Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

****NOTE**** Please post your reviews of LOTD in this thread, thanks!



Fans of every genre have had a movie made for them recently, that they are always extremely excited for. The one genre that always seems to be left out, is horror. Die hard horror fans have had very little lately to be excited for when it came to theatrical releases. In fact, a few years ago people were saying "Horror is dead, there will never be another horror genre film for the fans that gets a big release". For a while, it seemed as they were correct, while star wars fans got their new trilogy, horror fans got Wrong Turn, Sci Fi fans had the Matrix while horror fans got Cursed, fantasy fans got Lord of the Rings, we got the Dawn of the Dead remake made for a more mainstream audience, Comic book fans got Batman Begins and Spider man, while we got House of Wax. For a long time, it seemed the critics were correct, Horror seemed dead, all of the former big names had either seemingly given up their genre or simply lost their touch. Don't get me wrong, there have been some solid horror films lately, 28 Days Later, Shaun of the Dead and what not, have been quite solid, but we had nothing major, really, we had no equivalent of the big genre film that everyone who loves the genre is just dying to see. Finally, our prayers and hopes have been answered, A new zombie movie from the master, the creator of zombie movies. Horror fans, let me tell you now, THIS, Land of the Dead, is your Star Wars.

I just returned from the midnight showing of Land of the Dead, and I won't beat around the bush, it was excellent. It was gory, funny, interesting and was blistering with Romero's classic touch of social commentary.

The story of the film is a bit different from the other romero zombie films. This isn't about trying to maintain a settlement or start up a place to live. In this film, everythings set up, the settlement is set up,the living live comfortably in a walled off town, ignoring the hordes of undead that walk outside of the city. The story is basically this - Zombies are evolving, they are learning to think, in the most seemingly irrelevant and primitive ways, they are learning basic reasoning and beginning to use basic tools to get their objective completed. Much of the film concentrates on this aspect. In this, the zombies are the stars. The story involving the humans is a bit more linear then his other films. Basically, the town the humans occupy is held by rich, and poor. The rich live in a tall sky scraper, more or less, where they continue their rich lives, living in luxury. The poor live outside, in the slums. Doing the bidding of the man in charge, the "boss" rich man, so to speak, named Kaufman (played by Dennis Hopper). The other main players are all poor folk, living in the slums. There's Cholo (John Liguizamo), who's trying his damndest to become and upper class citizen, and he's willing to screw over other people to get there. Riley (Simon Baker) is more or less satisfied with his station of life, he's of sound heart and spirit, and is the "good guy" of the film. Then, there's slack (Asia Argento) a hooker who becomes one of Rileys team, a team of poor people who go about and raid the outside towns of supplies for the rich people. Anyways, the human story is this -Cholo is sucking up to Kaufman trying to get under his good graces, doing chores for him for money. Apparently Kaufman owes him a good chunk of change, but when he asks Kaufman for it, he refuses and kicks him out of the building. Cholo then hijacks "dead reckoning", a huge fortress on wheels that houses two extremely powerful missiles and uses it to threaten kaufman into giving him the money he's owed. Kaufman hires Riley to go get Dead reckoning back, though Riley is more concerned for the safety of the Innocent people in the city who's lives are in danger should the missiles of "dead reckoning" fire. He accepts and sets out after Cholo.

Now, to the gore. Let me tell you, right now, the gore was excellent, this is far and away the goriest "R" rated film I've ever seen. How this gore got into an R rated movie is beyond me, I've seen unrated films that have less gore then this. In fact, this is the goriest film in Romero's series of the dead. Plus, there is some extremely unique gore scenes, I won't spoil them here, but you'll know them when you see them. One of them involves a chicks belly button ring.

As should be expected this film had some great social commentary. Since Romero didn't make a zombie film for the 90's, he had to tackle two decades worth of social commentary. This is accomplished by the two extremely different types of people inhabiting the city. It has the 90's type yuppie who simply ignore all problems and only worry about money, of course, when confronted with a problem, they can't handle themselves because they're so used to other people doing it for them. It also tackles the post 9/11 fear based mentality. Relying of falsities and lies to make people feel safe, ignoring the threat outside of their walls, making the poor people in the slums feel safe through propaganda and lies.

All in all, this was an excellent film, it was funny, had some great cameos (keep an eye out for Tom Savini and Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright), good action, great social commentary and some of the best gore I've seen. I was giggling like an excited little child when the gore took place on screen. In fact, I felt more excited during this film then ever before. Through much of the film I noticed that I had a huge smile on my face.

If you're a horror fan, just go see this movie. It's true Romero through and through. This is your day in the sun, fellow horror fans, this is your Star Wars, this is the biggest horror release in the last 20 years for us hardcore horror fanatics. Enjoy it people, it truly delivers the goods.

thats a nice review right there. I really can't wait to see this movie except I have one little problem, UK Release date: 9th September 2005, oh well I am sure I will see it some other way...

Very convincing review, I recently saw NOTLD and DOTD although I didn't like DOTD, I thought NOTLD was great. I might just go see it. Thanks.

Backfire, what didn't you like about it?

I wish it were a little longer. Some of the "Zombie evolution" was a little wierd. The characters weren't all that great.

Other then that, I loved it.

Are you sure you are not over hyping the gore, because it has just received an official 15 certificate here in the UK, Dawn of the Dead remake got a 18 certificate here.

Unless they cut out some stuff for the UK release, it's extremely gory. Far far more gore then the DOTD remake.

I still can't believe we have to wait until september the rest of the world will have it between now and july and we get september

Longer, eh?

Well, is it at least going on your Top 10 list of scary movies?

i dont know when were going to get it here in aus, knowing our media and politics there'll be a public outcry about how people shouldn't be allowed to see the movie because of the violence. god people suck

The 1990's were a decade full of presidential scandals, outrageous verdicts, and the birth of "nu-metal". What was sorely missed was an installment in the Horror genre by the zombie godfather, George A. Romero. Having last offered us his brand of gory goodness in 1985's "Day of the Dead", a personal favorite, Romero returns 20 years later, and with a vengeance.

"Land of the Dead" once again delivers Romero's signature scathing social commentary, this time, and a double dose. The world over has reached critical mass. While the well to do's enjoy their lifestyle in a lavish penthouse, soon, both zombies and the lower class are forced to live in morbid harmony, with the rich not even giving it a second thought.

Cholo, played by John Leguizamo is the hired hand of one Kaufman, Dennis Hopper. Having been denied a place in the sun, the Kaufman run utopia, Leguizamo's character takes matters into his own hands by stealing the prized Dead Reckoning with plans to destroy the complex, since if he can't have it, nobody can. In the meantime, the most evolved zombies to ever grace the silver screen make their way into the city. But, should Riley (Simon Baker) and crew have say, it's their town to defend. Hired to stop Cholo retrieve the mammoth vehicle, and save the city, the crew sets out into what was to become the Land of the Dead.

What I appreciated first and foremost was the surprisingly strong commentary of Romero. It used to be somewhat underlying, inconspicuous in his films. This time, it's in your face, and rings true of society on all counts. The main characters, as always, all played an integral role, and were effective in reflecting all walks of life, which helped with the relation. Instances of empathy displayed towards the zombies towards the end, however, was a little contrived, and out of place, given the plot of the film. That emoted by "Big Daddy" was oddly triggering. And I felt it. Weird, I know.

The zombies! Not that "realistic" is the term I'd normally use to describe Nicotero's work, but, they were. Eerie, and easily the best zombie apps I've seen on screen. I found the gore to be pretty generous and decently executed, but nowhere near the greatness of Savini's work in "Day". Granted, it's 2005 and CGI is inevitable, the computer-generated gore was pretty noticeable, and at times, really robbed the scenes of that "Oooh!" feeling.

If you were to ask me what stuck out cinematically, as the scene that all will remember it by, it would have to be the zombies creeping from out of the sea. It was reminiscent of the end of Fulci's "Zombie", just 1,000 times more effective..and creepy as hell. The realism of the undead, the execution of their march, the cinematography of that particular scenes, it was sheer Romero greatness. Unforgettable.

Overall, "LOTD" was a very straight forward, totally enjoyable film with a classic Romero commentary that won't go unnoticed. The ending, as disappointing as it may have been, speaks stronger in retorspect, and delivers great food for though. Well acted and executed, with the score and make up application really complimenting the movie overall, which is a rarity for a Horror movie.

Romero never really fails to deliver, and he's helping make 2005 a fantastic year for Horror with this one.

Glad you enjoyed it C-Dic.

Also, I forgot to mention that the midnight showing I went to was PACKED. The theater was pretty much completely full. If it was any indication of how well the movie will do financially, it should do quite well.

good review
cant wait to see this

Looks pretty nifty.
(Sorry, I was replying to a different thread and when I hit post, it made the post in the this thread. It must be voodoo magic or something)

It has been passed with no cuts here in Britain, so we will be getting exactly the same here.

I can't wait till September to know, but can someone put in a spoiler if Asia Argento's character is in it for most of the film or not.

Actually, she is, and she's pretty good, too. Everyone in supporting roles really pushed the movie along.

Thanks for that, I am a very big fan of Asia Argento and was happy when I heard she was going to be in Land of the Dead.

Wow seems like this'l bring back the horror genre a bit ontrack again, nice, hope they'l be showing this at out theater here

I have never been a movie review pro.. so you read at your own risk (:



This movie definately strayed from the path of realistic zombies. It was recieved well, and i know this line had to be crossed for Romero to present his message, it just didnt get as high marks as possible with me.

The acting was good like everyone had said, but I did not feel as strongly for cast as say, Dawn of the Dead remake. I understand DOTD remake was more of the "zombie shooter" style movie without the romero depth, but I simply did not feel much for the cast of LOTD. I did like them, but i just didnt care really who was getting bit. It was probably with the short run time and the movie never really ending. It just had a whole "Series" feel to it. It left me unsatisfied in that respect.

Gore was great! There was some scenes that just brought a nice big smile to my face.

Asia was hot and one of the more likeable characters.



The Bottom Line:

Day of the Dead is still my favorite Zombie movie.

I will purchase the LOTD DVD

Overall, I enjoyed Dawn Remake more than LOTD



7/10

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. seriously i would have blasted them with the rockets at the end. BuB had an innocense to him. A feeling that he didnt really want to hurt anyone he just wanted to eat and live and learn. 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
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.

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...

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 (:

well that was the plan...but there was alos speculation about going back to the original script for day and doing that to...so who knows?...

I'm dying to see this

I havnt seen this yet either

I wasnt decided on wether i thought it looked good or not, i didnt particularly find the trailers very entertaining or interesting, i will watch it anyway though, because its a zombie flick.

thats the way to be!

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.

Ah, glad you liked it BK.

The more I think about it, the more I love this movie, I can't wait to see it for a third time.

Well...I went on a double date last night and for what parts of the movie I DID pay attention to..all I heard was a big black guy going "HURRRRR GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR".. The movie was.............

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.


Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
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.

Originally posted by preysin
why the **** are you dissin Lucas for?

Because I CAN! TTYL in 3 days.

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 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'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.



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.

Well, I didn't mean be to so aggresive and negative to the film. There were somethings I did enjoyed. Like Tom Savini's cameo as the machete zombie. That was a sweet scene watching him slash humans.

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....

Yeah, I saw it Friday night at a regular showing and he got nothing, no reaction, at the midnight showing on friday, HUGE reaction.

http://www.upcominghorrormovies.com/images/land16simon.jpg

simon pegg...the guy who played shaun in shaun of the dead

''I, like many other fans of the genre, have been waiting for what seems like forever for another sequel, and finally it's here. Sadly, due to how things work in this day and age, the film was less like its predecessors and more like a typical modernized zombie flick''

somethin i didnt wanna hear

Originally posted by WindDancer
Because I CAN! TTYL in 3 days. Dude, He didnt really Deserve to be banned

Originally posted by SlipknoT
Dude, He didnt really Deserve to be banned

It was for reasons other than in this thread. Trust me.

Oooooooh someones Been bad?

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
It was for reasons other than in this thread. Trust me.

did u catch simon pegg in lotd?

I just saw LOTD last night. I enjoyed it. I would have to say that it's a drop from the first three movies but that doesn't mean this wasn't still pretty decent. I think I'll see it again when it hits those $1 theaters.

I know this is an old thread but with the DVD coming out and all....

Originally posted by BackFire
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.
I'm so glad it's not just me. After I had finished watching it, I was like, "Is it just me or was it better this time around?"

I thought it was way too gory for a 15. Maybe should have even been cut for an 18+ release..

This film has to be one of romero's greats zombie movie he has realeased even thought i was pissed off with it only getting a 15 age rating. After watching it i said to my self what a god damn good film that was.