I still havent seen it

[Cody]

Should I?

[jdog]

if you are a fan of GAR dead movies i say see it.
sure it maybe a little more hollywood then the others, but it still has that GAR charm that we all love.

[panic]

Given all the contrversy over LOTD, its unlikely that you'll go into it with the kind of expectations a lot of us had when it was first released. If you're expecting an over-the-top zombie flick with a budget you won't be disappointed. Some of us that were expecting something on par with Day and Dawn came out of our first viewing pretty disappointed. On the other hand, many die hard GAR fans loved it from the start. See it and let us know what you think!

~panic

[MinionZombie]

I personally absolutely loved it, but for a guy who hasn't seen it yet the best piece of advice I can give is, well for one see it, but the advice would be is to go in expecting absolutely nothing from it. You can be psyched about seeing it, but don't expect to see anything in the movie - I've found time and again, as soon as you start expecting a movie to be a certain way, you're going to be disappointed.

So clear your mind and watch it like that, then you'll get the best experience out of it and not fall into the trap that many folk here did - expecting certain things of it.

I went in expecting nothing, I was just really excited to finally get to see a GAR flick in the cinema on opening night, and I freakin' loved it.

[DjfunkmasterG]

If you have no pre-conceived expectations on how the film should be then you might get more out of it.

Like Minion and others have said, for 20 years we sat and thought what LOTD should look like and some of us got what we hoped for, and others didn't.

I felt let down and honestly I could go on for paragraphs at all the issues I had with LOTD. However, I think you should just plop down the $4.00, rent it and make your own decision. If you hate it, it was only $4.00 you spent to rent it, if you liked it then you could go out and buy the DVD for $14.99. It is already in the bargain racks at Circuit city. It should hit the $5.00 bin by this halloween.

[bassman]

It's really a 50/50 chance. About half of us here enjoy it and about half don't. I think Minion gave the best advice. That way you can decide fairly which half you want to side with:shifty:

Myself, I liked it. Not the best of Romero's films by any means, but a good flick. Especially after some of the other crap that's been tossed at us(Yawn04). I actually enjoy it alittle more each time I watch it...

[Cody]

I'll rent it, the plot seems good and one of my favourite actors is in it

[erisi236]

out of every zombie movie ever made it's at least in the top 30 :rockbrow:

[panic]

BLUNT,

Remeber to come back and tell us what you thought.

~panic

[DjfunkmasterG]

BLUNT,

Remeber to come back and tell us what you thought.

~panic


Yes, I would like to hear your opinion on it.

[Scousezombie]

There were various things about the film that I didn't like, but if you like this genre at all I'm sure you will be glad you saw it, just dont expect it to be like the previous three films. As has been said elsewhere, it's a much more mainstream film, and more amusing than frightening.

[HLS]

Yes you should but it is not as good as you might expect.

[Zombieapocalypse]

I'll rent it, the plot seems good and one of my favourite actors is in it

Who is that?

[Svengoolie]

I'd say rent it...and if you like it, wait till it's in the bargain basement bins instead of forking over the 20 bones most places want for it right now.

It's the David Hasselhoff of zombie flicks--at best, a joke in the USA...and at worst, a piece of dog crap; but almost universally loved abroad.:D

[shannon-the-zombie]

Of course you should get the DVD and watch it!! :skull:

[DjfunkmasterG]

So BLUNT...


Have you watched BLAND of the DEAD yet?


Since the DAWn remake haters are continuing to refer to a Kick ass action remake as Yawn 04, might as well call Land what it really was... :evil:

[Svengoolie]

He's probably in a coma after seeing that they're still using money after the zombie apocalypse.

In a world where the dead are returning to life, the word "trouble"...and the concept of a bank note....loses much of its meaning.:rolleyes: :D

[Harold W Brown]

I'd say rent it...and if you like it, wait till it's in the bargain basement bins instead of forking over the 20 bones most places want for it right now.

It's the David Hasselhoff of zombie flicks--at best, a joke in the USA...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/land_of_the_dead/

[DjfunkmasterG]

A review I can agree with...


"Land of the Dead is easily the worst of Romero's four zombie movies, and clearly should have never been made."

-- Chuck O'Leary, FANTASTICA DAILY

[Harold W Brown]

Speaking of yawn...

You still upset? Are you maybe mad because you were cut out of the movie or something?:lol: You spend more time on this movie than I spend on my absolute favorte films.


A review I can agree with...


"Land of the Dead is easily the worst of Romero's four zombie movies, and clearly should have never been made."

-- Chuck O'Leary, FANTASTICA DAILY

And hell, we can do that all day, and I'll bet you a dollar I can find someone more well-respected than "Chuck O'Leary" who liked it. Chuck O'Leary is YOU, for all we know.

I was countering the "at best a joke in the USA" remark with a link to a page that shows Land scoring 74% positive reviews on that site. Next you might think "Reviews don't mean jack", to which I would have to respond "Keep that in mind when you read all the haters on here...." :moon:

[Tullaryx]

Man, makes it sound like Land of the Dead is worst than House of the Dead.

[Harold W Brown]

DJFunk wasn't edited out of House of the Dead, so he's probably not as angry with it...:lol:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Speaking of yawn...

You still upset? Are you maybe mad because you were cut out of the movie or something?

As I have told other asswipes my scenes were not cut, they are still there on the rated and Unrated DVD's. However, it is my opinion. Just like it is yours to like the film. So if you wanna join the rest of the asswipes and get in line I can go back and forth with you all day.

So go back your asskissing worship of BLAND and I will continue my like for Yawn.

[Tullaryx]

Ahh but what of those who like both Bland and Yawn?

[DjfunkmasterG]

Ahh but what of those who like both Bland and Yawn?


What about them?


I have no issues with anyone who likes either film... until they slam one film for things but overlook the same bad things in the other. Double standards in reviewing a movie based on Key elements is Bullsh*t.

Don't slam DAWN 04 for acting when you got Big Daddy howling like a hooker being bitch slapped by her pimp.

[Tullaryx]

What about them?


I have no issues with anyone who likes either film... until they slam one film for things but overlook the same bad things in the other. Double standards in reviewing a movie based on Key elements is Bullsh*t.

Don't slam DAWN 04 for acting when you got Big Daddy howling like a hooker being bitch slapped by her pimp.

I like both for the things they got right and did well. But then they both have glaring flaws. I really just to ignore them and concentrate on the good. It's why I can't stand House of the Dead. There really wasn't anything good to concentrate on and distract me from all that was godawful bad.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I like both for the things they got right and did well. But then they both have glaring flaws. I really just to ignore them and concentrate on the good. It's why I can't stand House of the Dead. There really wasn't anything good to concentrate on and distract me from all that was godawful bad.


Agreed, House of the Dead is just the worst film, but I still think Children of the Dead is worse.

[Tullaryx]

Agreed, House of the Dead is just the worst film, but I still think Children of the Dead is worse.

I think I lost a couple thousand brain cells when the Aisan chick in the Star-Spangled Banner bodysuit outfit started doing Matrix kung fu on the zombies.

[DjfunkmasterG]

:D But you have to admit she had a nice body....

[Harold W Brown]

As I have told other asswipes my scenes were not cut, they are still there on the rated and Unrated DVD's. However, it is my opinion. Just like it is yours to like the film. So if you wanna join the rest of the asswipes and get in line I can go back and forth with you all day.

So go back your asskissing worship of BLAND and I will continue my like for Yawn.

Screw this. I apologize for teasing you. It seems like EVERY thread has at least one post of you chiming in with hating Land. I really am perplexed by the PASSION you have for hating the movie. There's got to be more to it than just not liking the film. I'm not baiting, or arguing, I really am curious. Did you have a bad experience with the production? Weren't you making a site for Romero at some point, or am I confusing you with someone else? I haven't been super-involved with the boards for a few months.

Anyway, I just was curious to know more about WHY you're so venomous about it, rather than just walking away, the way I did with, say, the Star Wars prequels. Hated them; don't feel the need to talk about them.

Again, sorry for the jokes about you being cut out. Didn't realize it'd upset you so much. Have a great day!

[Tullaryx]

:D But you have to admit she had a nice body....

Yeah, but in the end it got touched by zombie hands. I ain't having zombie sloppy seconds!

[Svengoolie]

I was countering the "at best a joke in the USA" remark with a link to a page that shows Land scoring 74% positive reviews on that site. Next you might think "Reviews don't mean jack", to which I would have to respond "Keep that in mind when you read all the haters on here...."

I made the Hasselhoff reference because Land was a resounding box office failure in the United States--the only way it was able to break even, let alone make the extremely modest profit it did, was in its overseas business.

I'd buy into what you're saying about Land being accepted in the USA if the box office figures were a lot better...;)

The website whose link you posted shows Land scoring 74% positive reviews on that site--those figures can easily be inflated by supporters of the film, as we've seen at IMDB countless times. In fact, IMDB gave the Dawn remake a higher rating than GAR's "masterpiece"--so by your rationale, does that make it a better...or at least more popular...zombie flick?:p

[Harold W Brown]

I made the Hasselhoff reference because Land was a resounding box office failure in the United States--the only way it was able to break even, let alone make the extremely modest profit it did, was in its overseas business.

I'd buy into what you're saying about Land being accepted in the USA if the box office figures were a lot better...;)

The website whose link you posted shows Land scoring 74% positive reviews on that site--those figures can easily be inflated by supporters of the film, as we've seen at IMDB countless times. In fact, IMDB gave the Dawn remake a higher rating than GAR's "masterpiece"--so by your rationale, does that make it a better...or at least more popular...zombie flick?:p

1: Yes, because money always equals quality. I hear "Failure to Launch" was awesome....

2: And no, rottentomatoes gathers existing reviews from dozens of legitimate critics, including Variety, Rolling Stone, the NY Times, etc. It's not a placewhere 12 year old gorehounds can vote for movies. It's a round-up of many reviews from many outlets. Your comparison to IMDB doesn't hold.

[Tullaryx]

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

[bassman]

Hey Sven, I'm pretty sure that the 74% is based on critic reviews and not fans or everyday folk like you or I.

And in many cases, because a film doesn't do so well at the box office doesn't mean that it's a bad or horrible film. Hell..."Night" is one of those that didn't do so well here in the states at first.

And about IMDB giving "Yawn04" a higher rating than "Land", it also scored a 78% on Rottentomatoes where "Land" had 74%.:shifty:

It's all opinion and it's about split down the middle. About half like "Yawn" and not "Land", and about half like "Land" and not "Yawn"(i'm in this group...obviously). And it's not that I refuse to ever watch "Yawn" again or anything like that....it's just my personal opinion that it's not a very good film. I can watch it again as I'm sure I will. Just as I'm sure eventually you "Land" haters will see "Land" again. It still amazes me that this argument is still happening almost a year after "Land" was released.

No group is going to change the other's minds. We might as well learn to agree to disagree and live with other's opinions.

And after all....."Obla Di, Obla Da....life goes on":D

[Svengoolie]

1: Yes, because money always equals quality. I hear "Failure to Launch" was awesome....

2: And no, rottentomatoes gathers existing reviews from dozens of legitimate critics, including Variety, Rolling Stone, the NY Times, etc. It's not a placewhere 12 year old gorehounds can vote for movies. It's a round-up of many reviews from many outlets. Your comparison to IMDB doesn't hold.

1. Regardless....it wasn't what the people wanted to see, and the film failed in the US--no matter how many positive reviews you try to dig up. Times have changed, and GAR hasn't. Even a good portion of his die-hard fans came out to blast Land...

2. Rottentomatoes gathers reviews from legitimate critics...and it also features a user's rating right next to the critic's figures. That's what I was mentioning--and the comparison does hold up in that respect.

BTW...it also shows the Dawn Remake as being superior to Land at Rottentomatoes! Thanks for the link, Harold!:D

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dawn_of_the_dead/

[Harold W Brown]

Sigh.

I've never really involved myself in the Land vs Dawn 04 debate. The 74% positive, legit reviews of Land counter your point about it being "at best, a joke in the USA...". It received, on average, three good reviews for every bad one.

Yes, Dawn04 was well received critically as well. Younger people seem to like it more than Land, or even the original Dawn.

Some folks can't, nor should they be asked to, separate their personal feelings from the films. Many folks built up Land so much in their minds that they couldn't help but be let down. I was so excited to see Romero - a man I've met, spoken with, admire and respect - get to make another film that I was definitely going to cut the film some slack. I didn't want to see the movie in my head with romero's name on it. I wanted to see what Romero had to show me. What I liked outweighed what I didn't.

We won't be putting any of these particular debates to rest for about 20 years. Then we can see who's still talking about what films. Until then, the discussion continues...

[Tullaryx]

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

[Svengoolie]

I've never really involved myself in the Land vs Dawn 04 debate. The 74% positive, legit reviews of Land counter your point about it being "at best, a joke in the USA...". It received, on average, three good reviews for every bad one.

Nevertheless--you've just spent the last hour or so in an online debate/argument which started when you tried to use numbers to counter a remark made in sarcasm.

Personally, I could care less about the man himself--it's the films that count, and I'm able to separate the man from his work.

And, in the case of Land, that work failed to live up to expectations.

[Harold W Brown]

Nevertheless--you've just spent the last hour or so in an online debate/argument which started when you tried to use numbers to counter a remark made in sarcasm.

...that has nothing to do with what we're talking about, though. I don't understand what you're saying.

[Svengoolie]

The point is, you went on this crusade to justify Land's quality because of this statement, obviously made in jest (that's what the smiley is for):


I'd say rent it...and if you like it, wait till it's in the bargain basement bins instead of forking over the 20 bones most places want for it right now.

It's the David Hasselhoff of zombie flicks--at best, a joke in the USA...and at worst, a piece of dog crap; but almost universally loved abroad.

Was this entire exchange necessary? I don't think so...not over an obvious joke.


The 74% positive, legit reviews of Land counter your point about it being "at best, a joke in the USA...".

You're trying to make it out like my "at best, a joke in the USA" was a serious point I was trying to make, when it wasn't.

Understand?

[bassman]

And, in the case of Land, that work failed to live up to expectations.


I believe this is one of the things that hurt "Land" from the start. People went in expecting to see a film that they had imagined in their heads for twenty years rather than the film that Romero wanted to show.

With "Dawn04"(that's right...I called it "Dawn" rather than "Yawn", simply because I want to do my part to cut back on this damn bickering) I think most people didn't have high hopes because it was, after all, a remake of a sacred film. So when people went in to see it, they were surprised that it was a decent action flick and were pleased with what Gunn and Snyder had accomplished out of what most fans thought was sure to be a flop.(I wasn't around here when Dawn04 was released - I think, but I have a feeling that when the information was first released of the remake, not too many fans were happy about it).

Now cut to when "Land" was released:

"The next film by George A. Romero!!! ALRIGHT....I've been waiting for this for 20 some-odd years! I'll be at the first show on opening day!"

I'm sure this was what most people had in mind as they entered the theater for "Land".


So I guess what i'm trying to say is, the majority of fans were ready for a let-down in "Dawn04" but they got a decent action flick. At the same time, Many fans were ready for Romero's "Masterpiece"(dumb@$$ people in marketing...) and were welcoming it with open arms only to have themselves let down because it was, after all, what none of has had really expected and definitely NOT a masterpiece.

So at this point, why argue about it? I mean, we all have our own opinions so why can't we be open-minded to other's. Like I've said, I'm not a fan of "Dawn04" but I can see what good it has in it. Just like I can see what some people find as negatives in "Land". It's all chalked up to opinions at this point. Which, let's face it, the world would be horrible if EVERYONE had the same opinions...

This is my two cents on the "Land"/"Dawn04" debate...take it or leave it. In the words of Nick Hexum of "311" - "....if you don't like it well.....I hope you do"

[Tullaryx]

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

[Harold W Brown]

Understand?

Yep.

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

[Svengoolie]

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

Not at all.

I'm posting my opinion...one that is shared by others on this very forum.

And, judging by the reactionary way you're following me from thread to thread, trying constantly to counter my opinions and nitpick just about anything I might say about ol' moss-back George--it looks like you're the one trying to get a rise out of me.

[DjfunkmasterG]

It could be contrued as that, but there are those of us whom have legitimate gripes about the film. Whereas the gripes about DAWN 2004 are the fact it was called DAWN of the DEAD, but was nothing like DAWN of the DEAD.


FYI, The version of DAWN 2004 you have on DVD and saw in theaters is the version shot from the Scott Frank Re-write. I have all 3 versions of the script. James Gunn's Original, Michael Tolkins Re-write and Scott Franks. James Gunn's script was the basis for the film which is why he got the credit in the opening credits and the poster... (Stupid WGA rules) however, word for word, and scene for scene was from the Scott Frank Re-write. He just took out all the campy dialogue from Gunns version and goofy moments and made them more realistic and too fit the parameters of the $26 million dollar budget.

James only had the idea for the mall as it is, the character of Ana, Kenneth, and Michael. His other characters were deleted and new characters were born (Steve, CJ, Bart and Mekhi's character) They were not in the James Gunn draft that I remember, but showed up in the MT and SF re-writes.

They could have taken other characters from JG's script and tweaked them, but they were not who they are now. :D

[Svengoolie]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, even when they don't correspond to those of their peers.

I've had lots of good things to say about the original NOTLD and Dawn...but I don't feel the need to say that Land was a masterpiece, or that Dawn 04 was a piece of crap...just to pay a kind of lip service to the man who made those two films. And, not liking Land doesn't make me any less a fan of the original NOTLD or Dawn. Just like the fact that I enjoyed the Dawn remake doesn't make me any less a fan of the original NOTLD or Dawn.

We became fans of the flicks, and of the genre, not because we decided we liked GAR the man...but because of the films themselves. And, like alot of the fans of those originals, I didn't like Land because it's a bad film. If it had been good, I'd praise it just as much as the originals. But it wasn't, so I won't.

[bassman]

Interesting bit of info there, DJ.

And see, you say that the people who don't like "Dawn04" very much is only because of the name. This isn't true....not in my case at least and I know there's a few others that feel the same.

I'm not going to get into what precisely I don't like about the film because I've done that about 10,000 times, but it's not the name. The name did bug me at first but watching it recently, the name has nothing to do with it.

And see, I could turn this around and say that alot of people dislike "Land" only because it was labeled as a "masterpiece" in the advertising. I've heard alot of people say this just like you've heard people gripe about the name "Dawn of the Dead", but in reality....those two factors have nothing to do with the films. It's all in our own opinions and I just think it's ridiculous that people are arguing childishly over this....

I'm not a big fan of "Dawn04" but I will watch it. I'll show it to friends. Hell, there's been a few occasions when I've been going through my DVD rack on my own and just decided, "Hey, i'm in the mood for this". And whether you want to admit it or not, I have a strong feeling that you have or will do the same things with "Land".


We became fans of the flicks, and of the genre, not because we decided we liked GAR the man...but because of the films themselves. And, like alot of the fans of those originals, I didn't like Land because it's a bad film. If it had been good, I'd praise it just as much as the originals. But it wasn't, so I won't.

But why argue about it though, man? I could say the same thing that you just said except I could replace it with "Dawn04". And "Land" isn't a horrible film. It's a bad film to you. Just as I know that "Dawn" isn't a horrible film...It's just not good to me.

All I'm saying is that I respect where those who dislike "Land" are coming from but I don't understand why they don't respect where those who like "Land" are coming from. Because, as I've said, although it's my personal opinion that "Dawn04" isn't that great, there are certain aspects of it that are good and although I do think "Land" is worthy to be called an entry in the "Dead Saga", I can see the flaws that it has. "Big Daddy" is the worst....whew. Someone needed to teach that big fella the ways to act like a zombie:rockbrow: ...

[Harold W Brown]

Never mind.

[Svengoolie]

But why argue about it though, man? I could say the same thing that you just said except I could replace it with "Dawn04". And "Land" isn't a horrible film. It's a bad film to you. Just as I know that "Dawn" isn't a horrible film...It's just not good to me.

I stated my opinions...and those opinions were challenged in an increasingly confrontational manner. Hence, the argument/debate.

And, I stand by those opinions.

Throughout this forum, here and there, I've not only stated my opinions...but have given reasons as to why I feel that way, about certain films or aspects of those films. But, most of what I've seen in response are posts that are either attacks, or posts that border on attacks.

And, nevertheless....we're discussing all of this. That's what a discussion board is for.


All I'm saying is that I respect where those who dislike "Land" are coming from but I don't understand why they don't respect where those who like "Land" are coming from

I respect other people's opinions just fine. You haven't seen me take things to a personal level anywhere in this forum, yet. I haven't even called anyone "sweetheart" or "chief" or "kid" or told them to "move on". I've kept things entirely civil.

[bassman]

I guess Harold put it best..."Nevermind". Some people are just closed minded.

And just so you know, "chief" and all that stuff wasn't meant as an insult, buddy.

[Svengoolie]

I guess Harold put it best..."Nevermind". Some people are just closed minded.


I'm not being closed minded at all. As a matter of fact, I'm very open minded....I'm able to be a fan of both GAR's shamblers AND the runners of 28 Days and Dawn 04, remember?:D

My mind's just made up.

I gave Land five chances, total--3 at the theater, and twice on DVD.....which is more than it deserved, and more chances than I've ever given ANY film I've disliked on the first viewing. And, it only got worse with each sit down.

Instead of giving us something new and original...instead of giving us a fresh take on the genre...all GAR did was give us an updated rehash of the original script for Day, only with the zombies as metaphors for the Arab world (instead of the homeless) thrown in to make it seem more relevant on the "social commentary" scale.

On the whole, it was a failure. The performances were horrid--Simon Baker's performance was as bland as Joe Pilato's was over the top; and Robert Joy oughtta be ashamed of himself. Except for the Mexican rap from that midget's whorehouse, the soundtrack was entirely forgettable. As usual, the it lags in places, and the plot (such as it was) had holes you could drive Dead Reckoning through....and most of those holes were there just to get the zombies eating, which has always been the bread and butter of the series. In terms of dialogue, it's up to GAR's usual poor standard of profanity and racial stereotypes, and the rest is usually non-representative of the characters speaking it. I could go on and on, but by now you're not even listening, anyway.

GAR laid a turd on us with this one. But, just because that turd came out of GAR's rectum, alot of the "fans" feel we have to accept it and praise it.....regardless of how they probably REALLY feel about it inside.

But, as Harry said...and then as you said....nevermind.;)

[Arcades057]

I remember leaving the theater disappointed with Dawn '04, but not nearly as much as I was with Land. The reason why the disparity is simple: One was not touted as a masterpiece. Dawn was said to be a remake of a horror classic, which it was. Not at all on par with the original, not nearly, but a good zombie movie nonetheless. Would it have been better with the shamblers, no doubt, but the movie would've been entirely different, and maybe not in a good way.

The thing is, Land was touted as a masterpiece, which it most assuredly was not. Was it a good zombie movie, a soon-to-be-priceless addition to any zombie lover's collection, no doubt about it. Was it a good movie on its own merits, having nothing to do with GAR? No, it was not. The acting was terrible, the script was almost as bad as the new SW trilogy, and the entire movie, as said by SvenGoolie, was devoted to knocking Bush and the rich while making terrorists out to seem like missunderstand anti-heroes. Had this movie been made, say, in the late nineties or even early '01maybe I would like it just a little bit more. As it stands, because of these things, I do not like it nearly as much as Dawn '04 (only the director's cut), and nowhere near as much as any of the original three.

There are many things that, dare I say it, need to be fixed before I can call this movie even among the top three of the series. Will I ever watch it again? Undoubtedly. But I'll watch it for the same reasons I sit through Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones to get to Revenge of the Sith: Just because I feel that I have to.

[Trioxin245]

"The Legendary Filmmaker Brings You His Ultimate Zombie Masterpiece"

It was all one fat lie.

[Svengoolie]

I remember leaving the theater disappointed with Dawn '04, but not nearly as much as I was with Land. The reason why the disparity is simple: One was not touted as a masterpiece. Dawn was said to be a remake of a horror classic, which it was. Not at all on par with the original, not nearly, but a good zombie movie nonetheless. Would it have been better with the shamblers, no doubt, but the movie would've been entirely different, and maybe not in a good way.


I didn't know anything about the Dawn remake until about ten days before it's debut. No bs. I walked into that theater expecting either a NOTLD 90 style send up of the original, or a retro redux, like the TCM remake a few months before. Although I didn't get the climactic motorcycle raid on the mall, I still enjoyed the hell out of what I got...and look forward to a sequel, which is more than I can say for Land.


The thing is, Land was touted as a masterpiece, which it most assuredly was not. Was it a good zombie movie, a soon-to-be-priceless addition to any zombie lover's collection, no doubt about it. Was it a good movie on its own merits, having nothing to do with GAR? No, it was not. The acting was terrible, the script was almost as bad as the new SW trilogy, and the entire movie, as said by SvenGoolie, was devoted to knocking Bush and the rich while making terrorists out to seem like missunderstand anti-heroes. Had this movie been made, say, in the late nineties or even early '01maybe I would like it just a little bit more. As it stands, because of these things, I do not like it nearly as much as Dawn '04 (only the director's cut), and nowhere near as much as any of the original three.


That's a funny statement, there. It's like you're saying that the only thing that makes it worthwhile...its only redeeming quality...is the fact that it's a GAR flick.

What does the fact that GAR made Land have to do with its overall quality?

If, like in some Bizzarro World or something, John Russo suddenly came out with the best zombie flick of all time...I wouldn't care that it had John-boy's name on it. I'd still hail it for what it is. Same thing for the Dawn remake--I enjoyed it for what it was....and I could care less that it was written by the guy who wrote Scooby Doo or directed by a guy who's got nothing but commercials and music videos to his credit prior to the remake.

I think we should concentrate on what's being made, instead of who's making it.


There are many things that, dare I say it, need to be fixed before I can call this movie even among the top three of the series. Will I ever watch it again? Undoubtedly. But I'll watch it for the same reasons I sit through Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones to get to Revenge of the Sith: Just because I feel that I have to.

Why do you feel you have to?

Your thoughts, kemosabe...:D

[Arcades057]

Well, as I said, Sven, I didn't like the movie. The only redeeming quality that makes it stick out in anyone's mind are the words "GEORGE A. ROMERO'S" before the title. That is the only thing that distinguishes Land from another crappy CGI zombie movie, like Undead. Does that make the movie better, since it's coming from the self-professed master of the genre? Hell no it doesn't. The GEORGE A. ROMERO is the only quality that anyone who likes the movie will latch onto to defend it.

As for the rest, I don't know why I feel I have to watch the crappy movies before Sith, I just do! :)

[Svengoolie]

Gotcha.;)

I wonder what would have happened if the exact same movie had been released as "John Russo's Land of the Dead" or "Zack Snyder's Land of the Dead" instead of "George A Romero's Land of the Dead".

Would the die hard GAR fans still defend it as the high quality zombie piece wrought with social commentary that they claim it is...or would they blast it for being the chunk of crap the nay-sayers called it as?

What do you think?

[Arcades057]

You know it'd be another "Yawn '04", with the fanboys criticizing it. I think we would have liked it more had it not been a GAR film. Without all the hype it may have stood out a little more.

And, of course, had GAR made Dawn '04 the same people knocking it and backing Land would pull a reverse and back the other. It's all the same, man.

[Harold W Brown]

I think we would have liked it more had it not been a GAR film.

No doubt.:lol:

[bassman]

Well, as I said, Sven, I didn't like the movie. The only redeeming quality that makes it stick out in anyone's mind are the words "GEORGE A. ROMERO'S" before the title. That is the only thing that distinguishes Land from another crappy CGI zombie movie, like Undead. Does that make the movie better, since it's coming from the self-professed master of the genre? Hell no it doesn't. The GEORGE A. ROMERO is the only quality that anyone who likes the movie will latch onto to defend it.

As for the rest, I don't know why I feel I have to watch the crappy movies before Sith, I just do! :)

Not true at all....

[Svengoolie]

Not true at all....


No offense, bassman...but that honestly sounds like whistling past a graveyard.:rolleyes:

One thing I've noticed throughout this entire Dead crisis is that the guys that hated Land are able to give a thousand valid reasons why it was a bad movie, and that the supporters are defending it just because it's a GAR flick...without giving many (if any) reasons why it's supposedly a quality installment. Usually, when the "fans" come out to support Land, what I'm seeing is a move similar to yours (people just saying "that's not true" or "there's nothing wrong with that flick"), or the person submitting the negative review flamed or just ignored altogether.

Give us some reasons why you feel that sentiment is in error.

[Trioxin245]

Not true at all....


Its Super true.

:p

[bassman]

I've given my reasons, as well have others around here. No point in doing it again....search around the board if you really want to know.

But I give you my word that I don't enjoy the film simply because it's Romero's. That really means nothing to me. It's just a matter of opinion(again)

But really, do you guys have nothing better to do than come here and rag on people that enjoy a movie that you don't? Go watch Dawn04 and be happy. I'll go watch Land and be happy. Problem solved. This is no big deal...

[Svengoolie]

I've given my reasons, as well have others around here. No point in doing it again....search around the board if you really want to know.

But I give you my word that I don't enjoy the film simply because it's Romero's. That really means nothing to me. It's just a matter of opinion(again)

Come on, now...it's stuff like this that a discussion board is for!:D

Oh, well...the Prosecution rests, Your Honor.:sneaky:

[bassman]

True, this is what a message board is for. But It's been done to death.(no pun intended)

Because you're new around here, I'll help you out. In the top right corner of your screen you will see a word that says "Search". Click on it and then look for the answers that you want(and that have been given numerous times).

That's all for my HPotD Lessons today:p

[Svengoolie]

But really, do you guys have nothing better to do than come here and rag on people that enjoy a movie that you don't? Go watch Dawn04 and be happy. I'll go watch Land and be happy. Problem solved. This is no big deal...

Ahh...you slipped that last bit on while I was responding!

Once again--that's unnecessarily rude.

Do we have nothing better to do than come here and rag on people that enjoy a movie that we don't?

Well, my response to that is:

Do YOU people have nothing better to do than come here and rag on people that hate a movie that you don't?

No one's ragging on anybody. We're having a discussion...and this side has been decidedly non-personal in this difference of opinion. I wish we could say the same for the Land supporters.

Now, since I guess you must be an old hand around here, I'll help you out. If what we're saying somehow threatens you, or your opinions of the films, go to your User CP and add us to your "Ignore" list. That way you won't have to be bothered, anymore.

That's all for my HPotD Lessons today:p

[bassman]

Alright, buddy....whatever you say.

[Trioxin245]

When theres no more responses left to give, the "whatever" will haunt the board.

[bassman]

When theres no more responses left to give, the "whatever" will haunt the board.


:lol:

[panic]

First off, I did enjoy Dawn '04, but Day and Dawn '78 are still the masterworks in my book.

Here's my biggest problem with Land: It felt forced.

Romero has said in many interviews that he's proud of the fact that his films reflect a criticism of the culture/time when they were released. Much has been made of the rampant anti-consumerism in Dawn '78 and the bleak, anti-authority/anti-military perspective of Day. In Land it seems that GAR was trying to say something about the ever-widening gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" and the destructive effect of that our focus on the accumulation of wealth has on society.

As many have pointed out, the focus on money in Land was ridiculously distracting. It just strains credibility well beyond the breaking point that paper money (or gold, gems, and jewelry for that matter) would have any value in a scenario like the one envisioned in Land.

Likewise, the whole evolving zombie thing was WAY too heavy-handed. The subtle and philosophical "we're them and they're us" perspective from the prior films was bowled over by Big Daddy's yodeling ascent to sentience. The whole idea is just stupid.

I still love GAR and his trilogy.

~panic