Land Of The Dead Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
720x292 | 983.14 MiB | hidivx | |
|
640x260 | 599.4 MiB | divx | |
|
320x132 | 205.16 MiB | ipod | |
|
320x132 | 212.69 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
The dead shall inherit the Earth.
The Legendary Filmmaker Brings You His Ultimate Zombie Masterpiece
The world is full of zombies and the survivors have barricaded themselves inside a walled city to keep out the living dead. As the wealthy hide out in skyscrapers and chaos rules the streets, the rest of the survivors must find a way to stop the evolving zombies from breaking into the city.
| Simon Baker | Riley |
| John Leguizamo | Cholo |
| Dennis Hopper | Kaufman |
| Asia Argento | Slack |
| Robert Joy | Charlie |
| Eugene Clark | Big Daddy |
| Joanne Boland | Pretty Boy |
| Tony Nappo | Foxy |
| Jennifer Baxter | Number 9 |
| Boyd Banks | Butcher |
| Jasmin Geljo | Tambourine Man |
| Max McCabe | Mouse |
| Tony Munch | Anchor |
| Shawn Roberts | Mike |
| Pedro Miguel Arce | Pillsbury |
| George A. Romero |
6.60 out of 10 (20430 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Good Zombies, bad film
posted on 28 Aug 2009I am a big fan of Romero's Zombie trilogy and was quite excited by the prospect of another one but, boy was i disappointed. "Day of the dead" suffered from having a large chunk of the budget taken away so the director had to modify the script accordingly. What we got was a claustrophobic and frightening film with great Make up F/X by Savini. Unfortunately L O T D turned out to be very low key effort. The plot was too trivial to really comment upon and Dennis Hopper underwritten part was just scenery chewing. Maybe I was expecting something more apocalyptic what with the bigger budget and the wonders of CGI but, alas, it was not very good. There were faint glimmers of good idea's like the new underclass, smart zombies but apart from some good gut munching and a decent finale, I thought the film fell rather flat really
Romero shows that after all these years, he's still got it...and then some
posted on 26 Aug 2009From the opening credits to the end, I was glued to the screen. I was worried that a big budget and a known selection of actors might ruin it, but the acting choices were superb, and added to the overall feel of the film. The social commentary is undeniable, and well done. When I originally heard about one of the previous script, I was excited about the idea of Dead Reckoning,and the final product didn't disappoint. I can't say enough about how well this film was put together, and the ending was perfect, which I rarely say about any movie these days. This is one I can't wait to own on DVD, and here's hoping that Romero will do one more sequel before calling it a day on the Dead series, Land certainly shows that he's still firmly in the driver's seat and knows exactly what works.
Land of the Dead makes for interesting social commentary.
posted on 24 Aug 2009I loved the idea of the post-apocalyptic view where the living dead rule the earth, or at least a little part of it. After so many films of the pre-apocalyptic view before the living dead take over, one gets a little tired because no one ever thinks to show of what happens after when the living dead do take over and I think that is one thing the audience loves to see – how the human race (or what's left of it) can exist in these circumstances. It is also interesting to see how humans are creatures of survival. We have a constant need to survive, even when things look bad. Fiddler's Green was a clear example of that, and also Slack's desperation whilst she is trapped in a zombie cat and mouse gambling game. I also enjoyed seeing how the people portrayed in the film liked to make a game of the living dead, which was interesting; the happy snaps next to two zombies, bars with drinks all around, taking a positive (a really weird positive) out of a clear negative.The plot this time was a little interesting and a bit more different. The living dead who move at 1 mile per hour are beginning to actually use their brains – or what's left of them. It is the main threat to the survivors in this movie as the zombies begin to understand that hitting something very hard will either break it or hurt it.But I have a little problem. Does every opening scene of a zombie movie have to be the same? You know you're in for a zombie movie if there are jaggered cuts of news reports of "strange beings" walking the earth and the only way to kill them is to shoot them or decapitate them and blah blah. I know it's only the opening sequence but I expected a little more direction in the opening since the opening of a film sets to scene and to see the same opening sequence over and over is just a little tiresome. Someone needs to come up with something new and flashy and awesome. Hell, maybe even just forget the survival kit news reports and maybe just get straight to the story. That might be a little suggestion. Thanks.The last time I saw Simon Baker was in Ring Two where he had a barely-there performance. This time he was right in front of the screen almost all the time, had a lot more dialog and changed from a checkered shirt (because that means you're from out of town in cinema language) to some black coat. I love Simon Baker because he is absolutely fabulous to look at, but not much fun to watch. He is extremely bland in this film and has nothing really much to add. John Leguizamo has more of an on-screen presence or maybe it's just because he can play the "bad-ass" with more persuasion than Simon Baker can play the good guy. But even here John Leguizamo has been type-cast as a Spanish guy named…. Cholo. Are you freaking kidding me? And saying every two lines in Spanish just to prove that he is in fact Spanish? No one cares honestly. And that's not all. The main badass zombie is a big burly African-American guy? Oh the originality! While this film pleases gore lovers with lots of blood and guts for show, this film is very interesting to see as a social commentary as well. What would the world be like when one stage of our lives – that being the harmonious and peaceful times of our world – is over and a new age of reckoning begins? How will humans be able to survive? For one thing there is always going to be social hierarchy's which is evident in this film – the rich living in the luxury skyscraper of Fiddlers Green and the poor out on the streets, banding together in order to survive. There is always going to be the conflict of "us versus them" and in this world it's those who threaten to destroy what's left of the peace that we live in in our post apocalyptic world. The rise of leaderships between those who are money hungry and self-centered and those who are strong (and burly).While this movie has many flaws, it is still fun to enjoy and if you're willing – much to ponder.
Too much social commentary when we want more zombies!
posted on 24 Aug 2009OK I'll explain what I mean by the summary! Basically I love horror films and I thought I was in for a super gory zombie fest what with George A Romero being like the father of the zombie genre but although I enjoyed the film I felt they spent far too much time giving us a social commentary on the fact that no matter what state the world is in there will still be a rich/poor divide ... you see the same sort of thing in most zombie movies where they can't bear to kill their friend/mom/dad/dog even when they know they are going to become zombies because their humanity wont let them (then they get their arms bitten off and wonder why they didn't listen to me!).The action was good and I was very impressed with John Leguizamo as I haven't seen him in much else than Baz Lurhman's Romeo & Juliet as I was with Asia Argentino but I thought the zombies were lame ... not just lame, incredibly lame! The main zombie 'Bub' guy just looked like someone had melted a slab of leather and stuck it to his face and it had crinkled up into his skin, not zombie like at all - I were glad they weren't running (Thank you Georgey) for once since remember people they are dead flesh and motor functions so running would be impossible (then again technically the whole idea is but I digress) but picking up guns, organising an attack, etc? It was just too much! Now Dawn Of The Dead was slated for being a remake but I thought it was impressive as a film in it's own right, especially the first bit with the Vivienne girl(gave me nightmares for weeks!) but I do think it had a lot more to offer than LOTD did and it scared me which LOTD didn't although I do think maybe that wasn't the point of the film after all.Worth seeing as are all zombie films but don't go expecting to be scared!P.S. Keep a watch out for Simon Pegg & Nick Frost, they're meant to be the zombies in the photo booth "Have your picture taken with a zombie" apparently, I couldn't see them when I saw it at the cinema though.
Okay, we get it. Zombies & Social Commentary...
posted on 20 Aug 2009Let me just begin by saying, I WAS really excited to see this movie. Not because Zombie flicks are cinematic masterpieces, but because they're usually pretty fun. I get a kick out of the old goofy ones from the 80's. I get a little creeped out by the more well-done ones(original Dawn of the Dead). And I was actually impressed in about every way with the re-make of Dawn. So, when I heard about Land of the Dead, I was expecting, not something great, but something I would more than likely really enjoy. Well, guess the joke was on me! This movie was terrible in about every way imaginable. The first thing I noticed was the ever present and unavoidable "Social commentary". Oohhhhh, how clever. Just enough so that skateboarding teenagers can pretend to be intellectuals by mentioning the raging social commentary in this "totally hardcore zombie movie, dude!" Give me a damn break. Okay Romero, it was pretty cool the first time you did it. Learn some new tricks. Aside from the ridiculous social comparisons, there were a few other things that ultimately crapped this film up. The characters were unlikable and boring. Not once did I root for anyone in this movie. Everyone was presented so one-dimensional, I just didn't care. You've got the noble leader who protects his nameless crew. The obligatory hot girl love interest. The evil capitalist pig villain(very original). And the bad to bone ethnic guy who will do anything to get ahead. Great...(yawn). Oh, and then my personal favorite. The zombies. Good grief...these zombies were probably the worst representation of zombies on film. No longer do we have the fierce, bloodthirsty mob of undead. We get zombies that have learned to rebuild their lives, care for one another, and demonstrate team-work. Look, I'm usually all for different takes to make things more interesting, but it just didn't work here. Call me old fashioned, but I like my zombies to act like zombies. They just weren't scary at all. But I guess that wasn't the point. Now that we've established that this movie was more of a vessel to deliver convoluted social commentary than an actual zombie movie, I guess it makes sense. Alright, I'm done ranting. Long story short, if you're the type of person who flips out about anything Romero, you might like this. Me, I couldn't care less about the name. It was poorly acted, scripted, and thought out. Just bad in every way. Even for a zombie movie.
Obviously there is an audience for this product....
posted on 20 Aug 2009George A. Romero enters with yet another installment in his banal and grossly visual zombie flicks and hopefully this will be the last of them. Obviously there is an appreciative audience who enjoys watching partially decomposed bodies stomp around and grunt and eat body parts of the living because a lot of people write positively about this film.For this viewer the 'parody' eludes. LAND OF THE DEAD is simply a dark, grotesque, poorly written, hastily thrown together bit of treacle to make money off the folks who like this genre. But how fine actors like Simon Baker, John Leguizamo, Dennis Hopper, Asia Argento, and Robert Joy agree to the casting agent's invitation to star in this film is a conundrum. Grady Harp
class warfare amidst civilization clash
posted on 16 Aug 2009OK this may be a little of the wall for some people, but since I didn't saw any review explaining this, I feel compelled to write.Precision: I'm no fan of horror/zombies movies so I won't rate and this review is not about the quality of the movie. I've watched it because I heard it was a representation of "class warfare" (Weber, Engel, etc.) and "civilization clash" (mostly Samuel Huntington), and indeed it is!Civilization clash:The zombies: illustration of the the "barbarians" of Samuel Huntington, at first hypnotized by the fireworks (the glitter of civilization, for example the biggest export of the US is it's cultural industry (Hollywood films)), but then they become more and more resentful to have there land pillaged and become more and more organized "they are learning" and violent and invade "civilization" (the city). In the end Romero has some sympathy for them when the hero says to to the girl about to shoot "No, they're just looking for a place to go... just like we do". Just to clarify: I'm personally not an adherent to Huntington's theory, I think civilization clash is a self fulfilling prophecy but that's a whole other discussion...Then class warfare:I'll pass quickly the low classes: they try to survive, totally disposable, etc. Some who achieve "class consciousness" try to mobilize them but there voice is lost amongst the peddlers of faith (the "opiate of the masses"), at the end they get their chance to build a new civilization (witch the hero doesn't join, see later)In the tower (below top level) you have the "petite bourgeoisie" sunken in consumerism, they are the "poster child" for the lower classes and are necessary to maintain the system with their "petty authority" otherwise the "emperor would be naked" (top class), but when trouble arrives, they are disposable too.Then there is the character of John Leguizamo (Cholo): the man who thinks he can move to the tower (become a bourgeois) if he abides to the top class and do their dirty jobs, just to realize that he's been used like the rest (people are locked in their social class yet the system must maintain the illusion of class mobility: that if you work hard enough, you can succeed (become rich, respected, etc.)) and, even though he totally scorn them, when he revolts he cannot avoid becoming a zombie (a "barbarian") why? because of his lack of virtue: he's totally selfish, so when he leave's civilization nothing can prevent him from falling in the chaos.Of course the top class is represented by Kaufman, a paternalistic figure "the responsibilities are all mine, it was my ingenuity that took an old world and turn it into something new..." that wants to perpetuate the system and sees any release of privilege as dangerous "we don't negotiate with terrorists". He also knows the old adage "panem et circenses": "I keep people off the streets by giving them games and vices witch cost me money" (television anyone?). There would be more stuff to say but one last interesting point (that I won't explain, too long, for details see the book "How Mussolini triumphed" & other) : like most top classes he also deals with/use to his end the underworld (the "Lumpenproletariat": Chihuahua & co.).The hero is somewhere in the middle, he doesn't believe in the system and tries to quit it (the city) yet he avoids becoming a zombie; he's virtuous; a freeman who respects others/help them, therefore he walks the thin line between civilization an chaos. This is the big twist since this way he also represents some aspect of America's founding myth: at the end the small group quits the "old regime" (the "city" (America?) now corrupt, they go to Canada: the new frontier, like the pilgrims on the Mayflower who wanted to quit the "corrupt Old World" and create a new society of freemen).There would be some stuff to say about secondary characters, but I have enough...If anyone from sociology/political sciences/philo/history/... as anything to add (or to correct), i'd be glad to hear about it.Hope this is informative to some, ciao, Jean-Pierre: monsanto.is.evil@nospam@gmail.com
gory very disgusting but spectacular
posted on 14 Aug 2009a very good movie for every one with the exception of little kids and people who don't have strong stomachs. this movie is about the final battle of the dead and the living and the living becoming the dead so i f you are looking for a funny gory make you jump movie this is the one so if you want to be scared a laugh and almost want to throw up this movie is right up your allie. but it has some very disturbing scenes and out of the weird for the usual person it makes a very not good family movie it will literally kill your children's innocent memories of the protected life behind the parents sooooootry to enjoy
Slightly disappointed ....maybe it will be better upon the next viewing
posted on 12 Aug 2009First let me say that I am a huge horror, zombie and Romero fan. With that said, I definitely didn't think this was a great movie. As far as Romero movies go, I rank this in the Bruiser, Monkey Shines category....good movie for fans of Romero but probably not to many other people out there. If you haven't seen many Romero movies do yourself a favor and go watch one of the first three zombie movies, Martin or even The Crazies since they are much better examples of what he's all about.What I liked about Land of the Dead: 1.Gore. definitely some good death scenes. when the soldier's leg gets blown off and he falls on the grenade and when the one zombie is pulling the insides right out of a living victim are both classic.2. Zombies are evolving and using reasoning skills. I think this a prime example of Romero making a more thoughtful horror movie then the average splatter fest. It is an interesting twist.3. Good ole' fashion slow moving zombies. Romero once again demonstrates for the kids out there that your zombies don't have to be track stars to be effective. The point of zombies is that the whole world is slowly becoming zombies and while they move slow they are swarming everywhere around you and you can't possible kill them all before they engulf you and eat you alive. That is creepy, that is scary...not just having some zombies on speed running all over the place What I didn't like: The story. Plain and simple, I think it was very thin. Romero introduces these nice thoughts and updates on his zombie story but the overall plot is non-existent and has too many holes to be engrossing. Why is money so important that people are willing to die to get a bottle of liquor to sell on the streets? If the world were really in a crisis of this magnitude and 90% of the world were the living dead and the survival of the human race was pretty much an impossible dream....I don't think the monetary system and economy would be standing up to the point where the paper dollar would mean anything. There would be no way Dennis Hopper would hold a government, economy and military together as long as he did.In the grand scheme of things, I give this a 6 but to a die hard Romero fan it is worth seeing. And hey, it took a few viewing of Day of the Dead for me to really realize the genius of that movie so maybe this one will sink in after a few viewings.
A 'land'mark in zombie films
posted on 12 Aug 2009Romero is back and back with a vengeance! This is a first rate film about the failings of mankind. The loss of man being the dominant species and how the pig headiness of mankind results in their ultimate downfall! A very well paced film that leaves the audience wanting more. A fist rate performance from the entire main cast, with one of Asia's best performances - you could tell she felt at ease and relaxed working with GAR. The directors cut allows more of the familiar zombie moments to stand out with gore - the priest flipper head has to be one of the best moments of zombie bites!A very scathing sub-text referring to the Bush administration proves that Romero has not lost his political edge - Hoppers Kaufman is a perfect vision of Rumsfeld, pure class when he pours the champagne given to him Cholo into the correct glass!!I could write for days - pure perfection and we need more zombie films from the man who DID create the genre.Forget remaking his old classics because it cannot be done, they are classics because of Romero's first rate direction and cannot be remade without the master. So just give him the money to make more films!!
Romero shows how it's done
posted on 06 Aug 2009This movie was probably the worst out of the series that Romero made. However before everyone gets all upset with me and wants to tell me off, i still enjoyed it and would highly recommend this movie to anyone who loves zombie movies. it was definitely original and had an excellent story line for humans vs humans, almost as good as dawn of the dead. however the zombie action wasn't the best. Romero didn't allow tom savini to show off his true talent, and i also didn't like how they all followed one zombie. he also focused too much on humans vs humans. it worked for day of the dead because it took on more of the scientific role, where as land of the dead was more of a civilization trying to survive. Overall it was a very good movie, definitely the best zombie movie to come out in a long time, but it just didn't meet my total expectations, i don't, maybe i was coming in with too high of expectations.
Honestly Really Good, But Not A Classic.
posted on 04 Aug 2009Please before you booo me.. hear me out.I love Romero films dearly and love the "Dead" (now quadrilogy.) I loved the look and feel of this film. There was an effort made to tie it in with the other films (especially the first) as seen in the opening segments.The casting was good with semi-name actors, the story was well written, the effects good (not a lot of CGI), the make-up, all this was well above average. A very impressive "BIG" movie.This is part of what makes it bittersweet for me. The look of big studio behind a Romero Zombie film is to me odd, and a little sad. Part of the charm of this series (Besides the good gore effects in all of them, and stories that are more than they first appear.) was that they were filmed on small budgets. It was the "renegade" aspect of the film-making that gave the first three films part of the "cult" status and why they are beloved and hailed as classics.The film was too smooth, too polished, too well done for maybe it's own good.Maybe I just feel it was the end of the independent horror film maker. I know Romero has made other big studio pics (mostly Stephen King Stories) but he always stayed true to this independent roots in his "regular" films. Films like Martin, Code Name Tixie, Jack's Wife, all these had that same quality and "renegade" film making style and "feel" that the "Dead" movies had.I do agree that it is far superior to the (only in name) remake of Dawn Of The Dead. I did feel entertained when I left the theater, but, entertained in the way you see a good action film once and never again.But I feel it was just a well made action/horror movie, not a George Romero classic.
I am not sure, what do you think?
posted on 04 Aug 2009Sadly I missed Land of the Dead at cinemas so I have been gagging to watch it on DVD. I did that finally last night.I am not sure if this is a slow burn, really grow on you film or just something that is not really good enough. Its easy in some ways to look at Day OTD though younger eyes when I first saw it. But with Land, it kind of felt not right somehow.I did like that fact that Big G has moved the genre on with the dead getting kind of smart but I am thinking that it did not have that nasty edge of the older films. Bt maybe that is the point.What do you think?
Another Romero classic!
posted on 29 Jul 2009Unfortunately, it is likely that this movie would never have been made had it not been for the relative success of the "Dawn of the Dead" remake. But for true Romero fans, this 4th installment of the Dead series is a fantastic modern version of his zombie tale, with the original Zombie "logic", although updated.His "Dead" series are more than just zombie movies. They stand out above the other routine kill-them-all zombie movies, as Romero's movies are more social commentary rather than just zombie movies. Even as the world is rapidly changing into one of the Dead, live humans still conive against each other for reasons of greed, lust, and power. The film asks the question, who is worse ... the zombies or the living humans? This is a must watch for Romero fans.
Arguably the masterpiece of Romero's career
posted on 29 Jul 2009Having watched 'Land of the Dead' earlier this week I thought I'd throw my two cents into the hat. Being a massive fan of of the first three movies, and a fan of the remake of 'Night,' I waited salivating for this movie. The disappointment of the Fulci movies and the remake of Dawn as well as the hideous 'Return of the Living Dead' series only enhancing my appetite for this fourth instalment.Having seen the subtlety with which Romero dealt with the socio-political sub-plots in the first three films I was somewhat shocked by the club handed way in which he dealt with the threat of terrorism in this film. To come out and just use the word 'jihad' and the phrase 'we do not negotiate with terrorists' could only have been made less subtle by having a zombie dressed up as Osama Bin Laden or have Leguizamo produce a video with two balaclava wearing men with guns in front of an Islamic flag behind him. Also to have shops completely unlooted and roads totally clear of cars following the globe altering event which had happened is just silly. Just look at the situations surrounding the two hurricanes in the US.I also believe that the stage on which the film was set prevented it from being vintage Romero if we're judging 'vintage Romero' against Night, Dawn and Day. Indeed the setting for this film was far more expansive than the house in Night, the shopping mall in Dawn or the army base in Day. Because of that I believe it was impossible to create the same sense of claustrophobia, terror or inevitability of long term doom. There was no sense of hope in those films, it was pure short term survival. In Land there is the sense that the situation is, to a greater or lesser extent, as under control as it's going to be. I don't think it's fair to judge it against the first three in that respect.But I actually do think that it is vintage Romero. And may I state here that I loved this film; in fact I've loved it more and more as I've continued to mull it over and think about it. Surely the sign of a great movie. Firstly it's the first zombie film that I've really bought into and got caught up in since 'Day' (Shaun o.t. D aside). I also felt that Romero succeeded in making the zombies seems far more threatening than in the first three films without destroying their essence as happened in the remake of Dawn.Primarily though I feel that the movie succeeds because of the fantastic imagery created by Romero and the career defining way in which he deals with the true socio-political sub-plot of the film (ironic considering the way he dealt with terrorism). To me the poignancy of the film was enhanced spectacularly by the recent tragic events in New Orleans. The story there was not that of a dramatic weather event but of social unrest caused by years of division along race and class lines. Romero clearly wanted to highlight and illustrate these kind of issues in this film but I believe his greatest triumph was inadvertent. The images of the zombies coming out of their forgotten suburbs/slums and coming through the water to take back what they believe is theirs from the city was almost too close of a parallel but illustrated the point Romero had wanted to make perfectly. It is also common knowledge that Romero has socialist, perhaps even Marxist political tendencies and I think that's been echoed in the first three films very effectively. However I truly do believe that this film is his masterpiece in that regard. With Hopper symbolising the entire capitalist world and the other humans living in the slums representing the proletariat Romero illustrates and highlights Marx's own grasp of the ills of the capitalist system perhaps better than Marx did himself. It could be argued that it's reached a greater audience. The way that Hopper uses Leguizamo purely as wage labour without ever giving him a stake of ownership and then the whole thing ending in revolt is pure Marxist theory. The way in which Hopper notes that it was he that gave the people vices and games to prevent them making nuisances of themselves echoes Marx's own writings of religion, sport and vices as being the opiates of the people. Conversely he also notes that he paid for the police correctly illustrating the problems associated with the removal of the state controlled monopoly over violence. To sum it up Romero makes the ultimate statement when following a 'revolution' Robert Joy makes the statement that now they can make it like it should have always been. The films reads like a textbook of Marxist teachings and in that regard it is the ultimate, defining film of Romero's career.I also feel special note should be made of Leguizamo's and Simon Baker's performances. I personally also felt that Asia Argento did the best she could with a stereotypical underdeveloped role.
The King is Dead
posted on 29 Jul 2009It was with great anticipation that I waited for this movie to open. The man who gave birth to the zombie genre was making another movie. I'd seen the remake of Dawn of the Dead (which I loved) and was thirsting for another good zombie flick. I'd only seen one of Romero's original films prior to seeing this: the original Dawn of the Dead. I thought it was goofy---filled with pathetically unfrightening slow and dimwitted zombies, paltry acting even for the time, and too much time spent on social commentary and not plot or action. I though though, that was his one mistake. Well, I went to this movie and it was the same old. Laughable acting (John Leguizamo as a villain?) and more time spent on wretchedly obvious socially conscious shots (wow, Romero focuses from people shopping to birds in a cage---what could this mean? Is this a metaphor? Is Romero's audience in kindergarten?). I will give credit to Denis Hopper, who came at the movie with the right attitude. Both sinister and humorous at the same time, he made for a fantastically amusing character. Sadly, those elements don't make for a good film. I have since seen the rest of Romero's films and it absolutely amazes me that any of them have a fan base. I now await the day when another director can do as well as Zach Snyder.
Bored of the Dead
posted on 25 Jul 2009A lot of fanboys have this up at 7.0 just a few weeks after its release, that number will eventually drop. People die in cool, gory, edited ways, but the movie connecting it all together isn't very interesting at all. It doesn't even have an ending, it just runs out of characters.Romero's students have surpassed him, the movie wasn't scary or particularly disgusting... sure, there was a share of blood, but without the tension or character interaction, it's easy to get bored. Hopper and Leguizamo are just here for the money, and so too is Romero, I'd bet. A huge disappointment for longtime Romero fans, and a waste of time for everyone duped by the ad campaign.
Scripted by an undead mind
posted on 21 Jul 2009Before I get into this movie, I wanted to stress that I understand that zombie movies are supposed to be fantasy. Undead creatures would rot away in time and you would not have undead zombies roaming the streets after awhile. Plus, with no blood flow to the heart---what is keeping them afloat? No blood flow to the brain, and what makes them see or hear you? Muscle tissue would cease to work and you would just have dead things lying on the street rotting and bloating. Okay, that ramble is done.Once in awhile a good zombie movie comes along and it makes you forget all the unbelievable things about death and allows you to enter that fantasy world. "Shaun of the Dead" and the "Dawn of the Dead" remake were examples of movies that you could enjoy. "Land of the Dead" is not. (For future reference, I will just call this movie "Land" in this review). Land is about a city of "living" humans. This city hires mercenaries to drive out and raid zombie world for food supplies to keep them alive. But wait---the "ruler" of this city gets all the supplies and sells them. This "ruler" (Dennis Hopper) owns the mercs and lives in an empire deep in the city. Hmm---which makes you wonder -- why would people (because the fortifications would mean ALL the people created the city) allow one man to run everything? How did he get this power? Why are only a few rich? Where do they get their money? Would money be useless in this type of future? I would believe so. How can the merc raid small towns and keep a city supplied? To carry on, the mercs raid a town and one zombie (Big Daddy) gets upset. Okay---dead getting upset and having feelings. Yeah. Well, this upset undead decides to lead his town of undeads against the live city. Somehow he starts out with about 30 and ends up with thousands---how? Who knows. How does he track vehicles driving at full speed to this city? Is he part blood hound from eating dogs? HMMM---again who knows.Well, these undead raid the city and kill almost everyone. All these humans have guns --- yet these slow moving undead dive at them like linebackers (interesting how fast they can move for a meal). The humans do have a super tank. But lo and behold, one merc is so mad at Dennis Hopper that he steals the super tank while watching the undead raid the city. Hmm--- so in a world where only one city is left he would rather have Hopper's money and watch undead butcher the last remaining humans. Well, who would take his money if he got it? If he steals super tank and no one can kill the undeads, isn't the money worthless? To tie this all up---it was completely stupid and a waste of time. I will not get into the idiotic ending either, but you will understand if you see it. Acting is a big zero---directing is a major zero (don't make another zombie movie Romero)---script is a big zero. You will only enjoy this IF you are a die-hard zombie fan---otherwise, you will just shake your head and say "what did I spend $5.00 on?". Wait for video if you are intrigued---please.
A bit of a disappointment, but still good
posted on 21 Jul 2009I've seen all of Romero's previous zombie films, Night of the Living Dead(1968), Dawn of the Dead(1978), and Day of the Dead(1985). In my opinion this is the weakest of the series. It isn't bad, but it just isn't up there with the rest of the series.First off, the good stuff - the zombie makeup has never been done better, in any movie. They really look like what you would expect the "living dead" to look like. Secondly, these zombies really are the living dead - they aren't a bunch of people infected with a rage/cannibalism virus. There is no scientific explanation for these zombies, or any explanation at all. There just there. If you die with an intact brain, you come back to life. The gore effects were very realistic and plentiful, it's not as gory as DAY OF THE DEAD, but for an R-rated movie it is surprising how much he was able to get away with.The concept of this movie is great as well. The zombies still have a bit of intelligence left in them, and they are beginning to learn how to coordinate themselves. They have a leader as well, who wants revenge against the humans for killing so many zombies. Then you have the conflicts between the living - the humans depend on an armored vehicle called "dead reckoning", and it is stolen by a human who wants to be part of the rich elite.With all of the good to say about this film, why am I only giving it a 7 rating? First off, it isn't scary. I don't expect to be completely freaked out when I go into a movie like this, because only a few movies have. I do expect a few scares, though, and this movie is VERY lacking in horror. The part where the zombies attack the green is pretty intense, and there are some eerie scenes, such as the zombie army wading through the lake, but nothing that I would really consider scary. That alone is enough to take the rating down by a point or two.Next, you have the ending of the film(SPOILERS AHEAD, SO STOP READING PAST THIS POINT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE END). The ending of this film is quite anti-climactic. It ends with the zombies leaving town, and the people in the recaptured dead reckoning decide NOT to shoot the zombies, because "they are just looking for a place to go, same as us". I can understand the point of this ending(zombies have given up attacking human settlements, and if humans stopped their raids, the zombies wouldn't have attacked the city). I do like this ending, in a way, but it seems like this movie ends too soon. When the climax of the film just seems to be getting going, when it seems like "the part you've been waiting for" is about to happen, the movie just ends. The climax could've been worse(if they hadn't attacked the ground floor of the building of the rich, the rating would be another point lower), but the climax should have been A LOT LONGER. I wanted to see more zombie violence on the streets, those underground "gladiator pits" being attacked by the zombies, mass panic throughout the city, and more. If Romero wanted a happy ending, than that's fine, but happy should not mean anti-climactic.This movie could have been a 10/10, all it needed was some scares, and some more fighting on the streets and underground at the end. I do recommend this film, it's certainly well made and entertaining, but not scary, and the ending will let almost anyone who sees it down.
what a huge piece of junk....
posted on 30 Aug 2009I've never quite understood why everybody called George A. a groundbreaking filmmaker. I do understand that he invited the zombie era, but he adds "nothing" here with his newest of the collection. I feel as if he as advanced no further than when he made the lackluster "Day of the Dead" (a horrible effort). First of all, the idea of the zombies having the ability to slightly learn I have no problem with, but it was the way that "Big Daddy" carried himself that I couldn't grasp. He seemed to be a lot smarter than most of the "human" characters in the film, especially the retard with the burned face. Evolution is an accepted form of life, but not to this rapidly advance pace. Second, This whole high class / low class scene has already been done in Back to the future II, remember Biff's world??? This movie was a waste of a summer release (and hype) and makes me smile at the inability of the movie industry to bring in the crowds with embarrassing efforts like this. I do not feel sorry for them at all!