in zombie movies, and it was done well in this one). The movie isn't very original, and it doesn't have anything that makes it so good, but when you watch it, you'll agree with me... It's a fun movie to watch, and being this way, I consider it the best zombie movie ever made.


This movie is one of my favorites in the Zombie genre, we can watch the human behavior in a serious problem like the end of the world, and the dark side of the people. For example: Cooper hates Ben, because he is a natural leader and he had good ideas to survive, therefore they were fighting every time and they shoot each other when the daughter of Cooper one became into a zombie. Other example: when the "militiamen" appear,they have fun shooting, torturing and burn the zombies (when there are 3 zombies hunded in a tree and the humans are laughing while they shoot to them). (sorry if my English is regular or bad, because I speak a little of English)


this is not even close to the original! I watched it for the first time when i was 10 and the whole way through me and my friend laughed so hard we were crying! up until a few years ago this was the funniest movie id ever seen!


I really do enjoy this remake. It doesn't require too much thinking, you can pretty much be a zombie and enjoy the flick (knuck knuck).... Considering all the other zombie flicks that are out there.. this one is pretty decent

The acting is a little campy... the special effects are sort of lame by todays standards.. it never explains why the zombies are there... they just are.. All and all, these components contribute to me enjoying this film.

I really do admire George A. Romero and Tom Savini for all their work they have put into Zombie movies... I, myself, am I huge Resident Evil fan but this is classic.

8/10 for zombie genre.


If you like edge of your seat action and non stop fright, then you have to see the 1990 remake of "Night of The Living Dead" a horror fan's dream come true.

This movie was just indescribable! I have never seen such a nerve wracking movie! I was on the edge of my seat from the beginning to the end!

The cast was one of the best ever assembled and the talent in this movie was as evident as champagne at an aristocratic event.

What can you say about Patricia Tallman except that she is dynamite incarnate! She plays Barbara, a shy, timid and somewhat neurotic woman who was obviously under the thumb of her recently deceased mother. But she soon does a lot of growing up and has a wit for survival that could rival any Navy SEAL or Army Recon and an aim to match!

Throw in her brother Johnny, played as only it could have been by the awesome Bill Mosley and you have the makings of a night to remember.

When one thinks of cool, bad as they come and a force to be reckoned with, you can't help but think of Tony Todd who stars as Ben in one of the best roles in his life. When Ben speaks, he commands your attention and you find yourself hanging on every word, hoping that he is the savior they all need.

The chemistry between Ben and Barbara on the screen in magnetic and makes for as believable a movie scenario as I have ever seen. You can't help but hope that Ben and Barbara make it out alive so they can start a life together they are *that* good as a team. As two people who, through no fault of their own, are thrown into a nightmare situation where certain death is like a shadow hanging over them, they act more like leaders than victims of their horrible reality.

A great supporting cast includes Tom Towles as Harry Cooper whom you pray that if the zombies get anyone, it will be him. I have never in my life seen someone so convincing as Tom was in this movie. When he finally gets his in the end, I stood up and cheered!

Mckee Anderson is just as convincing as the mealy mouthed but tired of her husband's crap, Helen Cooper.

Notable performances were also put in by William Butler and Katie Finneran as Tom and Judy Rose, two sweethearts who as naive as they are, have smarts of their own to help them survive.

The zombies were believable, the makeup was incredible and the scenery was top notch. From cemetery to farmhouse better scenery couldn't have been found.

I could have lived with a different ending but realize it was necessary to make the movie as powerful and poignant, yes poignant as it was.

I would recommend this movie as one of the greatest horror films in history and would suggest you watch it with ALL the lights on!!


Brilliant movie, Night Of The Living Dead is by far one of the greatest movies ever made. I think even though the budget was low and the overall quality of the film was rather primitive by today's standards, the "feel" of the movie is what made such an impact on me and everyone else who has watched it!


Excellent remake that is actually better then the original. Great acting by the supporting cast and fine direction by the always demented Tom Savini - who will be the next genere director to breakout!

Really conveys all the terror of a "zombie attack". The standard one guy in the group who is nothing but an @$$hole comes off really well - I hate that guy.

Looking for this one on DVD.


First of all, I have to admit that this movie is 10 times better than the original. I've been told by numerous people that it isn't, but, I have reasons to support why I think so. 1. The pop-out Zombie in the cemetery is brilliant. 2. The make-up is outstanding. 3. Barbara doesn't just sit there. 4. The first scene in the movie is shot on a nice spring day that creates the atmosphere (for those who don't know) that it's going to be a nice movie. I could list more but there are just too many. I would also like to mention that the original film from 1968 is great as well. And something that I like about both of them is that they were shot not too far from my home in Pennsylvania. Watch both versions of the film. But I give this one a 10/10.


I actually love this show! It has a great premise and some creative re-imaginings of many tales from all our school days and even some new ones. Throw in crazy animal antics and you've got a winning formula. The voice acting is great and pays wonderful attention to the mannerisms of the animals. There is a plethora of wonderful character voices as well as those that recollect the usual suspects from school. (The deep, smart kid, the superficial popular crowd, the school bully, even the optimistically depressed guidance counselor).

Instead of having to just adjust to the rigors of middle school, poor Adam Lyon needs to adjust to an innumerable amount of different species that all have their own ins and outs that make day to day differences hilarious. Sure there are a lot of easy gags like fart or butt jokes, but I think I'm mature enough to admit that they're still funny....and always will be. Whether it's trying to fit in at the school dance, learning why it might not be okay to bring a hamburger for lunch, or competing against a dolphin in the school science fair, it will never be a dull day at Charles Darwin Middle School.---- Fart Jokes rule.


I really think it's funny when someone writes "I serious it Retarded of a cartoon."

Wha? This person cannot even write a simple sentence, yet they feel they can bash a show that is obviously superior to their own banal excuse for intellect - and I don't even know what that means.

Apparently they are not "Responsible" or "Dependable" or "Reliable" or "Not an Idiot". And what about CN being 90% cartoons? Umm. CN = Cartoon Network. Hmmm.

Maybe I have misjudged this person and really they are a comedic genius that deserves to be revered as sublime.

The Monkey Show Rules whether or not you are smart enough to know it.


There are two things that go through my mind when I watch My Gym Partner's a Monkey: 1) It is a cartoon 2) Comedy. I suspect if I were living in some bizzaro cartoon universe, anything is possible i.e. my jaw dropping to the ground, and my tongue dragging on the floor.

Back to the cartoon itself. As Jake's last name is Lion; subsequently he is shifted from a human school to an animal school. Basically Charles Darwin School is used to educate young animals. Again, this scenario could be possible in a cartoon universe. Jake Spider-Monkey and Adam Lion are best friends, and they get up to all sorts of stuff. One of my favorite episodes is, when the animals from Charles Darwin School, stayed at Adam's house for the night.

For a cartoon that has been produced on the cheap, I like it, because it is funny. If you want realism, well go and watch Nat Geo, or Discovery. It is a cartoon, Jake Spider-Monkey and Adam Lion can do anything they want, ranging from a talking Spider-Monkey, to being transferred to an animal school.

Nevertheless, my Gym Partner's a Monkey, could be a metaphor for school. Looking back at my youth, there is one place that could come close to a zoo, and that is high school, as the kids are out of control, and all the students are tearing each other to bits.

I have to give the my Gym Partner's a Monkey 8/10. That theme song is going to haunt me, until the day I die.


MY GYM PARTNER'S A MONKEY is an odd show featuring talking animals and a boy named Adam Lion.

Anywho, I got bored one time so I decided to go to Channel 36 which over here is Cartoon Network. And this show happened to be on and I seemed to enjoy it. It's slightly funny, but keep you watching.

I usually don't like the new shows on Cartoon Network except Camp Lazlo (only a slight bit), The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy, and this show. Also, I usually don't like children television shows because it's lack of cussing, violence, etc.. But this one was okay.

I recommend this for parents to show their children if they are not too old to watch it and still think children shows are funny.. like the simple bong on the head or tripping..


This show is so retarded. #1: I hate baby shows. #2: I hate the plot. #3: I now hate CN! This show is so dumb! I only actually seen this show once, but it is SO retarded! What happened to the glory days of CN, back when they had a few cartoons shows. Not all cartoons like now! Hamtaro, Sheep in the Big City, I am Weasle, Code Lyoko, Courage the Cowarldy Dog, Mucha Lucha, The Cramp twins, ASSY McGee, Home Movies, R and Bobobo-Bobo-Bobo? Those were good shows! Don't get me wrong, i like a few shows like Camp Lazlo, Naruto, Aqua Teen Hunger Fource, & Garfield & Friends. But 90% of this channel nowadays is CARTOONS

I serious it Retarded of a cartoon. The reason why I don't watch this anymore because Im too busy playing "Mario Power Tennis".