My final thoughts on Land Of The Dead

[archivesofthede]

I'm very tempted to post my final thoughts on this film. How much hate would "land" my way if it was mostly a good review? I'm honestly scared to post it here at HPOTD after reading previous comments regarding this "CLASSIC".

Yeah.. I said it. Classic!

[Philly_SWAT]

I'm very tempted to post my final thoughts on this film. How much hate would "land" my way if it was mostly a good review? I'm honestly scared to post it here at HPOTD after reading previous comments regarding this "CLASSIC".

Yeah.. I said it. Classic!

I would be interested to hear them, regardless of what slant you took on it. Although perhaps this thread may be moved to the "Land of the Dead" forum.

[bassman]

The Land forum is long gone, philly...

*sigh* Post your review and let the fun begin. Again.:|

[archivesofthede]

http://www.archivesofthedead.com/home/images/stories/productlogos/landofthedead.jpg

In 2005 George A. Romero was given his first opportunity to produce one of his zombie films with a larger than normal budget of $15 Million. Becoming the 4th in the Of The Dead series the film was originally planned to be called Dead Reckoning . To avoid confusion with previous films that shared a similar name Romero and his team decided on the name “Land of the Dead” at the last minute. Other names they considered had been Dead City, Twilight of the Dead, and even Night of the Living Dead: Dead Reckoning. To the surprise of many the plot and story of Land of the Dead was based partly on the original longer version of the 1985 Day Of The Dead script.

The movie starts out with an amazing scene of little zombie band and they are playing “The Gonk” from the mall music of Dawn Of The Dead. The survivors are out in a far away town gathering supplies and training new recruits. Armed with bikes, guns and a armored tank vehicle called ironically “Dead Reckoning” the zombies are no match for them.

Picking up from Day of the Dead and the zombie “Bub” we soon begin to see that the zombies are gaining some intelligence. This is were it starts to go bad for the survivors in a way we have never seen before. In all the previous films in the series the survivors had sub-come to social situations that lead to their deaths. In Land of the Dead, the zombies take on an original role of being the primary cause of survivor deaths. The “blue collar monster “ as Romero calls them have evolved and now become even more terrifying than ever before in this film. When the zombies get lead by a zombie called “Big Daddy” played by Eugene Clark they begin to organize and march forward, following the survivors back to their walled off city. An epic battle then emerges on the door steps of “Fiddler’s Green” that is controlled by Dennis Hopper’s character ”Kaufman”, who is the would be ruler/dictator of the survivor’s city.

John Leguizamo stars as one of the survivors called “Cholo” giving the film its best performance along side fellow survivor Simon Baker as “Riley”. Both actors did a wonderful job carrying the movie and improving on the script. The majority of the zombies were union extras in the film and we seen some of the most fantastic performances by these extras. In both their movement and their sound, it truly improved the overall fear in the film. There was even room to add Romero’s daughter, Tina Romero, as one of the extra soldiers. She was the firecracker female solider on the guard tower with the electric fence.

Land of the Dead is the first film that Romero ever used digital effects and many critics were skeptical about it. Some of the more die hard fans of Romero films were disappointed in Land of the Dead after it was released. Though there are some different moments in the film that a few Romero fans continue to question, many will agree that the basic theme and style of a Romero film is persistent throughout the film. As time passes we are starting to see more fans with a greater deal of appreciation for Land of the Dead. Even some of the most harshest critics are having a change of heart toward the film.

Years after the film was released we have seen cast members such as, Actress Jennifer Baxter, who plays the zombie called “Number 9” begin to gain a cult following for her performance in the film. Boyd Banks who plays “The Butcher” zombie has also gained a good size fan base. “The Butcher” has even had a 7’ inch action figure mass produced along side the star zombie “Big Daddy” and Tom Savini’s always present Motorcycle Zombie that was released in 2006 by SOTA Toy Company. Now considered a treasured collectors item to both zombie and the average horror fans alike. We have also seen an increase in purchases of posters, cast autographs and other memorabilia from the film. Prices have slightly risen on almost everything and we recently seen an original Land of the Dead United Kingdom Quad Poster go for as much as $150.00 on eBay.

Despite Land of the Dead being released on the heels of Zack Snyder’s 2004 Dawn of the Dead remake that had a budget of $28 million, Romero’s Land of the Dead brought in only $46,770,602 worldwide. This was about half of Snyder’s worldwide box office sales of $102,356,381 that recouped its budget in its opening weekend. This was mainly due to the name recognition of Dawn Of The Dead created by Romero.

The vote is still out on Zack Snyder being the master of a new generation in zombie horror cinema. Until then, I say bring on more Romero films. George A. Romero still reigns as the Master and Godfather of the zombie genre with his epic cinematic masterpiece, Land of the Dead.

[mista_mo]

philly is living in the past. far out man.

[Mr.G]

I'll admit that Land has gotten better as it ages. I guess there is hope for Diary afterall!

[archivesofthede]

I'll admit that Land has gotten better as it ages. I guess there is hope for Diary afterall!

I think you're right my fellow Hooiser!

[Philly_SWAT]

The Land forum is long gone, philly...



philly is living in the past. far out man.
LOL, shows much much I went to the Land forum. I just assumed it was here, didnt bother to "check". :)

Good review. I think Land will improve in its general perception as time continues to go by.

[SRP76]

It depends. If there are no more zombie movies made by people, or if all we get are garbage ones, Land will seem better by comparison. But, if someone comes along and actually makes a good zombie movie or two, Land will be forgotten pretty easily.

[capncnut]

Good review. I think Land will improve in its general perception as time continues to go by.
Quite agree and hopefully the hate will subside. Diary <rubs nose>, I dunno.

[clanglee]

The movie starts out with an amazing scene of little zombie band and they are playing “The Gonk” from the mall music of Dawn Of The Dead. .

They were? :confused:

Just sounded like wheezing to me.

[Mutineer]

I've given my thoughts on LAND

MAJOR Let down. Somphmoric filmmaking. Not hating, just calling it.

I love NIGHT, DAWN (Cept for the BLUE zombies) and DAY (My Fav).

Land left me let down. Diary was fun though (Better than the English 'reality / video' zombie film.

[Mike70]

*sighs but wades in like one of the triarii*

land was bound to be a major disappointment for lots of folks after the long wait between dead films. personally, i like both land and diary, despite their flaws. i don't like big daddy at all but i find riley a character i can identify with, he has remained human despite the things he's witnessed and done.

[sandrock74]

I'll admit that Land has gotten better as it ages. I guess there is hope for Diary afterall!

This is what happened to Day! People 'round these parts HATED Day with a passion back in the late 90's. There was nothing but bitching about it. Day was the red headed step-child of the Dead universe.

Now, mostly everyone thinks Day is pretty cool.

[ProfessorChaos]

this thread isn't necessary, is it? do we really wanna start this hatfield/mccoy shit again?:|

*dueling banjos*

and plus, i'm sure that LOTD will pop into your head at least once more in your lifetime, so those really aren't your "final thoughts"....:rockbrow:

[Mike70]

This is what happened to Day! People 'round these parts HATED Day with a passion back in the late 90's. There was nothing but bitching about it. Day was the red headed step-child of the Dead universe.

Now, mostly everyone thinks Day is pretty cool.

day has always been my fav of the original three. it is dark, nasty, claustrophobic and disturbing on several levels.

[bassman]

land was bound to be a major disappointment for lots of folks after the long wait between dead films. personally, i like both land and diary, despite their flaws. i don't like big daddy at all but i find riley a character i can identify with, he has remained human despite the things he's witnessed and done.


Ah. Someone I can agree with here. Well said Mike.:thumbsup:

[Philly_SWAT]

This is what happened to Day! People 'round these parts HATED Day with a passion back in the late 90's. There was nothing but bitching about it. Day was the red headed step-child of the Dead universe.

Now, mostly everyone thinks Day is pretty cool.

I have to agree partially with this. While I didnt hate Day with a passion, for a while I put it a distance, not close, third behind Dawn and Night. I found the film to be too much sitting around and talking, even though the FX were quite superior. But upon repeated viewings, I grew to appreciate Day a lot more than I did previously. One of the things I found so distracting at first was that the actor who played Miguel was so obviously gay, and has this creepy deep voice, and is the only guy in the movie getting any poon-tang. Once I was able to suspend my disbelief about the sexual preference of one of the actors, I was able to enjoy the story more.

[mista_mo]

Land of the dead was the best film in the entire series. all the others are shite compared to its eternal greatness.

[Mr.G]

I always liked Day too. I never understood the complaints and assumed it was the vocal minority on the internet.

I have given Diary two additional viewings....not much growth but hopefully like vegetables, the more I try the more I'll enjoy.

[Thorn]

I'm very tempted to post my final thoughts on this film. How much hate would "land" my way if it was mostly a good review? I'm honestly scared to post it here at HPOTD after reading previous comments regarding this "CLASSIC".

Yeah.. I said it. Classic!

Never be afraid to post your opinion man, it is not right or wrong it is your opinion/thoughts and you are entitled to them. If people disagree so be it, you can agree to disagree or debate.

We do not all always agree around here but it is a great community there is no one I dislike and I think we all of us to a woman/man love that we can post freely here EVEN if your post gets some flames. It is still a great chance to talk to good people about something we are all passionate about.

As for Land I have given my opinion many times. I liked land. It was not perfect, but it was what I expected it to be for the most part. I WANTED it to be more but you know we are all fans of Mr. Romero and this genre so we have high expectations. Hard for any film to really live up to that. How long between Day and land? 20 years? That is a long time for you to allow your expectations to build.

[archivesofthede]

Never be afraid to post your opinion man, it is not right or wrong it is your opinion/thoughts and you are entitled to them. If people disagree so be it, you can agree to disagree or debate.

Yeah, I just didn't want to piss everyone off, lol.

[Philly_SWAT]

Never be afraid to post your opinion man, it is not right or wrong it is your opinion/thoughts and you are entitled to them.
You are totally wrong. :)

j/k

[MikePizzoff]

philly is living in the past. far out man.

:lol: I don't know why, but this made me laugh really hard.

[Thorn]

You are totally wrong. :)

j/k

Now that made me seriously LOL, leave it to Philly!

[Trin]

I think that was a well-written and thoughtful review Archives.

I still hate Land. I think it was GAR squandering his opportunity to make a really great finale to the series.

And, no, my 20 years of expectations were not at fault. That ruined sex for me, not zombies.

[Thorn]

I think that was a well-written and thoughtful review Archives.

I still hate Land. I think it was GAR squandering his opportunity to make a really great finale to the series.

And, no, my 20 years of expectations were not at fault. That ruined sex for me, not zombies.

It is funny you would say that, I had a whole sex analogy typed into the initial post that I deleted. I thought to myself "even bad sex is pretty good" so I erased it.

It is a great point though Trin.

I just think that when you wait FOREVER for anything... when you finally get it there is bound to be some let down. How can anything live up to twenty years of expectations? At that point land would have to come over to my house cook me dinner, have sex with me, give me a bath, tuck me in, make me breakfast the next day on it's way out of my house the next day, and STILL be a damn good movie to boot.

[MoonSylver]

I just think that when you wait FOREVER for anything... when you finally get it there is bound to be some let down. How can anything live up to twenty years of expectations?

See...it's weird...I went into that movie with NO expectations, because I honestly NEVER thought there would be another dead film, EVER, EVER, EVER. We discussed that in great depth on here way back in 98? 99? So I was just happy there were going to be more made.

I'm still shocked Diary came so quick, & ...of the Dead right behind it.

[krakenslayer]

One of the things I found so distracting at first was that the actor who played Miguel was so obviously gay, and has this creepy deep voice...

You know, that never really dawned on me until you mentioned it there. :stunned: I had genuinely never noticed, but in retrospect it's difficult to see how I could have missed it!

[Thorn]

Oh he is gay.

We have had some epic discussions around here about it, but there is no doubt in my mind the dude is gay and he was cast as the only guy in the movie getting any.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/2/4/128782344100099225.jpg

or if you prefer...

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/2/4/128782346892760073.jpg

[Trin]

The whole expectations argument doesn't work for me. I didn't spend 20 years building expectations. I spent 19 years believing the series was done and over and less than 3 months looking forward to Land. I barely got back in the "Dead" mood enough to be excited about it before it hit theaters. If anything, Land was wham-bam for me.

The expectations were simple. GAR put out 3 quality movies and people expected a fourth. Doesn't matter whether it's 2 years later or 20.

People are fond of saying that all the polls agree that HPOTD member by and large liked Land. But the polls also consistently agree that Land was the worst of the 4 (until Diary, that is, which now seems to have deposed Land as the worst).

Matrix was a great movie quickly followed up by two horrible sequels. Were built up expectations to blame for the two follow-ups sucking? No. It doesn't matter how much time passed. The original movie was stellar and the follow-ups sucked. No further analysis necessary.

Alien was a great movie followed up by a stellar sequel 7 years later. No amount of time would make Aliens seem lame based on built expectations left over from Alien. The sequel was just great.

Land suffers from being mediocre. It's not clearly stellar. It's not clearly awful. It's sitting on a fence whereby personal opinion and high or low expectations can sway it either direction.

[shootemindehead]

Hello,

I must be knocking around this site for many years now (nearly 8 or 9 I think) and this is my first post. So be gentle! :)

I found "Land of the Dead" to be quite entertaining to be honest and I just don't get the hate it attracts from some people. Yes, it's flawed (like everything Romero has done), but it does have strengths.

I just look at it as another chapter in Romero's "real" dead series. What worries me though is not the direction "Land of the Dead" took, it's the fact that Romero has seemed to have abandoned his original take on the zombie outbreak and started again with pointless "Diary of the Dead". I didn't mind that film, but couldn't help thinking that George would have been better off adding another chapter to his original series. I'm unsure when or where the next "...of the Dead" film is going to be, but I don't hold any hope that it's going to be part of the series I grew up with. It sounds like another "Start" of the Living Dead and I don't want that to be honest. There are so many outbreak films, it's becoming like "Groundhog Day of the Dead".

I understand that the new boy on the block is always going to get flak and be judged against it's predecessors and that's probably why "land of the Dead" has gotten some stick since it's release. As has been said, the far superior (and best of the series by a long shot) "Day of the Dead" also recieved massive criticism when it was released and now it's viewed with more fondness. The ire with which "Day of the Dead" was subjected to, though, had always baffled me. I never got it. To me "Day of the Dead" was/is the zombie movie to which all others should aspire to. There is a level of utter dread in that film that no other zombie movie (and few other horror movies) have managed to attain.

Anyway, here's my review of "Land of the Dead"...


While the fourth instalment of Romero's definitive "dead" saga is not really what fans were expecting, it does retain the essential element. Decent zombies. The door-opener for this film, the silly Zack Snyder remake of "Dawn of the Dead", just didn't cut it in that direction. To put it simply, if you can make zombies physically fit enough to run the hundred yard dash, but unable to break a window in a shopping mall to get to their food source.....you're asking a bit much. Snyder's movie, while it contained some good scenes and set pieces, just didn't come off as a proper zombie movie at the end of the day. It could/would have been a lot better, if it had stuck to the "rules", as it were. The "appeal' of the dead, is their sheer number and the relentlessness of the slow shuffling attack, coupled with simply not knowing where they will pop up next. Giving them the ability to race around the place somehow diluted their menace.

The aforementioned "rules" are included in Romero's vision and that's one of the prime strengths of his particular take on the genre he practically created, even if this particular episode leaves the viewer somewhat wishing for a little more (personally I believe the 93 min running time was too short and the story as a whole, a little anaemic).

Romero's episodic approach, serialised but not truly connected, gives us a glimpse into the lives of people who have survived the original zombie apocalypse and the small attempts at society which they have tried to establish. This particular section of the series deals with a full city of human characters or at least a partially filled city and is the largest group of humans Romero has dealt with so far. Previous films have simply dealt with small groups of people trying to cope with (and avoid) the phenomena that has engulfed them. But that is the engrossing thing about Romero's take on the world of the dead. His observations of separate groups of people and their separate methods of dealing with the undead biting at their heels and "Land of the Dead" is simply another look at another group. This is one of the reasons why "Land" is difficult to hate as much as some fans have declared.

The story itself, is quite a low key affair, for the viewer that is. For the protagonists, it's an absolute bloody disaster. It concerns itself with the simple plot that the dead completely outnumber the living (even more so than "Day of the Dead" I presume) and "control" the majority of the...ahem...land outside the city in which the human characters have garrisoned themselves. As supplies run low in the city, people are hired to venture outside the protection of the city and gather more supplies (including booze, which is a highly sought after commodity for the richer echelons of this post-society society). They also take a large toll on the population of the dead. All part of the job, no doubt.

They travel into the hordes of the dead in a various convoy of bikes, cars and trucks. The most powerful of the vehicles that these risk-takers use is the `Dead reckoning' (the original title, by the way), a huge mock-up truck with a multitude of wheels, armour, machine guns and rockets...Absolutely zombie proof. We are introduced to these post apocalyptic `hunter-gatherers' in the movie's very entertaining opening sequence.

We are also introduced to the dead of the title. These pathetic (but terrifying) entities wander around their former stomping grounds, trying to play instruments and carrying out the former duties of the occupations they filled when they were "alive". One of the dead, `Big Daddy', thinks he should be filling people's cars with fuel, even though the only people driving cars these days are gun toting desperados that would be happy to put a bullet through his head. `Big Daddy' seems to have developed or retained some sort of intelligent function and awareness, an issue that was alluded to in the previous film, 1985's "Day of the Dead".

He displays a fear and loathing of the people who rampage into his town, shooting up everyone and looting. This, in time, makes him the natural leader of the dead that inhabit the one-horse town that exists in the suburbs of 'Fiddler's Green', the city that the living people inhabit...and while not trying to give too much away, 'Big Daddy' leads them in a zombie assault on the Green with the obvious results ensuing. Anyone even remotely familiar with Romero's zombie flicks will be aware of what that means.

The somewhat lacklustre story aside, "Land of the Dead" is, in fact a fitting entry to the series. "Night of the living Dead" dealt with the un-defined genesis of the phenomena, "Dawn" dealt with the final breakdown of society in the face of the phenomena and "Day" and "Land" both deal with groups of people surviving the phenomena.

There are problems though. The major one being the timeframe of this particular episode. If we take it that "Night of the Living Dead" (1968), could have occurred in the 1970's and "Dawn of the Dead" (1978) at the turn of the decade, with "Day of the Dead" (1985) happening in the early 1980's, then logically "Land of the Dead" should be taking place in either the late 80's or early 90's. I say this because the main male and female characters, who can't be more than early/mid thirties "remember" what it was like before the dead started to make an appearance. This then means that the technology/weaponry of the piece should be of a 1980's standard at best. So, we shouldn't really be seeing laptops, with digital readouts of perimeter security for the city, mobile phones or modern style military/police helmets and machine guns. It would have been better if Romero had limited the human characters firepower to M-16's or UZI's, walkie talkies and 1980's style military equipment, a la "Day of the Dead". It's a flaw that many people wouldn't bother with, but it does let the movie down somewhat. The obvious reason for including such modern equipment in the movie is that it was probably cheaper than locating 1980's stock.

But that aside, overall, "Land of the Dead" is an entertaining episode in a series that could keep on trucking along. Even after Romero joins his band of zombie hordes. The main thing is that any director, who will take up the drama, should be made to stick to Romero's established rules. The scope of the overall piece is huge and open to a multi-variation global vision. I do hope it's not the last time that we see Romero's dead walk.

[Thorn]

Solid review in my opinion, and glad you decided to post finally. Look forward to hearing from you in the future.