Land of the Dead Review

Originally posted by Zilverz

This movie definately strayed from the path of realistic zombies.

Now only if there were such a thing as "realistic zombies".. 😛

If the zombies in LOTD had not been emotionally advanced, it would have been pretty much like every single other zombie film out there. I think "28 Days Later" raised the bar for zombie-esquebeings, as did the "Dawn of the Dead" remake. Why would Romero regress on something that he OBVIOUSLY had to go forward with?

I personally felt for both the zombies AND the characters. They had a real relatibility to them. I understand you didn't feel the same way, but the ragtag bunch were people just like us.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
Now only if there were such a thing as "realistic zombies".. 😛

If the zombies in LOTD had not been emotionally advanced, it would have been pretty much like every single other zombie film out there. I think "28 Days Later" raised the bar for zombie-esquebeings, as did the "Dawn of the Dead" remake. Why would Romero regress on something that he OBVIOUSLY had to go forward with?

I personally felt for both the zombies AND the characters. They had a real relatibility to them. I understand you didn't feel the same way, but the ragtag bunch were people just like us.

I just wrote about 7 lines worth of explaination and defense of the zombies not being "realistic" but I realzed it is not really important enough to discuss it (:

I didnt feel for the zombies. Nothing like I felt for bub in Day.

Spoiler:
seriously i would have blasted them with the rockets

Spoiler:
the zombie leader just came off as angry and wanting some sort of revenege ? Here we are zombies start eating humans. Now the zombies think we owe them something for trying to whipe us off the planet? Feeling for them just doesnt sell me

was this gorier than High Tension...

was it intense?

Those are two totally different types of gore to be honest. "High Tension" had credibility. "Land of the Dead" was just typical zombie gore, copious, but the mixed in CGI stuff was a mood killer.

Ugh! Just saw this horrible piece of sh!t and I'm absolutely fuming that I wasted my $6 on this as opposed to a gallon of yummy icecream. icecream

It was SO boring! The acting was horrible, the story and script were unoriginal and unimaginative. That black genius automotive worker zombie was like SO annoying and a total camera whore!
He like took up like 85% of the entire movie's screen time.

The movie looks really cheap and low budget. The gore isn't anything special or creative.

I was really bored and uninterested with this movie.
I'm clearly in the minority seeing as its 74% fresh on rottentomatoes.com.

I must've been spoiled by Dawn of the Dead, a better directed, written and acted film.

Well, with all the nice and positive reviews it looks like I'm going to be the anti-Romero with my review. Let me just say that I did like the film for the gore but as movie goer I didn't like it.

My first complain of the film is Romero throwing the words "Jihad" and "Terrorist" in the dialogue. I go to the movies to escape the reality of the world seeking entertainment. I don't need to be reminded while watching a zombie movie. Bad idea or at least that is how I responded to the film. Then the whole idea of having people build a secluded Utopia from the land of the dead isn't very original. As a matter of fact if we go back in time Edgar Alan Poe in his famous story The Masquerade of The Red Dead makes perfectly clear that no matter how safe you think you're eventually Death is going to get you. So I don't see Romero introducing anything new or unique in this film.

The cast of the film isn't so bad. My only complain is the obvious and poorly mis-cast of John Lenguisano. Like the WTF is he doing in this film? The guy is obviously trying to act as a badass and he is neither convincing nor interesting. He is just a friggin comedian! How he got in the is a mystery. Asia Argento no problems with her....was she useful in the storyline...not really. She just eye candyfor the Riley and he gets her outta of jam.

Zombies...O M G...what the hell happen??? There were supposed to be thousands and thousands of flesh eating zombies in this film. Maybe is just me but I felt there weren't enough zombies in the film. Did they run of the money or something. After all this is Land of the Dead so where are mass population of zombies?

I've seen all Romero's previous zombie films. And belive me I truly enjoy them. Night, Dawn, and Day are trully unique in their dark and hopeless story. But this doesn't feel like a Romero film. This is more like a big dumb action flick. Explosions, people running around, mass confusion....sure I understand this was going to happen near the end. In it's basic form this is more like a disaster film rather than a zombie film.

Much like the other George who wreck his franchise of space wars. Romero is following the same path with this film. I honestly hope this isn't his final zombie film. No it can't be! As a devoted gorehound I can't accept it. I know Romero can do better. Forget the budget concentrate on the story of the film George.

I can't believe I'm doing this to a Romero film. But I'm going to give the same score I gave Spider-Man 2 and ROTS to LOTD.

3 out of 5

p.s. wait for the DVD it maybe uncut.

I dont like zombie movies to much,but I will see land of the dead

Originally posted by WindDancer

My first complain of the film is Romero throwing the words "Jihad" and "Terrorist" in the dialogue. I go to the movies to escape the reality of the world seeking entertainment. I don't need to be reminded while watching a zombie movie. Bad idea or at least that is how I responded to the film.

Then the whole idea of having people build a secluded Utopia from the land of the dead isn't very original. As a matter of fact if we go back in time Edgar Alan Poe in his famous story The Masquerade of The Red Dead makes perfectly clear that no matter how safe you think you're eventually Death is going to get you. So I don't see Romero introducing anything new or unique in this film.

I won't break what you said down, because I'm not out to attack your opinion. This is how *I* interpreted some things.

It was only two references to the whole terrorism deal, verbally. I mean, it is what is is. Cholo was a terrorist. The whole "jihad" thing may have been in bad taste, but didn't really bother me, since I was laughing on the inside, just because Cholo was a firecracker. All bark and no bite.

The seclusion of the rich, IMO, wasn't so much for trying to escape death, but more to point out that they're oblivious to the plight of the common man. We're the ones that face all the social opposition, we're the ones that fight for THEIR freedom, while the sup cham-pan-ya and eat caviar. So, like I mentioned in my review, Romero was taking backhanded jabs at the ignorance of the upper class, which I think includes mainstream Hollywood, as well as at terrorists.

Originally posted by WindDancer
The cast of the film isn't so bad. My only complain is the obvious and poorly mis-cast of John Lenguisano. Like the WTF is he doing in this film? The guy is obviously trying to act as a badass and he is neither convincing nor interesting. He is just a friggin comedian! How he got in the is a mystery. Asia Argento no problems with her....was she useful in the storyline...not really. She just get the Riley out of jam on time.

John Leguizamo miscast? Did you see the remake of "Assault on Precinct 13" or "Carlito's Way"? He plays a great crass little hardass. He's cocky, ignorant, rude, and determined. I thought he was perfect A lot of people feel his performance carried "Assault".

Originally posted by WindDancer
Zombies...O M G...what the hell happen??? There were supposed to be thousands and thousands of flesh eating zombies in this film. Maybe is just me but I felt there weren't enough zombies in the film. Did they run of the money or something. After all this is Land of the Dead so where are mass population of zombies?

I thought there were plenty, but nobody wants to see sprawling shots of the metropolis overflowing with them, it's already obvious. What about the scene where they all rise from the sea and invade land?

Originally posted by WindDancer
I've seen all Romero's previous zombie films. And belive me I truly enjoy them. Night, Dawn, and Day are trully unique in their dark and hopeless story. But this doesn't feel like a Romero film. This is more like a big dumb action flick. Explosions, people running around, mass confusion....sure I understand this was going to happen near the end. In it's basic form this is more like a disaster film rather than a zombie film.

Whaaaaat? I counted TWO cars being blown up. One, the tanker after inadvertantly being shot at, and Kaufman's car by Big Daddy. It's 2005, and what worked for zombie films in 1978 and 1985 doesn't necessary work this day and age, ya know? I didn't see a bunch of people walking around, personally. The homeless were trying to shelter themselves, and towards the end of the movie when the estate dwellers were forced out, THAT was the only time there was any real mass hysteria.

Originally posted by WindDancer
[B]Much like the other George who wreck his franchise of space wars. Romero is following the same path with this film. I honestly hope this isn't his final zombie film. No it can't be! As a devoted gorehound I can't accept it. I know Romero can do better. Forget the budget concentrate on the story of the film George.
/B]

I think that's a little harsh, frankly. Lucas killed his own creation by his failure to care about the films themselves. Romero's dedication is all over this one. A social commentary that's stronger than anything before it, great casting, great zombie apps, a storyline that's sad but true. I dunno what there isn't to like?! I mean, blood and guts never carried his movies to begin with, they were bonuses, so I hope that THAT isn't a deciding factor.

I wouldn't recommend waiting for an "Uncut" DVD, because Romero himself that there was very little that was sacrificed, some on the way of gore, and there aren't any signifcant changes that will totally turn around the storyline you weren't happy with.

I feel as if my soul has been diminished some what. After finally seeing Land of the dead. I was incredibly unimpressed. The man who started it all, the man who refined it, and the man who always gave somthing to be treasured, gives us nothing more than a typical zombie movie. There was nothing new and nothing very interesting. The overall flick was entertaining, but knowing this was a Romero movie. I was expecting somthing other than a common summer horror movie. I diddnt mind that George jumped on the band wagon and took the next step in transforming the zombie image, but far to much time was wasted in trying to convey the emotion of the zombies. And yes, the lack of Zombies did dissapoint me a bit aswell.

WD, I don't really understand your first complaint, you didn't like that it had a social commentary on current times? I mean, it's Romero, all of his zombie flims have had a heavy undercurrent or political/social commentary. I mean, it's one of the main trademarks of a Romero film, it should have been expected.

I think the two instances you pointed out (jihad and "We don't negotiate with terrorists"😉 were more or less there to make fun of himself. He knew a lot of people would be looking out for a political and social undercurrent in this film, so those two lines were just a little *Nudge nudge* type of thing.

Also, there were numerous scenes where it showed a massive amounts of zombies. When they emerged from the water, and when it showed the skyshots of the city streets overrun with them. There wre a lot of them.

For the record, I thought Liguizama was great, he played his part really well, IMO. I honestly can't picture anyone else playing that part now that I've seen it, it was made for him.

Also, the uncut DVD should have much more gore, this is true, but it won't change anything else, there won't be any major extra scenes or anything. And frankly, I think if a little extra gore on the unrated DVD will make or break the film for you, then you're watching it for the wrong reasons. Of course, the extra gore will be an added bonus, but it won't make the movie as a whole any better. It is what it is.

It's funny, this seems to be getting the same type of initial reaction that Day of the Dead so infamously got when it was released. Some loved it, some hated it, and many said that Romero had "lost his touch". Of course, now it's recognized as being totally on par with Dawn of the Dead and Night of the Living Dead. I feel the same will be teh case for Land of the Dead.

<<<"It's funny, this seems to be getting the same type of initial reaction that Day of the Dead so infamously got when it was released. Some loved it, some hated it, and many said that Romero had "lost his touch". Of course, now it's recognized as being totally on par with Dawn of the Dead and Night of the Living Dead. I feel the same will be teh case for Land of the Dead.">>>

well one would only hope...

personally I loved the movie...my only complaint was the lack of human vs. zombie fighting...there was little bit..but there could have been so much more...(funny though house of the dead had plenty of that and I still hated it...though that may just be because the movie sucked donkey balls too). I also thought it was odd that the group that was sent to get dead reckoning didn't call hopper's character or run back underground to alert anyone of the impending zombie assault...they were just like "oh zombies broke in...lots of em....that sucks"... but then they went back to save the people in the city....wtf? they probably just figured that the zombies couldn't cross the water end of story...but still that was the first thought that would have flashed through my mind..you know, maybe warning someone about it at the very least....

something else that bothers me is the end...don't shoot the zombies? WHAT? they just ate/killed half a town full of people...and you don't want to shoot em?.....aside from that I was also left with a WTF face when the zombies simply started walking out of the city...very WTF imo... they're still zombies...they still have a need for eating flesh...and there was still a lot of flesh around to eat... I get that they were evolving but... to a point where they need not eat flesh? pffffft puh-lease!

other than that I actually thought like some others, that there were plenty of zombies in the film...the skyshot over the city...the dropping in the river scene...the coming out of the river scene...there were hordes of em....
The zombies also got plenty of screentime. I mean that was more zombie character development than in any other serious zombie flick since the days of bub.

nice to see romero's still stuck on the opression of the black man...poor gas pumpin black zombie and his kind are being opressed he goes to get vengeance and takes it to the old rich snowflake who (by coincidence?) has a black butler. great stuff...lol

I also loved it, thought it was an excellet addition to his series.

Also, I'm one of the few people who have seen it twice so far, and I can say that it actually gets better the second time, you notice more things and what not. It's a very solid flick, I think in the long run it will be remembered as a success, just as Day of the Dead is.

Then the whole idea of having people build a secluded Utopia from the land of the dead isn't very original. As a matter of fact if we go back in time Edgar Alan Poe in his famous story The Masquerade of The Red

My mum said exactly the same thing when I was telling her about Land of the Dead.

Originally posted by jinzin

something else that bothers me is the end...don't shoot the zombies? WHAT? they just ate/killed half a town full of people...and you don't want to shoot em?

What do Riley and the gang care? The town was shot to shit, everyone was dead, the survivors were packing up. The delivery was a little funny, but had Riley ordered to kill the remaining zombies, it would seem a little sadistic after Romero having put us through the zombies plight, getting to "feel their pain". Had he killed them, it would have been a contradiction in the message he was trying to get across.

I was disappointed by this movie as well. The gore was awesome, as everyone said, but the rest just didn't do it for me. Leguizamo was cool, I thought it was funny that his name was Cholo, though. lol. The "head zombie" got to be so ****ing annoying, though. Plus, why would a former gas station attendant be the "genius" leader? I was hoping to see more zombies, also, it seemed like the same few over and over. Plus, I don't really give two shits about how zombies feel. I think it was awesome that he tackled that concept, but for me to emote towards a mindless human eater isn't gonna happen. Kinda like expecting me to have feelings for a cockroach.

Not a horrible movie, per say, but I much prefer DOTD.

Not really supposed to feel for them as you were supposed to relate to an extent. Big Daddy, I think, was more or less keeping with the tradition of having a positive black main character in Romero's zombie movies. In "Day", he shifted gears and gave it to the woman.

Originally posted by WindDancer
Much like the other George who wreck his franchise of space wars. Romero is following the same path with this film. I honestly hope this isn't his final zombie film. No it can't be! As a devoted gorehound I can't accept it. I know Romero can do better. Forget the budget concentrate on the story of the film George.

why the **** are you dissin Lucas for? this movie was dark and spooky. i love the shootins and it rocks. get your head out of batman's ass. what a dumbass.

Preysin, you need to learn to respect other peoples opinions. He's free to make a comparison. This makes the umteenth time where you've instigated a moderator over their opinion. Myself included.

Watch yourself.

Well it was dark, spooky? No.
Even moments when Romero intended you to jump (rat in dock shack, zombie light reveal, headless priest suddenly gives head 😂 ) were easily expected and predictable.

It's the worst movie I've seen this year. I really dont have anything positive to say about it. No, that's not true, it was funny when the midget pimp got shot and I quite enjoyed the fat Samoan and his 50 thousand cars are stolen in Samoa joke. 😂

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
What do Riley and the gang care? The town was shot to shit, everyone was dead, the survivors were packing up. The delivery was a little funny, but had Riley ordered to kill the remaining zombies, it would seem a little sadistic after Romero having put us through the zombies plight, getting to "feel their pain". Had he killed them, it would have been a contradiction in the message he was trying to get across.

What do they care?! yeah I guess they took back dead reckoning and put their lives on the line to get the drawbridge down and save everyone because they uhhhhhhhh didn't care 😕 ?...........rrrriiiiight 🙄

seriously though...it's not like riley and the others were an audience to the "zombie plight", they need not feel any remorse for wasting some undead...they need not embelish anything...

there's getting a message accross and then there's common sense....common sense would dictate those zombies NOT to be waltzing out of the city after they killed all the upper class people...but killing/eating EVERYONE instead....including the survivors....sentient or not they're still supposed to be flesh eating zombies right? logic would follow that riley would blow the shit out of what was left to protect the remaining citizens.... unless he all of the sudden "trusts" the zombies to play nice and not eat anymore lower class people....pfffft.

romero had gotten "his point" accross by then....there was no need for such a jump in logic...