Why people hate LOTD

[DjfunkmasterG]

Since we have a post about liking LAND, might as well have the other side of the spectrum as well. It has been almost a year since I caught the theatrical run of LAND, and nearly 6 months since I purchsed the DVD. Some have said it gets better with every viewing, while no matter how many times I watch it and try to see something better in the film, I can't. For many of us, LOTD was to be the master's finest entry, for those of us that read the script I think expected more than what we got. LAND has some decent things going for it, but it has more failures than anything. Over the top performaces from zombies, as well as living characters, poor cinematography, and a short running time just to name a few. Land's shining moments weren't in the gore, but showing the people of the city... Standing around, eeking by on their existence. Although the film was his biggest budget to date, the cinematography made the film feel so small, yet it was to be so epic. Another shining moment was the make-up FX by KNB. except for Big Daddy every other zombie was perfect. Although the script I read and the final product were slightly different, the script to screen translation was mediocre at best, and this is why I think most DEAD fans, find this to be the worst of the series. Land could have been the greatest zombie film ever, but failed to deliver what a lot of people were looking for... The classic Romero development of characters... instead we have cookie cuuter versions who phone in most of their performances. it is really a shame

[Phildogger]

Yeah, that about sums it up for me too.

[MinionZombie]

As a representative of the "love camp", fupishcu to you, kind sir! lol (any excuse to use "fupishcu" you know...everyone's entitled to their opinion, that's what's great about the western world!)

[Adrenochrome]

As a representative of the "love camp", fupishcu to you, kind sir! lol (any excuse to use "fupishcu" you know...everyone's entitled to their opinion, that's what's great about the western world!) "Excuse me, waiter,......I have a fupishcu in my soup".... .....Ya know, I'm going to a (jazz) brunch tomorrow....I think I'll use this word of yours.

[MinionZombie]

Actually it's (if I'm not mistaken), idsaluteyoubub's creation - and a damned fine creation at that.

[livingdeadboy]

I have pretty much the same beefs with Land of the dead as you do Dj, Hell I didn't even think some of the zombies were up to snuff make-up wise.

[Rottedfreak]

Folk who hate Land for the intelligent zombies really haven't seen Night Dawn or Day.

[MinionZombie]

I know what you're saying, because through Night they get to the intelligence of a baby playing, then in Dawn it's like small children remembering things and reacting to their surroundings. Day features the same child a couple of years older and in Land you've got the rebellious teenager - and both teenagers and zombies grunt instead of talk! Hell, I still grunt half the time instead of talking and I haven't been a teenager for a good few years now, guess old habits die hard.

[tju1973]

Out of all of them, I personally rate the 4 in this order.. Day,Dawn,Night, and finally Land.. ok, now throw what you must at me.. these are only my opinions!

[DjfunkmasterG]

Folk who hate Land for the intelligent zombies really haven't seen Night Dawn or Day. I am 35 years old, and I have seen them all and I am a huge fan of the first 3. I am not going to call something roses when I see a pile a crap. I am not going to jump on the bandwagon just because it is George Romero. If the man can't take criticism of his work then he shouldn't be in films. Cereval's film DEADSCAPES was 23 minutes and 50 times more entertaining than LOTD. I have no problem with Intelligent zombies, when the acting is done right. Anyone who thinks he pulled off the intelligent zombies perfectly is either blind as a bat, or smoking some really good herb and needs to hook me up with their dealer.

[DrSiN]

for those of us that read the script I think expected more than what we got. Of course we did. Our version had perfect acting and perfect setup. LOTD could have been a great movie. In the end it was an ok movie. I think LOTD had 2 flaws. First, Big Daddy was wrong. Smart zombies are fine. In fact, smart zombies can be a pretty horrific. However smart zombies who are angry and cry just plain suck. Had Big Daddy been portrayed with the same emotion scale of Bub (or better yet, slightly dialed back) it would have been a whole different movie. Now, GAR wanted to transition to being a story where the zombie is the protagonist. Well that doesn't really work. Here's my take on zombies. They can either be creepy (NOTD/DAWN/NIGHT90) or Intense (DAWN2K4). What they can't be is the protagonist. Once you try and make the viewer feel for the zombie with anymore more than Pity, they will never be creppy and can never be intense. The second flaw was the living characters. They were as uninteresting as they were wooden on the screen. Much of that was the script but the performances didn't help. The ONLY on screen chemistry was between Slack and Charlie of all people. Everyone else was a wash. But I have to say, I was never personally offended that GAR didn't deliver a perfect movie. And I not only saw it twice, but I pre-order the DVD.

[MinionZombie]

Well, according to GAR himself you're "a real troll" because you like Day the most, lol. Those most into Dawn are the groovy fun-lovers and those into Night are the straight-lined "original is best" folk. So I wonder what those who most like Land would be called by GAR...

[DjfunkmasterG]

Of course we did. Our version had perfect acting and perfect setup. LOTD could have been a great movie. In the end it was an ok movie. I think LOTD had 2 flaws. First, Big Daddy was wrong. Smart zombies are fine. In fact, smart zombies can be a pretty horrific. However smart zombies who are angry and cry just plain suck. Had Big Daddy been portrayed with the same emotion scale of Bub (or better yet, slightly dialed back) it would have been a whole different movie. Now, GAR wanted to transition to being a story where the zombie is the protagonist. Well that doesn't really work. Here's my take on zombies. They can either be creepy (NOTD/DAWN/NIGHT90) or Intense (DAWN2K4). What they can't be is the protagonist. Once you try and make the viewer feel for the zombie with anymore more than Pity, they will never be creppy and can never be intense. The second flaw was the living characters. They were as uninteresting as they were wooden on the screen. Much of that was the script but the performances didn't help. The ONLY on screen chemistry was between Slack and Charlie of all people. Everyone else was a wash. But I have to say, I was never personally offended that GAR didn't deliver a perfect movie. And I not only saw it twice, but I pre-order the DVD. Dr. Sin... You are so right on the Big Daddy/Protagonist Zombie issue. Romero made it now so the zombies aren't scary anymore. I never sat in the theater and felt like I was frightened or horrified. LAND just didnot have that creepy edge that DAY or NIGHT 90 had. The DAWN remake was more frightening. My biggest complaint from the get go was Big Daddy's incessant crying and howling. Had he been, like you suggested, a scaled back version of BUB, I would have found it more believeable. You were spot on with that assessment.

[p2501]

i disliked it for one, because i was expecting too much from Romero. and that tainted my view of the film. beyond that, as it was pointed out the scope was entirely too small. further te idea of a "ruling" class seemed sort of silly, granted to worked with the context of Romeros' metaphor. but as a plot point it was too much of a shark to jump. The plot was also lacking, honestly every entry in the" body snatchers " series far more merits film adaptation that both dead reckonings' orignal script, and the final product. other reasons: - the reckoning was really not that impressive, i was expecting something alot more "damnation alley" than what we got. - not enough zombie masses. the one large group was what maybe 200-300 zombies. an elevated fire team would have dropped them with minutes. - randomly generated plot point characters. - the priest zombie. and a few more, that i'm too bored to list. all and all it is a good movie, i just think alot of us over expected what we were going to get from it. also alot of us have been spoiled by the excellent level of story telling available on this site.

[deadpunk]

I keep reading through this thread how bad the plot was..and not trying to instigate anything, but I was surprised to find the movie had a plot. If I had a criticism of any of the other GAR Zombie movies, it was that they DID NOT. I mean, beyond trying to survive...can anyone tell me the plot of any of the others? Night was pure survival. Dawn was twenty minutes of survival and two hours of watching them set up house. Day was maybe the closest with it's view of people breaking down upon each other after being enclosed together for an extended period..yet, that was fairly thin too. Overall, I liked Land the best. Yes, the plot was cookie cutter. But, it was THERE. It had back stories and motivations for the characters. As for the over-expectation...well, after that long, GAR could have made the perfect finale and most of us would have been left feeling cheated. We've all spent so long wondering and writing/reading what others thought it should have been. The film was doomed to critcisms before it started.