land of the dead? greatest film ever?

[bassman]

I find it funny how die-hard GAR fans are always saying "Day was hated when it first came out, but over time people came to love it and it finally got the recognition it deserved....". Guys...the fact of the matter is: the only people who think that Day is a classic, or that it deserves recognition, is the die-hard fans themselves. First of all....It's not fact, it's opinion. You're entitled to your own and I respect that, but you shouldn't try to pass it as fact. It just doesn't work. Secondly, it isn't only held in high regards in the Romero fan circle. I have seen several different instances where people outside of the "Dead Fanbase" have enjoyed "Day". One being that I have showed it to nearly all of my buddies(none of which are fans, by the way) and not one of them said that it was a bad movie. There were a few bits and peices that they believed could have used some work(which I agreed), but it is nearly impossible to find a film without flaws. Another being that if you check out some movie fan sites with member reviews and that sort of thing, you will find that even the non-Romero fans enjoyed the film and gave it a generally high rating. And the third being the reviews of professional critics. There were quite a few negative reviews when the film was released, but if you search for reviews that are post-1980's, you will find that those non-Romero fans enjoyed the flick as well. I know that none of this will change your mind and I don't intend for it to do so. Just showing that your opinion is not fact. It's just that: Opinion. This all goes the same for "Land". OPINION. Why can't we all just accept that? Besides, the world(and this website ) would be boring as hell if everyone thought the same(pay attention, MTV-ers ).

[Griff]

The Facts of The Matter: There was a lot of anticipation for both DAY and LAND. For some they did not conform to expectation. Some of those people later came to appreciate those films. Repeated viewings can help to diminish the influence of preconceptions. Non-horror fans have been known to enjoy and appreciate these films. Plain and simple, unlike Svengoolie's rambling, self-applicable theory*. Hi Mum! * which he could easily prove by rewatching DAY OF THE DEAD 2: CONTAGIUM until he considers it a 'classic'.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Since we all keep beating the Dead Horse... might as well have something to show for it.

[Danny]

well ive finally seen land of the dead, and though its not as good as night or dawn i definatly think its better than day and i enojyed it, too bad the bit in the script about zombie rats was dropped out, overall i liked it though, its not as good overall as the others but i liked the continuity it wasnt a typicla hollywood package of CONFLICT, CHALLLENGE ,JOURNEY, BATTLE, CONDITION WORSENS, LAST MINUTE HAPPY ENDING. i guess this means i joined the ''yes'' camp.

[Guru ofthe Dead]

I agree with bassman311 and hellsing, Land is a good movie and in my opinion the best of the dead films that have came out in the past two or three years. Yes Resident Evil is good but it tried to stay true to the game. Now Day was a rush job and on a low budget, Land was Hollywood with some money and big named stars. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

[kar98k]

i dont think LOTD was the best, heres the order. romeros 'dead' films 1-4 (1 being best, 4 being worst) 1.Dawn of the Dead (best horror movie ever) 2.Night of the Living Dead 3.Land of the Dead 4.Day of the Dead (wtf??? cmon george, you can do better then that )

[Danny]

i agree with that order completely man. day just felt like an epilogue of sorts than a stand a lone feature.

[Svengoolie]

More Facts of the Matter: There was a lot of anticipation for both DAY and LAND. For some they did not conform to expectation. As usual, Griff...you fail to realize that the situation we're dealing with is much more complicated than that. Day came out over twenty years ago...and for the majority of the fans today, the anticipation factor had nothing to do with the quality or popularity of that film. Hell, I'd lay five to one that probably half the people posting here weren't even born yet, or were not too far out of diapers, when Day came out...and if anything, Day is what helped them get into the genre in the first place. As for Land, while the anticipation factor might very well come into play for some, it's not a deal breaker for most of the people bashing it. Most of the people bashing it are long term fans who have very specific gripes with the film (unlike the bj artists that blast Dawn 04 simply because it exists)...and it's those specific gripes that give their case more legitimacy over those who were simply let down in general. Some of those people later came to appreciate those films. Sure they did. No one is disputing that. But, I think that many came to "appreciate" Day (and now Land) simply because they became more familiar with them and not because of the film's quality. Repeated viewings can help to diminish the influence of preconceptions. Not if there are no preconceptions in the first place. Like I said--the anticipation/preconceptions factor has little or no bearing on the arguments of the people bashing Day or Land, as has been seen in these very forums. People are attacking specific points about both films and challenging their quality overall...which goes far beyond simply feeling "let down". Non-horror fans have been known to enjoy and appreciate these films. They've also been known to think they're chunks of dog crap. Plain and simple, unlike Svengoolie's rambling, self-applicable theory*. The only thing plain and simple here is you, Griff.

[Griff]

I was just stating some FACTS, Svengoolie, because yours were all over the place like a mad woman's p*ss. You have some legitimate points but presenting them as absolutes is a bit presumptious. For instance, I'd like to see you prove that "the anticipation/preconceptions factor has little or no bearing on the arguments of the people bashing Day or Land". Note the bold text? That's denoting where you've softened your argument slightly to seem less arrogant. Here's another example: But, I think that many came to "appreciate" Day (and now Land) simply because they became more familiar with them and not because of the film's quality. Compare that to the unwavering confidence of: "the fact of the matter is: the only people who think that Day is a classic, or that it deserves recognition, is the die-hard fans themselves." and/or "The only level on which Day succeeds is in the SFX department. Plain and simple." Listen man, I'm just giving your sh*t because you were begging for it. I know what you're saying and you may be right in some cases ...but it doesn't mean you're right. But anyway, back to this: "But, I think that many came to "appreciate" Day (and now Land) simply because they became more familiar with them and not because of the film's quality. Once again, I'd like to see you prove this by rewatching DAY OF THE DEAD 2: CONTAGIUM and telling us how many times it takes before you're in love with it. Afterall, they say 'familiarity breeds contempt'. The only things that can overcome that is genuine affection or complacency ...and I'd hesitate to call anyone here merely 'complacent' when it comes to Romero's DEAD movies. Rather, I think people are more inclined to embrace a film and its virtues once they get over their preconceptions of what those virtues should have been and are able to judge it solely on its own merits - not by how familiar they become with its vices. Cheers.

[Svengoolie]

I was just stating some FACTS, Svengoolie, because yours were all over the place like a mad woman's p*ss. No, Griff--unlike yourself, I actually have points with my post. You're just too plain and simple to comprehend what I was saying. As usual. You have some legitimate points but presenting them as absolutes is a bit presumptious. For instance, I'd like to see you prove that "the anticipation/preconceptions factor has little or no bearing on the arguments of the people bashing Day or Land". Note the bold text? That's denoting where you've softened your argument slightly to seem less arrogant. Not at all. The "little or no bearing" is a legitimate point that simply shows that I understand that some people (a minority) were let down by the film simply because of the anticipation/preconceptions factor, but the vast majority of the people posting here aren't in that category at all--they all have legitimate, specific gripes with the film that they're able to cite individually. As for the rest...it's just your usual bj artist crap. Instead of addressing the points being made, you're trying to attack the person making them--it's pretty much all you've ever been able to contribute to the forums. Oh....and as for Contagium--why don't you follow your own advice? I know you've got a copy...

[bassman]

Instead of addressing the points being made, you're trying to attack the person making them-- .....You're just too plain and simple to comprehend what I was saying. As usual. hrmmm....

[Adrenochrome]

hrmmm.... exactley......strong words coming from dcburny This guy will never change and never learn. Why do people respond to any of his inane banter?

[DjfunkmasterG]

Well, not that this helps in anyway, but most people think ROTLD 2 is garbage, but I enjoyed it and even popped in my Bootleg copy (it has the original score) last night. I watched the film twice last night and I still enjoy it. It is a campy film, with an extra helping of Velveeta, and I do consider it better than LOTD. My opinion of the film is that it is nowhere as good as part 1, and for the most part it does stink, but at least it has entertainment value. I don't cringe when I re-watch the film like I do when I try to re-watch LOTD. I have been trying to give it the benefit of the doubt, but it just isn't happening. I have a point in all this rambling somewhere.... Bear with me! Basically LOTD has redeeming qualities for some viewers, and for others it is a pile of doggie poo-poo. The same can be said for ROTLD 1 or 2. Basically I have concluded the following and I probably will not really post much more on the subject of my hatred for LOTD. I feel that those whom like LOTD feel a need to like it because of their loyalty and their love for Romero. I will accept that. What I refuse to accept is those who find the film without flaw or his greatest film ever. No offense but Bruiser is better than LOTD. I tend to be more accepting of the middle ground camp. Those whom admit the film is bad, but enjoy it or at least accept it into the series and do so with merits in their arguments. I also respect the hate camp (Which I am a proud member) because they like I see the film the way we see it. LOTD looks like a cheap cash-in to the surging zombie film revival. The film was rushed into production on the success of the DAWN remake, it was substandard on every level accept make-up and some minor acting roles. The plot and story were to outlandish to be acceptable in any medium. Land exceeds my expectations on some levels. It showed me Romero could bring us something on a large scale production that looked good visually, and that he should have been chosen as director of RE: 1.(more credit should go to the DP, I am not a fan of soft focus and blue tint, but some of the camera work isn't oo bad. I prefer Romero's original DP-Mike Gornick- over the DP of LOTD though) It also showed me that Nicotero and company can hold their ground against Savini in the FX department... although Big Daddies make-up left a lot to be desired. George still has a knack for decent visuals. Land killed my enthusiasm because of the poor casting choices. The obnoxious performances by Eugene Clark and John Leguizamo. The overall feel of the story and the outlandish plot devices (RANSOM during an apocalypse is the stupidest thing I have ever seen on a screen.) I am sure it could have been handled more effectively, but again the ball was dropped, and dropped hard. Annoying characters. Zombies too smart for their own good. exactley......strong words coming from dcburny This guy will never change and never learn. Why do people respond to any of his inane banter? Don't take this offensively dude, but the same could be said for you. There are times you have gone overboard on the new forum and the old forum (more the old). No one is perfect the man is stating an opinion. I don't agree with everyones opinions in regards to LOTD, but they still have an opinion. BTW Adreno, your gif is still freaking me out!

[Adrenochrome]

Don't take this offensively dude, but the same could be said for you. There are times you have gone overboard on the new forum and the old forum (more the old). No one is perfect the man is stating an opinion. I don't agree with everyones opinions in regards to LOTD, but they still have an opinion. BTW Adreno, your gif is still freaking me out! I'm not offended at all. Which makes me a little different from these others. They get MAD, almost frothingly mad! I know I've gone overboard.....I have admitted it, I've apologized, unlike those here that go WAY more overboard than I. These "others" sit back and believe they've "gotten one over" on the rest of us. My motto, "It's just the 'net" - A great way to remain sane! peace, Tom

[Griff]

Jeez, Svengoolie, I thought I was being rather diplomatic and forgiving, if a bit cheeky, considering what an obnoxious turd you were being. You're trying to drag me into a tiresome cycle of retorts but I believe I made my points concise enough in my first post, along with some courteous elaboration in my follow up. I was pointing out holes in your argument, not trying to negate it entirely. Too bad you couldn't see that. Once again you're caught softening your stance on your initial argument, the sure sign of an unsure man backpedalling to safety. You were pretty adament in your assertions the first time around. How things change. I'm gonna go pick a fight with someone with conviction. Cheers.