iF i remimber correctly .. i thought some of Romeros original next installment ideas (after Day) was to have the dead reckoning roaming around from place to place. and he was going to call it Dead Reckoning. I guess Land of the Dead kind of sets up for what he originally was planning.. kind of like a "middle" "filler" movie ..
im thinking about checking out LOTD again. not to give it a second chance. I already like the movie. Just can never get enough romero movies at the cinema (:
I love Zombie movies...I love most of them any way..they never take them selves to seriously and we can laugh with them.
I went to see this movie and got exactly what I wanted from it,a good time! it will be a classic mark my words. it is in my opinion the sequel to day of the dead..bubb evolving,problem solving...I like this premise and the theater was laughing at most of quips and witty remarks.
I think any one who likes zombie movies won't be disappointed with this one.
Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
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.
It wasn't about bad taste is just that it felt ackward to hear those words in the dialogue. I did not percieve Cholo as a Terrorist. I percieve him more as mercenary. And yes he was going to bite. Pointing those missiles at the building were a clear sign that he was serious.
[QUOTE=4225484]Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
[B]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".
Umm..so because he was in Precint 13 and Carlitos Way that is insurance enough that he was going to be perfect for the role. Right, lets not forget his memorable performances in The Pest and To Wong foo thank you very much blah, blah,..
Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
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?
I did. And those scenes were great. But why not more? Again, it is the land of the death. So you would expect overflow of zombies.
Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
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.
No, I'm being perfectly honest with this. If this is the future ride of Romero's zombie movies then don't mind me getting off. I'll stick to his early zombie work than this. And it does feel like deja vu. I don't appreciate his newest work. I'd much prefer his earlier work...does feel like a Lucas sentiment.
Originally posted by BackFire
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.
BF, I always took Romero more for his undercurrent social comments rather than his political commentary. See, the whole 9/11 thing doesn't bother me. I was thinking more like he was going to go for other social issues....like Cloning or Priest molesting children.
Originally posted by BackFire
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.
I see, but for me that threw me back to the real world for about a minute. Which is exactly what I don't want when seeking entertainment in movies. I'm not offended by the words. After all when I saw Team America I knew those words were gonna get juggle around the film. But see that is where the difference stands. One is a political comedy the other is a zombie film. But is no biggie that didn't ruined the film for me. No harm done.
Originally posted by BackFire
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.
Like I said earlier the film is the land of the dead. So I was expecting a mass population of zombies. In this film is more like an army of zombies. Not enough for me.
Originally posted by BackFire
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.
I can, how about Benicio del Toro. Wouldn't that be a nice upgrade.
Originally posted by BackFire
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.
The reason I mention the DVD is because I want to hear Romero's own commentary on the film. I want to hear what was he thinking while making the film. And yes the extra gore will be an added bonus....nothing more.
Originally posted by BackFire
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.
I neither hate nor love this film. It feels too average for a Romero work. I felt no connection with the characters. I didn't symphatise with any of them. Whereas in the previous zombie films I felt a connection even with the most obnoxious and biggest jerks characters. This film lacks indepth characters. The only feelings I felt for them is the basic instict of survival. Nothing more..their pain, grief, and dispear (sp?) trully lack in the characters. They felt more like killing machines. Only near the end they express a sense of humanity. When they see the zombies eating the bodies near the electric fence. But that was the only moment in the movie where these characters showed human characteristics.
And the film felt like a re-told story of Day of the Dead. A zombie learns to use a gun and shoots at humans. Why include this idea again in Land of the Dead? Why couldn't this be the ultimate war between humans and Zombies?
Something I want to address about what you wrote in you first post about fans from different genres. Don't take this the wrong way because this isn't aim at you. But when fans don't recognise the flaws in their favorite movies like let's say the matrix and star wars then fanboyism arises. And it becomes rather pointless to have a discussion with a fanboy. Romero is indeed the godfather of zombie movies. But he is no where near the messiah for the horror genre. There is no such a thing as director that will rescue the horror genre. Every genre goes through a rollercoaster ride in it's existence. Take a look a the westerns they pretty much in hybernation. So if the same thing happens to horror there really is no need to worry. Eventually the genre will pick up again with new material.
BF, I always took Romero more for his undercurrent social comments rather than his political commentary. See, the whole 9/11 thing doesn't bother me. I was thinking more like he was going to go for other social issues....like Cloning or Priest molesting children.
I see....eh, it woulda been pretty difficut to include comments about those in a zombie film, references to terrorism is a lot easier and make more sense. Also, the political references weren't all that were there. There was some social commentary about the 90's and the the 2000's in there as well. Thing is though, in a Romero film you're always going to have references and comments about real world events, this is true in all of his other films, so if hearing these comments is going to take you out of the film and bring you back to the real world, well, begin to expect that when you see a Romero film, it isn't going to change.
I can, how about Benicio del Toro. Wouldn't that be a nice upgrade.
I don't think Del Toro woulda been right for the role, a little too old and doesn't quite have the same type of spark and campiness Leguizamo has.
I neither hate nor love this film. It feels too average for a Romero work. I felt no connection with the characters. I didn't symphatise with any of them. Whereas in the previous zombie films I felt a connection even with the most obnoxious and biggest jerks characters. This film lacks indepth characters. The only feelings I felt for them is the basic instict of survival. Nothing more..their pain, grief, and dispear (sp?) trully lack in the characters. They felt more like killing machines. Only near the end they express a sense of humanity. When they see the zombies eating the bodies near the electric fence. But that was the only moment in the movie where these characters showed human characteristics.
I'll agree with you on this part. However, this may have been intentional. I mean, it may be Romero's way of saying that in the world where the Dead have taken over as the dominent species, humanity may indeed lose much of it's humanity because of what is going on, and the horrible things they've witnessed, they're losing their emotional center, their human qualities, while at the same time, the zombies are gaining these qualities. I kinda felt this way for Day of the Dead, as well. Didn't really care at all for the characters, outside of Bub and some hate for Rhodes.
And the film felt like a re-told story of Day of the Dead. A zombie learns to use a gun and shoots at humans. Why include this idea again in Land of the Dead? Why couldn't this be the ultimate war between humans and Zombies?
Well, that was never his intention with this movie, it was meant to be a continuation of the evolution we witnessed in Day of the Dead. Your assumption that because the film is titled "Land of the Dead" it was going to therefore be about a massive end of it all war between humans and zombies is a little premature. That was never his intention with this film, and HAD he done that it woulda felt juggled,forced and frankly, kinda wierd, seeing as this film simply wasn't meant to be the ultimate battle between humans and zombies
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a massive war between humans and zombies in a future romero film, but there's no way he coulda done that in this film, even if he wanted too. He had a very modest budget, the studio wanted to see if he still had it, and if his new movie would make a profit. He had to start out somewhat small because there's no way a studio would give him the funds necessary to make a film about an all out war between humans and zombies. That's why I want this movie to do well, if it does, he'll almost definately get to make more of them, possibly with a bigger budget, and if that's the case then it's very exciting to think about the possibilities.
I watched this movie last night and was severely dissapointed! It just did not meet any of my expectations, except for maybe the gore factor. That black zombie was getting on my nerves and he didn't even get killed, which kinda let me down. And when he started using an automatic rifle... that just ruined the entire film right there. Zombies in general are not supposed to use weaponry like that. One of the classic aspects of zombies that I have always loved is the fact that they do not rely on tools and that they are much more primitive than humans. I could go on about how much I didn't like this movie, but I think its pretty clear what my opinion is.
Rating: 5/10
Oh, one thing that disapointed me was dennis Hoppers death. It's always a tradition in Romero zombie films for the main bad guy to get ripped about by a zombie horde. The whole movie I was looking forward to seeing Kaufman be the victim of classic "zombie justice", a good bloody death, but then he just got blown up. Kinda disapointing.
Oh man, Tom Savini's cameo was so damn electric. I was at the midnight showing with a bunch of obviousl Romero/horror fans, and when Savini came out the place seriously ROARED with applause, laughter and clapping, it was one of the greatest experiences I've had at a movie theater. I got chills from it, it was so ****ing awesome.
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
I watched this movie last night and was severely dissapointed! It just did not meet any of my expectations, except for maybe the gore factor. That black zombie was getting on my nerves and he didn't even get killed, which kinda let me down. And when he started using an automatic rifle... that just ruined the entire film right there. Zombies in general are not supposed to use weaponry like that. One of the classic aspects of zombies that I have always loved is the fact that they do not rely on tools and that they are much more primitive than humans. I could go on about how much I didn't like this movie, but I think its pretty clear what my opinion is.Rating: 5/10
you should read romero's original script for day...the premise of gun totin zombies was a huge part of it....although by way of the original script it made the material far more interesting...I wasn't bothered so much by the fact that he used the gun...as much as I was...the fact that he kept it...I was like "WTF?!?!"
Originally posted by BackFire
Oh man, Tom Savini's cameo was so damn electric. I was at the midnight showing with a bunch of obviousl Romero/horror fans, and when Savini came out the place seriously ROARED with applause, laughter and clapping, it was one of the greatest experiences I've had at a movie theater. I got chills from it, it was so ****ing awesome.
damn...my man savini didn't get none of that when we went to see it...🙁...except from me that is....