Seriously Fed Up

[krakenslayer]

COmpared to LAND, DAY is a masterpiece. I like Day of the Dead, and yeah the acting could use some work, but it is a horror film, how many horror films, can you count on one hand, that had good acting... other than DAWN. Good acting and horror film are never usually mentioned in the same sentence. I'm not saying it is/was my opinion, but it was one of the thing people used to always bitch about in regards Day. Also people didn't think Day fitted in with the established series as it stood before then. Same thing with Land. I think the biggest issue with Land is that in the previous movies you can take or leave the social commentary, whereas in Land you have to buy into the commentary or the movie doesn't work. I enjoy satire though, so it actually doesn't bother me.

[bassman]

how many horror films, can you count on one hand, that had good acting... other than DAWN. Good acting and horror film are never usually mentioned in the same sentence. The Exorcist, Alien, The Shining, Rosemary's Baby, The Thing, The Fly,..... To name a few. And I would have to disagree with Dawn having good acting. It's horrible, imo. But I still love it. YEAH! Trucks!

[blind2d]

Hey, I really believed it when he said that! Don't forget Evil Dead. Bruce Campbell is amazing.

[Trin]

It's true that Day was not well received initially and eventually overcame the negative sentiment. But I don't believe it required time to do it. I think it took exposure and discussion and viewings by the fans. People had to watch it a few times. Let it sink in. Back when Day was released it might take years before a movie could get that kind of exposure. By 1985 standards Land has had an enormous amount of discussion and exposure. If it were going to overcome the negative sentiment it would've done it by now. Day didn't take that many years to become accepted. Land has had plenty of time. @Kraken - "whereas in Land you have to buy into the commentary or the movie doesn't work." <--- That is an excellent point!! @bassman - good list of movies there. Good acting in them all. My personal opinion is that the acting in all the Dead movies has been fine. I've never been distracted or put off by the acting. They always seemed like real people to me. Even Diary when sometimes they took horrendously questionable actions. I don't know - I can't help being excited that a new Romero Dead movie is on the horizon, even if my feeling is that it'll be crap. I'll still watch it. Buy the DVD. Gripe about it. Take it too seriously. Enjoy it, hopefully...

[ShadowMan]

I really try to view all of the films with an open mind and take them as they are because that's what George thought best in putting it on film. If it's good enough for the maker, then I suppose it's good enough for me. I do have opinions, nonetheless. What I have truely missed in the newer films (Land, Diary) is the feeling of entrapment and the almost suffocating hopelessness as felt by the living existing in a dead world where at every turn there is the possibilty of an encounter with death itself. That whole foreboding feeling is what made Dawn and Day both really adrenalin pumping movies for me. I have to say, I do prefer Day as the best movie in the initial trilogy. Maybe it was because they were living and working in close proximity to the dead (inside the undergriound complex). I also appreaciate the in-depth study Romero gave to the dead through the character of the doctor and his specimen. For me, this was the ultimate form of "creepy" even though in the end, it provided us with little answers while continuing the whole mystery set forth by Romero of just why the dead have reanimated. I wish this aspect had been explored more in Land, but NO. Not only did we not see an extension of the study of the dead, but the atmospheric, smothering, paranoid feeling wasn't present either. What were these people doing in this walled-off city? Partying! If I were living in a place like Fiddler's Green surrounded by the dead, there is NO frickin' way I would feel anywhere close to "safe" nor could I even live a semblance of any ordinary life. I guess I just feel many of the characters in the film were too easily distracted and not "on guard" as I fell someone should be. Maybe I'm just really depressing.

[MoonSylver]

Same thing with Land. I think the biggest issue with Land is that in the previous movies you can take or leave the social commentary, whereas in Land you have to buy into the commentary or the movie doesn't work. Really? While I've been a mildly vocal critic of the fact that the "message" are pretty central to the last 2 dead films, I can just set back & let them "wash over me" so to speak & I think they work just fine (Land more so of the 2.) As long as you can accept the premise that they have a city, use money, it has value etc ( & don't question it too much...) it plays out pretty well as an action/post apocalyptic move set against a dead background. That could just be me though....

[Fecunditatis]

I wish this aspect had been explored more in Land, but NO. Not only did we not see an extension of the study of the dead, but the atmospheric, smothering, paranoid feeling wasn't present either. What were these people doing in this walled-off city? Partying! Do you remember that Romero originally intended to do "The Masque of the Red Death" for "Two Evil Eyes"? Well, that's "Land of the Dead".

[clanglee]

Do you remember that Romero originally intended to do "The Masque of the Red Death" for "Two Evil Eyes"? Well, that's "Land of the Dead". You know, as big a Poe fan as I am, I never made that connection? That's pretty intuitive. I'll have to give it another look see.

[DubiousComforts]

COmpared to LAND, DAY is a masterpiece. Aren't these just "popcorn flicks"? If so, LAND is a much better popcorn flick than DAY 'cause it's got more guns in it.

[bassman]

Stuck on the popcorn...

[DubiousComforts]

Stuck on the popcorn... You again!

[EvilNed]

I agree. Day feels like a more complete film than Dawn. Suspension of disbelief becomes much easier in Day, and it's a more interesting conflict (at least for me) than in Dawn.

[Trin]

I wish this aspect had been explored more in Land, but NO. Not only did we not see an extension of the study of the dead, but the atmospheric, smothering, paranoid feeling wasn't present either. What were these people doing in this walled-off city? Partying! If I were living in a place like Fiddler's Green surrounded by the dead, there is NO frickin' way I would feel anywhere close to "safe" nor could I even live a semblance of any ordinary life. I guess I just feel many of the characters in the film were too easily distracted and not "on guard" as I fell someone should be. Maybe I'm just really depressing. I think Land would've been far better had there simply been hordes of zombies surrounding the place. That would've greatly heightened the tension within the city as well as explained why people felt trapped there. Throw in a little "low on ammo, low on water, low on gasoline" discussion and the whole landscape of their plight changes. Then let Cholo threaten to shoot the rockets at the walls, not the Green, letting hundreds of thousands of zombies pour in. That would've scared Kaufman shitless. As it was I just couldn't buy that these people really had a problem. There weren't enough zombies outside the protected area to keep 5 guys with baseball bats busy. For Christ's sake, Mouse spent upwards of an hour sitting on the pier with headphones on. These people just had no worries. You want to go to Canada? Well wtf is stopping you?? Get a couple people to peel off from a scavenger raid with you and never look back. I also agree that Day had the best character study and zombie study. That movie just rocked from an atmosphere and situation perspective.

[bassman]

These people just had no worries. Exactly! It was meant to be that way.

[clanglee]

This thread is very dangerously close to becomming a Land argument. Caution!!