Land Of The Dead - what's wrong with it?

[Toonloon]

I read time and time again about fans hating this movie. I just don't get what people don't like. It's political, it has gore, it has a better cast then we're used to. It's a bigger Romero universe than we've seen before. Is it the zombie horde? Is that it? Cos Romero has been developing that idea since dawn. Would love to hear your thoughts, even if you violently disagree.

[Geizeh]

I actually like the movie, but one thing I don't like about it is that some parts are overacted and silly, for example, the scene where Riley Dembo gets introduced with Kaufman's squad.

[zomtom]

I always liked the movie. The only thing I didn't like was "Big Daddy" constantly roaring, Every time he does, I can't help but yell, "shut the hell up"!!! Still, I also have a problem when they don't blast the zombies to hell at the end.

[Toonloon]

Good comments. Thanks guys. Big daddy roaring is the one thing im unsure of. There's precedent for it. Bub spoke in DOTD. I would have preferred it if the zombies followed big daddy instinctively instead of having to be coralled by a roar.

[dracenstein]

Big Daddy is the main thing, he is too intelligent. Bub had to be taught, Daddy was just doing nothing but hanging about his old job. Riley should have blown those zombies at the back. And the whole money thing? The scavengers could grab much more from their scavenging than Kaufman and his elite had stashed in their little heaven.

[EvilNed]

I generally like it. It's an OK zombie flick, and definetly a notch above the average zed movie out there. Having said that, the film was (and still is) compared to Dawn and Day and I feel that those films are simply superior flicks.

1) The writing in Land is lazy. Plenty of the characters act in a stupid manner and make decisions that nobody in that situation would. Like the character Mouse sitting tight and listening to heavy music instead of keeping his senses focused on spotting any zombie activity in his vicinity. The soldiers wasting lots and lots of ammo just to waste a single zombie. Too many actions in this film feel like they don't make any sense.

2) The characters are charicatures, not persons. Something happened inbetween Day and Land with Romero. He started writing characters that were given cool nicknames and had funny little quirks about them. None of these guys feel all that realistic. It even started in Day, if you will, with the character of Frankenstein, but he felt acceptable within the limits of that world. But in Land there's too many. There's the burned-to-a-crisp Sharpshooter Charlie, the Dwarf running the night club, a squadron of tough-as-nails soldiers who all introduce themselves as if we're in a video game. To top it off, Riley, our protagonist, is a kinda boring dude. Simon Baker underacts this hero and he's just... boring. There are literally no interesting relationships in this film, where we there were plenty of interesting ones in both Dawn and Day.

3) The money issue is kinda dumb. What use is money? What is Cholo gonna do with it? And why doesn't Kaufman just give it up? It's worthless outside Fiddler's Green anyway.

4) Big Daddy could've been handled better. He's to "nice". He kills plenty of people but he doesn't bite into any of them. He should've been more of a brute. Shouldn't we be at least a little bit afraid of him?

5) It's way more of an action film than either Dawn or Day ever was. And the action is pretty bland, with plenty of cheap scares.

[MinionZombie]

I've always liked Land ... although I did love it to begin with ... I'm downgraded to "liking" it a fair bit. I think that's a good place to be with it. Some things it gets right, other things it gets wrong. There are a few things that have stood out to me over the years as little disappointments or annoyances - lines of dialogue that were too blunt, certain actions that were too iffy, and yeah, even though I initally liked Big Daddy ... all that flippin' howling all the damn time ... Christ! :eek:

It is a bit slap-dash in places, and some of the CGI blood is disappointing (albeit understandable on the schedule and budget Romero received), but there's also many things I really dig about it.

Sure, it's not up to the standard of the original three, but it's decidedly above the majority of zombie films out there, and is a pretty fun ride. It just needed some work and a big old dollop of subtlety ... the message is rather blunt, although nowhere near as blunt as in Diary of the Dead (which, unfortunately, was like being smashed over the head with Thor's hammer).

As for the money issue:

1) Any money blowing around loose would have either been stolen already in the early days of the outbreak, or rotted away into mush if just blowing around outside in the weather.

2) Any money in banks would be too well defended behind vaults - with zombies all around you can't stage a flippin' heist to get it out of there, and you might require power, so if there isn't any you're doubly stuffed.

3) Money does have value - it's something that all the people recognise from the old world, it's something all of them understand ... it's also a way to control the people under Kaufman's roof. They have their own mini economy within the walls of Fiddler's Green - as well as all the other places Kaufman set up elsewhere in other locations (he makes mention of that, and was planning to head to one of those locations before Big Daddy got him). To say that the money is worthless is absolutely daft - it's a mini economy (replete with bars, gambling, prostitution etc) that all the residents understand from pre-zombie days, and Kaufman is pulling the strings and controlling the flow of cash. Simple. I've never understood why some folks don't get this, or don't buy into the idea. It's always been very straight-forward in my mind.

I do think Land is unfairly slagged off in it's entirety for a collection of sins and failures that certainly don't outweigh the good elements. If some changes could have been made to the script and the on-screen execution, it would have been bloody great ... we'll have to settle for good & solid instead, but I'm still pleased with the flick as a fan. I've not re-watched it lately, but I have seen it numerous times over the years.

Easily his best post-1990 flick by a country mile in spite of its mixed flaws.

[Andy]

I famously dont give land any slack at all, i hate it. I hated it when i first saw it and i hate it a little bit more everytime i watch it. its the movie marked romero's change from a genius into a hack as far as im concerned.

I wrote a lengthy post on why i hated it several years ago, because i kept getting asked lol.

EDIT - Found it, now bear in mind i posted this in 2009.


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.

[blind2d]

I've already weighed in on this film, but yeah, I like it. Sure there are several parts that either didn't make sense to me or could've been handled better, but overall the concept of the film has just been one that I dig. Mouse's death, though... I can't watch that. He's my favorite character, besides Pretty Boy, and I just can't.

[Harleydude666]

Yes! To everything you wrote below. My thoughts exactly. Land is pure masturbation on Romero's part. He should be embarrassed.


I famously dont give land any slack at all, i hate it. I hated it when i first saw it and i hate it a little bit more everytime i watch it. its the movie marked romero's change from a genius into a hack as far as im concerned.

I wrote a lengthy post on why i hated it several years ago, because i kept getting asked lol.

EDIT - Found it, now bear in mind i posted this in 2009.

[shootemindehead]

I've never minded 'Land of the Dead', it's an ok chapter in the original series.

There are a number of problems with it, as there is with every single George Romero film, bar 'Day of the Dead'. The biggest of which is that it seems to be the LAST chapter of Romero's original dead series, as he's seen fit to launch this awful "reboot" nonsense, which has produced two of the worst zombie flicks yet...and that's saying something.

Other problems have already been mentioned, the likes of stupid characters/death and some crap zombies. Eugene Clark simply just didn't get how to be a zombie and Savini's cameo is rubbish.

The central political theme, of the widening gap between rich and poor is a good one. Far better than Romero's later "messages", but it needed a film with a longer running time. The ideas are just not fleshed out enough.

[Ragnarr]

Land just lacked the same "something" that Night, Dawn and Day had.

Land begins with zombies playing musical instruments (the "bub" concept) and takes it further by jumping aboard Hollywood's boner for "the magic negro" film format (in this case zombie) which I believe had already been done to death with no pun intended. Overall, the movie tries so obviously hard to establish a microcosm of how GAR views capitalism/consumerism in general.

GAR feels that all of his films for some reason NEED NEED NEED to make a statement about consumerism, and holy cow on a surf board wearing a top hat does he make that point soooo obviously clear that even some cross-eyed vegetable watching Land of the Dead would understand his point in the first five minutes! The movie is just cheezy and weak in my opinion, almost like Conan the Destroyer was after Conan the Barbarian's success. Land sucks more than a super massive blackhole, but a tad less than those other two more recent GAR stinkers. Irish cowboy's retarded feud on an island during the zombie apocolypse... oh c'mon now! :mad:

[facestabber]

I am embarrassed to watch Land. I was deflated sitting in the theater as I heard laughs and watched the end of Romero unfold. But I dont have the energy to write my opinion so I will defer to Andy

[Ragnarr]

I guess another aspect of Land that bugged me was how completely helpless the "well-to-do" were when the zombies began to break into their luxury building. So how the hell were these affluent denizens able to survive the Night of, Dawn and Day phases of GAR's zombie apocalypse to get to the Land phase?
Is GAR suggesting having wealth makes one weak, helpless and completely unable to defend themselves in any way, shape or form?

Land is just a sellout brand of Hollywood crap in its' lamest form.

[bd2999]

I like it well enough, it is the best of the recent three flicks in the series but not as good as the original three films. To me the film worked in places but was just to flat overall. The gore was fairly good, but some of the CGI looked bad. The acting was meh to wooden throughout and I never felt a report with any character. I liked the general theme of the movie but I thought the execution was not as good as what we were used to.

The Big Daddy thing and the zombies being left alone was also something I was so-so on. Zombies getting smarter was fine and has been building through the films. I thought the ending was underwhelming with just letting the zombies leave and the fact that they left on their own. It was not a bad zombie movie but it was not what came before. To me it is still better than Diary or Survival. I think Diary is more of a mess and Survival would have been fine if not for some of the bad CGI and some story issues but still not as good as land.

[bd2999]

Nothing is wrong with it, it is just not as good as the original three. It is a decent enough zombie movie and is better than the two that followed it but a fair bit. My issues are the following...

1. Acting is very wooden or over the top at times. One could argue that the original films had somewhat amaturish acting (depending on the one it is more or less) but they seemed like natural fits. Here it just seems to be more generalized and a noticiable problem.

2. Lack of connection with characters. This could be due to direction, acting, script or all of them. I think the strengths of the other films are that the characters seem human and at some level easy to relate to. Or at least some of them are.

3. Gore was good in parts but I did not like some of the CGI. It looked a bit corny when it came out and looks that way now too. The head flipping priest zombie for instance.

4. The story has a neat idea, ignoring the problem and the problems with a high class living off of the (exploiting) the lower, but the story lacked heart. It was a bit more overt beating us over the head, but not as much as Diary or Survival. The fact that it took a step in creating a new world from the old was neat but I did not feel I understood the new world well. The desire for money was both a good point (desire when in reality the desire for money is pointless when money is pointless) and a strange one at the same time.

5. The biggest one is probably that the movie could not have possibly measured up to the others. Both in terms of quality of the films and in terms of most of our nolstagia about them. It just was not going to happen but it could have come much closer than it did.

6. Another one is probably Big Daddy. I did not hate him as much as some but I did not like him. The whole thing had been going on longer so it makes sense that some zombie would get memories or something back at some rate. He just seemed over the top. I also did not get why the zombies just left at the end. The movie had this odd system were the humans raided the town at the start and the dead returned the favor and then just wondered off. If the intelligent zombie wants to do this, maybe. Seems to me the others would be driven to hunt every last person around until the bitter end.

It was not a bad movie, definitely better than the majority of striaght to DVD or netflix zombie flix but not what we were expecting or wanting. And I think, as the first, this one suffers a bit more for following so closely after probably the best horror trilogy ever (maybe of any genre). The others, our standards were dropping but they still dipped a bit under on their own and Romero was a bit to heavy handed or confusing in his messaging (the guy is my favorite director classically, so I feel I can say that and still be a monster fan).

[petroag]

I'll preface this by saying that it has been quite a while since I saw Land and it probably deserves another watch from me.

I thought the movie was OK and was fine with the intended theme related to have and have-nots within the city, but the Big Daddy idea and the ending are what bugged me the most.

What I like about the zombie "monster" is that, on a single basis, the zombie is weaker and slower than the survivor and should be manageable by a cool headed person. It is only when that single zombie becomes a group that they begin presenting a significant threat to survivors. As such, the "monster" isn't the individual but rather the group. And the fear of every survivor isn't, just that they will be killed, but that they too may not have any choice but to be swept up and become yet another component to that "monster". How many characters, once bit, hold out the hope that maybe they can keep from "coming back"?

Big Daddy doesn't follow that concept. Instead, because of his "intellect", he suddenly becomes something other than just another faceless part of the group. I don't want a zombie movie in which individual characteristics or justifications are assigned to any one zombie. And I certainly don't want a movie in which any attempt is made to create sympathy for the plight of the zombies. I don't want a zombie to gain a "soul" and sympathy. This movie just reminded me too much of "Battle for the Planet of the Apes" where we suddenly were asked to look at the apes as the "good" guys and cheer for their success.

Men are bad and their actions and fighting against one another can get everyone killed. We see that in every Romero movie and it is a key and important element. But just because Romero points out that men can sometimes be an even bigger threat than the zombies, doesn't mean that we should ever reach a point where we feel "sorry" for the zombies. And I feel like that happened in Land.

[Harleydude666]

I'll preface this by saying that it has been quite a while since I saw Land and it probably deserves another watch from me.

I thought the movie was OK and was fine with the intended theme related to have and have-nots within the city, but the Big Daddy idea and the ending are what bugged me the most.

What I like about the zombie "monster" is that, on a single basis, the zombie is weaker and slower than the survivor and should be manageable by a cool headed person. It is only when that single zombie becomes a group that they begin presenting a significant threat to survivors. As such, the "monster" isn't the individual but rather the group. And the fear of every survivor isn't, just that they will be killed, but that they too may not have any choice but to be swept up and become yet another component to that "monster". How many characters, once bit, hold out the hope that maybe they can keep from "coming back"?

Big Daddy doesn't follow that concept. Instead, because of his "intellect", he suddenly becomes something other than just another faceless part of the group. I don't want a zombie movie in which individual characteristics or justifications are assigned to any one zombie. And I certainly don't want a movie in which any attempt is made to create sympathy for the plight of the zombies. I don't want a zombie to gain a "soul" and sympathy. This movie just reminded me too much of "Battle for the Planet of the Apes" where we suddenly were asked to look at the apes as the "good" guys and cheer for their success.

Men are bad and their actions and fighting against one another can get everyone killed. We see that in every Romero movie and it is a key and important element. But just because Romero points out that men can sometimes be an even bigger threat than the zombies, doesn't mean that we should ever reach a point where we feel "sorry" for the zombies. And I feel like that happened in Land.

Bingo! I hated that Romero gave a handful of these zombies some personality and keyed in on them. That's the beauty of Night, they were just a bunch of nameless, faceless, flesh tearing ghouls. Just a mob of human monsters. When you give zombies personality or a soul, the actors completely overact.

[shadyJ]

A lot of these great horror film directors from the 70s and 80s seem to have lost their mojo somehow. Romero, Carpenter, Argento, Craven, Hooper, Dante, and so on. Perhaps success and acclaim brought on complacency. I think for horror you need an edge which can go soft when you get older. Perhaps its inevitable. I think Cronenberg is still making good movies but not horror movies so he is only a partial exception. Sometimes these guys still show a spark of ingenuity, like Carpenter's and Argento's entries for the Masters of Horror series, I especially like Dante's 'The Screwfly Solution'.

[zomtom]

I think another problem for Land was the disappointment of a lot of the fans. We were expecting a lot from this movie. A major studio was backing Romero and putting quite a bid of a budget behind it. Plus for the first time, there were known actors cast in a Romero flick. I think many of us had very high expectations when we went to the theater. Maybe too high; so that we ended up feeling let down by the end of the movie. Still, it's an okay flick in my book. Just wish they didn't have Big Daddy.

[shootemindehead]

Romero and Carpenter both had their balls kicked on the release of their masterpieces, much to their dismay and you can map their descent from there, although Carpenters road was more winding. 'Day of the Dead' had a mixed reception, at best, and 'The Thing' took a long time to find a general audience and failed miserably at the Box Office and IMO probably would have despite 'E.T.'. Both films are, quite correctly held up as classics today, but I believe that the negative reception they received upon original release did a lot to damage both directors and their outlook.

The likes of Hooper, Craven and Dante were never that good to begin with. Tobe Hooper had one good flick in him, you know what that was. Craven is VASTLY overrated, even though 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' was good and I've never understood why Dante is held in such high regard by some genre fans.

With Carpenter, it's a real pity, as I'd love to see him get his mojo back. I like him in interviews and I like what he says. Also, out of all of my old genre heroes, he still makes films that are watchable and some are still good. I have a soft spot for 'Prince of Darkness' and 'In the Mouth of Madness', even though I get a few stares when I say it. Even 'They Live' And 'Big Trouble in Little China' have grown on me in the last couple of years. Christ, I hated those films, but I finally "got" 'They Live' the last time I watched it.

Cronenberg has always been interesting. But, these days, I'd rather have him make "straight" films, than genre material, although he was never really a horror director. I think 'A History of Violence' and 'Eastern Promises' are some of his best work to date and unlike Hooper, Craven and Dante, he's worth a look, every time.

[MinionZombie]

Cronenberg managed to pull away from the horror genre ... in-part by making his own sub-genre of 'body horror', and in-part by not allowing himself to get pigeonholed. I agree on AHOV and EP, both of which are great films, and I rather enjoyed A Dangerous Method ... although Cosmopolis was a pile of wank.

Hooper directed Poltergeist (even if the involvement of Spielberg has cast controversy over the issue), which was excellent, and The Funhouse is a cracking little flick (even if the investor demanded the monster be shown in bright light, which was a big mistake). Likewise, Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is a crazed slice of entertainment - such a fun flick and quite rightly it didn't try to do the same thing as the first movie which is, of course, a cinematic landmark.

Craven ... Last House on the Left, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream ... The Hills Have Eyes is imperfect, but iconic. I've not seen a bunch of his other flicks, mind, but he's certainly earned his iconic status.

I'd say that as these guys get older, their priorities change - the 1960s political revolutionary spirit of Romero faded away by the 1980s - the dream never really came to fruition, he got battered around by the studio system in the 90s and 00s, and he's fallen into just being "the zombie guy". I think with a lot of these filmmakers, they lose their youthful spark, and if they don't have something else to move into (e.g. Cronenberg) then they struggle. Perhaps things like Masters of Horror allow them to just have fun and throw things about with low expectations from the audience.

As for Argento - I think the above is part of it, but also the collapse of the Italian film industry. It was booming in the 60s/70s/80s, but then all the air flew out of it and you just get cheap junk like "The Card Player". There was a spark of what had come before in "Sleepless" initially, but that flick gradually petered out after a great opening act. Without the budgets or the skills available to pull of the sumptuous visual feasts of the 70s, it all becomes rather disappointing.

Plus, times change. What worked in the 70s etc doesn't necessarily work now ... and the 1990s was a pretty dark decade for horror, with only a couple of highlights really worth mentioning (Scream, Blair Witch), with a bunch of lesser entries that are fun but just don't stack up against earlier entries in the genre/franchise (e.g. TCM3, New Nightmare).

[Andy]

I'd say that as these guys get older, their priorities change - the 1960s political revolutionary spirit of Romero faded away by the 1980s - the dream never really came to fruition, he got battered around by the studio system in the 90s and 00s, and he's fallen into just being "the zombie guy".

So what your saying is that from land onwards, romero is deliberately making atrocious movies to try an get away from this Zombie Guy title?

Interesting theory..

[blind2d]

Not sure if Minion was actually saying that, Andy, but yeah, maybe... huh.

Oh, and Carpenter's work is awesome. Love it. ALL of it (I think).

'Land' for me will always be special. I remember the first time I saw it.... Dammit Mouse, you idiot!
Sure it's not Romero's best work, but I still love it, because of what it was trying to be: not what it is. Can't say the same for its 'sequels'.

[krisvds]

I love Argento's work and to this day think Suspiria is one of the best horror films ever made. How the same director who made Profondo Rosso is able to do some of his more recent work is beyond comprehension. Mother of tears is at best a guilty pleasure but Inferno was architectural porn at it's best.

Land of the Dead? Absolutely nothing wrong with it (okay, Big Daddy is kind of annoying) if you like cheesy eighties 'post-apocalypse' action films. It's not Day or Dawn, but I have a good time (re)watching the film now and again.

[Wyldwraith]

Land doesn't draw out some primal hate in me, and I do find it watchable.....

HOWEVER, there ARE things about Land that bug the Hell out of me, and it DOES suffer from that reoccurring sense of implausibility that frequently grips the viewer. The entire money thing has always bugged me, yet when I went on to see Diary and then ::gags:: Survival, I felt something akin to pity for Land and I guess some sort of fan-sentimentality kicked in and I found I liked Land far more than Diary and vastly more than Survival.

Yet Andy makes a compelling point. This was the movie that announced Romero had lost the magic. Diary and Survival were simply confirmation of what we'd come to suspect after Land. So I have a strangely two-sided feeling about Land. The disappointment factor however is something every one of us younger fans should understand though.

[MinionZombie]

What I'm essentially say, Andy, is that the fire in GAR's belly has become subdued and is now more like embers - that's how it feels in his filmmaking. His last three seem more like someone just having fun making movies with people he likes - albeit trapped within the zombie genre, somewhat cornered by the monster he essentially birthed. There was extremely rich socio-political material to draw from in the 60s/70s/80s when GAR was making his best work with his original core team of people ... and times change and move on and people filter away here and there ... there was a fair bit to draw from in the 00s, but at the same time you've got so many people all drawing from the same well ... and in GAR's recent flicks he seems to have not been so bothered with subtlety or subtext, which is a shame.

Diary is like an anvil of commentary on a subject and generation of which Romero isn't a part of ... so blunt, so contrived, so disappointing. Plus, the tone of the movie shifts wildly, it can't really figure out what it wants to be, and the 'found footage' angle is so awfully played-out at this point (even in 2007 when it was released) that it just makes you cringe. I've got big problems with that movie now ... there's various bits I like, but ultimately my opinion of that movie has become pretty sour.

Both Land and Survival on the other hand, I enjoy, even if they're not up to GAR's standards of old ... they each have problems, some small, some big ... but ultimately I quite like both movies (with certain caveats).

I'd really like to see GAR be able to do a non-zombie flick. I know he's been trying, but he can't get the money for it ... but perhaps it's partly the projects he's trying to go after. I suppose if you've got a nice pay cheque coming your way for more zombie content, and without anyone offering to pay you for other things, you've got to go where the money is to pay your bills ... but it's sad at the same time.

I am surprised by a seeming consensus among the haters that they feel Survival is worse than Diary. Why is that?

[Andy]

I am surprised by a seeming consensus among the haters that they feel Survival is worse than Diary. Why is that?

Simple really, for all its faults diary is at least coherent.. survival is just a jumbled mess of a film, ive seen it a few times and i still couldn't tell you whats happening.

[AcesandEights]

Land was questionable due to a lack of dread, eye-rolling and poorly handled 'subtext' (it's not subtext when you do it that way, George) and horrible gag kills...so much more could have been done with the premise and opportunity.

That said, it's still a decent zombie film and better, to me, than Diary (which was rank garbage) and Survival, which had potential and some okay moments, but was ultimately laughable.

My original review (http://www.homepageofthedead.com/films/land/lotdreview001.htm) of Land still stands, for the most part, though I feel I may have been a bit too charitable.

[erisi236]

Why was money worth anything in this world? That's one thing that never really connected to me or was just not explained. What exactly was this dude supposed to do with his ransomed money? Move into the tower of the guy he ransomed the money from?

One thing that really bugged me was the humans reactions to the zombies, it's like it was the first day of the epidemic with them. You'd think after 5 or 8 or whatever years it was they would just see a group of zeds, and put one round in their head and finish it, instead what we got was panicking soldiers emptying magazines into one zombie, what the hell man. The humans at this point should have been like the dudes towards the end of the war in World War Z (book) where they could calmly take out a million of them and go on to the next city.

[MinionZombie]

Good to see you back erisi, it's been a while. :)

I've posted before on the money issue and explained why I think it works, so skim back through the thread for my thoughts on that one...

On the other thing, it's a fair point being that it's 5 years after the outbreak, but I figure that the rich of Fiddler's Green have always had someone to protect them. They've never had to get their hands dirty - they've always had a safe place to hold up with trained guards doing any of the dirty work. You look at them in the Green and they've forgotten the world outside completely, they're obsessed with shopping and living the good life.

Meanwhile those on the streets like Riley have to venture out into that world routinely. They're calm and cool when it comes to zombies, but the feather-bedded rich folk are hiding in cotton wool, so when the shit hits the fan at the end they're slung into the deep end and can't fend for themselves - therefore, panic and terror. Plus, mob mentality - if most people are freaking out, it's likely to encourage everyone else to do the same.

[benohmart]

Not a thing wrong with it. I liked it a Hell of a lot better than Document, which I couldn't get thru 10 minutes of because of the way it's filmed.

[Wyldwraith]

Late to the thread and a trifle off-topic but....
Someone mentioned John Carpenter as one of the directors that took the hard downward-spiraling turn at some point and I felt that merited comment. Ever seen the absolute DREK that was VAMPIRE$? Carpenter's name is all over it, but it was (surprisingly) an excellent novel before it was an abominable movie. The reason I mention it, is that if you plot Carpenter's work post-"John Carpenter's VAMPIRE$" you'll see it's where the proverbial plane nosedived into the ground. Coincidence?

[AcesandEights]

Ever seen the absolute DREK that was VAMPIRE$? Carpenter's name is all over it, but it was (surprisingly) an excellent novel before it was an abominable movie. The reason I mention it, is that if you plot Carpenter's work post-"John Carpenter's VAMPIRE$" you'll see it's where the proverbial plane nosedived into the ground. Coincidence?

I remember there were a few people around here who actually liked that overcooked ham of a movie. It's an okay B-grade movie, but for the names attached it should have been at least a straight up decent film, but nope.

[MinionZombie]

I remember there were a few people around here who actually liked that overcooked ham of a movie. It's an okay B-grade movie, but for the names attached it should have been at least a straight up decent film, but nope.

I'd agree with Wyld in that Vampires marked the deline point ... that and Escape From L.A. - for John Carpenter.

Now, Vampires starts out as a pretty damn cool flick in the first act, but then after that it really loses a lot of it's attitude and coolness that it had in the start. Losing almost the entire cast in a massacre really saps the wind out of the movie and it never really recovers. On the other hand there are cool bits throughout - and Sheryl Lee, woo! - but yeah, the decline of JC started with that film.

I saw one of his most recent movies a while back - "The Ward" I think it was called (with Amber Heard). It was set in a mental ward in the 1960s, but it was so bland. There was potential there, but it didn't pan out - and as a result I can't remember a single damn thing about it. At least with Vampires I remember a lot of imagery and some neat moments from it, as well as a bunch of the actors ... although, ultimately, it too was a disappointment.

[krisvds]

It's a weird phenomenon, these once brilliant genre directors losing it to the point their output has almost nothing to do with what they once were able to produce.
Carpenter indeed. Argento anyone?

In comparison to Argento's latest films Land of the Dead is Citizen Kane.

[Neil]

It's a weird phenomenon, these once brilliant genre directors losing it to the point their output has almost nothing to do with what they once were able to produce.
Carpenter indeed. Argento anyone?

In comparison to Argento's latest films Land of the Dead is Citizen Kane.

Guess they just use up all their mojo!

[MinionZombie]

From Argento's post-2000 work I've only seen Sleepless, which was decent but not a patch on his work in the 70s/80s, and then The Card Player, which has a neat conceit for the modus operandi, but apart from that it's dreck. What's more, The Card Player looks terrible - so bland and flat and lifeless. I've heard only bad things about Mother of Tears, and Giallo too.

[shootemindehead]

Argento was never that great. I was always amazed at the kudos he received.

I think in the case of Carpenter and Romero, the lashing they got for their magnum opus knocked them for six, I reckon. Carpenter never got over the reaction to 'The Thing' and Romero was always baffled by the hate 'Day of the Dead' got.

I think it softened them. It cut their balls off.

That said, Carpenter still went on to make some good pictures. I've always liked 'Prince of Darkness' and have grown to to like 'At the Mouth of Madness'. But, they're nowhere near the level of intensity that 'The Thing' had. I've even come to like some of his films that I hated, like, 'They Live' and 'Big Trouble in Little China'.

[Neil]

have grown to to like 'At the Mouth of Madness'. I've even come to like some of his films that I hated, like, 'They Live' and 'Big Trouble in Little China'.
I've always enjoyed "They Live" and "Big Trouble In Little China" in a fun campy sort of way. But never never liked "At The Mouth Of Madness". I recall going all the way upto London to see it especially, and feeling utterly let down.

Maybe I need to give it another watch...

[krisvds]

Argento was never that great. I was always amazed at the kudos he received.
.

To my taste Suspiria and Profondo Rosso are two of the greatest horrorfilms ever made. Those two films cemented his reputation I believe. I guess it's an acquired taste but wether you like those films or not there's no denying the sublime photography and use of lighting. Especially in Suspiria.

Where Carpenter is concerned, if memory serves me right The Thing wasn't all that well received when it first came out. Didn't it take the VHS years for it to be recognised as the obvious masterpiece it really is?

[JonOfTheShred]

Woah woah woah, let's not get ahead of ourselves and dog Escape From LA. Both Escape From movies kicked a whole lot of ass. I don't care if it almost seems like a satirical remake of NY, LA kicks ass too! That set design was epic as f*ck and the action was good too. NY felt way more horror, but I still enjoy the over-the-top action vibe of LA.

[AcesandEights]

Woah woah woah, let's not get ahead of ourselves and dog Escape From LA.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b205/DougOBrien/castle-umm.gif

[Suicycho]

These directors start buying their own hype and get an over-exaggerated sense of their own importance.

Romero bought into the hype about how "political" his films were and how they made a "statement" so set out to make a very political film and make a statement with land. He should have set out to make an entertaining zombie movie first with sly political subtext and insinuation thrown in. Instead, the entire movie is political allegory and symbolism, and really has nothing to do with zombies which is why the story is so illogical and ridiculous.

[shootemindehead]

To my taste Suspiria and Profondo Rosso are two of the greatest horrorfilms ever made. Those two films cemented his reputation I believe. I guess it's an acquired taste but wether you like those films or not there's no denying the sublime photography and use of lighting. Especially in Suspiria.

Where Carpenter is concerned, if memory serves me right The Thing wasn't all that well received when it first came out. Didn't it take the VHS years for it to be recognised as the obvious masterpiece it really is?

'Suspiria' is decent, if stupid. I own both that and 'Deep Red' and they are the only pictures of his I can say that I will watch again. But, having seen all of his output, I can honestly say that I have never been THAT impressed.

He has a nice little shop in Rome though. :)

Yes, 'The Thing' was shredded when it came out. Feck knows why, as even as a child I could recognise its classic status. You're correct, it took years of video to get it where it truly belonged. But, Carpenter became known as "failure" pretty much, because of it and I truly believed it damaged him.

I happen to really like John Carpenter. He comes across as honest and truthful in his interviews. He lacks the bollocks talk that a lot of directors indulge in. He seems a genuine guy. It's just unfortunate that his reputation is not bigger than it is.

[Wyldwraith]

The problem with John Carpenter's VAMPIRE$ was the utterly crucial element from the novel they simply deleted in the movie.
Ie: Wounds inflicted by silver could not be regenerated by vampires in the novel. This lead the team leader to go in search of an excellent gunman to join the team, which provided another major character to give a damn about.

I totally agree the massacre at the movie's beginning was the undoing of the film. These guys are supposedly veteran vampire-hunters, and they were aware that a nest as large as the one they eradicated is ALMOST NEVER just abandoned by the master vampire that created it. So the team leader (James Woods) just ignores his major misgivings and lets his guys party hearty a stone's throw from the eradication-site. It didn't make sense, because if that team were prone to reckless risk-taking of that nature they never would've lasted long enough to become veterans.

The entire treatment the plot received during the movie made it abundantly clear Carpenter didn't care and was content to see his work land in the mire of the direct-to-DVD films.

I also agree that poor initial reactions by audiences to a director's initial work can be creatively scarring. What's more disturbing however, is how homogenous the horror scene has become. Dozens of Paranormal Activity-Clones, masses of malevolent haunting where the ghosts are seen (ala The Conjuring)....and not much else. Directors don't dare be different from the masses of established mediocrity-to-crap pushers, so it becomes a closed-loop cycle.