does Land kinda blow?

[DEAD BEAT]

i was just as stoked about Land coming out as anyother fan,i followed the progress for about a year from when i heard romero was just starting the script and although i will say that it was an interesting movie and with the exception of dennis hopper and john lenguzamo they didnt cast the lead with over exposed actors but a couple things did bug me:

1) i didnt like gas station zombie his screams were terrible and show the dead how to shot humans instead of eating them?
(i dont like my zombies smart)

2) this is the capper i truely thought the beginning was going to do a quick timeline starting frm the begining maybe even showing clips from the first three movies i thought the beginning was 2 short and not dark enough!

anyone with me on these?:rockbrow:

[bassman]

http://www.homepageofthedead.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=168


By the way...I like your avatar of Marty Feldman. Funny guy.

[radiokill]

Well, a long, dark beginning is to what we are all used to. You can't blame George for trying to change the format. However, I agree with you about the smart zombies. Some people argure that they are scarier. I think that with mental ability comes mental weakness. The fact that they will try to eat you without concern of losing more limbs nor any other further injury is what I love about 'em. Yeah, Land kinda blew the first time I watched it, but I love it now. There's a long-standing thread about this debate in the Land of the Dead section. I never got involved in that discussion, but that's my stance.

Oh, and I think of Big Daddy as being "on the rag" a lot while I'm watching Land.

[radiokill]

By the way...I like your avatar of Marty Feldman. Funny guy.

"Walk this way....like this" :lol: :lol: :lol:

[capncnut]

i thought the beginning was 2 short and not dark enough!

Personally, I thought Land was the darkest episode since Night.

And the Feldman avatar does indeed rock! :D

[The Alive Man]

LAND... ehm, let me think for while... ehm... LAND... ehm...

Okay:

I'm here because LAND.

Is it satisfying as answer?

[deadpunk]

Land is a bit of a borderline action movie. I think that is the general turnoff.

[Danny]

yeah i agree, this is the only zombie movie were i wantd more zombie and less people interacting.

definatly had the odour of a "sci-fi" origional in it. not saying its a bad film i just expected the likes of dean cain and that vander beak guy to pop up.

[The Alive Man]

Land is a bit of a borderline action movie. I think that is the general turnoff.

Not that much of action as people supposed it would have delivered.

[DVW5150]

The band in the gazebo was pricless ... I liked Big Daddy , he goes in the yarn of the zombie at the end of Dawn that trades guns , and Bub from Day . Its a natural progression according to GAR ... watch 'Land ' w/ the commentary , GAR explains this ...

[deadpunk]

Not that much of action as people supposed it would have delivered.

No...I strongly disagree. It was a natural progression for the films to take, but it was definately more action-y than the others.

[Kylefuller88]

tbh i thought land was more heoric then flesh eating zombie, just because there was a team that can save the day and everything will be ok, bit predictable tbh but it was good cause there is alot of ways they kill and eat there meals and how they learn to use things even tho it defiys being dead and not havent any way of learning new thing , Dead = Brain gone, futhermore i hated the fact that wen it finished the zombies walked away while if u were a zombie and everything was done then u keep eating lol

[Maitreya]

defiys being dead and not havent any way of learning new thing , Dead = Brain gone

Actually zombie = brain only thing still functioning

[Danny]

aye, if you thought otherwise why would the head /brain ine make any sense.

[HLS]

i was just as stoked about Land coming out as anyother fan,i followed the progress for about a year from when i heard romero was just starting the script and although i will say that it was an interesting movie and with the exception of dennis hopper and john lenguzamo they didnt cast the lead with over exposed actors but a couple things did bug me:

1) i didnt like gas station zombie his screams were terrible and show the dead how to shot humans instead of eating them?
(i dont like my zombies smart)

2) this is the capper i truely thought the beginning was going to do a quick timeline starting frm the begining maybe even showing clips from the first three movies i thought the beginning was 2 short and not dark enough!

anyone with me on these?:rockbrow:

I need to watch the movie again but I do not like my zombies smart as well. Zombie out for revenge? Oh please! He did not even eat anyone and that is a zombies primary instinct, the need to feed! And yes all the actors were overly exposed. The only actor I feel that actually fit his role was john lenguzamo.

[deadpunk]

futhermore i hated the fact that wen it finished the zombies walked away while if u were a zombie and everything was done then u keep eating

Couple this with the fact that Big Daddy never ate anyone, and it truly makes you wonder about Diary...:rockbrow: :skull: :shifty:

[MinionZombie]

http://www.homepageofthedead.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=168


By the way...I like your avatar of Marty Feldman. Funny guy.
Indeed, that thar is a long ass thread.

Now, my tuppence on Land. Indeed, I must rewatch it again (seen it a few times now) and it is indeed a very dark film ... perhaps more visually dark than thematically dark - Day of the Dead, now there's a thematically dark zombie movie.

As for Land - plain and simple - some people were expecting too much or expecting different things after 20 years between Day and Land. All of GAR's films have flaws and downsides due to the circumstances of their production, but I maintain that Land of the Dead is a kick ass film.

I had such a blast getting to see it opening night (UK - LAST place on the planet, except for the countries that banned it, to get it), I had so much fun watching it and it had been a while since I'd seen a GAR flick which caused me to have that much fun.

[The Alive Man]

Couple this with the fact that Big Daddy never ate anyone, and it truly makes you wonder about Diary...:rockbrow: :skull: :shifty:

So what's the point? :dead: He's the leader, the big boss. He doesn't need to prove to be a Living Dead... he's just there to kick some living ass...


Zombie out for revenge? Oh please! He did not even eat anyone and that is a zombies primary instinct, the need to feed! And yes all the actors were overly exposed. The only actor I feel that actually fit his role was john lenguzamo.

I don't agree. 1) their "instinct" should be taken with a grain of salt... they can avoid it, since some functions of the brain activated themselves again 2) REVENGE ???!??? Ah yes. Cool. 3) the actors were fantastic. Nothing compared to Simon, but enough good.

[coma]

Couple this with the fact that Big Daddy never ate anyone,...
He ate something. Dick. Buckets and buckets of dick.

Did you see the actors write up on imdb. He ahas like a billion credits. I thought he was new because he was so stupendouly lame/


3) the actors were fantastic. Nothing compared to Simon, but enough good.

Dude, get off the pipe.:) I bet you even the great god Baker has his doubts about his dubious "talent".

[capncnut]

Nothing compared to Simon, but enough good.


Dude, get off the pipe.:) I bet you even the great god Baker has his doubts about his dubious "talent".

Yeah, same goes for me too man. All this Baker butt-slurping is beginning to disturb me! :confused:

[Chaos]

I was disapointed in Land. I guess because I waited so long for Romero to make another dead movie that it couldn't possibly ever live up to the hype of the previous three movies. My expectations were high (I mean REALLY high) for Land and after going to the theatres and seeing it three times, and after purchasing the unrated DVD and watching it another twenty-five times, it left a bad taste in my mouth. Say what you want, but Land is definitely no Night, Dawn or Day.

It's a mediocre offering from an exceptional writer/director/creator of the modern zombie genre. Romero is still top dog in my book though. I just hope Diary delivers where Land failed.

[Philly_SWAT]

I was disapointed in Land. I guess because I waited so long for Romero to make another dead movie that it couldn't possibly ever live up to the hype of the previous three movies. My expectations were high (I mean REALLY high) for Land and after going to the theatres and seeing it three times, and after purchasing the unrated DVD and watching it another twenty-five times, it left a bad taste in my mouth. Say what you want, but Land is definitely no Night, Dawn or Day.

It's a mediocre offering from an exceptional writer/director/creator of the modern zombie genre. Romero is still top dog in my book though. I just hope Diary delivers where Land failed.

Like you, I was disappointed with Land after the first couple of viewings. But after a few more, I came to think that it is in fact a worthy GAR dead movie. There may have been a few things I wish were different....OK quite a few things, but still, all things considered, I think it is a good movie. Welcome to the board, btw.

[deadpunk]

Couple this with the fact that Big Daddy never ate anyone, and it truly makes you wonder about Diary...:rockbrow: :skull: :shifty:


So what's the point? :dead: He's the leader, the big boss. He doesn't need to prove to be a Living Dead... he's just there to kick some living ass...


Um...whatever, jerkoff. :|

Back to the topic at hand; Even more than the Loooooooong wait that set a build-up for LAND, let's not forget that we had finally been granted the ultimate cock-tease...A budget! Romero+Good Budget=Great Movie! Right?

Wrong. What a waste. Take out the price of the talents like Hopper and Leguizamo and give us the no-names we're used to. Spend that money on bribing Savini to come back...just come back for one more, Tom...

[The Alive Man]

LAND = supreme masterpiece.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Yes Land blows.

Land is everything a Romero film shouldn't be


It is too polished. (This is more the blame of film stock and todays film processing technology), but still to polished nonetheless.

Romero never threw his social commentary in your face like he does in Land. It was hidden int he cintext of the film. That film was so blatant it was painful to sit through.

LAND was too soft. His previous work was always gritty, edgy... But in LAND it was predictable. The biggest annoying factor is Big Daddy. He is the Jar Jar Binks of the Romero Zombie saga, and quite possibly one of the most annoying horror monsters to ever grace the silver screen. Tis a shame really. The script had so much promise.

[Danny]

The biggest annoying factor is Big Daddy. He is the Jar Jar Binks of the Romero Zombie saga, and quite possibly one of the most annoying horror monsters to ever grace the silver screen.

:lol: , so true man, so true.

[bassman]

.
Romero never threw his social commentary in your face like he does in Land. It was hidden int he cintext of the film. That film was so blatant it was painful to sit through.

LAND was too soft. His previous work was always gritty, edgy... But in LAND it was predictable. The biggest annoying factor is Big Daddy. He is the Jar Jar Binks of the Romero Zombie saga, and quite possibly one of the most annoying horror monsters to ever grace the silver screen. Tis a shame really. The script had so much promise.

The commentary was quite thicker than usual in Land, but you say that it wasn't "in your face" in the other movies? Are we watching the same Dawn78 or are you still slobbing Dawn04's knob?:p Dawn's commentary is in your face.

I agree with the Jar Jar comparison, but you call the movie predictable. I hear alot of people talking about it being predictable but then they go on to protest the "They're just looking for a place to go" scene. If it's so predictable.....shouldn't that have been predicted and not such a pain in their arses? Not saying you were one of these people, by the way. "It just popped in there".

[The Alive Man]

if Jar Jar Binks Would Have Been Like Big Daddy, Then Lucas Should Be Regarded As A Real Genius, And Not Like A Capitalistic Jerk.

Big Daddy Rocks. And His "intelligence" Is Scary And Mysterious.

The Gore In The Movie Is Top Notch...

... And Above All...

... Everything In The Movie Is Great, From The Social Commentary (which Is Not So Much Evident Like You're Bubbling) To The Screenplay, From The Atmosphere To The Characters.

Stop The Bitching.

Land = Supreme Masterpiece.

[bassman]

Dude, there's no need for the size 458,372 font.

I like Land. I think it's a pretty damn good movie and a nice side piece to the original three. But to call it a masterpiece is kinda silly. It's no masterpiece.....but it is a good movie.

And the thing about Big Daddy. Big Daddy was a great idea and could have ultimately been a great character. I think even DJ would agree with that. The problem is that the actor who played Big Daddy(Eugene Clark) doesn't seem to quite have a handle on the character and took it a bit over the top. The idea that Romero had was golden, though.

[deadpunk]

Dude, there's no need for the size 458,372 font.


:elol:

http://blog.koehntopp.de/uploads/20040203-spam.jpg

If Big Daddy was Jar Jar...then that makes the whole Dead Reckoning Team the ewoks, yes?

[MinionZombie]

Land is no masterpiece, it's flawed - but it's still a great movie. Romero may lay on the commentary a smidgen too thick, but Dawn is layered in big greasy dollops of consumeristic commentary.

I like Big Daddy, Clark didn't nail the character, but I like Big Daddy nonetheless ... calling him Jar Jar is a bit too much though in my opinion. Big Daddy doesn't have a Jamaican accent or big floppy ears ... and Big Daddy eats people for a living ... Jar Jar got in the way and was a professional CGI puppet. (I don't mean "professional" in terms of technical execution).

The original 3 movies are held in such extremely high regard by so many, they're on a pedestal - it's hardly surprising some folks were disappointed. But Land still did well. :)

[DjfunkmasterG]

The commentary was quite thicker than usual in Land, but you say that it wasn't "in your face" in the other movies? Are we watching the same Dawn78 or are you still slobbing Dawn04's knob?:p Dawn's commentary is in your face.

I agree with the Jar Jar comparison, but you call the movie predictable. I hear alot of people talking about it being predictable but then they go on to protest the "They're just looking for a place to go" scene. If it's so predictable.....shouldn't that have been predicted and not such a pain in their arses? Not saying you were one of these people, by the way. "It just popped in there".


I shall clarify, and yes I still slob DAWN 04's knob because between Land and DAWN 04 DAWN 04 is the better film.

While both films have there really STUPID MOMENTS

Dawn 04(dumbass girl going after the dog)
Land (Big Daddy's constant howling, Simon Baker's comment just let them go)

DAWN 04 just outshines Land in the overall entertainment category. However, Big Daddy and dumbass comments aside I recently re-watched LAND and I am beginning to WARM up to it more. Will my opinion change over time... probably, maybe, I dunno but as of right now LAND has too many faults to let it succeed as the clear winner of the two films.

I did say Land was predictable and in that it was pretty cut and dry that it would be a Romero gore fest which i felt distracted the audience. It seemed like every 15 minutes the zombies were eating someone... I don't need to be shown insane amounts of gore like LAND had. The Most effective and shocking use of gore Romero ever had was in DAY of the DEAD. The kills were not only violent, but shocking. Nothing in Land during the zombie attacks were shocking it was pretty cut & dry. The predictability was that you knew they would find the truck, the zombies would get in the city etc etc.

The only unpredictable moment was Riley's dumbass comment at the end and it wasn't a comment to make you think about the zombies.. it was a comment to make you think... What kind of a f**king moron would let them go? When he said that line any respect I had for the film diminshed quickly over that one stupid line. However, I had little respect because Big Daddy just annoyed the hell out of me and completely ruined the whole film.

Other issues I had was... They showed nothing as far as a fight against the zombies. When they invaded the vehicle facility don't ya think with all those weapons they could have put up a better fight. I mean these are trained military people and they lost the battle in 20 seconds... what kind of bullsh!t is that. You can scream they panicked all you want, but if you have lived ina zombie infested world for 3 years don't ya think you would have grown a tougher skin in that time. I mean you know what it takes to take'em out... Just handle your business.

What made me cringe the most was the dumbass who jumped out of the lookout tower during the zombies initial invasion of the facility. I mean you're 20 feet in the air why in the hell would you jump out. You would have a better chance of fighting them off staying in that tower.

Land just has too many stupid moments to let it pass as an acceptable horror film. Night DAWN and DAY never had stupid moments like this, why all of a sudden did Romero lower the bar?

Anyway, sorry to rant on, but I really wanted to clarify what I meant as predictable.

[Khardis]

i was just as stoked about Land coming out as anyother fan,i followed the progress for about a year from when i heard romero was just starting the script and although i will say that it was an interesting movie and with the exception of dennis hopper and john lenguzamo they didnt cast the lead with over exposed actors but a couple things did bug me:

1) i didnt like gas station zombie his screams were terrible and show the dead how to shot humans instead of eating them?
(i dont like my zombies smart)

2) this is the capper i truely thought the beginning was going to do a quick timeline starting frm the begining maybe even showing clips from the first three movies i thought the beginning was 2 short and not dark enough!

anyone with me on these?:rockbrow:


Kinda blow? No, not kinda, it blows. I know the feeling of reservation you got there as a fan. I had it at 1st too. But then I came to grips with it and went with my gut. The movie simply blows.

[DjfunkmasterG]

if Jar Jar Binks Would Have Been Like Big Daddy, Then Lucas Should Be Regarded As A Real Genius, And Not Like A Capitalistic Jerk.

Big Daddy Rocks. And His "intelligence" Is Scary And Mysterious.

The Gore In The Movie Is Top Notch...

... And Above All...

... Everything In The Movie Is Great, From The Social Commentary (which Is Not So Much Evident Like You're Bubbling) To The Screenplay, From The Atmosphere To The Characters.

Stop The Bitching.

Land = Supreme Masterpiece.


STOP SLOBBING ROMERO's KNOB... Go watch Night Dawn and Day and tell me LAND is a masterpiece. Big Daddy's uber intelligence wasn't scary int he sense of frightening... it was scary because how could a filmmaker like Romero completely destroy a saga with something as stupid as Big Daddy.


Dude, there's no need for the size 458,372 font.

I like Land. I think it's a pretty damn good movie and a nice side piece to the original three. But to call it a masterpiece is kinda silly. It's no masterpiece.....but it is a good movie.

And the thing about Big Daddy. Big Daddy was a great idea and could have ultimately been a great character. I think even DJ would agree with that. The problem is that the actor who played Big Daddy(Eugene Clark) doesn't seem to quite have a handle on the character and took it a bit over the top. The idea that Romero had was golden, though.


When i read the script Big Daddy was this evil and un-relenting corpse whom from just reading the script was terrifying, the final outcome was a joke. I mean it was just plain bad and I blame both the actor and Romero. i can't possibly see what he thought was good about any of Eugene Clark's acting to warrant keeping him on the whole movie.

[The Alive Man]

When i read the script Big Daddy was this evil and un-relenting corpse whom from just reading the script was terrifying, the final outcome was a joke. I mean it was just plain bad and I blame both the actor and Romero. i can't possibly see what he thought was good about any of Eugene Clark's acting to warrant keeping him on the whole movie.

I already watched the whole saga, many thanks.

LAND is a masterpiece, I stand by my opinion, man.

BIG DADDY was played by Eugene extremely well, and please... ZOMBIES are not supposed to be evil... they are supposed to be what they are... time for some homework, man.

You're all off-track, sorry.

[bassman]

I already watched the whole saga, many thanks.

LAND is a masterpiece, I stand by my opinion, man.

BIG DADDY was played by Eugene extremely well, and please... ZOMBIES are not supposed to be evil... they are supposed to be what they are... time for some homework, man.

You're all off-track, sorry.

:lol: bwahaha. "You're all off-track"? Are you kidding? In the very same post that you type "I stand by my opinion, man.", you tell people they're off track??

Wow....we're off track because our opinions don't perfectly match yours.:lol:

I'm not trying to pick on you here, dude. I like Land....I've liked it from the first viewing I had at the local theater. You may think that it is perfect and that's your opinion and that's cool....but just think about it. There's really no such thing as a perfect film. There are minor flaws in universally accepted films like "The Godfather" or "Lawrence of Arabia". It's a part of it.....there is no perfect film.

[The Alive Man]

Bassman,

I'm not saying LAND is perfect. I'm saying that it's a masterpiece. Masterpieces are not perfect.:rockbrow:

[bassman]

Masterpiece:
1. An outstanding work of art or craft.
2. The greatest work, as of an artist. Also called masterwork.
3. Something superlative of its kind: a masterpiece of political ingenuity.

So you're saying it's his best work?

I wasn't implying that you believe it's perfect....but to call that a masterpiece is very strange. Remember, I like it......but it's no masterpiece. At this point, I would say that Romero's masterpiece is either Night or Dawn.

But then again...this all boils down to opinion so it's neither here nor there.

[coma]

The only unpredictable moment was Riley's dumbass comment at the end and it wasn't a comment to make you think about the zombies.. it was a comment to make you think... What kind of a f**king moron would let them go? When he said that line any respect I had for the film diminshed quickly over that one stupid line. However, I had little respect because Big Daddy just annoyed the hell out of me and completely ruined the whole film.
.
I thought that was stupid. If he cared at all about the residents he would try to kill the "smart" zombies to protect them from more attacks. Big Daddy was the motivatior and without him they would just be standing around.
What I really hated was that they shot the fireworks off in the end "we dont need em anymore" What?
The opnly zombies immune to it would be the ones that saw it a million times. Zny Zombies in other cities would have a desired effect.

Alive man, if you still have only seen the Argento Dawn Cut and not the Thatrical , you have NOT seen all the films. Like what you want. I liked Land but it aint no masterpizza.

[DjfunkmasterG]

To me DAWN theatrical is Romero's Masterpiece. Nothing he has made to date tops that film

[The Alive Man]

My favourites are DAWN and LAND. I'm here because I absolutely love both to death. I don't dislike DAY, because it's a very good entry in the saga and, well, NIGHT is the supreme classic so I respect it. NO NIGHT = NO LIVING DEAD. I like either NIGHT and DAY, of course, but to a much lower degree than DAWN and LAND.

I must say that Riley's "dumbass comment" towards the end of the movie is CINEMATIC POETRY and no, I'm not joking here, it's really my favourite part of the WHOLE SAGA.

I'm actually saddened by all the criticism and the negative "vibe" of this board towards LAND, a work of passion and genius. At first, I believed this board was PRO-LAND; mine must be like the biggest miscalculation ever.

Well, don't know... in my mind LAND is a mysterious, brilliant and marvellous horror/action movie which will find a new fandom in the next decades... I'm saddened the most of THIS fandom will not support it but: wait a moment! pure genius is always misunderstood.

[deadpunk]

Oh, there are alot of folk here that are PRO-Land. The problem is, this was all hashed to death, defended to an early grave long before you came here. The only people that still want to discuss it are those that were disappointed with it.

There is little doubt that decades from now, LAND will achieve a better status than it currently has. This tends to be true of most horror films. It takes that long to develop a true cult following.

Land is not a masterpiece in my eyes. It is an entertaining movie, but not the film that I was hoping for.

[Danny]

There is little doubt that decades from now, LAND will achieve a better status than it currently has. This tends to be true of most horror films. It takes that long to develop a true cult following.



even now i dont find dawn '04 as crap as when i first saw it.

but seriously, yelling at people for not agreeing with you?:rockbrow:

takes all sorts i spose.

[capncnut]

Land is not a masterpiece in my eyes. It is an entertaining movie, but not the film that I was hoping for.

My sentiments exactly. I wish all people would realise that the good parts in Land far outweigh the bad.

[deadpunk]

Yeah, Capn'. That's pretty fair.

To be honest, while LAND did not meet my hopes, like MZ, I was just grateful to finally have a new Romero film to view. And, perhaps it did exactly what it was intended to do; respark my interest in the original movies.

There are just as many bad parts to the other films in the series. While DAWN seems to be the board favorite, I found the middle of the movie to be one of the most boring things I had ever watched. Likewise, DAY had too many whacky characters for me to get as involved in as NIGHT and DAWN.

[DVW5150]

I loved it . I think It had elements that suit GARs vision , really all that matters is that some people enjoy it ...I think that is evident here . Try watching it with GARs' commentary , you may enjoy it and learn something .

[The Alive Man]

I loved it . I think It had elements that suit GARs vision , really all that matters is that some people enjoy it ...I think that is evident here . Try watching it with GARs' commentary , you may enjoy it and learn something .

HELL YES! :cool:

[EvilNed]

I think the only one who can judge Land the same way we judge Night, Dawn and Day is a person who has yet to see any of them films and is in his young teenage years.

Personally, Day is Romero's masterpiece to me, whereas I view all of Romero's works to be masterpieces.


Masterpiece:
1. An outstanding work of art or craft.
2. The greatest work, as of an artist. Also called masterwork.
3. Something superlative of its kind: a masterpiece of political ingenuity.

That implies three different meanings of the word. Not that they are all the same.

[Mutineer]

Land of the Dead

... is one of the worst entries into the Zombie genre; period. It was horrible in every sense of the word. I walked out of this film just thanking god for Dawn 04, Shaun and 28 Days Later (The 3 best entries in the genre in the last few years)

I'd rather watch The Fog remake than this garbage.

-

I also think people throw around the 'Political Commentary' sound-bite too often like GAR is some genius autuer makeing a statement. All he is doing is making Zombie films; there is nothing hidden in the plot and it is doubtful he is saying anything interesting.

It is the critics who invented that legend.

It's a low budget zombie horror film; and LAND is one of the worst one's ever made.

-


The Return of the Living Dead and Day of the Dead are my two favorite Dead film'd ever put on screen to put this post in perspective.

:mad: :cool:

[The Alive Man]

I think the only one who can judge Land the same way we judge Night, Dawn and Day is a person who has yet to see any of them films and is in his young teenage years.




Really? So many people out of there despise DAY so vehemently.
I think the only one who can't judge Land the same way we judge Night, Dawn and Day is a person who has yet to see any of them films and is in his young teenage years.
I'm moving your same accusation against you, since it's a mad assumption, to begin with.
I've watched all the movie countless times (DAWN under the "form" of ZOMBI) and I say that LAND is at least on the same league of the previous three.
So WTF? Are you the popular jury? :lol: NED = GENERAL CONSENSUS? :lol:


I walked out of this film just thanking god for Dawn 04 (The 3 best entries in the genre in the last few years)



That explains quite a bit about your tastes! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :moon:

[EvilNed]

Really? So many people out of there despise DAY so vehemently.
I think the only one who can't judge Land the same way we judge Night, Dawn and Day is a person who has yet to see any of them films and is in his young teenage years.
I'm moving your same accusation against you, since it's a mad assumption, to begin with.


Yes, there's alot of people out there that hate Day for the same reason alot here hate Land. Both were hyped to the point where it was beyond salvation. A teenager who would first be introduced to all the films in a near future would watch all of them with an open eye, with no real hype to live up to.

Mad assumption? Only if you don't give it enough thought, I guess.

[MinionZombie]

*cough* 28 Days Later isn't a zombie film *cough*

Seriously - none of the infected ever die in the process of being transformed into rabidly angry people. Just because it has the stylistic trappings of a zombie film, doesn't make 28DL actually a zombie film. It's a plague movie.

[The Alive Man]

Yes, there's alot of people out there that hate Day for the same reason alot here hate Land. Both were hyped to the point where it was beyond salvation. A teenager who would first be introduced to all the films in a near future would watch all of them with an open eye, with no real hype to live up to.

Mad assumption? Only if you don't give it enough thought, I guess.

I NEVER cared about the hype. Even when I was a teenager, back in the day.

[DVW5150]

I never saw any commercials for "Dawn of the Dead" or "Day of the Dead" . It was friends that said :'Oh shiest , you GOTTA see this !' Night of the living Dead was on tv late one night , I was 9 or 10 years old , it scared the bejesus outta me . I saw Dawn at midnight movie showings here in Maryland back in 81 or 82 .My friends and I would get beer ,( Had a friend that was 18)420 before going in , sneak the beer into the theater ... Its always funny to remember how we opened the cans or bottles in the theater by coughing when we opened them to camoflauge the sound . Then they would roll down the the floor incline ...Once we took some windowpane , man that viewing was really good .I remember leaving the theater in the mall and it was almost empty , it creeped me out .I digress . I only saw the trailers when I bought the dvds .Anybody that doesnt like Day o.t. Dead or Dawn 78 shoudnt waste thier time by coming here to insult them . Day is a horror masterpiece , and well Dawn ,what can I say ? Seems some just run out of things to to contribute ,and rag on stuff to get peoples attention . :mad:I love 28 Days later , I have room in my mind to appreciate variables in the style .I just dont have preconceptions about a movie before I see it .

[Danny]

*cough* 28 Days Later isn't a zombie film *cough*

Seriously - none of the infected ever die in the process of being transformed into rabidly angry people. Just because it has the stylistic trappings of a zombie film, doesn't make 28DL actually a zombie film. It's a plague movie.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/deadhorse.gif

your fighting a loseing battle man.

[The Alive Man]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/deadhorse.gif

your fighting a loseing battle man.


Love your image, Hellsing...

[DVW5150]

Land of the Dead

... is one of the worst entries into the Zombie genre; period. It was horrible in every sense of the word. I walked out of this film just thanking god for Dawn 04, Shaun and 28 Days Later (The 3 best entries in the genre in the last few years)

I'd rather watch The Fog remake than this garbage. -Welcome to my ignore list poopy pants ...

I also think people throw around the 'Political Commentary' sound-bite too often like GAR is some genius autuer makeing a statement. All he is doing is making Zombie films; there is nothing hidden in the plot and it is doubtful he is saying anything interesting.- GAR himself has said that he does make statements about society ... What the hell does a child know about life anyway ? Hes not saying anything interesting because you dont understand what he is saying .

It is the critics who invented that legend. -Blah blah

It's a low budget zombie horror film; and LAND is one of the worst one's ever made.---Quality goes way over your head ... Fast food intelligence .

-
The Return of the Living Dead and Day of the Dead are my two favorite Dead film'd ever put on screen to put this post in perspective.---The perspective of a deep yawning chasm of imaturity and selfish opinion ...

:mad: :cool:Blah Blah

[MinionZombie]

pfft, it's been discussed before I know - and many people are on my side, because the infected in 28DL are just that - infected, nothing more. Not once do any of them die in the process of being converted - essentially what the infected are is rabid humans - it's basically a rabies movie - hence, plague movie.

As for the incessant back and forth about whether Land is or isn't good, agreed, it's been discussed back and forth ever since it was released 18-friggin-months ago...:eek: I think we all know by now where we each stand on the issue.

*grumbles because the weather keeps f*cking up the Sky signal*

[coma]

...Night of the living Dead was on tv late one night , I was 9 or 10 years old , it scared the bejesus outta me . I saw Dawn at midnight movie showings here in Maryland back in 81 or 82 .My friends and I would get beer ,( Had a friend that was 18)420 before going in , sneak the beer into the theater ... Its always funny to remember how we opened the cans or bottles in the theater by coughing when we opened them to camoflauge the sound . Then they would roll down the the floor incline ...Once we took some windowpane , ...
You're experience is similar to mine.:)
I saw Day on opening day. Wed at 1 PM. I did a buttload of blotter and it was a heavy experience. Pilato, already larger than life, took on massive proportions. I thought I was going to have a heart incident when the Zombies started eating the guts at the end. Enetering a bright theatre in that condition was enough to blow your mind on that alone. Wierdness.
Coughing when popping beers. Heh heh. I used to do that.

[capncnut]

Once we took some windowpane, man that viewing was really good.


I saw Day on opening day. Wed at 1 PM. I did a buttload of blotter and it was a heavy experience.

Saw 28 Days Later at the theater on 'Shrooms. Loved it! :lol:

[EvilNed]

I NEVER cared about the hype. Even when I was a teenager, back in the day.

Everyone has expectations when you walk into a film. EVERYONE. If you say someone says they don't, they're lying.

[Mutineer]

That explains quite a bit about your tastes!

You have my tastes all figured out after 20 some odd posts ? Wow; you're good. :rolleyes:

Enlighten me please; give me some other Undead Film options in the last few years better than the ones I mentioned. All ears.


cough* 28 Days Later isn't a zombie film *cough*

Yes. I know; Rage is not dead. Let us be honest though; it has all the sprit of a zombie film and helped spearhead this current undead revival.

:cool:



Blah Blah

That's insightful. And you're 42 ?

[Wyldwraith]

My .02,
Land had its defects, sure. Not a Big Daddy fan, was kinda interested in the notion of older zombies discovering rudimentary cunning to bring down prey, but think it went in the wrong direction. The good examples of "zombie cunning" from Land: Not moaning when they'd discovered prey but humans hadnt seen them...walking across the river underwater to avoid the fencing, immunity to the fireworks. Didnt see it in the movie, but I might even be able to buy stuff like fumbling with doorknobs, or actively pulling down barricades directly in their way. Bad examples from Land: Big Daddy with a gun, use of stabbing weapons, Big Daddy able to comprehend the raiders came from miles upon miles away, even if it was a relatively straight line back to the city.

But, it gave us a much better look at a post-zombie apocalypse world than the choppy, sometimes irrational Day. I just got more of a feel from the humans that they'd taken active steps to integrate what worked as far as Zombie-defense went into day to day life. But on the flip side of that, sorry George I do NOT see the currency system holding up under these circumstances.

(There's a few really great comics/indy films/book series that demonstrate a barter-currency system in non-perishables, commonly-used calibers of bullets and quality metal salvage. Thats more what I would expect from the economy of an apocalyptic world)

All in all, I forgive Land its plotholes and hiccups. This one time I'll even forgive GAR Big Daddy. Why?

The alternative is watching Return of the Living Dead, Undead, Dead Man Walking and Slither.

No thanks.

[Brubaker]

Um...whatever, jerkoff. :|

Back to the topic at hand; Even more than the Loooooooong wait that set a build-up for LAND, let's not forget that we had finally been granted the ultimate cock-tease...A budget! Romero+Good Budget=Great Movie! Right?

Wrong. What a waste. Take out the price of the talents like Hopper and Leguizamo and give us the no-names we're used to. Spend that money on bribing Savini to come back...just come back for one more, Tom...

Romero used unknowns in Day and that film gets killed for having "bad" actors, overacting and other things that are common for a film with mostly unknowns. Not to mention the fact I've seen threads circulating around here that dog actors in the Night movies and Dawn.

So when Romero uses a couple of "accomplished" actors with credentials, he gets criticized for that, too?

[Theodore]

Land doesn't blow, it doesn't matter if there is action or something, as long as it is Romero's work that has zombie, I am satisfied.

[zombiefriend]

Land doesn't blow, it doesn't matter if there is action or something, as long as it is Romero's work that has zombie, I am satisfied.

as long as it doesnt have smart zombies that make you feel sorry for them, i am satisfied:rockbrow:

[coma]

as long as it doesnt have smart zombies that make you feel sorry for them, i am satisfied:rockbrow:
What about Bub? No one complaims about Bub. And I felt sorry for him when Frankenstein dies. But that guys was a real quality actor.
and big Daddy was...
uh...
not.

[Mutineer]

Bub was indeed a solid actor (and character). The more I realize how bad Land was the more I hate it.

That movie sucked.

[Chaos]

Bub was indeed a solid actor (and character). The more I realize how bad Land was the more I hate it.

That movie sucked.


We're in agreement. Land turned out to be a joke. Even many Romero fans have acknowleged this.

Here's a little FYI for you regarding the guy who played Bub. Something Sherman is his name. There's an episode of Seinfeld, The Junior Mints episode, to be exact, in which Elaine's ex-boyfriend is in the hospital. Well, the ex-boyfriend is played by the guy who played Bub.

[coma]

We're in agreement. Land turned out to be a joke. Even many Romero fans have acknowleged this.

Here's a little FYI for you regarding the guy who played Bub. Something Sherman is his name. There's an episode of Seinfeld, The Junior Mints episode, to be exact, in which Elaine's ex-boyfriend is in the hospital. Well, the ex-boyfriend is played by the guy who played Bub.
Howard Sherman.
and thanks for the trivia tidbit.

[MinionZombie]

Indeed, Howard Sherman - but likewise, many fans liked or even loved Land. In both polls done last year/earlier this year the result was clear - more people were in favour than not.

[The Alive Man]

:dead: :dead: :dead: :dead: :dead:

(gravely disappointed)

[coma]

:dead: :dead: :dead: :dead: :dead:

(gravely disappointed)

In what? That most people liked/Loved LOTD?
figured you'd be happy about that

[The Alive Man]

In what? That most people liked/Loved LOTD?
figured you'd be happy about that


Indeed, I'm gravely disappointed by that deal of "hate" surrounding the movie, especially if it comes from the fans. :dead:

[MinionZombie]

Surely that's an odd statement, as the polls done about Land proved the majority like or love the film.

The hatred comes from a minority (face it chaps, it's how it is). :D

[capncnut]

Indeed, I'm gravely disappointed by that deal of "hate" surrounding the movie, especially if it comes from the fans. :dead:

I think I'm gonna have to agree with you on that one.

[The Alive Man]

Surely that's an odd statement, as the polls done about Land proved the majority like or love the film.

The hatred comes from a minority (face it chaps, it's how it is). :D


I hope so. I absolutely love the movie, it's my fave out of the Tetralogy. :)

[Mutineer]

Indeed, Howard Sherman - but likewise, many fans liked or even loved Land. In both polls done last year/earlier this year the result was clear - more people were in favour than not.

Sleightly skewed considering the Polls source (The Home Page of the Dead)


We're in agreement. Land turned out to be a joke. Even many Romero fans have acknowleged this.

Here's a little FYI for you regarding the guy who played Bub. Something Sherman is his name. There's an episode of Seinfeld, The Junior Mints episode, to be exact, in which Elaine's ex-boyfriend is in the hospital. Well, the ex-boyfriend is played by the guy who played Bub.

Awesome ! I remember this epsiode and have just now realized it was Bub; thanks !


Indeed, I'm gravely disappointed by that deal of "hate" surrounding the movie, especially if it comes from the fans. :dead:

I just could not stand the film. I walked out almost embarrassed by it. The Dead Reckoning vehicle was just absurd, the Zombie's sucked, the story sucked, the ending sucked ...

In the entire city, how come no one lived in all those sky scrapers ? There wasn't just ONE building. I was laughing out oud as they showed everyone living on the streets when there were hundreds of domains around them to live in.

When the zombies attack Fiddler's Green; it was as bad as some 70's flick; shots of people 'frozen in fear' as the zombies burst in through the windows and doors and 'overrun' them.

Just bad bad bad ....

Romero has never grown as a filmmaker; his LAND looked and felt like DAY (Except DAY rules). From the opening shot of the zombies playing instruments and the young zombie couple holding hands .....

The more I type, the more I get irritated !

LOL

Just an opinion :dead: :(

[The Alive Man]

LAND looks and sounds very modern and refreshing, still it's a very dark entry which retain all the "experimental" attributes of the series. ROMERO HAS GROWN, INDEED.

On the top of that, BIG DADDY is great!

[Mutineer]

You cannot even be serious !

Possible jaded or myopic.

LAND looked like it was shot in the 80's; the composition, the framing ....

ROMERO has not grown at all (and never has been much a filmmaker anyways). In spite of him I love DAWN, DAY and NIGHT but I love it for the simple reason of 'Zombie Horror'

LAND (It seems this is becoming my new mantra) belongs no where in the series.

Big Daddy was a joke.

(Opinion's are like ......... )

IMO :D

[MinionZombie]

How is that skewed, it's a zombie fan - the zombie fans of this site were polled, the consensus came back that the majority were in favour of the film either liking it or loving it. Two polls, same result both times.

How is it skewed to ask the opinion of the target audience?! :eek::confused:

[Mutineer]

I did not mean skewed in that nature. The wrong word; my mistake.

Probably not the most objective audience (demographic) when asking Pros or Cons on a Romero product. There is nothing wrong with at all and that being said; I didn't mean much of anything by it in the first place

:)

Like asking if the Raiders are a good football team over at a Raiders Forum.

[MinionZombie]

Again, not the most objective? Really?

We rip into these movies deeper, stronger and longer than anyone else on the planet. The depth to which these films are discussed by us is insane - and - the minority who despised the movie made their opinions abundantly clear and detailed, while the "love camp" retorted in a similarly deeply thought out manner.

:smug bastard smiley:

[Mutineer]

We rip into these movies deeper, stronger and longer than anyone else on the planet


As expected ! I agree !

But we all know when we see unbiased free thought and we also know when we see opinion clouded by the love for Romero.

Even you draw a line


"We rip into these movies deeper, stronger and longer than anyone else on the planet. The depth to which these films are discussed by us is insane ....

and


... the minority who despised the movie made their opinions abundantly clear and detailed, while the "love camp" retorted in a similarly deeply thought out manner.

In my experience (Jesus, I'm getting lost in these threads) it is the GAR Faithful that defend and love a film like LAND while scoffing at a film like DAWN 04

I have barely seen it the otherway around. It seems the minorty tends to be a fanbase that is not in love with George Romero.

Nothing wrong with that of course and I am not pointing a finger in either direction; merely making observations

[EvilFlyingCow]

I've always loved Night, Dawn, and Day... Dawn being my favorite. I had been looking forward to the fourth film for years, and when I finally saw Land at the theater, I was greatly disapointed. It is definately my least favorite of the four.

I can watch Dawn over and over, and never get bored with it. I've seen Dawn more times than I've seen any other film.

If I had to watch Land multiple times, I would get so bored with it after the second time. I think I would rather watch The Crazies twenty times than to have to sit through Land even five times.

So here's my question to everyone:
If you *had* to watch any one of Romero's films every single day for the next month, which movie would you choose?

[capncnut]

Dawn. In fact, I probably watch that movie 2-3 times a week anyway so another 4 times 'aint gonna hurt. :D

[coma]

If I had to watch Land multiple times, I would get so bored with it after the second time. I think I would rather watch The Crazies twenty times than to have to sit through Land even five times.

So here's my question to everyone:
If you *had* to watch any one of Romero's films every single day for the next month, which movie would you choose?
Easy. Dawn extended. And I really like the Crazies..


As far as Mutineers comment about that you hear pro Land, anti Dawn 04. well, this IS as GAR zombie fim board, not a zombie board. I am sure there are plenty of Snyder rocks george sucks posts, just not here. There are some but I think they are usually in the wrong place or just trying to be contrarian.

And forgotten is the "I liked Land, but it was weaker than the trilogy" category.

ANd I will never, ever call it some pompous phrase like Tetralogy. F*ck, that is more annoying than using giant fonts all the time:mad:. Soory dude, but that giant font crap is bugging the crap out of me. And I am not alone.

And Big Daddy is ULTRA lame. He doesn't even look like a zombie. Christ, Kevin friggin Costner would be a better zombie!

[Danny]

Sleightly skewed considering the Polls source (The Home Page of the Dead)



Awesome ! I remember this epsiode and have just now realized it was Bub; thanks !



I just could not stand the film. I walked out almost embarrassed by it. The Dead Reckoning vehicle was just absurd, the Zombie's sucked, the story sucked, the ending sucked ...

In the entire city, how come no one lived in all those sky scrapers ? There wasn't just ONE building. I was laughing out oud as they showed everyone living on the streets when there were hundreds of domains around them to live in.

When the zombies attack Fiddler's Green; it was as bad as some 70's flick; shots of people 'frozen in fear' as the zombies burst in through the windows and doors and 'overrun' them.

Just bad bad bad ....

Romero has never grown as a filmmaker; his LAND looked and felt like DAY (Except DAY rules). From the opening shot of the zombies playing instruments and the young zombie couple holding hands .....

The more I type, the more I get irritated !

LOL

Just an opinion :dead: :(

yeah i gotta agree, land wasnt that bad it just felt like it was a few decades too late, like one of those old post apocalyptic movies with morlocs and crap, definatly my least favourite of the movies.

[Trin]

Did Land kinda blow? Yes, it blowed.

One of the attractions of survival horror is the notiion of placing yourself in the shoes of the main characters and wondering "what would I do?"

In Night, Dawn, and Day that was easy to do and very enjoyable. The setups were good. The characters were good. They generally made good decisions, and when they made bad decisions they did so within their characters. I never had cause to sit around and pick the movies apart.

Land was exactly the opposite. I simply couldn't immerse myself. The setup didn't make sense. The character's actions were exactly what I would NOT do. The plot made numerous assumptions that were unbelievable to me. I just ended up shaking my head.

I think Romero focused on conveying his message rather than trying to make an intelligent survival horror movie. I think this is the first of the Dead movies that placed the message above the plot or characters, and I think it suffered for it.

I'm still a Romero fan and I enjoyed watching Land. There are things I loved about it. But at the end of the day it just wasn't that good.

[Brubaker]

It could be said that many people who hate the movie are FAILED fan fiction writers or low budget filmmakers who never produced work on par with Land of the Dead.

As for the people who think the movie sucks, well if you were to sit down in a room with Romero and give him a list of your ideas for Land, he'd probably say that they suck.

[Danny]

^ geez someones a little touchy.:rolleyes:

[Brubaker]

^ geez someones a little touchy.:rolleyes:

No, just facetious :D Sorry if the message gave the wrong impression.

[Mutineer]

No, just facetious :D Sorry if the message gave the wrong impression.

After reading the reply in question

I really hope you were just being a wiseguy !

Land was horrid and it aint got nuthin to do with low budget filmmakers or failed junior college writing classes

[Danny]

No, just facetious :D Sorry if the message gave the wrong impression.

no worrys but im one of those "little independant film makers" myself.:lol:

[Mutineer]

no worrys but im one of those "little independant film makers" myself.:lol:

Here here

A man after my own heart :) :cool: :D

[Brubaker]

After reading the reply in question

I really hope you were just being a wiseguy !

Land was horrid and it aint got nuthin to do with low budget filmmakers or failed junior college writing classes

I was being a wiseguy. I've checked out some of the work here (fiction, etc.) that the board members have done, most of which I like, and mostly wrote the reply to see if any of them were paying attention :D

Sorry if it came across as an insult to anyone. Besides, there are no FAILED fan fiction writers or filmmakers around here ;)

[Mutineer]

FAILED fan fiction writers or filmmakers around here


Not yet

:dead: :confused: :rolleyes: :D

[Danny]

i dunno there are the ones in the fiction section who write somethign taht starts good but tapers into 4 pages describing a gun.

you know who you are.:shifty:

[ngm231]

my problem with land is that romero tried to make it too modern for younger audiences he said it himself that"i used more cgi because i didnt want the younger generation to think the film was cheesy". i think romero didnt stay true to what the living dead films and tried to hard to impress the younger generation.

[Danny]

aye, and when an older guy trys to be "down wit the kids", does it ever work?.

heres lookin' at you mr. lucas.:sneaky:

[Mutineer]

I did not find the use of CGI to be the weakness in Land of the Dead; the film was just outright terrible from the get go

[_liam_]

wouldnt say it was terrible, just kinda average and disappointing considering what came before. however, a 60-odd year old dude made that film...that's still pretty f'ing cool.

i think the story doesn't have a real arc, or closure, it feels unsatisfying. also in places it seems a bit too glossy and modern, which fans of the preceeding films obviously dont crave, otherwise why would they be so into a movie with a bunch of blue people stumbling around a cheesy old mall...

[bassman]

i think the story doesn't have a real arc, or closure, it feels unsatisfying.

Wasn't this because Romero's original intentions were to have a sequel pick up where Land left off?

[Mutineer]

No, it was because it just plain sucked. :mad: :evil: :sneaky:

[bassman]

No, it was because it just plain sucked. :mad: :evil: :sneaky:

Actually, I'm pretty sure thats what he intended. To start a new trilogy(he said this himself) but he abandoned that.

[Danny]

roll on diary of the dead in my opinion.

[ProfessorChaos]

My girlfriend had never seen any of the GAR undead films. We sat down this weekend and watched Night 90, Dawn 78, Day and Land on Saturday and Sunday night. She told me that from her initial viewings, Land was hands-down the worst of the the four. Her reasons are: Big Daddy (no surprise), not enough zombies, and too much crappy computer effects. I never did like Land too much anyhow, and don't even really consider it a part of the saga. I hope Diary isn't as much of a turd as Land was...

[bassman]

You're not stating anything new. Even most of the people that enjoy "Land" admit that it's the least of the series. The only difference is that we can accept it for it's flaws and see what is good about it.

The people that hate it tend to dismiss it without seeing the good. They just want to see the bad because they have high expectations and expect it to be exactly like A) Night B) Dawn or C) Day.

Good prevails over the bad. Some people don't want to see that. Even most of those that like Land and don't like the Dawn remake can admit that there is good in Dawn04 even though there is bad.

[MinionZombie]

Exactly, and most people prefer one of the "original trilogy" better than the others - does that make the other films a pile of wank? No.

Like you say, some people are all about the negatives and none of the forgiveness - there's no such thing as the perfect film. And I like Land, I think it's a good film, it could have been better, but I had a blast with it. What's wrong with that? There's plenty of good in the film, more-so than any potential "bad".

[DjfunkmasterG]

It has Big Daddy(Jar Jar)... that was enough to make it horrible. Which is a real shame cause the script had so much potential to be a KICK ASS zombie film.

[cwsmith17]

i was just as stoked about Land coming out as anyother fan,i followed the progress for about a year from when i heard romero was just starting the script and although i will say that it was an interesting movie and with the exception of dennis hopper and john lenguzamo they didnt cast the lead with over exposed actors but a couple things did bug me:

1) i didnt like gas station zombie his screams were terrible and show the dead how to shot humans instead of eating them?
(i dont like my zombies smart)

2) this is the capper i truely thought the beginning was going to do a quick timeline starting frm the begining maybe even showing clips from the first three movies i thought the beginning was 2 short and not dark enough!

anyone with me on these?:rockbrow:

To get back on topic....yes.....the movie was on the lame side. George could have done so much more. Why did he start allowing zombies to "learn things" in Day Of The Dead; then continue that into Land Of The Dead?:rockbrow:

[bassman]

To get back on topic....yes.....the movie was on the lame side. George could have done so much more. Why did he start allowing zombies to "learn things" in Day Of The Dead; then continue that into Land Of The Dead?:rockbrow:

Because that's the progression of Romero's storyline?

[Mutineer]

To get back on topic....yes.....the movie was on the lame side. George could have done so much more. Why did he start allowing zombies to "learn things" in Day Of The Dead; then continue that into Land Of The Dead?:rockbrow:

The best thing to do is forget this film even exists and hope some other filmmaker re-invents the world or at least brings us back to the world we love in DAWN and DAY

The problem is that GAR never was a good filmmaker and has based his entire career off B Movie Cult Classics that are a step or two above the Corman films. I never quite understood the Idolation of Romero by the fans.

Land should have been the Mother of all Zombie films even with it's paltry
$15,000,000 budget. 28 DAYS LATER had an $ 8 Million budget and just PWNTS Land on all levels. (Were we suppossed to care about the DEAD RECKONING car ? How much of the budget went to that is a mystery.)

Zombies are great, don't get me wrong, but the first 3 GAR films are the only films he's done worth a damn, and even then they're good for being 'B Movie Zombie Films' . Films like The Return of the Living Dead, Shaun of The Dead, Dawn of the Dead 04, 28 Days Later (Yes, not technically a zombie film), Resident Evil (The 1st one and not that good, but watchable), Cemetary Man, Re-Animator, Dead Alive (Brain Dead), The Night Remake (Savini) are all on equal par (and a few even better IMO).

Next up is Diaries;

" The plot involves a group of film school students who are filming a horror movie in the wilderness, and who are attacked by zombies."

I'm not even going to bother with this one. Wasn't this done already with
The Dead Hate the Living ? and Blair Witch, and Open Water, and Romero tells us he is 'Putting a NEW spin on it' :rolleyes:

I know this opinion isn't going to make me any friends (I'm not looking for any), I love the first 3 Dead films, but Romero has never matured as a filmmaker and at 67 years of age is still making crap B Movies.

[coma]

I know this opinion isn't going to make me any friends (I'm not looking for any),
Good, because its probably not going to get you any:)
Mission Accomplished.:evil:

You know you can have any opinion you want but do you have yo be so obnoxious?

[Mutineer]

How's that ?

Am I upsetting the GAR faithful ? Don't confuse an opinion on a zombie film with me calling you an idiot. :confused:

Land was horrible; doni't start flaming me about it. Flame GAR for making crap.

-

[capncnut]

I know this opinion isn't going to make me any friends (I'm not looking for any), I love the first 3 Dead films, but Romero has never matured as a filmmaker and at 67 years of age is still making crap B Movies.
Good, because its probably not going to get you any:)
Mission Accomplished.:evil:
Am I upsetting the GAR faithful? Don't confuse an opinion on a zombie film with me calling you an idiot. :confused:

Land was horrible; don't start flaming me about it. Flame GAR for making crap.
You state 'I know this opinion isn't going to win me any friends' but you go ahead and spout it anyway. So when someone disagrees with your words you accuse them of flaming. Oh and the only person I see doing the flaming is you, so get a grip.

[bassman]

Zombies are great, don't get me wrong, but the first 3 GAR films are the only films he's done worth a damn, and even then they're good for being 'B Movie Zombie Films' ..

"The Crazies", "Martin", "Knightriders", "Creepshow", "Monkey Shines", "The Dark Half", "Bruiser". All pretty good movies. Some better than others, but a decent slate overall. The "Dead" movies just overshadow his other films and those are what he's best known for.


The problem is that GAR never was a good filmmaker and has based his entire career off B Movie Cult Classics that are a step or two above the Corman films. I never quite understood the Idolation of Romero by the fans.

And that's why he's admired by film fans, as well as film makers as one of the greats? It had nothing to do with his direction, editing, charactizations, and allegorical meaning in his films, I guess?:rockbrow:

[capncnut]

"The Crazies", "Martin", "Knightriders", "Creepshow", "Monkey Shines", "The Dark Half", "Bruiser".
I enjoyed EVERY one of those flicks. Martin is GAR's best effort in my opinion.

[MinionZombie]

GAR has indeed made some great movies, and even when he's not been on top of his game he was still putting out decent flicks, the flavour of his flicks in the 70's was especially vibrant, mainly due to his editing style (personally speaking anyway), it really felt like a GAR movie - just look at the scene where the black army dude in The Crazies is packing his bags, pure Romero editing.

[coma]

"The Crazies", "Martin", "Knightriders", "Creepshow", "Monkey Shines", "The Dark Half", "Bruiser". All pretty good movies. Some better than others, but a decent slate overall. The "Dead" movies just overshadow his other films and those are what he's best known for.



And that's why he's admired by film fans, as well as film makers as one of the greats? It had nothing to do with his direction, editing, charactizations, and allegorical meaning in his films, I guess?:rockbrow:
Agreed. I love his editing style. And the wierdo dog shots. I agree that he's a B fol maker, but Film Noir were B movies and they are classics, in the end so what. But saying he is only a little above Corman is just off base.


How's that ?

Am I upsetting the GAR faithful ? Don't confuse an opinion on a zombie film with me calling you an idiot. :confused:

Land was horrible; doni't start flaming me about it. Flame GAR for making crap.

-
This place is for devotes of GARs dead films and by extension his whole body of work. Why would you be surprised that there is "idodoltry". Though I dont think all of his films are gems. Thats just not reasonable.

And I think that most of that list, while that is your opinion, I couldnt disagree more.

I didnt flame you. I tried to make a joke about what you seemed to be looking for.
I simply asked why do you have to be obnoxious. I didnt say "you are an ***" (fill in the blank). You know that you split your posts between interesting observation and comments and sharp obnoxia that doesnt even attemp to be humorous. You can goof on whatever you want. If everybody agreed it would be very boring, but you dont have to go out of the way to be rude unless you "know you are not going to make any friends". Why communicate at allthen?


I enjoyed EVERY one of those flicks. Martin is GAR's best effort in my opinion.
Maybe the most fully realized. It doent have any cheap looking moment either. The part on the train and when he is in the apt and is messing with the phone is nuts.
I love Martin. (the film martin. heheh)

GAR is thr reason I started making films. The soundtrack to DOTD is one of the reasons I became a musician.
Do I idolize GAr. Probably. Not in a 10 year old way, in a "he's an artist with integrity who always offer something new" kind of way. His own way in his own time. Something to admire to me.

[capncnut]

For me it's all about the atmosphere and Martin has it, in abundance. :cool:

[MinionZombie]

in a "he's an artist with integrity who always offer something new" kind of way. His own way in his own time. Something to admire to me.

Perzactly, and that's one of the key reasons I'm 'all about GAR', so-to-speak. He hasn't always produced gems, but even his not-so-hot flicks provide a lot of interest. Like Season of the Witch wasn't superb, but it was intriguing, and I did actually get sucked in a few times. There is a home invasion type sequence in there and it's beautifully filmed and cut together, utterly superb, I had to rewind the tape and watch it again.

[coma]

Perzactly, and that's one of the key reasons I'm 'all about GAR', so-to-speak. He hasn't always produced gems, but even his not-so-hot flicks provide a lot of interest. Like Season of the Witch wasn't superb, but it was intriguing, and I did actually get sucked in a few times. There is a home invasion type sequence in there and it's beautifully filmed and cut together, utterly superb, I had to rewind the tape and watch it again.
I always slag that film but I saw it in a theatre when I was 14. I will give it another chance when I get the opportunity to see it.

"Perzactly". Thats awesome. You should write a script where everybody talks like the way you post. That would be the jubbly nubbly:lol:. It might even make sense

[Danny]

I always slag that film but I saw it in a theatre when I was 14. I will give it another chance when I get the opportunity to see it.

"Perzactly". Thats awesome. You should write a script where everybody talks like the way you post. That would be the jubbly nubbly:lol:. It might even make sense


you sir have just annihalated a well loved british comedy catch phrase, bad man, go and watch joey as punishment:p

[MinionZombie]

I always slag that film but I saw it in a theatre when I was 14. I will give it another chance when I get the opportunity to see it.

"Perzactly". Thats awesome. You should write a script where everybody talks like the way you post. That would be the jubbly nubbly:lol:. It might even make sense
Indeed, you should watch it again, sometimes that happens with flicks, you watch them at a young age, but you're not yet ready to appreciate them as much as you might when a bit older.

When I first saw The Fog at 14 I thought it basically sucked, but I watched it for the second ever time last week and I thought it was bloody brilliant.

Coma - I have a script in mind and have earmarked a character to talk like I post already... :elol: ...just a matter of finding the time to start writing it, but I have a lot of it planned out already...the others would have the odd sliver of it here and there too, perhaps. :):cool:

[Trin]

I loved the original trilogy in spite of its flaws. I didn't enjoy Land even though I thought some parts were brilliant.

I want to like Land, but Land's flaws were so pervasive and integral to the plot development that I simply could not ignore them. In the original trilogy I could ignore the flaws and enjoy the movie. With Land you had to accept the flaws or the movie simply wouldn't make sense.

For me the original trilogy were great movies with lots of flaws. Land was a flawed movie with a few great spots.

[Philly_SWAT]

Boy, this thread will never die. I have to disagree with you. Land has no more "flaws" than any movie out there, in my opinion.

[Danny]

a lotta people on here, myself included are only bitching about butget, and script diffrences and the like, as for the actual theatrical release i like dit and i think cholo totally stole the show, riley sucked ass, in fact i remember him back in dawn 04' ,so thats were he whent when they left him on the dock:p

[MinionZombie]

riley sucked ass, in fact i remember him back in dawn 04' ,so thats were he whent when they left him on the dock

What the hell are you on about? Put down the crack pipe and step away from the doobie pile...:eek:

Jake (American) Weber is the dude on the dock in Yawn-o-rama04 ... Simon (Australian) Baker is Riley...:rockbrow:

[AcesandEights]

What the hell are you on about? Put down the crack pipe and step away from the doobie pile...:eek:

Jake (American) Weber is the dude on the dock in Yawn-o-rama04 ... Simon (Australian) Baker is Riley...:rockbrow:

I assume Hellsing is saying tha the two are, for all intents and purposes, the same character-type. I disagree with that to an extent, but...meh.

[MinionZombie]

Jake Weber's character - calm, rational, in it for everybody, nice demeanour etc...

Simon Baker's character - paws away his loyal sidekick routinely, just wants to jack it all in to piss off on his own up North, always grumpy, never laughs, rarely raises a smile - for the most part he's a bit of a dick...

:p:sneaky:

[capncnut]

Jake Weber's character - calm, rational, in it for everybody, nice demeanour, total c**t etc...
I make you right there man.


Simon Baker's character...
Wait, are you trying to resurrect The Alive Man or something? :eek:

[coma]

Wait, are you trying to resurrect The Alive Man or something? :eek:
:lol::moon:
Hah!

[Danny]

I assume Hellsing is saying tha the two are, for all intents and purposes, the same character-type. I disagree with that to an extent, but...meh.

yeah ,the sarcasm kinda whent over his head with that one huh?;)

[capncnut]

:lol::moon: Hah!
You know something, I can imagine some sick f**k trying to resurrect him by candle and bell...

[coma]

You know something, I can imagine some sick f**k trying to resurrect him by candle and bell...
Thats quite a stretch:p:moon:

[MinionZombie]

Hey! Stop misquoting me! :eek:

Ug, hellsing, you're sar-car-stick and jaded about everything it seems, how is anyone supposed to know when you're meaning it or not? :rolleyes:

[JohnoftheDead]

I loved Land as a standalone movie. It in no way has the same feel as the previous 3 films in the trilogy, but I'm not even sure if that's possible. I watched the first 3 by myself in the dark when I was a young impressionable child & was completely horrified by them. I watched Land when I was 30 in a theatre with a bunch of other people. The newest of the previous 3 was made over 20 years ago, I just don't think it's possible to recreate the feel achieved with the equipment they used then, with the equipment they use today, aside from digging out some old Arriflex camera & flying by the seat of your pants. Which I really kind of wish they had done with Land, & I really hope they're doing with Diary.

[darth los]

2) this is the capper i truely thought the beginning was going to do a quick timeline starting frm the begining maybe even showing clips from the first three movies i thought the beginning was 2 short and not dark enough!

anyone with me on these?:rockbrow:

They were originally going to do a begining montage with all three movies and a timeline type thing. i even think they made a movie trailer. But they had to scrap it because GAR being the savvy business man that he is doesn't hold the rights to his intellectual property and would have violated several copyrights.