I still havent seen it

[Tullaryx]

But you have to admit she had a nice body.... Yeah, but in the end it got touched by zombie hands. I ain't having zombie sloppy seconds!

[Svengoolie]

I was countering the "at best a joke in the USA" remark with a link to a page that shows Land scoring 74% positive reviews on that site. Next you might think "Reviews don't mean jack", to which I would have to respond "Keep that in mind when you read all the haters on here...." I made the Hasselhoff reference because Land was a resounding box office failure in the United States--the only way it was able to break even, let alone make the extremely modest profit it did, was in its overseas business. I'd buy into what you're saying about Land being accepted in the USA if the box office figures were a lot better... The website whose link you posted shows Land scoring 74% positive reviews on that site--those figures can easily be inflated by supporters of the film, as we've seen at IMDB countless times. In fact, IMDB gave the Dawn remake a higher rating than GAR's "masterpiece"--so by your rationale, does that make it a better...or at least more popular...zombie flick?

[Harold W Brown]

I made the Hasselhoff reference because Land was a resounding box office failure in the United States--the only way it was able to break even, let alone make the extremely modest profit it did, was in its overseas business. I'd buy into what you're saying about Land being accepted in the USA if the box office figures were a lot better... The website whose link you posted shows Land scoring 74% positive reviews on that site--those figures can easily be inflated by supporters of the film, as we've seen at IMDB countless times. In fact, IMDB gave the Dawn remake a higher rating than GAR's "masterpiece"--so by your rationale, does that make it a better...or at least more popular...zombie flick? 1: Yes, because money always equals quality. I hear "Failure to Launch" was awesome.... 2: And no, rottentomatoes gathers existing reviews from dozens of legitimate critics, including Variety, Rolling Stone, the NY Times, etc. It's not a placewhere 12 year old gorehounds can vote for movies. It's a round-up of many reviews from many outlets. Your comparison to IMDB doesn't hold.

[Tullaryx]

I actually rely more on whats the consensus review of a film from most of the film critics by logging onto rottentomatoes.com since all they really do is compile all official print, online media reviews from critics. I still question some of the reviewers they collect from but a majority of the reviews come from newspaper and magazine film critics. IMDB on the other hand uses rating system based off all comers. This is why certain films like Boondocks Saints can score as high as classic films from Scorcese, Coppola, etc...

[bassman]

Hey Sven, I'm pretty sure that the 74% is based on critic reviews and not fans or everyday folk like you or I. And in many cases, because a film doesn't do so well at the box office doesn't mean that it's a bad or horrible film. Hell..."Night" is one of those that didn't do so well here in the states at first. And about IMDB giving "Yawn04" a higher rating than "Land", it also scored a 78% on Rottentomatoes where "Land" had 74%. It's all opinion and it's about split down the middle. About half like "Yawn" and not "Land", and about half like "Land" and not "Yawn"(i'm in this group...obviously). And it's not that I refuse to ever watch "Yawn" again or anything like that....it's just my personal opinion that it's not a very good film. I can watch it again as I'm sure I will. Just as I'm sure eventually you "Land" haters will see "Land" again. It still amazes me that this argument is still happening almost a year after "Land" was released. No group is going to change the other's minds. We might as well learn to agree to disagree and live with other's opinions. And after all....."Obla Di, Obla Da....life goes on"

[Svengoolie]

1: Yes, because money always equals quality. I hear "Failure to Launch" was awesome.... 2: And no, rottentomatoes gathers existing reviews from dozens of legitimate critics, including Variety, Rolling Stone, the NY Times, etc. It's not a placewhere 12 year old gorehounds can vote for movies. It's a round-up of many reviews from many outlets. Your comparison to IMDB doesn't hold. 1. Regardless....it wasn't what the people wanted to see, and the film failed in the US--no matter how many positive reviews you try to dig up. Times have changed, and GAR hasn't. Even a good portion of his die-hard fans came out to blast Land... 2. Rottentomatoes gathers reviews from legitimate critics...and it also features a user's rating right next to the critic's figures. That's what I was mentioning--and the comparison does hold up in that respect. BTW...it also shows the Dawn Remake as being superior to Land at Rottentomatoes! Thanks for the link, Harold! http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dawn_of_the_dead/

[Harold W Brown]

Sigh. I've never really involved myself in the Land vs Dawn 04 debate. The 74% positive, legit reviews of Land counter your point about it being "at best, a joke in the USA...". It received, on average, three good reviews for every bad one. Yes, Dawn04 was well received critically as well. Younger people seem to like it more than Land, or even the original Dawn. Some folks can't, nor should they be asked to, separate their personal feelings from the films. Many folks built up Land so much in their minds that they couldn't help but be let down. I was so excited to see Romero - a man I've met, spoken with, admire and respect - get to make another film that I was definitely going to cut the film some slack. I didn't want to see the movie in my head with romero's name on it. I wanted to see what Romero had to show me. What I liked outweighed what I didn't. We won't be putting any of these particular debates to rest for about 20 years. Then we can see who's still talking about what films. Until then, the discussion continues...

[Tullaryx]

I think dislike for either film should be gathered and concentrated on the film that truly deserve them: House of the Dead, Children of the Dead, [b]Day of the Dead 2: Contagium[/]b, etc...

[Svengoolie]

I've never really involved myself in the Land vs Dawn 04 debate. The 74% positive, legit reviews of Land counter your point about it being "at best, a joke in the USA...". It received, on average, three good reviews for every bad one. Nevertheless--you've just spent the last hour or so in an online debate/argument which started when you tried to use numbers to counter a remark made in sarcasm. Personally, I could care less about the man himself--it's the films that count, and I'm able to separate the man from his work. And, in the case of Land, that work failed to live up to expectations.

[Harold W Brown]

Nevertheless--you've just spent the last hour or so in an online debate/argument which started when you tried to use numbers to counter a remark made in sarcasm. ...that has nothing to do with what we're talking about, though. I don't understand what you're saying.

[Svengoolie]

The point is, you went on this crusade to justify Land's quality because of this statement, obviously made in jest (that's what the smiley is for): I'd say rent it...and if you like it, wait till it's in the bargain basement bins instead of forking over the 20 bones most places want for it right now. It's the David Hasselhoff of zombie flicks--at best, a joke in the USA...and at worst, a piece of dog crap; but almost universally loved abroad. Was this entire exchange necessary? I don't think so...not over an obvious joke. The 74% positive, legit reviews of Land counter your point about it being "at best, a joke in the USA...". You're trying to make it out like my "at best, a joke in the USA" was a serious point I was trying to make, when it wasn't. Understand?

[bassman]

And, in the case of Land, that work failed to live up to expectations. I believe this is one of the things that hurt "Land" from the start. People went in expecting to see a film that they had imagined in their heads for twenty years rather than the film that Romero wanted to show. With "Dawn04"(that's right...I called it "Dawn" rather than "Yawn", simply because I want to do my part to cut back on this damn bickering) I think most people didn't have high hopes because it was, after all, a remake of a sacred film. So when people went in to see it, they were surprised that it was a decent action flick and were pleased with what Gunn and Snyder had accomplished out of what most fans thought was sure to be a flop.(I wasn't around here when Dawn04 was released - I think, but I have a feeling that when the information was first released of the remake, not too many fans were happy about it). Now cut to when "Land" was released: "The next film by George A. Romero!!! ALRIGHT....I've been waiting for this for 20 some-odd years! I'll be at the first show on opening day!" I'm sure this was what most people had in mind as they entered the theater for "Land". So I guess what i'm trying to say is, the majority of fans were ready for a let-down in "Dawn04" but they got a decent action flick. At the same time, Many fans were ready for Romero's "Masterpiece"(dumb@$$ people in marketing...) and were welcoming it with open arms only to have themselves let down because it was, after all, what none of has had really expected and definitely NOT a masterpiece. So at this point, why argue about it? I mean, we all have our own opinions so why can't we be open-minded to other's. Like I've said, I'm not a fan of "Dawn04" but I can see what good it has in it. Just like I can see what some people find as negatives in "Land". It's all chalked up to opinions at this point. Which, let's face it, the world would be horrible if EVERYONE had the same opinions... This is my two cents on the "Land"/"Dawn04" debate...take it or leave it. In the words of Nick Hexum of "311" - "....if you don't like it well.....I hope you do"

[Tullaryx]

If there was a gripe for me in regards to Land was the fact they didn't have a mass orgy of flesheating to bookend the film. There was the scene at the electrified fence, but it was all shot from far away. they should've went in up close. Right down into the guts of the scene.

[Harold W Brown]

Understand? Yep. But isn't the point of the constant "Land" slamming to get a rise out of people? Be honest.

[Svengoolie]

But isn't the point of the constant "Land" slamming to get a rise out of people? Be honest. Not at all. I'm posting my opinion...one that is shared by others on this very forum. And, judging by the reactionary way you're following me from thread to thread, trying constantly to counter my opinions and nitpick just about anything I might say about ol' moss-back George--it looks like you're the one trying to get a rise out of me.