Ebert on Land of the Dead + My Thoughts on his Thoughts

[DjfunkmasterG]

I was just reading Eberts review of Land of the Dead (Which BTW he liked, add another one to the fire of the like camp) Anyway as I read his review there is something he said that made me say... "Hell Yes, this is the movie I want to see." I am going to paste a portion of the review below.

The puzzle in all the zombie movies is why any zombies are still -- I was about to write "alive," but I guess the word is "moving." Shooting them in the head or decapitating them seems simple enough, and dozens are mowed down with machine guns by the troops in Dead Reckoning. Guards at the city barriers kill countless more. Since they are obviously zombies and no diagnosis is necessary before execution on sight, why do they seem to be winning?

This and other questions may await Romero's next movie. It's good to see him back in the genre he invented with "Night of the Living Dead," and still using zombies not simply for target practice but as a device for social satire. It's probably not practical from a box office point of view, but I would love to see a movie set entirely inside a thriving Fiddler's Green. There would be zombies outside but we'd never see them or deal with them. We would simply regard the Good Life as it is lived by those who have walled the zombies out. Do they relax? Have they peace of mind? Do the miseries of others weigh upon them? The parallels with the real world are tantalizing.

He suggests a film set entirely inside Fiddlers green focussing just on how they are dealing with the situation. I guess he would like to see some focus on the human condition which I would agree with 100%. If Romero could make a film like that, something with Substance and focus on the characters I think it would be an excellent experience. I don't entirely agree about no zombies, you need them to tell the story somewhat, but I really would like to see what Ebert suggested above, and I think without studio influence Romero could pull it off nicely.

[EvilNed]

Not sure myself. I'm pretty bored with "walled in" zombie flicks, where people just escape from the problem and fight each other. Didn't Ebert watch Day of the Dead?

There has to be zombies in it, because that's what I like. They don't have to be numerous (they weren't in Day of the Dead), but I'd still like them to be there to give us the atmosphere of a zombie film.

[Griff]

There would be zombies outside but we'd never see them or deal with them. We would simply regard the Good Life as it is lived by those who have walled the zombies out. Do they relax? Have they peace of mind? Do the miseries of others weigh upon them? The parallels with the real world are tantalizing.

A large portion of DAWN OF THE DEAD does pretty much just that. We spend so much time with the characters in their little 'utopia' that when that tennis ball drops down to reveal the zombs relentlessly pounding on the doors, its somewhat of a shock - we'd forgotten about those suckers.

LAND, on the other hand, has a different agenda.

[AcesandEights]

Yeah, I agree, it sounds as though Ebert wants to see a more literal re-telling of GAR's work. It is nice to think about how Land would have been though if GAR quieted things down a bit and focused on the city and Fiddler's Green a bit more, and then used the insight the narrative gives about the life of the living to contrast more suitably with the world outside.

[MinionZombie]

Personally I thought it was about time for some sh*t to go down in Land. GAR is coming at Land from an overall series point of view, not the "it's just this flick" side, so we've already had the pondering, the human nature discussions, that's all been done. Now it was time to see a war going on after manking has been totally overrun, but both sides have been caught in a stalemate of obsolete existence.

As for 'why can't the humans win' stuff, it's simple - it's human nature. The characters themselves (in Dawn - Euro Cut) can't believe it's happening and it's not being dealt with. It's human nature not to be able to deal with everything. Was Vietnam dealt with really well? Nope. Is Iraq being handled in the best way? Nope, it's a real uphill struggle.

Ebert's gotta think of it from a human nature point of view - the average punter wouldn't be able to differentiate a zombie from their loved one, that wipes out a good 70% of the population right there. People not accepting or understanding or wanting to deal with it. Again, like in Dawn - the Euro Cut also mentions the "being able to cut her head off" thing - but in the TV station at the start the host says "you're talking about abandoning every human code" - it's that sort of human rights liberal thinking that gets mankind f*cked in the first place.

Yes we could have done with more pondering from GAR, but taking in the series as a whole, it isn't really necessary, and as the poll is proving *chuff mode on*, it doesn't matter too much.

:D

*chuff mode off*

Interesting review from Ebert...

[BUTCHYPIE]

You guys might be interested to read Ebert's original review of Night of the Living Dead.

I put up a thread about it here. (http://www.homepageofthedead.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=1543)

[general tbag]

yea it was pretty funny, the word really stands out.

now what is ebert doing in a theatre , looking at kids on a saturday afternoon.......

[Moon Knight]

A large portion of DAWN OF THE DEAD does pretty much just that. We spend so much time with the characters in their little 'utopia' that when that tennis ball drops down to reveal the zombs relentlessly pounding on the doors, its somewhat of a shock - we'd forgotten about those suckers.

LAND, on the other hand, has a different agenda.

Yes, I totally agree. That was shocking and great storytelling. These people are all living the good life while boxing themselves in, meanwhile, forgetting what's going on outside.

Classic!

[Philly_SWAT]

We spend so much time with the characters in their little 'utopia' that when that tennis ball drops down to reveal the zombs relentlessly pounding on the doors, its somewhat of a shock - we'd forgotten about those suckers.

Excellent point! That is one of the best shots in Dawn, and Dawn is filled with excellent shots.

Reading Siskel's....I mean Ebert's quote, it made me think he was about to go in a different direction, which I will now. I thought he was gonna say "why are there any zombies at all anymore?" If a different thread a few weeks ago, people were arguing that Land takes place a long time after Day, way into the plague. If so, then why are there so many Z's still around the Green? Looks like there has been plenty of raids seeing as there is so much stuff inside the green. If they were killing Z's on all the previous raids, and killing any that came close, then why were there so many nearby that could follow Big Daddy's lead? Shouldnt almost all the Zed's be dead in the general area of the green if it is so far into the problem? Or what, are zombies migrating in from Texas or something?

[Brubaker]

Excellent point! That is one of the best shots in Dawn, and Dawn is filled with excellent shots.

Reading Siskel's....I mean Ebert's quote, it made me think he was about to go in a different direction, which I will now. I thought he was gonna say "why are there any zombies at all anymore?" If a different thread a few weeks ago, people were arguing that Land takes place a long time after Day, way into the plague. If so, then why are there so many Z's still around the Green? Looks like there has been plenty of raids seeing as there is so much stuff inside the green. If they were killing Z's on all the previous raids, and killing any that came close, then why were there so many nearby that could follow Big Daddy's lead? Shouldnt almost all the Zed's be dead in the general area of the green if it is so far into the problem? Or what, are zombies migrating in from Texas or something?

Well, I would assume the one-time population of the town might have been anywhere from 2,000-20,000, right? There was a gas station, they found canned goods and booze. Enough "stores" there to support, or meet the demands of, a healthy population. It means there would have been a lot of zombies to shoot. Those raiders were only interested in getting supplies and probably were advised to avoid the idea of cleaning out the entire town. One reason why the town was filled with stenches.

How far was it from the town to the Green, anyway? Did they pass through any others on the way back? I'd assume so, because otherwise wouldn't they have been finished raiding this particular town by now? Their dialogue suggested they'd never been there very much before, if they even had at all. Another good reason why this town was still filled with "walkers." Nobody had really been there before.

[Trin]

I was struck by the lack of zombies around the Green. If Land took place anywhere close to the outbreak I would've expected there to be upwards of 500,000 zombies lining the banks of the rivers and perimeter. The fact that there were not very many leads me to believe the survivors spent a long time killing zombies and clearing the bodies. It was obvious that several of the characters had become used to not seeing many zombies within striking distance of the Green. I think it would take a long, long time for that environment to come to be in such a formerly heavily populated are.

I also got the impression Union City was a considerable distance from the Green. It took Big Daddy and crew no less than 18 hours to make the hike, and even at a relaxed zombie pace of 2 miles per hour they could've gone 30+ miles. I don't think that's a radius the Green would try to keep cleared regardless of time after the outbreak. To me the fact they're travelling that far to get basic supplies tells me it's been longer since the outbreak rather than shorter.

To get back to Ebert's review I agree that I'd like to delve more into life with the Green. But I want it to be one where there are hordes of zombies outside the perimeter, not empty streets. I want to hear the zombie moaning and see the reactions of the people to the constant stress of knowing what's outside that fence. I want to see the people dealing with the decline caused by disease and dwindling supplies and the realities that the life of luxury can only last so long before they must face the outside world. I want to see that world crumble in on itself and I believe Romero could give us that.

I thought that's what Land was going to be, and it might be that Romero tried to give us that, but it didn't turn out that way. The zombies weren't enough of a threat. They were too few and the survivors too well armed to provide any real struggle.

[Maitreya]

Not sure myself. I'm pretty bored with "walled in" zombie flicks, where people just escape from the problem and fight each other. Didn't Ebert watch Day of the Dead?


Yes, he just about hated everything outside of the look of the zombies... He said the characters "upstaged" the zombies. Which kind of made me believe he was an idiot.

Also to answer your question about the 1967 thing in Night of the Living Dead (To whoever said that) there's another reason I believe he's not quite there, as he obviously can't figure out common dates. In his review of Day he said Dawn was made in 1980...

[niiru]

just to add a little bit to the conversation here, there is a real union city in pennsylvania. it's about 150 miles from pittsburgh (assuming we make the leap to assume that we're really in pennsylvania and we're really in pittsburgh). i believe there's even a bit of dialogue to the effect that the raiders have to go farther and farther as time goes on to get the good stuff. I'd imagine that they have indeed been wiping out the zombies in the vicinity... but every trip takes them farther out, to places that no living person has been in ages. now, on the other hand, if we're actually talking about uniontown, that's only about 50 miles away, and a lot more realistic for the zombie hike. either way, it is a bit of a stretch.

but then again, we're talking about the living dead, so who am i to question the feasibility of the shuffling dead going 50 miles in 18 hours.

[Brubaker]

just to add a little bit to the conversation here, there is a real union city in pennsylvania. it's about 150 miles from pittsburgh (assuming we make the leap to assume that we're really in pennsylvania and we're really in pittsburgh). i believe there's even a bit of dialogue to the effect that the raiders have to go farther and farther as time goes on to get the good stuff. I'd imagine that they have indeed been wiping out the zombies in the vicinity... but every trip takes them farther out, to places that no living person has been in ages. now, on the other hand, if we're actually talking about uniontown, that's only about 50 miles away, and a lot more realistic for the zombie hike. either way, it is a bit of a stretch.

but then again, we're talking about the living dead, so who am i to question the feasibility of the shuffling dead going 50 miles in 18 hours.

The people going on those raids were either not practical enough, or just too selfish, to bother shooting all the zombies they could find. Pure and simple.

[coma]

To get back to Ebert's review I agree that I'd like to delve more into life with the Green. But I want it to be one where there are hordes of zombies outside the perimeter, not empty streets. I want to hear the zombie moaning and see the reactions of the people to the constant stress of knowing what's outside that fence. I want to see the people dealing with the decline caused by disease and dwindling supplies and the realities that the life of luxury can only last so long before they must face the outside world. I want to see that world crumble in on itself and I believe Romero could give us that.

I thought that's what Land was going to be, and it might be that Romero tried to give us that, but it didn't turn out that way. The zombies weren't enough of a threat. They were too few and the survivors too well armed to provide any real struggle.

I thought, from the way GAR was describing it, that that is what we were going to get. Though I though naming the movie after a monster truck made me really dubious (Dead Reckoning, the orinal title. One of them at least). Personally I thought the "walled in" part was the whole reason for the films. The majority (like 95%) of GAR zombie films are walled in. I loce the zombies, but I am really interested in people being f*cked up, as they actually are.

[ash]

Not sure myself. I'm pretty bored with "walled in" zombie flicks, where people just escape from the problem and fight each other. Didn't Ebert watch Day of the Dead?

There has to be zombies in it, because that's what I like. They don't have to be numerous (they weren't in Day of the Dead), but I'd still like them to be there to give us the atmosphere of a zombie film.

I agree. There should be a zombie movie with the characters on the run, migrating from place to place, just trying to find a safe place.

[darth los]

Personally I thought it was about time for some sh*t to go down in Land. GAR is coming at Land from an overall series point of view, not the "it's just this flick" side, so we've already had the pondering, the human nature discussions, that's all been done. Now it was time to see a war going on after manking has been totally overrun, but both sides have been caught in a stalemate of obsolete existence.

As for 'why can't the humans win' stuff, it's simple - it's human nature. The characters themselves (in Dawn - Euro Cut) can't believe it's happening and it's not being dealt with. It's human nature not to be able to deal with everything. Was Vietnam dealt with really well? Nope. Is Iraq being handled in the best way? Nope, it's a real uphill struggle.

Ebert's gotta think of it from a human nature point of view - the average punter wouldn't be able to differentiate a zombie from their loved one, that wipes out a good 70% of the population right there. People not accepting or understanding or wanting to deal with it. Again, like in Dawn - the Euro Cut also mentions the "being able to cut her head off" thing - but in the TV station at the start the host says "you're talking about abandoning every human code" - it's that sort of human rights liberal thinking that gets mankind f*cked in the first place.

Yes we could have done with more pondering from GAR, but taking in the series as a whole, it isn't really necessary, and as the poll is proving *chuff mode on*, it doesn't matter too much.

:D

*chuff mode off*

Interesting review from Ebert...


That's the problem for me. Land doesn't stand very well on it's own imo. Like you said, All the social commentary has been done before so if put into the context of the series it was indeed time for some action. However, when put into that context you can't help but compare it to the other films and it's faults become more glaring.

[MinionZombie]

No, I was saying it stands up perfectly fine because it doesn't need the pondering, we've already seen it in the previous movies. What we hadn't seen was mankind getting back on it's feet, yet remaining in a stalemate with the undead. We'd also not seen the next evolution of the zombies themselves, that's what Land provides.

We'd already had all the pondering on human existence that we really needed in the previous films, so it wasn't necessary in Land. Land was written as a sequel, not a stand-alone film, so with the previous three behind it, you've already got all the background you need to fill in the gaps. Land isn't some cynical "we've gotta tell the audience everything" type of flick, and nor was it going right back to the feckin' start of the plague like seemingly every friggin' zombie movie does - although yes I know Diary is doing it, but it's at the VERY beginning of the plague, rather than about 2 or 3 days in once the odd, lone zombie has finally found a victim to start the plague going.

You need to read a bit closer before dashing off a reply, take a breather, it isn't a race. :)

Land was ideal I say.

[darth los]

Another thing i was glad about was that they didn't waste time at the start of the film figuring out how to kill them like what happens in seemingly every other zombie flick. So much time is wasted establishing the rules in other films that we've all seen a miilion times before. No outbreak scenarios. As a matter of fact it was kinda the opposite. Everybody seemed jaded.

[MinionZombie]

Wouldn't you feel jaded after a few years in a world gone dead? :D I know I would, what is there to live for? Barely anything, and human survival, well ... with mankind gone a bit feral by that stage, "is it worth saving", to quote Dawn of the Dead...

[darth los]

Wouldn't you feel jaded after a few years in a world gone dead? :D I know I would, what is there to live for? Barely anything, and human survival, well ... with mankind gone a bit feral by that stage, "is it worth saving", to quote Dawn of the Dead...

That's actually a great reference to a very often overlooked part of the film, the interviews with Dr. Millard Rouche i mean. If the not always subtle satirical undertones in gar's film went over people's heads the doctor pretty much spells everything out for you. The inability of man to work to together for the common good, against even the survival of their own race, disgusts the dr. The interviewer comments on how scientists always think of things logically and that's not the way things really are. it is precisely that lack of emotion and doing what had to be done that might have saved the human race. It's also basically a reshoot of the same scene between foster and berman at the beggining of the film. It's funny that all these weeks later the conversation really hadn't changed at all.

[Danny]

come on los watch land and just enjoy it for the great movie it is, im with mz on this one, once you view it as a stand alonefilm and dont see it as number 4 i a series your much more kind to it.

[raym]

I don't entirely agree about no zombies, you need them to tell the story somewhat, but I really would like to see what Ebert suggested above, and I think without studio influence Romero could pull it off nicely.

I remember reading that, too, and also feel that it would be an interesting movie. Maybe it could be a straight drama...only thing being that there are zombie outside. Sounds like it could be a rather scary film...more psychological.

[darth los]

I remember reading that, too, and also feel that it would be an interesting movie. Maybe it could be a straight drama...only thing being that there are zombie outside. Sounds like it could be a rather scary film...more psychological.

That's what gar's films mainly were. NOTLD and day are very light on the zombies. It was more about the psychological aspect of humans when faced with an impossible situation. They feel more like a twighlight zone episode. Dawn of course was gar's epic so we see hundreds.

[MaximusIncredulous]

Didn't Ebert watch Day of the Dead?

I still remember watching Siskel and Ebert voting Day one of the worst films of 1985.

[MinionZombie]

But I view it both as on it's own and as part of the series, like I was saying before, if you view Land as part of the other GAR dead films - which it flat out is, just deal with it Dj :lol: - then you've already got all the background you need, so you don't need Land to go over what the previous films have already done. Night/Dawn/Day are all very different films, and the formula continues as Land is very different to the previous films - and no, leave the "cos it's crap" jokes at home, trying to twist my words, fock off with that poo. :rolleyes:

[darth los]

But I view it both as on it's own and as part of the series, like I was saying before, if you view Land as part of the other GAR dead films - which it flat out is, just deal with it Dj :lol: - then you've already got all the background you need, so you don't need Land to go over what the previous films have already done. Night/Dawn/Day are all very different films, and the formula continues as Land is very different to the previous films - and no, leave the "cos it's crap" jokes at home, trying to twist my words, fock off with that poo. :rolleyes:

:lol: :lol:

Looks like we're in the minority dj. Something like 400,000 to 1 by my calculations. lol

Seriously i plan to give it another chance soon. I will be writing a propper, honest review when i'm done. Any suggestions or things to look for while viewing it that might make it more enjoyable for me?