|
Directed by: George Romero Starring: Simon Baker, John Leguizamo, Asia Argento, Dennis Hopper, George Romero had a lot to lose with Land of the Dead. In the 20 years since he made Day of the Dead, he’s only made 3 movies (Monkey Shines, The Dark Half, and Bruiser) and with films like 28 Days Later and the remake of his own Dawn of The Dead, the bar had definitely been raised on the zombie genre he created. Could a new Dead installment measure up to the new hyper violent sprinting zombies that audiences too young to be alive since his last film have become used to? Ladies and gentleman, George Romero does not disappoint. I’ve seen most horror films ever made, and would consider my taste to be pretty discerning, and with only very minor nitpicks of the ending, I’d say Land of the Dead is a severed head slam dunk. It’s a perfect mix of horror, action, humor, and gore that’s so important in the recipe for a good zombie movie. And just when you thought you’d seen it all, there’s brand new gore effects that blew us away, and made a theater full of obvious hardcore splatter fans squeal and groan with lusty laughter and applause the whole film. Get a load of some of these great things you have to look forward to: - 2 zombies fighting over an arm and ripping it clean down the middle - A zombie reaching his arm down someone’s mouth and pulling out a delightful mix of gore spaghetti - Zombie biting down on a belly-button piercing and pulling it out with a spray of blood and guts galore Don’t consider these spoilers, folks, because those are merely appetizers for the smorgasbord of eviscerated splatter filled glee that awaits you. I’m amazed that they still get away with an R rating for this film, and applaud the MPAA for letting zombies do what zombies do best. The dialogue is clever, and the acting is adequate. Nobody comes close to Duane Jones’ lead performance in the original Night of the Living Dead (and never has in any of these films, for that matter), but the cast of quirky character actors all play their parts well enough to accent the film. The zombies are the stars of the movie, and Romero does not hold back in letting them do their thing. Sorely missed from Day of the Dead, was the oddly charismatic “Bub”, a zombified soldier who hints at things to come by learning to use a gun at that film’s end. Land of the Dead opens with zombies instinctually doing things they did while they were alive. This is when we meet “Big Daddy”, a zombie gas station attendant who comes out looking for new customers when other zombies step on the alarm cord. He’s a bit more aware of his surroundings than the others and his curiosity and ability to learn becomes infectious. Once they figure out how to use weapons and progress in other areas, you can imagine this unstoppable undead army gets pretty loving scary. Some folks are resistant to change within the zombie mythos. Many die-hard fans of the flesh-eating ghouls were pissed to see them running in the Dawn of The Dead remake and 28 Days later. But Romero created the rules in the first place, so you have to accept this evolution of what zombies can do. Frankly, it makes them more interesting and formidable. The setup is pretty simple. With zombies pretty much comprising most of the earth’s population, a small city of survivors is isolated in a gated peninsula in Pittsburgh. The well to do live in a tower that Donald Trump would be proud to own, while the masses live in poverty in the surrounding slums. It’s an interesting commentary on class structure, as the lower class humans effectively all get bumped up to middle class, since the zombies are clearly the bottom of the socio-economic chain. It’s one thing to be poor, but it sure beats shambling around with maggoty legs looking for brains to eat. Dennis Hopper plays Kaufman, the Kingpin type figure that pretty much controls the entire city’s business. As you might expect, he makes plenty of enemies and sets himself up for some pretty bad confrontations between the dead and undead alike. His performance is a bit more understated than the typical “loving Insane” Hopper parts we typically see, which works well. He gets the best line of the movie, however, which had nearly the entire audience laughing. Asia Argento is nice to look at and does the tough sexy sidekick role as well as you’d expect her to, and the lead actor, Simon Baker, is mediocre but not distracting. The standout performances, however, are from the character actors that perfectly compliment the film. Robert Joy plays a slightly dim burn victim with great sharp-shooting skills that brings to mind a deadly Lenny from “Of Mice and Men”, while Pedro Miguel Arce, as the scary and hilarious commando Pillsbury was full of good laughs. I won’t say too much more, to keep the film a surprise, but I’m confident that if you had high hopes for this movie, you won’t be let down. And there’s even room for more, so if this does well, Romero may even treat us with another installment. Hopefully we won’t have to wait another 20 years to see it. My one nitpick is the final minute of dialogue has a groaner that made the entire audience wincing in agony. It wasn’t enough to gently caress the whole movie up, but it was an odd note to close the film with. Go and support this film, so we can see more! RATING: 4.0 PROS: Killer insane gore that does won't disappoint any zombie fan CONS: the last line of the film is quite a groaner ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418819/
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2005 06:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
Definitely not Romero's best work. All the movies in the "... of the Dead" series so far have had a fair amount of standard horror movie camp and cheese along with the wit and intelligence that makes them stand out from other horror films. I don't know if the recent oversaturization of zombie movies have raised my standards or if this one is worse than the previous films, but the cheesiness seemed to overpower the better parts this time around. All the shots of the zombies learning were horribly overwraught, and the characters, outside of a few of Cholo's better moments and the mentally-challenged sharpshooter, were very 2-dimensional. The movie has some of the great slapstick violent humor that has been a landmark of the series, and the gory zombie scenes are great; if you don't want anything more than that out of the movie you will probably like it. If you are one of those people that feel physical pain from listening to crappy dialogue, this movie will give you a splitting headache like no other. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2005 09:59
|
|
|
Saw the morning show today and came out feeling unfulfilled. The plot was extremely weak, dealing too much with vengeance than survival. Zombie movies are all about survival, not vengeance cause some rich gently caress won't pay you. I can make this movie 5 stars with one quick script change - Have the zombies get into the city right at the beginning and make the entire movie about the zombies taking over the place with the surviving humans making their last stand in the huge tower, the way a zombie movie should be. This lovely plot was completely wrong. It was basically a terrorism plot with zombies thrown in to cause some trouble here and there. The zombie scenes, though, were very well done. The gore was excellent, though not nearly as much as I was expecting after reading Liquorhead's review. It seems that they cut out a ton of poo poo from his screening and the official release. Hopefully the DVD will have said cut footage. The whole learning plot was interesting and definitely could have been much much better, but it seemed to just jump into it out of nowhere. It should have been more gradual, but whatever, can't win them all. And the ending...extremely anti-climactic. Besides the groaner at the end, the movie never feels like it ended. It just...well, sucked, basically. It seems like they completely ran out of money and decided to just say gently caress it, lets turn around and go north. While the plot was extremely weak for a zombie movie and the ending was poo poo, the zombie action (when there is some, that is) was fun to watch and worth the money. Go see this movie only for blood and guts, but don't expect much else. 3.5/5 only for the good zombie action. PS - I should also mention that the zombies really aren't the stars of the film. They only comprise about half of the movie at the very most. EDIT - Quick thing regarding the difference between this and Liquorhead's screening - quote:- 2 zombies fighting over an arm and ripping it clean down the middle quote:- A zombie reaching his arm down someone’s mouth and pulling out a delightful mix of gore spaghetti quote:- Zombie biting down on a belly-button piercing and pulling it out with a spray of blood and guts galore NovaHunter fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Jun 24, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2005 22:11
|
|
|
I just got out of this movie, and I must say that my biggest complaint is that you REALLY need to see (and understand) Day of the Dead first. The movie is very much the fourth part of a longer story and doesn't stand too well on its own. NovaHunter, making that plot change would've completely removed the social commentary that the Dead series is well known for. I do agree that the whole learning thing happened way too fast though, and the ending came completely out of nowhere. The "downer-to-upper" ending would've made some more sense if they'd make it clearer that the survivors' leader was the rebel-rouser from the beginning. liquorhead, you left out head-flapper zombie, I'm appalled. I give it a generous 4.0/5, just because I'm a zombie nut.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2005 02:53
|
|
|
Just saw it. While, I found it entertaining I felt any sense of fear or dread over the zombies is gone. It just isn't there. I think this is largely because the protagonists miss much of the action trying to recover the Dead Reckoning, a premise I laughed at in Dawn 2004. It's hard to empathize with the bad guys who get about 10 seconds of screen time before they do something stupid and are eaten. Our heroes do finally recover the city's main weapon. They pull up to the gates just in time to put some victims of a zombie massacre out of their misery. Roll credits 3.0 because I'm generous. Faderaven fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jun 25, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2005 04:04
|
|
|
Just got back, and I am entertained. It didn't feel like a Romero movie, unfortunately; Romero does best with a shoestring budget, and this was too flashy and such. That being said, it was a good zombie movie. Not great, not bad, but good. I think I can accept the zombies learning (though it was a pretty big step from 'maybe they can assume their old jobs, kinda, maybe, if trained!' that was in Day). I didn't find the last line TOO bad... but other than that, this was a perfectly decent zombie movie. Like the poster two above me, I give it 4.0/5 because I love zombie movies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2005 05:02
|
|
|
Just got back and I'm not really sure what I think. It had zombies and gore, but it didn't seem like they were the main focus. Definitely could have been improved by having more scenes of the zombies invading the city. The best parts were "We need to go to a place where there are no people, Canada!" and the main zombie jamming the gas pump into Kaufman's windshield and pouring the gas in, leading to the inevitable explosion of his limo. Seeing as I'm in Ontario, the former had the audience laughing for quite a while and I work full serve at a gas station now and then and I've always dreamed about dousing rich assholes like Kaufman in gasoline and lighting it. No, I'm not that crazy. I'll give it a 4/5 because I get a kick out of zombies no matter what and the big sign outside the theater advertised "SHARKBOV & LAVAGIRL"
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2005 05:09
|
|
|
i just saw this today and i was disgusted. the zombie parts were pretty much standard fare as far these movies go, but land of the dead seriously lacked a cohesive plot and any meaningful dialogue. i realize its a zombie movie and i may be looking too much into this, but most of the lines, especially those in kaufman's office just felt so clichéd. the ending was like taking your crippled, diseased mother out of the hospital and clubbing her death with a manhole cover. i can't wrap my hands around how bad the last line was and the stupid coming of age lesson riley had at the end. the zombies ate your entire city man, who gives a poo poo where they want to live. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2005 05:14
|
|
|
I went into this movie pretty jaded, and came out pleasantly surprised. The movie suffers from the fact that it's A plot is weaker than the other ones around it, and the ending was a huge letdown. I thought the most interesting parts watching zombie culture evolve and seeing Dennis Hopper reprise his role as King Koopa. I'd give it between 2.5 and 3, but I'm willing to give it the benifit of the doubt because Big Daddy ended up being a fascinating character for reasons I don't understand. EDIT: I finally figured it out. If the main character and the female lead weren't in this movie, it would probably be good enough to get a four from me. Nate Breakman fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jun 26, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2005 22:05
|
|
|
As an avid fan of the Living Dead series, I found this movie to be boring. Just too many holes in the plot, along with bad acting and poor action sequences. Very few suprises, id expected some more clues into how the dead started comming back to life, not just another 'omg were all gonna die' series of events. Its not very different from the Alien(s) formula. 1/5 elister fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Jun 26, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2005 02:10
|
|
|
I saw it last night and really enjoyed it; it's not a depressing movie like the other Dead films, but I'm glad Romero didn't just retread ground he's already covered. I thought Riley and Charlie's banter/camaraderie anchored the film by establishing characters I could give a poo poo about instead of cardboard zombie fodder. The effects were well-crafted, although something seemed a bit off with the flip-head zombie. I laughed the most at the grenade accident - it also reminded me of the sticky bomb death from Saving Private Ryan. I wish they hadn't used the river march scene in the trailers/commercials/ads so much, as that would've been extremely cool to see in the film itself for the first time. My only major gripe is I wish it had been longer to extend the city battle scenes more; I also think it would've helped the weak ending to have more elaboration, as the theatrical cut has Dead Reckoning blowing open the city fence, Kaufman dying, and... that's it. I couldn't think of a reason why Big Daddy's posse would ignore the slum-dwellers/rebels on their way out of Fiddler's Green, but I didn't have a problem with Riley not attacking them - it seemed very much in character for him to empathize with the zombies' apparent desire for an armistice. I also got a kick out of the sky-flower allegory - who knew appeals to patriotism as a distraction would work with the undead? 4/5 edit: doh, sorry about the tags 
Crusader fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Jun 28, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2005 07:48
|
|
|
I'm a longtime fan of zombie movies, from the low budget Cronenberg pseudo-zombie fests, traditional Night/Dawn/Day Romero shamblers, hilarious spoofs likes Dead Alive, to the newer and slicker Shaun of the Dead and 28 Days Later. I am well aware that, when building up a horror movie, Romero style, one must have three things kept firmly in check: 1. Atmosphere to slowly build up tension like the creeping hoarde of the zombie mass. 2. Occationally humour to break that tension ever so slightly, if only to put the viewers off their guard or make slight (SLIGHT) social commentary. 3. Suspension of disbelief. Yes, I know that the situation is highly implausible, but the film must presented in such a way that you can imagine yourself there in those set of circumstances. Romero, for a movie that even breaks the naming tradition (Dusk of the Dead, thein resolving the series would have been more appropriate), manages to violate all these principles he himself created for the genre by being sucked into the turgid poo poo-storm of modern 'horror' that comes off more as cheap scares (BOO! Oh, just a rat!) and brainless action. There were good things, though. I could see the main character being more developed for a better movie. Charlie was loving awesome, and so was his WWII carbine. The gore was perfect, leaving only a quick shot to let your imagination do the rest. Oh, and Romero, try and leave the topical political commentary out of it next time, 'kay? It and 'Big Daddy' have no place in your films
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2005 08:06
|
|
|
quote:pfizerman came out of the closet to say: Leave it out? All his other Dead movies had it, why shouldn't this one? (Although I will admit, some of it was a little heavy handed, ie the Fiddler's Green logo looking like the Enron logo). Anyways, I would rank this ahead of Day, but behind Dawn and Night. The gore was decent, although I thought the plot could have been rethought-out a bit. There wasn't really much of a climax, stuff just happened. As well, the final fight between Leguizamo and Hopper and their resulting deaths dissapointed me. Overall, though, it was better than the Dawn remake, and well worth seeing for Romero fans, zombie fans, gore fans, or Leguizamo fans (although I've never been a big fan of his, I thought his part was one of the best, as well as Asia Argento's). 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2005 08:34
|
|
|
I really had high hopes for this movie, and they all died. After seeing dawn of the dead (remake), I was hoping for a movie that could out do that. Instead, we get a really dumb movie. This movie reminds me of Resident Evil: Apocalypse. The storyline is shallow, and character development is dumb. The acting was pretty horrible. This didn't feel like a zombie movie, but more of a post apoclytipic society commentary which still can't stand on its own feet. In conclusion, its a really really dumb movie. 2/5 - Rent the uncensored DVD
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2005 14:58
|
|
|
I had pretty high hopes for this movie as well. I've always been a fan of zombie movies, although I haven't seen them all. I've never seen the other Romero films outside of NOTLD, which I enjoyed immensly. I loved 28 Days Later, Return of the Living Dead (Well, the first one at least), the NOTLD remake and recently the Dawn of the Dead remake. I loved the Dawn of the Dead remake. It was everything I wanted in a zombie movie. Perhaps I would have enjoyed Land of the Dead more if I hadn't seen the Dawn remake, but as it stand I was pretty dissapointed. First of all, every single generic character from any movie about mass chaos is well represented here without bringing anything new to the table. There's the handsome guy who always seems to do the right thing and save the day while never making a bad decision. There's the smooth talking hotshot who shoots first and asks questions later. There's the mean rich guy who opresses the people of his city and is driven by nothing but money and there's the hot babe who likes to talk about sex, but can also beat people up. The characters were completely two dimensional and didn't develop at all. The whole thing was just kind of underwhelming. I think with this premise the movie could have been great, but it just wasn't handled well. It would have been so interesting to explore the city a little more, but instead it's some dude you see for maybe two minutes of screen time in a very underwhelming scene giving a speech about being opressed.Then at the end he's leading the people of the city, and you see him for another half a minute.. I don't know, it just felt like that role could have been handled much better and had a more dramatic payoff. The zombies were cool, but I got a sense of "Zombie killing...TO THE EXTREME!" There are motorcycle jumps and people in weight lifting gloves and leather jackets uttering "witty" one liners. It just seemed like it was more interested in being an action movie than a zombie movie at points, which I wouldn't have minded if the action were somewhat realistic. The Dawn of the Dead remake is what I think a real zombie attack would be like. It gave a great sense of the entire world being destroyed that gave you a great sense of claustrophobia. The characters were portrayed in realistic light as flawed people, but not "good" or "bad" I give Land of the Dead a 2 out of 5 because it could have been so much more and just seems like a generic zombie film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2005 00:06
|
|
|
I was very underwhelmed by the film overall. While the Zombie-action/Gore is actually done very well, with Romero effectively using the shadows for a couple of kills, like The Zombie ripping off a head & spinal cord and the flip-top priest Zombie, the plot is awful, as is the dialouge. Romero's "class warfare" commentary is heavy-handed, even for him, and by spending no time developing most of the characters, including Hopper's villain, we have no idea how or why "Fiddler's Green", the skyscraper housing the rich, came to be. As an aside, I have no idea why actual money would have any value in a world in which the dead have taken over. Hopper says he paid for the training of the militia. Who did he pay? Why would they take money? The film reminds us constantly that this is effectively the only city left. It's distracting and I couldn't suspend my disbelief. The other plot-point that didn't work was the "Big Daddy" part. Big Daddy is the large, black zombie in the trailers who used to be a gas-station attendent. He "organizes" the zombies, for lack of a better word, to attack the city. He also looks more like a villian from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" than a Zombie, and he seems to "learn" things very quickly. Romero hinted at this in "Dawn" and explored it in a more interesting way in "Day". Here, Big Daddy is like a father to the Zombies, crying out with rage when one of his undead brethern is cut down by the humans, and he even puts one out of it's misery, so to speak, by shooting a flaming zombie in the head. I didn't think Zombies felt pain, but since they can also shoot guns and use cleavers, what the hell, right?. This gimmick combined with the lack of character development seems to be an attempt to make us root for the Zombies. Now, I enjoy watching Zombies eat people as much as the next sicko, but actively rooting for the Zombies to destroy all of mankind is too much for me. It's like pulling for the aliens in "Aliens". The dialouge is pretty poor, with potential laugh lines thudding. Riley's mentally slow but dead-aimed buddy is the most interesting character, and Leguizamo adds depth and actual conflicted humanity to his character. Not that he's written that way, but Leguizamo's a good actor when he tries, and he tries here. Asia Argento looks pretty but adds nothing. Simon Baker as Riley delivers every line with the same flat monotone, apparently mistaking "dull" for "weary". Romero deserves praise for his first three Dead films. They all had a pervasive feeling of dread and doom in them. There is no dread in this flick. The Zombie attack on the city is so telegraphed and predictable that you just want them to get on with it already. If Romero had decided not to make the main plot about terrorism and had at least toned down the social commentary and paid attention to the more frightening aspects of Zombie horror, the film might have been a wils success. As it is, there's not much to recommend it, except that it's short and the Zombies do snack down in an entertaining way. 2.5/5.0
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2005 15:42
|
|
|
Being someone who liked all three ...of the Dead movies, I'm a bit disheartened Romero couldn't pull off yet another zombie masterpiece. While Land of the Dead never fails to be ambitious, as well as great fun for any splatter fan, it stumbles all the way through, eventually crawling past the finish line. As in every other ...of the Dead film, Land mixes social commentary along with a nice helping of blood-drenched-splatter-fun we all expect from any zombie flick. Yet while the social commentary in the previous films was subtle and understated, Land is far more external, shoving every shred of political commentary down your throat. The theme today? Class warfare, with the zombies occupying the proletar---er---lowest class and the humans maintaining their positions in the middle and upper classes. The upper class controls all classes, the middle controlling the lower, and the lower being oppressed with no other power than their sheer numbers. While good in theory, it's poorly executed and reeks of political punditry, never leaving room for the viewer to make his own interpretation. For example, fireworks, or 'sky-flowers', are used as an allegory for patriotism and how it's used as a form of control as well as a way to distract those controlled from the horrors being committed by those in power. In the case of Land, humans use fireworks to distract the zombies while they kill them and gather supplies. This is where the lead zombie, ‘Big Daddy’, becomes infuriated and decides to rebel against his oppressors. Of course, the zombies are fed up with being shat on and decide to storm the last human city, stripping the bourgeo---er---upper class of their possessions and killing a ton of the middle class in the process, which is no doubt loaded to the brim with flesh-eating action and twisted humor. Eventually the zombies succeed in their task, and one cannot help but feel it's all terribly predictable. Romero also fails to bring back the tense, claustrophobic feeling that permeated from the other ...of the Dead films, and instead resorts to Hollywood scare tactics (i.e. zombies jumping out of nowhere, sudden bursts of noise etc.) we've become all too familiar with in modern horror films, completely failing to use setting and atmosphere to his advantage. Fortunately, the acting on Leguizamo’s part was excellent, yet his partner King Koopa (aka Dennis Hopper), chalks up a much more understated, and unconvincing, role as the owner of Fiddler’s Green, a sanctuary for the rich. As for the other leading roles, played by Asia Argento and Simon Baker, they’re dry, flat, and fail to connect with the audience. To makes it even worse, the characters are poorly developed, adding more predictability to this film. Even worse, the ending is as anti-climactic as they come, with the zombies taking over the city and a handful of people being saved, led by a no-name revolutionary. Our main character, Riley (Simon Baker), decides to head north to---you guessed it---Canada. The only good thing that can be said about this film is it’s mix of humor and gore filled action, which Romero still knows how to pull off all too well. The great thing about Land, as opposed to other Modern splatter films, is almost the complete absence of CGI, relying mostly on makeup and camera tricks to do the dirty work. In addition, there are quite a few clever one-liners that are sure to make you laugh. Aside from this, however, there isn’t much good to be had from this film. It’s predictable, filled with shallow, poorly acted characters (save Leguizamo’s role), caked with a half-assed political commentary and lacks the subtle nuances that made the previous ...of the Dead films so great. Perhaps I’m being far too harsh on Land, but I really feel Romero has finally lost his touch. 2 / 5 Gio fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jun 28, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2005 19:15
|
|
|
I very much enjoyed the film. I have been a long time fan of the series and the genre at large and I left the theater feeling very satisfied. Gore was supplied at a steady pace throughout in some incredibly creative ways. I feel like this film is a very logical next step for the series. If you are a fan you will be satisfied but if you arn't results may vary. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2005 23:52
|
|
|
I give it 2/5 stars. It was not remotely scary, nor interesting, nor was there any good dialogue, plot points, or characters. The zombies weren't even zombie-like at all; the head zombie acted like basically a normal human who roared every once in a while. Zombies roar... apparently. It gets 2 stars because it wasn't exactly painful to sit through, even though it was bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2005 08:53
|
|
|
If I had never heard anything about it before I saw this movie, I would not believe that romero had any part in making it. It's a big-budget action-packed summertime fun adventure. The acting is pretty uniformly bad (save John Leguizamo, who impressed the heck out of me), the scares are ALL cheap "jump" fare, the zombies for the most part look re-goddamned-diculous, the social commentary is annoyingly heavy-handed, the gore is over-the-top, and there are lots of explosions and gunfire. It's not a BAD movie. It's certainly watchable. But it is not a good zombie movie, and I still have this belief somewhere down in my heart that Romero has been kidnapped and replaced by am evil twin or something, but he'll be back to make the REAL Land of the Dead someday. I'll give it 0.5 stars, out of 5. EDIT: I forgot about the ending. Rating down from 1.5 to 0.5 because of that. That may have been the worst ending note for a movie I've ever seen. EVER. 0.5 out of 5
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2005 14:09
|
|
|
0.5/5 Bordering on unwatchable. I wanted to leave halfway through. I wouldn't have missed anything. Don't go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2005 05:50
|
|
|
Romero should have stuck with the original title, "Dead Reckoning", because that's what the movie is really about. Even putting aside my reservations about the whole intelligent zombie thing, it just wasn't a very interesting movie. This quote:quote:NovaHunter came out of the closet to say: - The setting was somewhat interesting, but it wasn't explored nearly enough. The movie easily could have spent another 20-30 minutes showing life both inside and outside the city. - Big Daddy was just laughable and poorly executed. - Why was all the gore CG? Maybe I'm just crazy, but I definitely thought most of the headshots and such looked like crap. While I don't regret seeing Land of the Dead, repeat viewings will be few and far between. 2.5/5 Nupraptor fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Oct 28, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2005 12:25
|
|
|
quote:DucktorWTF came out of the closet to say: My problem with this argument is that the Dawn of the Dead remake was made by Hollywood writers, whereas Romero has written B movies all his life. I don't know why everyone was preparing for something else. And I liked the B-movie feeling, too. I thought the irony of the fireworks at the end was great, although I don't know what line at the end of the movie everyone is referring to. One thing I didn't like was how it seemed that alot of exposition and background was edited out of the movie, in addition to the gore. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2005 06:01
|
|
|
I enjoyed it. Blood, gore. It's a Zombie Action flic more than a Zombie Horror flic. I really hated the horrible 'closing' line "They're just looking for a place to live -- like us.. Grrrooooaan. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2005 08:12
|
|
|
Just saw it tonight. It loving sucked. I kept waiting for something to happen, it didn't. There was no climax, everything you thought would happen did happen. The entire movie is basically a special effects artist demo reel and nothing more, there is no plot at all. Things happen seemingly at random with no cohesive storyline whatsoever. The zombie action and gore is good, but without any reasoning behind it, the movie becomes nothing more than a zombie itself, shuffling along mindlessly while you squint at your watch in the dark wondering how long you have to endure this pile of poo poo. 0/5 The whole "zombies can think" thing was loving ridiculous. The black smart zombie was the luckiest motherfucker ever since he was at the front every time and never died. He had the gun which was meant to be a big deal but never used it. And the ending "They're just looking for a place to stay" WHAT THE gently caress they're ZOMBIES jesus christ get off the screen right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2005 03:08
|
|
|
Not that I expected much in the way of story or acting, but for the record, they were both extremely lacking. I found myself laughing through much of the movie due to the horrible plot. To its credit, they did do a good job with the zombie-ness and the gore in general. I'm granting extra points here because "Look out! Get down! Quickly! *bam* is the most unintentionally-hilarious bit I have seen a long time. 2.5
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2005 06:42
|
|
|
Really poor opening sequence in my mind with the junk going on in the 80s, part after that was cool though. Didn't really care for any of the main characters, that Marc Anthony look alike guy was pretty good. Movie didn't do Dennis Hopper justice, he came off as boring. Overall I didn't really like the feel of this movie too much, and there were some plain god awful tacky moments (of course this is to be expected in a campy zombie movie, but this was just too much). Worst ending I've seen in a while as well. 2.5
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2005 04:16
|
|
|
I liked this movie, except for one thing: the main character was a humongous human being. Seriously, not only was his acting bad, but not even laughably bad like dennis hopper, just bad, but he had very little character. Everyone else was way cooler and seriously I was rooting for him to get his face bitten off or something. That being said, I loved it and Romero is still the master of horror. 5/5 EDIT: the directors cut is way more awesome. And it makes Cholo look like less of an rear end in a top hat. Blackbelt Bobman fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Oct 20, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2005 22:24
|
|
|
4.5 Not Romero's best, but still drat good. The acting was decent, and it delivered all the violence and gore expected in a zombie movie. I liked the learning zombies. They were never really any smarter than Bub from Day of the Dead, but added a whole new dimension of scariness. Would have rated higher except for that drat closing line. What the gently caress was Romero thinking?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2005 06:21
|
|
|
Really, really disappointing fourth effort from the man who invented the modern Zombie genre. The story was, to put it simply, terrible (if there at all). The characters were cardboard cutouts from the posters of better movies, and the acting was uniformly bad. Dennis Hopper once again cemented himself in the "famous for no reason" category. The interesting idea of zombies learning touched upon in Day... was taken to the extreme - essentially, the zombies in this film have none of the mental deficiencies usually present in zombies; and what is the point of the zombie film if the inhuman creatures are simply stupid humans? Watching this film, you get the distinct feeling you are watching the middle episode of a TV series - none of the character development, nor the resolution that is so satisfying in a normal movie. One single redeeming feature of this terrible film is the gore, at some stages quite funny, revolting and cringeworthy the zombie nails breaking off while the creature scratches the side of the tank. But disappointingly, a lot of CGI is used without being necessary - like on zombies standing around, not doing anything special. It detracts from the feel of the film, from the realism. Overall, a decidedly C-grade effort, and people would be better advised to watch just about anything else. 1/5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2005 16:34
|
|
|
Just watched it, and all my hopes for this movie were crushed. I was hoping for a movie with lots of zombies, daylight, and an overview of the situation. I really hate that "in the dark and upclose" fighting. Many things in this movie were completely stupid, like the smart zombie. It could be ok for him to act in a smart or maybe "exploring" way if he was standing around doing nothing. But zombies are supposed (in my opinion) to be stupid, braindead, and only care about eating people. Nothing else. At the ending I laughed.. and cried. He had the power to make a kickass zombie movie, like he used to. Instead of thinking how cool it was, I thought "Is it over now? Was that it?" "They just want a place to stay!". Ok dude? They just destroyed a completely functioning city on this hell of an earth, filled with walking flesheating dead. "Ok d00dz, lets go to canada!"   I give it a 3/5, because I really like zombie movies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2005 09:50
|
|
|
Gordy posted:My problem with this argument is that the Dawn of the Dead remake was made by Hollywood writers, whereas Romero has written B movies all his life. I don't know why everyone was preparing for something else. And I liked the B-movie feeling, too. I thought the irony of the fireworks at the end was great, although I don't know what line at the end of the movie everyone is referring to. One thing I didn't like was how it seemed that alot of exposition and background was edited out of the movie, in addition to the gore. My problem with this argument is that LotD is a Hollywood Action movie (with zombies somewhere in there), but is made by a B-Movie director. Romero is trying to compete with modern horror sensibilities when he's not qualified to. He should stick to making movies based on tension, atmosphere, dread and character development. Here he concentrates on explosions and action. Land of the Dead is a resounding disappointment. The movie is about Leguizamo and Hopper. Leggy wants in to Fiddler's Green. Hopper is racist/classist and rejects him. Leggy steals big zombiekiller tanker. Insert some action scenes. The end. The rest of the movie feels unimportant. No one seems to realize or care that THE APOCALYPSE HAS HAPPENED. HUMANITY IS OVER. YOU ARE SURROUNDED BY MILLIONS OF CANNIBALISTIC WALKING DEAD. Civilization has crashed. You are one barb-wired fence away from becoming part of the ravenous horde. Where did they come from? Is there a way to reverse what has happened, or at least recover from it? How deep is the damage? Are these not important plot-points? They're touched on a little, but its mostly about the stupid tank(er) and pushing a political agenda down the viewer's throat. Romero is so assured of his place as the King of Zombie Horror that he forgot to make a good movie. He's a prize-fighter from 30 years ago who thinks he can still fight with the big boys these days without honing up on his skills. Being pre-occupied with his punditry has destroyed LotD's chance of being watchable more than once.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2005 19:08
|
|
|
I think many reviewers are missing the point here. Land of the Dead was meant to be entertaining and gore-filled, both of which it excelled at. True, there were some questionable scenes, and the pro-zombie angle, while cool, started to wear thin, but this still was one of the most enteratining films I have seen in years. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2005 15:03
|
|
|
I usually trust goons with good reviews, but I have to say I hated it. All the scenes, storyline, and the filming reeked of straight-to-DVD release. I 'get it,' per se, but this was one of the worst zombie movies I've ever seen, and it really pains me to say that, hype or not. I'd bought the uncut DVD without question, and I'm immediately trading it in for something. For all of its faults, did anyone else see the ending and feel it was only half of a movie? It wasn't in the spirit of any of the other in the series, and this would be written off as absolutely nothing, I think, if Romero had nothing to do with it. Sorry, goons, I actually, confidently, give it a 1 out of 5. If I get $2 trade for it Gamestop or whatever, I'll take the trade, and I paid $20 for it days ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2005 10:37
|
|
|
Zpeef posted:Many things in this movie were completely stupid, like the smart zombie. It could be ok for him to act in a smart or maybe "exploring" way if he was standing around doing nothing. But zombies are supposed (in my opinion) to be stupid, braindead, and only care about eating people. Nothing else. Here's the important thing to rememeber: Zombie's aren't real. Who is to say what a zombie is or isn't. We have had four great zombie films in the last 3 years(28 days, Dawn, Shaun and now Land) and they all persent four differing veiws on zombies. In fact, your idea of zombies is the ideas created by George Romero himself. He's breaking the rules he created 30+ years ago, deal with it. I don't know what you guys wanted out of Romero. Anyway the smart zombies were very well done and kind of gave them more of a purpose and point, though I agree the last line was a groaner. Any scene with Zombies attacking in it was good, any scene without zombies was bad. I could've done without all the human drama and just been 90 minutes of zombie attack and I would've been happy. When Big Daddy and a few other zombies(the woman with the ripped cheek) come off as more three-dimensional than any of the humans, there is a problem. 3.0/5 for the zombie goodness. Roshi fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Oct 30, 2005 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2005 17:13
|
|
|
I found the movie interesting mostly due to the fact that it breaks so completely with tradition. Yes, the dialogue is bad, and Dennis Hopper seems like a washed up 80's wall street reject. John Leguizamo is alright. The bit that I found interesting was that there were only four likeable characters in the movie, and only three living ones. Personally, I was rooting for Pillsbury. I think they could even pull off a sequel. The problem I had was that Big Daddy in his leadership role with the living impaired reminded me too much of Yul Brynner in the Magnificent Seven. One of very few people in the film's world who has integrity. I found that the blood and gore was relatively unimpressive for this reason. Zombies that can learn are really only people. Sure, they're tenacious and they can only be killed by head wounds, but it's pretty largely an even footing. I preferred the slow, shambling hordes of the original Dawn for the reason that they were defined by their strengths. Tenacity and head wounds. In this case, there's a small amount of learned intelligence and what appears to be honor. They're like undead samurai or something. That said, it's a pretty good popcorn movie. I give it 3.5/5.0
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2005 06:17
|
|
|
I found Land of the Dead to be one of Romero's worst. No likeable characters. I didn't care who lived or died. Really bad plot. The city is secure, except for one really intelligent zombie guy. Oh, and Leguizamo. He made a really great zombie, for the 4.5 seconds he was one. The ending. The army of zombies has basically eradicated the city. Our hero, whose ideal was to SAVE the loving people, sees it destroyed and drives away. He looks back with his binoculars, sees Big Daddy. Nameless cohort goes to waste him, Hero stops him and says "No, they're just looking for a place to go." WTF. I just saw zombies ripping living people apart in the worst imaginable ways, and all of a sudden it's "Crikey, look at that big 'un! Let's watch as he leads his clan to a new watering hole." gently caress that. And gently caress you, Romero. edit: spoilered. hungry for crepes n shit fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Nov 1, 2005 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2005 05:40
|
|
|
I hated it, I'm sorry but the whole watching the head zombie learn how to do thing was painful to watch. Also the ending was that they destroy a fence so a few survivors can escape. Then they just let the loving zombies they see go when they can easily kill them. Oh yeah they're just looking for a place to go just like you, I hope you think about those words as those same zombies you could have easily killed are eating your flesh and that of your friends you gently caress head. I really can't see why this movie got so much love.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2005 03:31
|
|
|
I give a small grin and tip-of-the-hat nod at the fact that Bub showed up for a few seconds, but Geroge Romero could've gone out with a much bigger bang, I think, than he did with this remake. I didn't think it was flat-out dumb or horrible, really, just.... well, I don't really know what it seemed to be missing. I guess what probably made me think it was dumb was the "head zombie" that seemed to learn how to do stuff. It was just a sort of "groaner" watching him mosey around and tinker with poo poo. However, it its defense, I liked how they ended up crossing the river or lake, or whatever that was, because of the reflection. That was pretty clever, I thought. I love the hell out of zombie movies and was really expecting to get my ticket price's worth out of it all, but just left feeling a little taken. Not a big deal, though. I'd still like to have it in my dvd collection because it's a horror movie. I hope no one blows their brains out after reading this post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2005 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
My friends and I are big fans of the Living Dead series - we had spent the previous 6 hours watching the entire series. Then we went to the movie theatre (went is generous - we sped, being unaware of where the movie theatre was exactly and five minutes late) and were supremely disappointed. For one thing, the entire premise is disgustingly overwrought with Marxist crap. The one scene of high art is burning money flying through the air after an explosion in the basement parking lot of an inexplicably functional skyscraper - you get the idea. The entire class struggle bit is really forced. Second, the main character is typical Hollywood drivel. He is a brilliant inventor, with street smarts, who was unfairly thrown out of the high life and has accepted his circumstances with little fuss. He also has a working GPS locator. How the GPS satellites are still functional is beyond me. In the original movies, the characters were unlikely people thrown together, with no real shining traits. Part of the glamour of the first three movies was the fact that these very regular people managed to get by in a horribly hosed up world. Third, the zombies - I can't say enough when I feel Romero had a good idea with Bub, but horribly perverted it with Big Daddy. We know his intent was to create an army of pseudo-intelligent gun-wielding zombies lead by an increasingly intelligent, but somewhere he tripped. The treatment of the zombies is completely flat-footed. Think of it this way: whenever Big Daddy learns something new, he goes GNARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRN. None of the amazement Bub exhibited when he shot the gun in Day of the Dead. Fourth, the last bit of the movie. My friends and I literally exclaimed with disgust when the main character puts his hand on his gunner's hand, which is about to squeeze the trigger and waste the zombies who just destroyed their home, and says "Don't. They're just looking for a place to go." Oh my GOD. And why were they shooting off starshells for no reason at the end? Entertainment and fireworks? In a world where resources are scarce, and especially when these things are supposed to be use to scare off zombies? Finally, the gore and CGI. The gore is sub-par compared to Dawn and Day. Why aren't these zombies horribly rotten yet? Oh, very nice with the belly button biting.  And the CGI, the one scene that stands out is when a zombie explodes. It is so fake and out of place that we, again, let out an audible groan.In conclusion: don't see this movie. 0.0/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2005 05:39
|
|