Land of the Dead was good but not in a scary way.

[Zombie369]

I've always loved zombie movies for the horror factor because I've always been a big fan of horror movies, but Land of the Dead wasn't really that scary in my opinion. However I thought it was a really cool movie because of the whole post-apocalyptic Mad Max vibe. Romero got really creative with showing the survivors of a zombie apocalypse living in their own settlement and going out into the ruins of the world to gather supplies like food, medicine, and booze. I think my favorite part of the movie was seeing the "Red Light District" of Fiddler's Green where the people were enjoying gambling, food, drinks, prostitutes, and games made out of the captured zombies. The arena where you got to see two zombies fight over food was pretty cool and that's the kind of stuff I would picture people doing in a zombie apocalypse when they're trying to rebuild society.

Also even though I don't play video games anymore, back when I used to play Fallout 3 I loved Tenpenny Tower because it was obviously inspired by Fiddler's Green from this movie. It was probably my favorite settlement in the wasteland and often times I would play an evil character who murdered the ghouls trying to get into the tower so I could live there and be rich. :)

[Harleydude666]

I've always loved zombie movies for the horror factor because I've always been a big fan of horror movies, but Land of the Dead wasn't really that scary in my opinion. However I thought it was a really cool movie because of the whole post-apocalyptic Mad Max vibe. Romero got really creative with showing the survivors of a zombie apocalypse living in their own settlement and going out into the ruins of the world to gather supplies like food, medicine, and booze. I think my favorite part of the movie was seeing the "Red Light District" of Fiddler's Green where the people were enjoying gambling, food, drinks, prostitutes, and games made out of the captured zombies. The arena where you got to see two zombies fight over food was pretty cool and that's the kind of stuff I would picture people doing in a zombie apocalypse when they're trying to rebuild society.

Also even though I don't play video games anymore, back when I used to play Fallout 3 I loved Tenpenny Tower because it was obviously inspired by Fiddler's Green from this movie. It was probably my favorite settlement in the wasteland and often times I would play an evil character who murdered the ghouls trying to get into the tower so I could live there and be rich. :)

Funny, just saw it again on I think skinemax the other night. It was still as terrible as I saw it back in theater in 05. Hate to say it but time passed Romero by. He's done in this genre. Bad acting all the way around, bad sets, zombies who shared their feelings(I'm sorry but I just want to see them as eating machines, I don't want to be forced to feel sorry for them) and Big Daddy walking around for revenge and thinking logically??? The bad dialog, this flick was a total cheeze wiz explosion. And I was so excited waiting for the movie to get made and followed it all the way through, I was so amped up for this and wanted to like it so bad. I walked out of the theater with my wife and I just felt like crying after what we had just seen.

[krisvds]

Shrugs.
Land is one entertaining throwback to eighties post-apocalypse action films with a heavy emphasis on comic book aestethics and goofy characters. I like it.

[MinionZombie]

I started off as a "Land lover" in 2005, but now I've mellowed to a "Land liker" since. Repeated viewings have shown up things that aren't quite up to my standards - in that I see something, maybe a line of dialogue, or how a certain action or scene is covered, and I think "if it had just been tweaked a smide this way, then it'd be better" ... this isn't some conversion to slamming the movie, so calm yourselves, lol, but yeah - it's certainly not perfect, but generally and over-all I still dig the flick ... even if it isn't up to Night/Dawn/Day standards.

[Mr.G]

Unfortunately it's Citizen Kane compared to his next two dead movies.

[AcesandEights]

I still think Land is pretty good, but it falls down, for me, due to a lack of dread and personal horror, some of the preachiness and hammy Big Daddy acting/direction. I definitely rolled my eyes a few times in the theater, but the scope of the film is really nice, just a lot of unutilized potential.

- - - Updated - - -


Unfortunately it's Citizen Kane compared to his next two dead movies.

:lol: So true!

[MinionZombie]

I was in denial about "Diary of the Dead" after I first saw it, and since then my opinion has shifted wildly. It's got some fun bits, a couple of good bits, but over-the-piece it's not one that I'm eager to revisit much. "Survival of the Dead" on the other hand is lots of fun and I quite like it - but it's absolutely nowhere near the same league of Night/Dawn/Day. It's really more an 'Uncle George having some fun with zombies' kinda flick.

[Morto Vivente]

On the whole I don't hate the movie, it's got some great sequences and definitely the best of the" latter dead trilogy". My major gripe is the reasoning power of several of the hero zombies. I didn't like the exaggerated ant colony vibe; their ability to take cues and learn from one another, and even follow orders. In Day, Bub and Logan are interacting as zombie-student and human-teacher, there's a process going on between them as the living and the living dead. The character of Cholo in Land dies and reanimates as an "instant-smart-zombie"; just add revenge. There's no recollection process of his former life at all, it just doesn't work for me.

Is it possible that GAR was being pressurized by the studio for "Bubism" to take a quantum leap? IMO it hamstringed the movie. I prefer to see Bub as a rare anomaly not an inevitable outcome of "zombie evolution". The plot of Land could have followed a similar route relative to Fiddlers's Green by using more cogent methods rather than the preposterously excessive re-humanization of the zombie legions. Land isn't total crap it just isn't that great, a shame really I enjoyed a couple of the characters, particularly Charlie . On the other hand "Big Daddy" for me is just as damaging to the genre as runners. Look at "Zone 261", now the undead don't just run they can strategize and form attack squadrons........Total shite. BTW is "Zone" still in production? I sincerely hope not!

[Neil]

I agree with the general comments here; Since Night 90 Romero hasn't really been involved in a zombie film I can really appreciate.

Land had a few moments, but that's about it for me :(

[krisvds]

The thing is: it's not really part of the original trilogy, nor has it got anything to do with the two films he did after.
If I recall correctly he never intended to name it '... of the dead' (that was studio interference) but 'Dead Reckoning' instead. Would have worked better IMO.
I revisit now and again and find it a very fun, tongue in cheek, film.

It's very far removed from the quality of the original trilogy but that doesn't really matter.

[Zombie369]

Yeah I understand what you guys are saying. Land of the Dead didn't have anywhere near the effect that Romero's first four Dead films did (original and 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead). But I liked it for being good campy fun. He made a post-apocalyptic zombie world look fun to live in.

Also I agree that Big Daddy was nowhere near as good as Bub. I kind of wish that Riley allowed Pretty Boy to blow him and his zombies up in the end instead of letting them go.

[shootemindehead]

I kinda like 'Land of the Dead'. It's a fitting entry to the original series, even if it suffers from anachronisms (especially with weapons). It's certainly better than the two reboot efforts that came after, that's for sure. I actually think 'Survival of the Dead' is probably one of the worst films I've seen. It's a terrible load of rubbish. It's just too idiotic to enjoy. It was like Romero just didn't care any more.

[Zombie369]

Yeah I didn't like Diary of the Dead, it's like he tried to do a Blair Witch Project or Paranormal Activity thing with his zombies but it just didn't work. I think because what made those two movies so great is that they tried to convince some people that they were real, and there's no way you could have taken his fauxumentary seriously. Maybe if instead of the world-wide outbreak he tried to have the setting in an isolated area infected with zombies so that it could have been a prequel to how the world became infected with zombies. Well even though his two newest movies sucked I still like all the ones he made before them and he will always be one of my favorite directors because of that. :)

[JonOfTheShred]

I always loved Land of the Dead. Aside from Big Daddy and zombies "evolving," I liked the intentionally comic book cheesiness. Almost like Mad Max meets Dawn of the Dead in a way. There was some great zombie moments (some awesome feasting...loved the flashlight feasting reveal section, and also all the yuppies from the Green getting chewed on in massive numbers) and Dennis Hopper as an evil CEO type caricature was pretty rich. There could have been more horror moments, but it was still stronger than Diary and Survival, both of which could have been a lot better. (As far as I remember, Diary wasn't as good as Land, but not terrible. And Survival was ruined by corny music and crappy jokes.)

[Zombie369]

I think my favorite character in the movie was Cholo because of the fact that when he got infected he decided to see what it was like to become a zombie instead of choosing to take his own life like most of the characters in Romero's movies. That's probably something I would do if I became infected. I just wish that he got to live longer as a zombie.

[Andy]

From this topic (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?15195) i started a few years back.


A lot of people have asked me in the last few weeks what my big issue with land of the dead is, ive had PM's from a couple of members asking me to explain myself, how can I rank a Romero movie my personal worse movie ever? Well im setting out my points here, before I do so though, I want to point out, this is not open for debate, I dont need persuading and my mind wont be changed. I hate land more than any other zombie movie, that includes night of the living dead 30th anniversary edition, contagium, the day remake, children.. any other piece of shit zombie flick you care to throw out, I rank land worse. Dosnt matter what anybody posts in this topic, you will not change my mind on this matter so don't attempt to. I am simply laying out my reasons, as I have been asked to several times. OK lets begin.

OK lets start with the setting. The whole setting is wrong, we are lead to believe that this movie takes place 3 years after day of the dead, one of my favourite movies of all time, yet the atmosphere looks like its come from the dawn of the dead time period. Let me elaborate, in Day, you have your survivors in the bunker, they fly 100 miles up and down the coast looking for other survivors and they find zilch. Watching this movie, you really do get a sense that this is the end, this is it, the human race is fucked. Land on the other hand, an entire city has somehow been missed off the zombie map? Your kidding me right? An entire city full of bums and tramps, seriously the lowest of the low, societies bottom rung.. these guys would be the first to die if a zombie apocalypse actually happened, who are more concerned with getting drunk and gambling than they are about the undead horde outside? Yeah right, as if these idiots would survive.. how the hell have a group of bums and tramps got to this city? “what if they weren't tramps before Z-Day?” Were they normal people beforehand and then they reached the city and succumbed to Kaufman rule and happily accepted living as a tramp? Really?...

Also on the topic of the atmosphere/setting, what's up with the scale? Again using day of the dead as a reference, Logan says that they outnumber humans by around 500,000 to 1. Just take a minute to think about that scale, 500,000 to 1... how many zombies come after the helicopter when they disturb the city at the beginning? Fucking loads... how many engulf the bunker at the end? Fucking loads..... Now in land, how many zombies are attacking the city? What about 20 or 30? WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE REST OF THEM? On a giant zombie vacation? Your seriously expecting me to believe this is 3 years AFTER day, zombies outnumbered humans by 500,000 to 1 and threw massive attacks of hundreds of zombs at whatever survivors there where and now all of a sudden there's only about 30 of them attacking a city? A full city with lights and noise that could be heard for miles away? Seriously? Incredibly stupid stupid stupid Romero.

Next up is the story, now I have to admit I avoid watching this film whenever I can, it pains me to watch it, so im not 100% up to speed with the story but from what I remember, there's a good guy who is charge of “dead reckoning” (ohh ill get to that) and there is a bad guy, chodo or something.. I always think of the dog from wizard of oz when i hear his name mentioned so from now on ill be referring to him as toto.. they have some kind of rivalry going on i think even though its never explained as they both fetch things for Mr Kaufmann and his city. The good guy wants to leave the city and be a kind of wondering nomad amongst the zombies, although again, its never explained why he dosnt just do this? he needs Kaufmann's permission for some reason which isnt explained.. this movie does that alot, i guess romero didnt have time for explainations.. Anyway toto however, he wants to live in the tower in the middle of the city with all the rich folks and thinks he can buy his way in, but Kaufmann tells him to fuck off, he gets mad and steals dead reckoning, and drives off, letting a huge unstopable group of about 25-30 zombies into the city which the military, which has up to this point survived for 3 years of zombie apocalypsee so they cant say their not experienced, anyway this military cant handle a school group size gang of zombies. Toto then aims some missiles at the city and demands $1,000,000 (ill get to that too) or else he'll blow it up. Then the good guy goes out of the city in a car of some sort, with his crew and gets dead reckoning back, saving the day.

Am I the only one who thinks that is absolutely ridiculous? I was writing better stories in primary school (elementary school to you Americans) and this has come from George Romero.. the creator of the holy trilogy of movies. Did he envision this during a seizure of some kind? Seriously.. its tragically bad, it is the single worse storyline ive ever heard for a movie. Fact.

First off dead reckoning, not only has this city had time to build and fortify itself while the rest of the world falls to pieces and zombies take over, but the inhabitants of said city have had time to build a huge armour plated “big brother of the buses from dawn'04”.. where exactly have they got the materials for this? Where does it get its ammo for its incredible arsenal? Come to think of it, how the hell do they keep it fuelled up? Something that size must get through a good few gallons every mile, its fair enough saying they scavenge it but where and how far must they travel? Its simply not realistic and the movie makes no attempt to explain this, its just there and your expected to accept it. Now you might say im picking too deep, but am I? Look at how far we pick the trilogy every day and how well they stand up to scrutiny.. there are no (or very few) plotholes in the original trilogy and none as gaping huge as this.

OK dead reckoning. Not realistic.

Next up is Toto's demand for $1,000,000. my only question with this point is why? In a post apocalyptic world, what use is money? (Think start of day, outside the bank) Why dosnt toto ask for fuel, ammo, food, drink, weapons, armour, vehicles, general supplies.. anything USEFUL.. what the hell is he going to do with $1,000,000? buy a beach condo in Florida? Even if he does want $1,000,000 that badly.. why dosnt he just drive to a bank and grab it? Would be easier.. And I can hear some of you saying “but there would be other cities he could spend it there...” how do you know? When do you see these cities or even hear them mentioned?.. Again i remind you, in DAY, the group flies a helicopter 100 miles north and south and finds nothing at all.. and toto can simply drive to a neighbouring city in a vehicle that must get about half a mile to the gallon with no functioning petrol stations en route? And IF there are and we beleive this much, what makes you think they would use money? Money is used now because its hard to come by, you earn it, steal it or win it.. you dont just find it lying around in the street like you would in a post apocalypse zombie world (think start of day again...) if I was running a city in this kind of atmosphere, and god willing I will be one day, I would not use money as currency, id use something valuable like I listed above... food, drink, ammo, supplies.. anything I could use. Useful things.

Another ill thought out plot point Romero..

This post is getting longer than I intended so I have one final point id like to touch on then ill wrap it up, big daddy. LOL

What the hell is this? I wanna know what Romero was smoking when he thought this would be a good idea. Now let me just point out, as I said before, I love day of the dead and I freaking love bub. Genius idea. The difference? Well bub became domesticated by mimicking Logan and using faint memories that remained in the functioning parts of his brain, which isnt much so I put it down to mimicking behaviour.. although smart for a zombie, bub is still pretty dumb and I like to think of his intelligence as that of a dog. As Rhodes says, Logan is teaching him tricks and he is performing them. Thats my take on bub. Big daddy, first of all has a gay porn star name, secondly.. how exactly has cock daddy developed his intelligence “in the wild”? Never explained. Why only him? Why havnt any other zombies developed this level of thought? Never Explained. Why do other zombies follow him? I've discussed in other topics what I call the herd effect, where one zombie mindlessly follows another creating a herd, but it isnt a Romero based theory and there is no evidence to suggest it occurs in any of the trilogy, apart from maybe zombies following Stephen up to the lair in dawn, so again, never explained.

Thats my problem with big daddy, potentially another good creation, he had the makings of a advanced bub, but nothing is explained about him.. we're just expected to believe that one zombie, and only 1 out of billions has developed rudimentary intelligence and the ability to lead and it is never damn well explained. Is he supposed to be the zombie equivalent of Jesus or something? Explain it to me George!? Its just baffling.

Which brings me to my last, and most important point about this movie.. all the points above alone add up to a bad movie, but no-where near as gut wrenchingly awful as land is, so what is the last point that really tips this over the edge?

George Romero. This is the man who brought me night of the living dead, Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead.. this man played a huge part in my childhood and gave me what I hope is a lifelong and joyful obsession some would call it. So imagine my feeling when I heard a new George Romero zombie movie was coming out and I would get to see it in the cinema? Now being born in 1985, this would be the first I get to see in a cinema too.

And then I see it, and its everything I have stated above. From any other other name, this would be a bad horror movie.. but from George Romero, this is a spectacular disappointment and really made me question my following of zombie movies in general. Some would say thats my own fault for building up such big hopes, but when you think about the mans previous movies IE the holy trilogy “night, dawn and day”, I think I was quite within my rights to build up hopes and dreams. I mean fucking hell when I heard that Romero was making a new movie I was staying awake all night having wet dreams about what it would be like... and I got land.

That my friends is a mental scar that will never heal.

So, those are my main reasons for ranking land as my absolute worse zombie movie ever. I don't expect any of you to agree with me and I fully expect some of you to attempt to “win me over” or “prove my points wrong” and your fully welcome to, but I wont be responding.. as I said my points are my own and I havnt posted this with the intention of starting a debate to whether land is a good movie or not, I've posted it simply as its been requested.

Just because i cant be bothered writing it all out again and because its still as true now as when i wrote it originally. Nobody has ever convinced me otherwise.

I didnt like like diary or survival but land really got my wrath and i still detest it to this day.

[Wyldwraith]

Not responding to Andy as he isn't interested,
But someone pointed out Cholo earlier becoming an "Instant Smart Zombie"...when I don't think that's what the scene meant at all. When Kaufmann first sees him, Cholo is in the shadows and fires his spike gun (relatively) accurately at him, though misses. Kaufmann returns fire, and we see spurts/aerosolized blood erupt from the locations where Cholo gets hit. Cholo slumps down, unmoving. Kaufmann returns to his run-away-like-a-bitch preparations, and is then surprised to see Cholo coming at him. He says something to the effect of "Can't be, you're dead. I killed you." Then Cholo steps into the light and its revealed he's a zombie.

Now, given this sequence of events HERE is what I believe happened. Cholo set off for Fiddler's Green (wasn't that far away when he parted ways with his partner) after having been bitten and deciding to "see how the other half lives", and I believe intent on revenge against Kaufmann, which was really his driving goal from the moment Kaufmann rejected him as too low-class for the rich folks high-rise. He arrives, and enters by the same means the first group of zombies did when he stole Dead Reckoning, sees the city is in chaos and (correctly) guesses that Kaufmann, being the get-others-to-do-the-dirty-work coward that he is, will be in the process of fleeing the sinking ship that is Fiddler's Green. Given that Cholo was privy to much of Kaufmann's clandestine activities, up to and including disposing of the bodies of Kaufmann's murdered enemies, it's not much of a stretch for the audience to believe he knows where Kaufmann's getaway vehicle is stashed. (Hell, even Big Daddy found his way there!)

Cholo fires at Kaufmann, but sick, fevered and frankly minutes from expiring due to the bite-induced infection, he misses. Kaufmann doesn't, hitting Cholo twice when he returns fire. Now, this next part is my OPINION, but then again, that's all this entire post is. I believe the blood-spurts and the misty sort of spray of blood from Cholo's body when Kaufmann's bullets strike him was meant to demonstrate to the audience that Cholo was still alive at this point. Unfortunately the scene wasn't detailed enough for this sort of nuanced conclusion to be properly communicated to the point many viewers would understand GAR's intention.

Cholo expires from the gunshots, and almost immediately reanimates (not a stretch, as there are numerous precedents of individuals who've been languishing for hours after a zombie bite in the Romeroverse reanimating very quickly once they finally do expire, starting with the Coopers' little girl in the original Night)...then, with Kaufmann being the closest (if not only, I forget if the chauffeur had bugged out by this point) human, zombie-Cholo came after Kaufmann based either on basic zombie instinct or a flicker of a very intense, very recent memory (his burning desire to avenge himself upon Kauffman).

In conclusion, I agree that the scene has flaws...the biggest being the ambiguity concerning Cholo's status at the time of his firing upon Kauffman, which came about IMO due to the blood-spatter FX not being up to snuff. Had they done a better job with the splatter from Cholo's body when Kauffman's bullets hit home, there wouldn't have been (as I believed was intended) any doubt that Cholo was alive, got shot and then reanimated before coming after Kauffman again. My reasoning for believing Cholo was alive when he got hit by Kauffman's 2 bullets is this:

1) Kauffman's pistol was either a .25 or (AT BEST) a .32 caliber. It was far too small to be even a 9mm. I don't believe such a small round would cause a misty spray of ballistic spatter to erupt from a gunshot wound to the abdomen of an already dead body, LET ALONE the very quick spurts of obviously quite liquid blood. Blood spurts from wounds due to blood pressure, no blood pressure = a small amount of spatter from the exit wound (which in this case there wasn't one) and some sluggish leaking from the small holes in Cholo's gut.

2) Zombies don't lurk in shadow and WAIT for a potential victim to leave a shot-obstructing area (like that near the side of the car) to only take an almost-hit of a shot once Kaufmann had come forward/away from the obstructions. Big Daddy might've figured out pull-trigger-bullets-fire, and even manage to communicate this primitive epiphany to the female teenage zombie, but things like at-range accuracy and patiently waiting for better conditions from which to take a shot were light-years beyond his rudimentary intelligence...let alone the self-awareness it takes to actively attempt to hide from another being...an action that requires a Theory of Mind-level of mental development so far beyond Bub/Big Daddy as to make arithmetic being grasped by an amoeba look simple.

Just my .02, but I think the movie's admittedly failed attempt at scene-setting supports my contention.

Peace be with you, or at least a Carry Permit and nice Heater.

[AcesandEights]

A bunch of good detailed observations and well-reasoned opinions.


Well put! Way more nuanced approach in dissecting the scene than I have taken, but essentially I agree and this is the assumption I operated under when watching that scene unfold. It seems relatively straightforward and makes the most sense.

[shootemindehead]

My take on Cholo, is that he was "half way there" to being a zombie, just like yer man in 'Dawn of the Dead'. Both of them are TOO made up in my opinion, but it isn't a leap of logic to assume that an infectious bite may speed up the "zombification" as it were. Sickboy in 'Dawn of the Dead' looks like a zombie before he kicks the bucket and isn't that much different looking when he comes back and Peter has o shoot him.

Cholo was probably minutes away from death by the time he got to the underground.

As far as 'Land of the Dead' is concerned, I like it. It certainly has flaws, but the only Romero film that doesn't is 'Day of the Dead'. I agree with Andy on the money thing, outside of "Fiddler's Green", it would make no sense, unless Cholo is hoping to find another township that still clings onto cash as a means of transaction. The chopper crew in 'Day of the Dead' may have gone a 100 miles up and down the Florida coast, but that isn't really that far in the grand scheme of things. 600 miles west could be a totally different story.

The biggest thing that annoyed me though, was very easily fixable. Some of the people use laptops and modern day weaponry which wouldn't be available if this chapter took place after 'Day of the Dead'. Romero really should have stuck to M-16's and UZI's, and just ditched the more fancy equipment. The "Dead Reckoning" was fine except for all the bells and whistles. Again, drop the computers and it isn't beyond belief that such a vehicle could be built from gear cobbled together. There's be tons of scrap from the disused underground alone to put to use.

"Fiddler's Green" didn't bother me too much either and the idea of some sort of enclave like that was ok. It's a good point that there weren't too many "zombies at the gates", but one of the guards did mention that they tended "...not to come around too much any more."...which suffices as an explanation.

'Land of the Dead' is an ok chapter to the original series. The real shame is that Romero turned his back on that series and tried to start again, with truly awful results.

[Morto Vivente]

@Wyld
Assuming Cholo reanimates almost instantly I agree, your breakdown of the scene appears flawless. However, being barely alive when he enters the underground coupled with the fact that he makes his presence known seems clumsy to me. He must be aware that he's about to die, why sacrifice his chance at revenge so readily? I suppose you could argue it's his last ditch attempt, but it's still clunky IMO and indicative of the writing quality regarding the movie in general.

I always had the idea that with Romero's zombies it took longer than a minute or so for reanimation to occur. I can't remember the exact circumstances of the Cooper girl's return from death, but I wouldn't say that NotLD contains a fully formed indication of what GAR's zombies were to become. Based on Roger's reanimation I had always thought that primarily these zombies are lethargic, including the reanimation time. In DotD it seems to me that Peter has been drinking that bottle of hooch for a reasonable length of time while waiting for Roger to "come back". Roger is also already covered with the sheet, added to the fact that both Fran and Flyboy are elsewhere all creating the impression that he's been dead for some time, while they wait, dreading the inevitable outcome. Have I been mistaken all this time, do reanimation times vary wildly in Romero's "zombie guidelines" as with TWD, or did GAR change tack when it came to LotD? :confused: I had assumed, perhaps mistakenly that the combination of zombies and speed in any form wasn't part of the Romero canon?

Anyway, the concept of slower reanimation times combined with the Big Daddy increase in "zombie intelligence", sorry even writing it makes me cringe. I have to agree with Andy on "Cock Daddy". Plus, both him and Cholo desiring revenge, albeit with different motives, led me to believe that Cholo was already undead when he entered the parking garage. He looks like he's been dead for hours, definitely a conflict between plausibility and cheap scare value when his condition is finally revealed. But hey, I'm definitely open to changing my interpretation, particularly if it partially rescues a scene for me. :)

--------update--------

Since your post I've been thinking about the whole garage sequence. I knew there was something bugging me.

Supposing the bite that Cholo received reached a major artery in his hand and almost turned him in 2 hours or so, shouldn't he have become sick and debilitated to the point that he would have been unable to reach the parking garage, i.e. on his back dying until he reanimated (like Roger and the Cooper girl)? I'd imagine that rate of infection would be quite virulent, how did Cholo keep functioning? Fed by his desire for revenge? If that's the case it seems pretty naff.

Considering your post and Shoot's, I now think Cholo is alive, but has almost turned when he enters the garage and is able to walk upright (in the manner of zombie it seemed to me not an infected human) but unable to aim. This would explain also why he reveals himself so readily in an open confrontation (not thinking very coherently). Although I have a better interpretation of the scene now (thanks), IMO though the back story for it is a bit contrived, as well as the execution, i.e. keeping Cholo in the shadows and having him move like a zombie rather than someone who is sick, it seems intentionally vague and forced. I suspect if this was TWD tv show it would be ripped to shreds.

Also with Kauffman being the type of character who attempts to cover all his bases, why after
Cholo goes down doesn't he shoot him in the head, considering the fact he then futters around looking for the keys or whatever? He must be aware that Cholo still poses a danger. Come on, Cholo goes down, dies, reanimates and closes the distance between them; all in 10 to 15 seconds. It's terrible. I think the scene is ill conceived and forced in order to pander to certain expectations or possibly fit some sub-text.

The difference in quality between Day and Land is astounding to me. That being said other ideas are great, such as the zombie vs human gladiator matches as entertainment, in fact the whole club sequence. From the limited perspective of reasonable plausibility, could the unpopular Diary be a better installment of the sub-par latter trilogy than Land? Thoughts anyone?

[Wyldwraith]

I agree the scene was poorly done in several ways,
However, Cholo was a scavenger and a killer. During the zombie apocalypse, such an occupation would require a certain amount of grit & physical fitness for him to have lasted this long. As for Cholo being too sick to reach Kaufmann, he was driven most of the way to Fiddler's Green almost immediately after receiving his bite. Like any bloodborne pathogen, lower heart-rate = slower proliferation of the pathogen. Cholo wasn't exerting himself until he began walking, and even then a steady walk isn't going to raise the heart rate too terribly much...Still, given that he's swaying as he takes his shot at Kauffman I believe that by that point all that was keeping Cholo standing was sheer hatred and willpower.

Forget that crap about mothers lifting cars off their kids. Ask cops about how many incidents of domestic abuse turned lethal they've seen where, for example, the woman has shot the man repeatedly, in vital locations that under almost any conditions would nearly immediately drop a man of that size, yet said abusive male STILL survives long enough to corner and kill the woman before expiring.

Every YEAR police respond to domestic disturbances where both parties are dead, where the abuser's wounds were incredibly extensive, yet the victim/defender is still dead as well. Hatred/rage/willpower can, IMHO, override biology (to an EXTENT), and for VERY LIMITED durations...unless the wounds compromise something utterly vital for continued function (basically the same shit that kills a zombie, + massive damage to the heart, like Trayvon Martin received from Zimmerman's gunshot while Zimmerman was defending himself.) Ie: No brain/heart/spinal function, and it doesn't matter, you're wormfood.

On other notes, Kaufmann not performing a coup de grace on Cholo can easily be explained by his relative inexperience with the undead phenomena. He's been insulated from all danger for years, and probably used his white collar resources at the outbreak's beginning to avoid much of the chaos...so it makes sense it wouldn't be habit for him to render a body incapable of reanimation.

Still, all this ambiguity wouldn't exist if GAR had just manned up and actually given a shit during shooting and editing...and didn't cop out with the SFX.

[Morto Vivente]

On other notes, Kaufmann not performing a coup de grace on Cholo can easily be explained by his relative inexperience with the undead phenomena. He's been insulated from all danger for years, and probably used his white collar resources at the outbreak's beginning to avoid much of the chaos...so it makes sense it wouldn't be habit for him to render a body incapable of reanimation.

Still, all this ambiguity wouldn't exist if GAR had just manned up and actually given a shit during shooting and editing...and didn't cop out with the SFX.

I'm on board with everything you've pointed out aside from Kauffmann.

LotD is set 3 years after Day I believe. If this was the beginning of the outbreak then Kauffmann being totally inefficient at dealing with the threat would be completely believeable. However, even although he has managed to isolate himself from the commonplace reality of the ZA I think that:

1. He would still be acutely aware of what is required to eliminate a zed. The few years of isolation wouldn't IMO cause him to forget the necessity of a head-shot, which at this point would be common knowledge concerning a phenomena that's drastically changed the world. That would be like saying, I haven't had casual sex in a while, so relative to HIV I forgot to use a condom. I don't buy it man, not the emotional reality of this character combined with his personal survival being at stake. Doing something in practice and being aware of it in theory are two different things. Maybe Kauffmann hasn't eliminated many zeds in practice but I'd almost definitely say he knows what to do in theory.

2. Also considering that Logan states the ratio of humans to undead as 500,000 to 1. To imagine that since the beginning of the outbreak Kauffmann has never had to kill a zed or two in order to survive seems unlikely to me. Combined with the other points I feel that his lack of follow through was too convenient in order to let the scene conclude as it did.

I get the point about Kauffman being out of touch in his ivory tower, his state of denial and his connection to Cholo in this respect. However the couching of the sociopolitical observations within the scene for me were poorly written (contrived) and not limited only to the SFX and editing (which as you said do confuse the scene rather than clarify it).

[Trin]

A few points:

- Cholo was alive when he entered the garage. The fact that being shot caused him to stagger and eventually crumple to the ground is evidence of that. Since Cholo was able to walk and shoot we cannot conclude that he was on the brink of death. He was clearly ravaged by infection given his aim and his eventual coloration when we see his zombified self enter the light. But considering that he took multiple gunshots to the torso I think it's reasonable to conclude that the gunshots finished him off, not the infection.

- I don't think we can conclude that Kaufman has ever put down a zed. I tend to find it unlikely that he has. The movie states clearly that he has been in this position of power since close to the beginning. I also don't think that just because someone has lasted so long they *must've* learned how to fight zombies. Looking at Day, we don't know that Bill or John ever put down a zed. I think it's assumed that they had... but think about it. Bill handles the electronics and John flies the whirlybird. Both of them were living in the facility since the operation was put together, which was very early on. It's entirely possible that neither of them had ever cracked a skull prior to the events we saw.

- Kaufman's knowledge of zed destruction and his ability to perform the act are two different things. I can coach my kids when to throw to second to get a double play... but hit the ball to me and I am just as likely to forget all that as to do it right.

- Romero may have been purposeful in making Cholo's situation ambiguous and arguable. I doubt it was a situation where he didn't think it through.

[Morto Vivente]

Kaufmann isn't a kid though and he's already put Cholo down. All he had to do is step up and shoot an immobilized target in the head, it's not complicated and rather instinctual IMO (seeing as we agree that he knows what to do in theory). Instead he turns his back on him and invites a possible attack from behind. Why? I certainly wouldn't turn my back in that situation, would you?

I'm sure Romero did think it through, and IMO chose to sacrifice the credibility of the scene in order to fit the commentary/subtext of the Kaufmann Cholo relationship. I just happen not to like it, and find it contrived and overly intellectualized and therefore lacking in emotional truth.

Also concerning Bill and John, that's my point in essence. Maybe they hadn't put a zed down before, but when it mattered they took the theory and put it into practice because their lives depended on it. I find Kaufmann's actions totally artificial. In Day the marriage of commentary and plot is far superior IMO, and far more natural. I find LotD to be greatly inferior to the previous flicks, particularly Day.

[Trin]

All he had to do is step up and shoot an immobilized target in the head, it's not complicated and rather instinctual IMO (seeing as we agree that he knows what to do in theory).
Instinctual seems like a stretch. I agree he knew what to do and could've successfully done it.


Instead he turns his back on him and invites a possible attack from behind. Why? I certainly wouldn't turn my back in that situation, would you?
I agree Kaufman never should've turned his back on dead Cholo. He should've kept his head on a swivel (gratuitous Anchorman quote for Bassman) given Cholo... plus the open garage door, Big Daddy's presence, and the hundreds of zombies streaming into the building.

That said, I think leaving Cholo lying there was the right decision. There's no way I leave my car to walk halfway across the garage to finish off one not-yet-reanimated corpse. Keep an eye on him... but keep working on getting the car ready. The car is the priority. If Cholo becomes a problem then deal with him. If not you saved a bullet and you can laugh knowing that Cholo will get his place in Fiddler's Green ... as a zombie.


I'm sure Romero did think it through, and IMO chose to sacrifice the credibility of the scene in order to fit the commentary/subtext of the Kaufmann Cholo relationship. I just happen not to like it, and find it contrived...
It's unforgivable that Cholo managed to turn, rise, and shamble over without Kaufman once looking over his shoulder. It absolutely smells of plot contrivance. And Diary and Survival proved that Romero will sacrifice plausibility for almost any odd notion.


Also concerning Bill and John, that's my point in essence. Maybe they hadn't put a zed down before, but when it mattered they took the theory and put it into practice because their lives depended on it.
It's just as arguable that John and Bill (especially John) should've never been able to shoot zombies so effectively. But I agree that Land was more artificial and Night/Dawn/Day rang more true to life.

[Ragnarr]

Sorry brothers, I really hated this movie. Can't decide which movie I hated more; Land or Diary (the latter I affectionally remember as "Diarrhea of the Dead" and the former as "Bland of the Dead"). Land had a lame plot, little or no thrills/chills, and was just another attempt at riding the zombie money train imo.

If one accepts the premise that the undead are decaying corpses who shuffle about daily looking for the living to munch on, how in the name of Jupiter's BALLS are their brains capable of "learning" and "planning" anything. I work for the postal service here in NJ wondering the same thing of management.

[dracenstein]

I agree with the Cholo was alive when he shot at Kaufman and Kaufman killed him and Cholo returns as a zombie.

A thought about all those poor people living outside of Kaufman's tower block, couldn't they have rewired other buildings to get light and heating and more secured housing?

And these people weren't getting proper medical care, so shouldn't they be getting diseased more and dying?

[krisvds]

If one accepts the premise that the undead are decaying corpses who shuffle about daily looking for the living to munch on, how in the name of Jupiter's BALLS are their brains capable of "learning" and "planning" anything. I work for the postal service here in NJ wondering the same thing of management.

Does a reanimated corpse continue to decay? I'm not quite sure. If it does the zombie apocalypse would be over in weeks. They'd just rot to a state of imobility. Problem solved.
Also; why can't some zombies be 'smarter' than others? Remember the first zombie in Night? It picked up a stone to smash the car's window. That's basic problem solving right there, hinting at a certain level of intelligence. And let's not forget Bub's ability to pick up and use tools.

Also: IMO Land is way better than diary. It may not be the best in the series but it is way more fun than the two that came after.

[Neil]

Does a reanimated corpse continue to decay? I'm not quite sure. If it does the zombie apocalypse would be over in weeks. They'd just rot to a state of imobility. Problem solved.

In my story "The Midas Touch" I suggest the 'infection' typically causes decaying to slow down dramatically...

And if we look at Day of the Dead, the corpses we see in the opening scenes all look fairly intact, so I think in Romero's universe decay is slowed.

[shootemindehead]

DR. LOGAN: On revival, the rate of decomposition slows substantially. Indications are that these
beings could function over a period of years-- In cases of early revival, 10 to 12 years
before decay would threaten mobility.


http://www.kitleyskrypt.com/images/dl-rl.jpg

[Wyldwraith]

Gotta chime in,
While Land is certainly not Original Trilogy-caliber, in its defense it is a FAR CRY from the sheer crapfests that are Diary and Survival. Diary could've possibly been salvaged, especially if Romero had focused more on characterization instead of pseudo-characterization (Ie: The different ways people got annoyed about camera-guy constantly sticking a camera in their face), and not having everyone turn retarded and completely murderously selfish once they got to the mansion.

The blonde chick just takes the RV and drives off, without so much as a yell out to the others? What was that shit?!?!

Or the obviously nutty-"off" way their still in mummy costume rich friend was behaving when they arrived at his mansion. These people survived a close-quarters encounter with a trio of ghouls in a living room, yet they're too stupid to realize taking a hot bath-nap with the bathroom door open/unlocked in a house you have zero idea how secure or unsecure it is...after having JUST survived a "zombie ambush" in another seemingly peaceful suburban home? C'mon.

Wrap that up with the camera-idiot being soooo obsessed with his documentary shooting he lets a zombie traipse right up and mortally injure him...and the girl being all weepy and promising to finish his documentary as she and the old english dude lock themselves in the panic room as zombies swarm throughout the mansion? Check please.

I can't even bring myself to compose a scathing dissection of Survival, because I'd have to think about it in depth...and that would give me that "Wish I could bleach the memory of this movie out of my brain" feeling again. Suffice to say I thought Survival was as much worse than Diary, as Diary is worse than Land.

In fact, if your only standard is comparing these three movies I submit that Land is Citizen Kane by comparison to the remaining two entries in the latter trilogy....

BTW, did anyone notice in Land that the military unit leader who raids the kids motorhome in Diary and stars in Survival was one of the guards at the vehicle unloading area in Land, who we see overwhelmed and gutted by zombies, before his subsequent reanimation? Just one more bit of disrespect by GAR for his viewers intelligence.

[AcesandEights]

The scary thing is, that both Diary and Survival could have been great zombie flicks, they just went so far afield it's sad :(

One thing I've concluded from this thread is that I need to see more Wyld and Trin posts. :)

So we just need the next season of TWD to get here and then convince Trin to not sequester himself off from the TWD forums in fear of spoilers.

[EvilNed]

I kinda like Land. It's no Day of the Dead, at all.

Diary is somewhat of a guilty pleasure, as well.

Survival was just horrible, tho.

However, I think all of them suffer from being relatively stupid. They are literally cluttered with moments that make you go "Why did he do that?". There are so many scenes in them when characters, or even zombies, act in a way to serve the action, rather than them actually doing what's logical. The scene where Cholo goes to the neighbors and finds the guy hanging in a noose is one of them. The guy's son lets him down, gets bit and then the zombie moves on. Why did it move on? You've got fresh meat right in front of you? It ONLY moved on so that it could sneak up behind the mother, so that Cholo could save her. It's kinda stupid. The films are littered with those small moments. Diary in particular, because the whole concept of him filming everything is flawed. It works in [REC] when the cameraman puts down the camera once in awhile to help in a sticky situation, but this guy never does that.

[krisvds]

DR. LOGAN: On revival, the rate of decomposition slows substantially. Indications are that these
beings could function over a period of years-- In cases of early revival, 10 to 12 years
before decay would threaten mobility.




"Is this the results you've been talking about? Is this what your research is all about?"
:p

[dracenstein]

Diary in particular, because the whole concept of him filming everything is flawed. It works in [REC] when the cameraman puts down the camera once in awhile to help in a sticky situation, but this guy never does that.

As I pointed out when film was released, the camera guy gets obsessed over documenting everything that he divorces himself from the world around him. He no longer thought that he was part of that world.

[krisvds]

The other week I saw a young girl get hit by a passing tram. The girl, screamng in agony, her face a bloody mess lay there while some people rushed over to help her and call an ambulance and several other just stood there filming the whole thing with their cellphones.

Some aspects of Diary will, in time, prove it to be a (seriously) flawed cynical masterpiece.

[facestabber]

The other week I saw a young girl get hit by a passing tram. The girl, screamng in agony, her face a bloody mess lay there while some people rushed over to help her and call an ambulance and several other just stood there filming the whole thing with their cellphones.

Some aspects of Diary will, in time, prove it to be a (seriously) flawed cynical masterpiece.

I see the same thing frequently with my job. Some jump right in and ask how they can help. Others wait for me to point directly at them and tell them what to do. And then there is a crowd thats starts recording immediately.

To Wylde I was aware of the soldier in both films. I thought that was known here. Regarding Land, Diary and Survival. Survival by far is the worst. Diary, if its late at night and nothing good is on, sure. But I still feel Land takes the cake for Champion Crapfest. I believe Romero was actually trying with Land and that is why I feel embarrassed watching it. I have tried to will myself to enjoy it but I cant. As above mentioned I always like reading your posts.

[rongravy]

However, I think all of them suffer from being relatively stupid. They are literally cluttered with moments that make you go "Why did he do that?". There are so many scenes in them when characters, or even zombies, act in a way to serve the action, rather than them actually doing what's logical. The scene where Cholo goes to the neighbors and finds the guy hanging in a noose is one of them. The guy's son lets him down, gets bit and then the zombie moves on. Why did it move on? You've got fresh meat right in front of you? It ONLY moved on so that it could sneak up behind the mother, so that Cholo could save her. It's kinda stupid. The films are littered with those small moments. Diary in particular, because the whole concept of him filming everything is flawed. It works in [REC] when the cameraman puts down the camera once in awhile to help in a sticky situation, but this guy never does that.

I dunno, man. I ask myself that question every day: "Why did he do that?"
I think half the world's people suck, the other half are just idiots. I get what you're saying as far as moving the story, but I wasn't bothered at all by Land. I may have been dazzled by the bigger budget and kickass make up, who knows?
Other than Day, I think it's the best out of the bunch visually. I like Dawn, but it's more a nostalgia thang. When I've shown it to n00bs, they can't seem to get past the super dated look and cheesed FX. I laugh at the Land haters, yet I don't get said hate. I can totally understand it over Survival, and to a lesser extent Diary, but wow. Some hard to please muthas up in dis piece.

[Wyldwraith]

Honestly,
Land has some issues, it really, TRULY does. That said, if I wanted to start counting zombie movies worse than Land, it would readily become apparent that 85-88% of the genre falls below that standard. I like a lot of things about Land, and like some others am puzzled to see it receive hate on the level of Diary/Survival, but the recently mentioned feeling that it's worse because Romero was still trying at that point IS something I'll have to chew on awhile.

In the meantime, I agree that 3D conversions are solely money-grubbing maneuvers. Really can't remember the last movie that benefited from it.