I just got back from seeing the matinee showing of Land of the Dead. I'm a big fan of Night and Dawn, both the originals and their remakes. Day's okay, but I don't like it nearly as much as the others. It's the worst Dead to me. I just expected so much from Day, and it didn't deliver. Land of the Dead, however, does deliver some of what I felt was missing from Day. Leading up to today, I wasn't all that excited about Land. It had terrible promotion, and the thought of the zombies evolving sounded cheap. But the way it is executed is great, and I actually love that the zombies have grown smarter over the years.

Land has a lot of good qualities, but it also has a lot of very bad ones too. One thing I felt was bad was that I didn't care about any of the characters. In Night, I cared about Ben and Barbra. In Dawn, I cared about the four and even the mall. In Day, I sorta cared about the lead chick who's name I've forgotten. But in Land, I didn't care one bit about anyone. Everyone was poorly written, the dialogue was as cheesy as the dialogue in the other Dead films, but at least in those films I cared about the people delivering those cheesy lines. None of the characters in Land gave me any reason to care about them, so I didn't.

Land of the Dead comes no where close to being as good as Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead, both their originals and their remakes. It does kick the crap out of Day, though. I liked it a whole lot more than I do Day. It had no real point to it, though. I never picked up on a message. I almost feel like this was just a cash-in for money. A badly written one. "Close, but no cigar" comes to mind when thinking about what I just saw.

If I had to give it an official grade, I'd give it a C, maybe a C+. I give the original Night and it's remake a B+, the original Dawn an A, and it's remake a A-, and Day a D+. Kinda sad..

I really liked how Land turned out. It's much better than Day and I kind of liked it better than Night. The only reason why I don't like Night so much is because it's in black and white. Don't get me wrong, it's still a scary movie, but the effect in the gore scenes doesn't have much of an impact like in Dawn. Dawn remains the best film of the series. Land though does strike a chord.

I am shocked that this cut of the film ended up being R. There is some pretty hardcore stuff in here. This cut is not as graphic as Dawn was, but it will be interesting to see what the Unrated DVD will have in store. For anyone who thought this might have been toned down a little bit, it is kind of tame compared to the other films, but there is still plenty of gore, and zombies eating humans.

Also, another thing that I worried about coming in was how the zombies were supposed to get smarter. Well, Romero handles it in the best possible way. It follows a progression that Day hinted at.

All in all, this is a pretty solid zombie flick. It's not as good as the first two in the series, but it's still pretty well done. I can't wait to see how much gorier the Unrated cut is.

B+

I'm not a fan of Night of the Living Dead. Dawn of the Dead was a pain to watch. The less I say about Day, the better. I actually enjoyed Land of the Dead. It's sort of a spectacular failure, WAY TOO ambitious for such a short running time. Even within it's own established universe, the film strains zombie credibility but it's so over the top, I can forgive it. I was left with so many questions, I wish the film was either twice as long or made into two films. Fiddler's Green alone needed it's own movie.

A very enthusiastic C+

Jmart, how did you feel about the progression of the zombies. I rolled my eyes AT FIRST. The gas station attendant, the boyfriend and girlfriend, the band, I was thinking, what the hell kind of zombie film is this.

But my resistance was worn down. I still think the zombies rate of shuffling varied too much. And I don't understand the physics of zombie intelligence or instinct.

But any film that makes me want more is alright by me.

*dances around with glee*

just got back from Land of the Dead and i am very happy to report that it rocks :woo: i knew george romero wouldn't let me down. he delivers the goods....plenty of gore, social commentary, scares and black humor. i knew the "smart zombies" wouldn't seem so bad once i saw it played out on screen. i wasn't really feeling big daddy at first but i grew to like him more and more as the movie went on. i loved how the zombies learned not to pay attention to fireworks at the end of the movie. and even when zombies are taking over the world, the rich are still the rich and the poor are still the poor....romero is still the man.

A+

That doesn't sound like an (A+) review, it sounds more of a (B+) or an (A-)

Big Daddy was surprising well groomed for a decaying corpse.

lol yeah he had a sweet goatee

Did Cholo evolve quickly or was it chance that he happened upon Kaufman?

i think it was a little of both. he went to find him in the first place and just changed over on the way. it was probably over the course of a few hours. that's the only slight nitpick i have is that riley says that his brother changed in about an hour and in dawn of the dead it took roger a few days to change. oh well, doesn't bother me a bit

Do you know the timeline?

I'm guessing Fiddler's Green had been up and running for at least 2 decades. It's all Slack knew but Riley remembered life before the dead walked.

The Nooooooooooooooo Vader moment with Big Daddy was over the top btw.

oh it's an A+. ...believe me. i was just worried they were gonna make big daddy look like a super smart zombie but they didn't. he was smarter than the others, but not super smart. just like Bub in day of the dead. and i grew to actually really like him by the end....just like i grew to love Bub from day of the dead. the ending was great when they were about to blow away big daddy's group of zombies as they were leaving in the dead reckoning and riley said "no....they're just looking for a place to go...just like us"

i'm not too sure of the timeline but if i had to guess i'd say this is set about 10-15 years after the original night because slack said she remembered when the city was a real city, so i'm assuming the zombie plague started when she was a child. so if she's supposed to be 25 or so it makes sense to think that this is aout 10-15 years later....maybe 20

A mixed bag.

It works as a graphic, disturbing action film. However, The Ring Two produced more horror than this one does.

The screenplay's fresh, the direction's stunning, the commentary's sharp. In fact, Land of the Dead showcases everything Romero's all about. Vivid camera work (wait 'till you see the fireworks, something brand new in Romero's zombie world. Also, there's some great shots that pan out from the river right before the zombies make it into Pittsburgh), witty one-liners, and a great message about the division of classes (although, this might be a little overdeveloped - Romero makes us hate Dennis Hopper's actions that elevate the differences between the rich and the poor so much that we want the zombies to kick some major bootay once they enter Fiddler's Green). It just doesn't click together as a horror film. He's focused too much on the zombies themselves (you'll see it. While not vastly different from the ones in the DOTD remake, they're still repulsive) that he's forgotten how to build up tension. Asides from a few scenes that are tense because of music (you know, the kind where you know a zombie's going to pop out but you have no idea when. Think Alien), there's nothing to fear. It's a solid action flick (in fact, one of the best), but it's no better than Jason Takes Manhattan when it comes to the horror.

There's some fabulous scenes. The party scene, in which Asia Argento is thrown into a fenced area while humans sit aside, freely betting on which zombie will get to the goods first, is disturbing yet eye-opening at the same time. Romero's not only focused on the obvious division of classes (again, it's a little overplayed...). There's a bunch of material that criticizes how humans (as an entire race) act. It's not just the rich - it's everyone. He's commenting about our priorities, our greed, and our passions. Even Riley (who's like the superhero in the movie) doesn't come out clean.

I'd give it a B+ overall (A as an action film, B- as a horror).

I have the same opinion as Terminator does. I love the Dead seriers and this is no different. Everything in this movie is perfect. A+ for my score. Did anyone else like the Zombie circus games??? (chuckles). God bless Goerge A Romero.

that was great. especially where people were getting their pictures taken with zombies. that was priceless.

And, though Simon Pegg was playing him, was that supposed to be good 'ol Bub?

i actually was thinking that too....i'll have to pay closer attention when i see it again. i probably will sunday or monday

Hot.

I thought it was kind of odd at first, but then I watched the original Dawn of the Dead last night. I for some reason forgot about the part where it's explained that the zombies kept coming back to the mall because of instinct, they had been there before. The zombies in this film were just doing the same thing (Even with the guns). They haven't necessairly progressed.

i agree. they really haven't gotten "smarter", we're just seeing them remember things more and more from their regular lives out of instinct as they interact with their environments.

I think your logic is somewhat flawed. It's not as if a normal gas station attendant would have any previous memories of handling firearms or organizing a militia.

They've progressed, they've gotten smarter. I agree it's easier to say it's instinct because it explains away any issues of logic.

But the walking dead isn't logical anyway. :razz:

This movie should have just been called Land of the Dead, but they had to go the long way and call it George A. Romero's Land of the Dead.

He's earned it.