Are we all just blind?

[Minerva_Zombi]

You know, alot of you like to **** on Land because it isn't Dawn or Day. I never realized why until I thought about it. People like us who are in love with Romero's zombie films we're waiting to be dissapointed by Land. There is NO WAY it would ever live up to expectations. Thats why I saw it twice in theaters. The first time I watchec it, I was a bit dissapointed because it wasn't what I expected. But, I decided that If I saw it again, but this time watched it as a whole other flick, it might be better. I enjoyed it much better the 2nd time going in with the mind set that this was a zombie flick. Not a Romero zombie flick, but just a zombie flick. The original three have nostalgic places in our hearts and to try and accept a new film is almost impossible because its not familiar to us. If you compare Land to 99 % of other horror films in this country, it is brilliant and really ****ing good. All of my friends who are not obsessed with the trilogy like I am loved it. They ate it up. Because, they weren't in the ****ty mind-frame that we all are. Like look at the Star Wars geeks. They get all dressed up with their light sabers and **** and go see the new film and they come out like "That sucked. That was no where near the calibur of the first three". If George Lucas made the original Star Wars again, it'd be cheesy as **** and no one would be happy. Same with Romero. The bottom line is that we'd could have never accepted this film because we love the others too much. Do you get what I'm saying?

[Huescacho]

I understand that you tell us. I agree with you. We put the level very high. If you think that you must have a ten, and they give you a eight, you are sad, no?, this is our problem!.

[capncnut]

Well The Alive Man once said that it was his favourite installment so that proves Land works better for some people than others. It wasn't fantastic by a long shot but I still enjoyed it.

[Danny]

uh....sequels will never hold up to there predecessor in the fans eyes, this has been a given in cinema for like 40 years now, i dont really see the point here.
you either like a film or dont, you dont have to explain to people if you didnt like one more than the other cus noones tastes are identical.

and for the record star wars sucks. there i said it, and i wont take it back:lol:

[coma]

My girlfriend doesnt like horror movies at all, or any hard film and she LOVED land so I think its appeal to people ignorant of the trilogy is very high. She found it quirky, original and wierd without a dull moment.




uh....sequels will never hold up to there predecessor in the fans eyes, this has been a given in cinema for like 40 years now, i dont really see the point here.
you either like a film or dont, you dont have to explain to people if you didnt like one more than the other cus noones tastes are identical.
Dawn of the Dead and Bride of Frankenstein are both considered better than the orignals by many. It is uncommon but it does happen.
Road Warrior, anyone?
I think Army of Darkness i9s a goofball masterpiece and surpasses the first two, imo (though I loves em all)


and for the record star wars sucks. there i said it, and i wont take it back:lol:
Even the original trilogy????


And The Star Wars prequels really suck. Phantom Menace is a boring turd, I saw inly half of the 2nd one. ALl the politics and increasing stupid ass names for plantes and people etc was way too much. Its like Geek Jizz. Talk about Falling off, Lucas is the King of falling off.

[triste realtà]

I think what Romero feared would happen with a big budget did happen. Well known actors, quickly made, standard Hollywood soundtrack. Quick and standardized formula to make a buck. He needs his team: Gornick, Savini, Harrison, some library music. And location, location, location: Pittsburgh! Why do you think he's making another dead film so soon and it's not a big budget crapfest?

[Danny]

you forgot terminator 2 as well, but on a whole i just mean its a given that the expectation will be huge if the predecessor was, simple as that.
..and yeah, i loved star wars when i was younger but its gotten so stale, a heinous (yes ive been watching bill and ted) marketing campaign, and while the movies were an allright slice of pop culture firday night movie type stuff, they really arent so great when you step back and take a look at them.

[capncnut]

Road Warrior, anyone?

Word. :cool:

[DVW5150]

" Road Warrior Anyone ? " : posted by COMA ...
Word. :cool: WORD >>>


You know, alot of you like to **** on Land because it isn't Dawn or Day. I never realized why until I thought about it. People like us who are in love with Romero's zombie films we're waiting to be dissapointed by Land. There is NO WAY it would ever live up to expectations. Thats why I saw it twice in theaters. The first time I watchec it, I was a bit dissapointed because it wasn't what I expected. But, I decided that If I saw it again, but this time watched it as a whole other flick, it might be better. I enjoyed it much better the 2nd time going in with the mind set that this was a zombie flick. Not a Romero zombie flick, but just a zombie flick. The original three have nostalgic places in our hearts and to try and accept a new film is almost impossible because its not familiar to us. If you compare Land to 99 % of other horror films in this country, it is brilliant and really ****ing good. All of my friends who are not obsessed with the trilogy like I am loved it. They ate it up. Because, they weren't in the ****ty mind-frame that we all are. Like look at the Star Wars geeks. They get all dressed up with their light sabers and **** and go see the new film and they come out like "That sucked. That was no where near the calibur of the first three". If George Lucas made the original Star Wars again, it'd be cheesy as **** and no one would be happy. Same with Romero. The bottom line is that we'd could have never accepted this film because we love the others too much. Do you get what I'm saying?

Exactly , watch the dvd w/ Georges commentary , he didnt want to put out the same thing . I think his film making has evolved , to a new level . Its like people just want the same thing over & over ...WTF? Artists change makes for subjective reaction . I saw Land at the theater twice , secondtime because I wanted to examine it closer . I saw it the first time , with no pre-conception of what was in store .'Land ' for me , is a great addition to his work . I always view film this way . I learned this when my mom dragged me to "Harold & Maude" when I was 13 or so , I decided based on the title that it would suck ... I left the theater crying and learned the lessons not just of what the film offers , but to give art a chance not basing your vision on what you want before you see it . Thats the cool thing about subjectivity . People get pissed off if you like something they hate sometimes ... the intelligent ones just see difference in opinion . Great post Minerva .-DVW5150

[Chaos]

I enjoyed Land, but it was still pretty much a joke. It was filmed in Canada, the script was rushed, the pacing was off, the plot implausible, and the casting was atrocious. Dennis Hopper's weakest performace since Space Truckers and Speed.

Basically, I will always say: You have Romero's trilogy and then you have Land. It will never be considered in the same league as Night and Dawn, and especially Day.

[HLS]

Wow. Chaos is banned. Is it permanent? Dang!


You know, alot of you like to **** on Land because it isn't Dawn or Day. I never realized why until I thought about it. People like us who are in love with Romero's zombie films we're waiting to be dissapointed by Land. There is NO WAY it would ever live up to expectations. Thats why I saw it twice in theaters. The first time I watchec it, I was a bit dissapointed because it wasn't what I expected. But, I decided that If I saw it again, but this time watched it as a whole other flick, it might be better. I enjoyed it much better the 2nd time going in with the mind set that this was a zombie flick. Not a Romero zombie flick, but just a zombie flick. The original three have nostalgic places in our hearts and to try and accept a new film is almost impossible because its not familiar to us. If you compare Land to 99 % of other horror films in this country, it is brilliant and really ****ing good. All of my friends who are not obsessed with the trilogy like I am loved it. They ate it up. Because, they weren't in the ****ty mind-frame that we all are. Like look at the Star Wars geeks. They get all dressed up with their light sabers and **** and go see the new film and they come out like "That sucked. That was no where near the calibur of the first three". If George Lucas made the original Star Wars again, it'd be cheesy as **** and no one would be happy. Same with Romero. The bottom line is that we'd could have never accepted this film because we love the others too much. Do you get what I'm saying?

Well given it is a Romero movie I do expect the same quality in Land as in the others so ya I was dissapointed in Land. It was not scary and it was very predictable. I think the problem is he allowed too much time go by before making Land.

[rawrOTD]

I think yes after you have seen Dawn of the dead 78

NOTHING WILL EVER TOP IT

as a zombie fan that is what I want
something
equal to dawn
and because of that I will be always dissappointed

I think GAR has let it slip with Land , but I think only due to the studio pressure to cough up another modern horror crapball
it was a good movie
but you could tell someone was messing with his visions

however
we have to give romero credit
much
much more credit
he has made a 4 film series over the span of 36 years
and he never let us down
who else has done that?
delivered the goods time and time again
made GOOD sequels TO HORROR FILMS
AND HE WAITED 10 YEARS OR MORE IN BETWEEN
that is simply a diamond in the rough

who has done that ?
raimi ? i dont count the evil dead series
one was a remake/sequel and they all seemed to come right after eachother

SAW ? thats a buncha crap
all those 80s slashers are terrible after maybe part 2

Romero made films that werent just
SLASHER MOVIE : (INSERT NUMBER)
REVENGE OF SO AND SO

no Romero gave us heartfelt and intelligent horror
four times
I think any stuff we dont like in Land we shouldnt be whining about too much

cos hes going on five now
FIVE
thats an solid number of zombie films that have the GAR STAMP OF QUALITY
lets give this guy an award for having the intelligence and the balls to make his own unique films
in a remake ridden,trash heap of modern cinema

[Minerva_Zombi]

I enjoyed Land, but it was still pretty much a joke. It was filmed in Canada, the script was rushed, the pacing was off, the plot implausible, and the casting was atrocious. Dennis Hopper's weakest performace since Space Truckers and Speed.

Basically, I will always say: You have Romero's trilogy and then you have Land. It will never be considered in the same league as Night and Dawn, and especially Day.

I just don't agree with this.

1. Filming in Canada has nothing to do with anything. I'd prefer Pittsburgh, but Romero lives in Toronto now so, he really is actually sticking to his normal style. Never leave home. lol.

2. The script was definatly not rushed, I think that film has great dialogue that 99 % of horror films today could make very little use of. Great lines.

3. I do think, it should have been about 30 minutes longer, but I thought that Hopper's performance was really good. reminded me of Blue Velvet at times.

4. The only badly casted actor was Big Daddy, Eugene Clark. Other than that, Simon Baker, Asia Argento, Robert Joy, John Leguizamo, and Dennis Hopper were fantastic.

I think the film should have went on another half hour. That would really help out. And I do think some o the characters should have been killed off like Charlie and Pillsbury. Romero's style was really captured well by Danny Boyle in 28 Days Later and I think Romero should have had more atmospheric shots and sequences. But otherwise, compared most any other zombie flick in the past 10 years, It was brilliant.

[Fleshmunch]

Really? I don't remember a single line of dialogue from Land. The acting all round was wooden. The script was like a video game and it was all about what amounts to fighting over possession of a monster truck! :p

[Minerva_Zombi]

i can name hundreds of lines. "Good shooting, no such thing as nice shooting", "God really left the phone off the hook, huh baby?!" , "That's why I still love you Charlie, you still believe in Heaven.", "Somebody shot the little fat man.", "Isn't that what we're doing? Pretending to be alive..."

I could go on.

"I came to do something... What are we standing around for? Let's do something"

The theater loved that one. i could quote all day. Great lines that some critics referred to as almost poetry in a way. Compared to movies like Saw, DOTD 2004, Hostel, etc. where the dialogue is "Oh my God" or "Hello?" , Land's dialogue is really good.

[Arcades057]

Wait, I'm still confused... What exactly stands out about Land of the Dead, besides the fact that GAR wrote it? I'm still hard pressed to find a favorite part or likeable character (exept for Pretty Boy; something about pigtails...)

The whole plot consisted of a guy trying to get away from responsibility, and maybe that's why I disliked it so much. That and the fact that it has an emoting zombie in it, which is enough to turn me off of anything. A few other things about the movie that sucked:

1) The acting. There was supposed to be an implied love interest between Slack and Riley? Can anyone else say "stinted?"

2) The zombies. Every other Dead film had one zombie that stood out as scarier looking than all the others: The original Night had that first guy; Dawn had the torn up zombie in the lobby of that airport; Day had Dr. Tongue (for me it was the football-kid zombie); the Night remake had that messed up guy in the window, and just about every other zombie; what was the scariest zombie in Land?

3) The ending. I'm sorry, what was the ending again?

4) Emoting. Frickin. Zombie. Because we're all impressionable minds here and Andy likes the filter on, I can't really say what I want about Big Daddy. Let's just say I hate him and I want to find a way to go back in time to the time when GAR first got the idea for that character, kick him in the nads, and then take him to a remote location, Misery style. :mad: Really, I hate Big Daddy. The Jar Jar Binks of that movie, as if it really needed one. It's as though Romero said, "You know what I want to do? I want to make, like, the most idiotic zombie EVER and stick him in this movie. Then I'm gonna go around and see who actually likes him and talk smack about them!" Hope you're happy, he's talking about you behind your backs.

5) Fire discipline. Fact 1: Bullets are not in production anymore. Fact 2: Guns are not in production anymore. Fact 3: There are millions of damned zombies all around you. I know, let's give full-auto assault rifles to these momos who've never even seen a gun before! Yeah, and we'll teach them to shoot from the hip, and smirk as they fire off an entire round of precious bullets! Great idea! No, it wasn't.

That's just a few things I can think of at 4:00am. Probably more after I wake up and remember just how much about that movie pissed me off. Like the SUPER DUPER ZOMG ADDED SCENES!!!111 :mad:

[Fleshmunch]

All good points, Arcade! GAR made a worthless turd with Land. People need to accept that and move on. The man's not a god, and the fact is, he may be too old and off his game to ever make a good movie again.

[capncnut]

The man's not a god, and the fact is, he may be too old and off his game to ever make a good movie again.

A tad harsh methinks. I can understand why some people are not as fond of Land as they are with others but c'mon. One or two bad movies don't spell the end of a person's career. The man might not be a god but he's definitely a LEGEND.

[bassman]

Like Capn said....I don't think I've seen anyone call Romero a god. He's just a legend in film making. Every director has a flick that isn't exactly their shinning star. Hitchcock, Cameron, Scott, etc....

It's pretty closed minded to say that the man is "too old and off his game" just because his last film didn't fit your liking. Land is the least of the dead saga but many people still see the good things to point out....

[coma]

The man's not a god, and the fact is, he may be too old and off his game to ever make a good movie again.
Ridiculous because its not like he's 85. IN every interview I have read and heard with GAR he is totally on the ball. When I hear this sort of thing it seems like its written by a child or someone who is unaware that people can live to be 90 plus and still be on the ball creatively and productive right to the end.
When I read that he is too old I always think the poster is just plain ignorant.

So Big Daddy was stupid as hell. And I think he was dumber than than any zombie in the worst turd. Doesnt mean he's washed up.
He is not a God. But he did make 4 of my top ten fav films.

[Fleshmunch]

Hey, I'm just pointing out that George MAY be too old and off his game. Not everybody gets better as they get older... Christ, look what happened to Lucas and Spielberg*, Carpenter and Hooper, ad nauseum? These guys all suffered variable amounts of creative brain damage as they got older and more (or much less, in the case of Hooper) successful. Part of the problem is when they have kids and start making crappy kiddie movies, like Lucas and Spielberg. It warps the creative process. Even worse is when you start listening to your kids and inserting their worthless ideas into your movies, like Lucas did with the Star Wars prequels. See? There is a historical precedent for what I'm saying about GAR and I'm not being ignorant--I'm being cynical about his future films. It's a long-established fact that in Hollywood, you're only as good as your last picture (or, if you're smart and are signed to do another pic before the current one wraps, you're as good as your last two pictures). :D

* Granted, Spielberg still turns out some nice pics like Catch Me If You Can in-between his usual smarmy crapfests, but his heyday was the 70s and early 80s: Duel, Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc.

[coma]

Hey, I'm just pointing out that George MAY be too old and off his game. Not everybody gets better as they get older... Christ, look what happened to Lucas and Spielberg*, Carpenter and Hooper, ad nauseum? These guys all suffered variable amounts of creative brain damage as they got older and more (or much less, in the case of Hooper) successful. Part of the problem is when they have kids and start making crappy kiddie movies, like Lucas and Spielberg. It warps the creative process. Even worse is when you start listening to your kids and inserting their worthless ideas into your movies, like Lucas did with the Star Wars prequels. See? There is a historical precedent for what I'm saying about GAR and I'm not being ignorant--I'm being cynical about his future films. It's a long-established fact that in Hollywood, you're only as good as your last picture (or, if you're smart and are signed to do another pic before the current one wraps, you're as good as your last two pictures). :D

* Granted, Spielberg still turns out some nice pics like Catch Me If You Can in-between his usual smarmy crapfests, but his heyday was the 70s and early 80s: Duel, Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc.
Understood. Carpenter has lost his luster for sure. He's on a cheese kick and a camp type thing for too long. I say, Get ugly again John. Real ugly.
I like Saving Private Ryan the best, and Armistad was damn good. Speilberg has always been schmaltzy, nothing new.
Lucas is a good producer and a crap director. The only good films he directed are Star Wars and American Graffitti. Thats it. Empire was the best cause HE DIDNT DIRECT IT.:)
I think GAR may have been sapped of energy form his flirtation in the Hollywood system from the 90s until LAnd.
I guess when I hear people are too old to make art (or it seems like someones saying that) I get annoyed at the glorification of youth, like if you dont explode by the time your 24 you should just get a civil service job and dissapear. I dont know how old you are but if you get over 30 you know exactly what Im talking about.
I think it has more to go with getting that check as a motivation rather than creative hunger thats the issue.
There have been a number of artists that fell off, then came back to triumph.
Obviously you are not like some of the tards that have posted similar things, so thanks for the clarity.

and welcome to the board, btw:)

[Todd Tjersland]

I think Fleshmunch could have stated it better in his original post, but the clarification makes a lot of sense. I think success can be an obstacle to creativity. Where creative hunger is lacking, quality suffers. When the paycheck is the prime motivator rather than the chance to make art, quality suffers. Age, in and of itself, has little to do with it--although I agree that becoming a parent can have a negative impact on creativity, as it tends to shift your focus away from where you were before.

Age can often be an asset, as you have more experience (even if it is only life experience rather than professional experience). Age is especially important for writers. Raymond Chandler, creator of the Philip Marlowe novels, didn't begin his writing career until he was in his mid-forties, and he turned out some of the best detective fiction of the twentieth century.

As with anybody, it's not how much time and money you have to play with, it's how much hunger you have fueling your talent. The minute money becomes the primary goal, art goes out the window.

It's something every artist struggles with... :confused:

I'm just saying this in general (it's more about the other guys mentioned by Fleshmunch), not specifically about GAR. But I do hope his next film is better than Land...

[bassman]

I can understand what you guys are saying, but do you really think that Romero is going for the cash? I mean, Romero has been trying to make his fourth "Dead" flick since the early nineties. Maybe money has taken him over(though I seriously doubt that), but don't you think that maybe he did what he had to do to make his next "Dead" flick with "Land"?

Even though it was a DECENT flick in my mind and in some other fans, don't you think that maybe he did what he had to do to get one more film out to his fans? True, it wasn't his best, but I don't think that is what he really expected.

I liked "Land"(as did other fans-some also hated it), but I think that Romero also felt like it wasn't exactly what he wanted.....and what did he do? He decided to go back and make his next "Dead" film independently with his new partner, Grunwald.

All I'm saying is that the man didn't get exactly what he wanted with "Land"(this is going on the way I've seen him talk about the movie), and now he's sort of going back to his roots and making a film with a small group of his partners.

Just give the man another chance. He still has what it takes(even though some hated it....you can still see what he had intended with "Land"), this is his other chance to show his fans that he's still the legend that is George A. Romero.

If im wrong and "Diary" turns out to be bad, I will gladly retract my words. Romero diserves another chance from his die hard fans.....and who is that? WE ARE.

Give the man the respect that he deserves because he gave us three films that we continue to discuss whether or not they were better than the others.

He deserves our respect regardless of his studio produced, "Land". What do you say we join together and give him some love, huh? After all......It could be the "Day" remake.....:confused:

[capncnut]

Give the man the respect that he deserves because he gave us three films that we continue to discuss whether or not they were better than the others.

I will most certainly high five that.

[Huescacho]

[QUOTE=HLS;67234]Wow. Chaos is banned. Is it permanent? Dang!

Why was banned Chaos?. I'm sorry for him...
I thinck that it's very difficult to do a zombi movie in this times. There are a lot, and copy some parts, is easy... We are very heavies with Romero...

[Fleshmunch]

Yeah, good thing I clarified my earlier post. Anyway, I'm glad Romero got paid the big bucks to do a studio film, he deserves a big pay day and all for what he's done in the past for us zombie fans. But I sure wish I hadn't wasted $10 to see Land in the theater or see it ever, even for free because it makes me so mad and taints my enjoyment of Romero's "real" Dead movies. I don't think of Land as a real Dead film and ignore it as much as possible. For me, there's the original trilogy and the NotLD '90 remake as "official" Romero Dead movies. Dawn '04 I liked on its own all right, but it sucked compared to the original because James Gunn's script was just not good enough and the film had nothing to say except "Look at me! I'm extreme!" :rolleyes:

I hope George makes another good movie, I really do. Him making Land to me was like Lucas making Phantom Menace and calling it Star Wars when it was brain-dead crap. And Big Daddy was Romero's Jar-Jar, who had none of Bub's charm. Why not bring Bub back instead of making a crap new smart zombie character? I liked Bub better as an anomaly, anyway, rather than as representing an evolution of all zombies into smarter ones... :dead:

[coma]

James Gunn's script was just not good enough and the film had nothing to say except "Look at me! I'm extreme!"
Hahaha:lol:
Word

[Fleshmunch]

Hahaha:lol:
Word

I ain't dissin' James Gunn. Well, not too bad. Rewriting a horror classic is a hard job. And to be fair, the director cut all the scenes that helped the movie make sense. I watched them on the DVD and heard the director bragging about how cutting these scenes was good for the movie but they were the scenes that answered all the questions everybody had while watching the goddamn movie! What a dumbass! Like how the people got in the mall (both times). But the changes in the new version's script were usually pretty generic "extreme" and didn't explain a lot of stuff, like how the little girl zombie got in Sarah Polley's house. No social commentary I could pick up on.

Still, better than I thought it was gonna be. It was wayyy better than Land with wayyy more likable characters, dialogue, and fun stuff going on (shooting zombie celebrity look-alikes, Andy at the Gun Shop, etc.). There WAS good stuff in it, and I'm sure they tried hard, which is why it didn't suck. Anyway, James Gunn did Slither which was good and I liked the first Scooby Doo movie, too. So he's okay in my book. A miracle considering he came outta Troma, which never made a good movie and never will. :lol:

[bassman]

:rolleyes:

I guess if you watch films based on other films made in the past that you enjoyed, you're always going to be let down.

I do agree with the Dawn04 comment, however.

[Fleshmunch]

:rolleyes:

I guess if you watch films based on other films made in the past that you enjoyed, you're always going to be let down.

That is usually true but not always... Frex, I liked the TCM remake about as much as the original. I thought they did a great job and I would feel torn if given a choice between watching the original and the remake, which is the same way I feel about NotLD '68 and NotLD '90. So sometimes remakes really do live up to the spirit and potential of the original even when the originals are certified classics. And sometimes remakes are better than the original, like Blood Diner is wayyy better than Blood Feast (even if it an unofficial remake).

[bassman]

And....What does land have to do with remakes, again?:rockbrow:

[Fleshmunch]

I guess nothing! LOL.

Okay, to make my point re: Land, I say that there's the original, right? And because you like that, you go to see the sequels, prequels, remakes, whatever, right? And you carry the delight you have for the original into the theater when you see the films that come after and measure them against the original.

Examples of sequels that equalled or exceeded the originals (or were close enough despite some sucky parts): For A Few Dollars More, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Godfather II, Dawn of the Dead '78, Day of the Dead, Return of the Living Dead 3, Chinese Ghost Story 2 and 3, A Better Tomorrow 2 and 3, etc.

Land fails compared to the original Dead films because it is too sucky and too different. It lets down the audience who loved what came before instead of building on that love. It just poops on it and says "this is what you get suckers." It's just a bad movie, plain and simple, even if Romero hadn't made it, but the fact Romero made it and intended it as a fourth Dead film is the worst. I like House of the Dead 2 better than Land for crying out loud!!! :lol:

[James]

One of the things I didn't like about Land was that it had too many characters. I liked the fact that Dawn and Day had fewer characters. It added to the atmosphere and made them more memorable. Land's shortish running time compounded this. Also, I'm sure this has been said a gazillion times already but I wondered why they seemed to have very advanced technology in Land.

[bassman]

I guess nothing! LOL.

Okay, to make my point re: Land, I say that there's the original, right? And because you like that, you go to see the sequels, prequels, remakes, whatever, right? And you carry the delight you have for the original into the theater when you see the films that come after and measure them against the original.

Examples of sequels that equalled or exceeded the originals (or were close enough despite some sucky parts): For A Few Dollars More, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Godfather II, Dawn of the Dead '78, Day of the Dead, Return of the Living Dead 3, Chinese Ghost Story 2 and 3, A Better Tomorrow 2 and 3, etc.

Land fails compared to the original Dead films because it is too sucky and too different. It lets down the audience who loved what came before instead of building on that love. It just poops on it and says "this is what you get suckers." It's just a bad movie, plain and simple, even if Romero hadn't made it, but the fact Romero made it and intended it as a fourth Dead film is the worst. I like House of the Dead 2 better than Land for crying out loud!!! :lol:

Let me ask you this:

I don't know of your age, but if you had seen "Alien" in 1979 and REALLY enjoyed it.......would you have enjoyed it's sequel "Aliens" in 1986 even though it's a totally different film?

True, these two films are directed by two different directors, but my point is this.....If you go by your past experiences of films that are related to a new film that you're seeing, you're always going to be let down. I consider myself lucky because I did my best to totally forget Romero's past Dead films as I was on my way to the theater.

This isn't to say that "Land" doesn't have any faults.....it does. It has quite a few, actually. But being that I was able to temporarily erase my memory of the past Dead films and perceive the film that was being played before me.....I could see it's creator's intentions. As I said before, it had several flaws(the two biggest being Big Daddy and it's short time for character development), but I was still able to see the picture as a stand-alone film and not as a sequel that is supposed to live up to it's predecessors.

And for me, that helped it to be a decent film. Would I consider it as good as the original three? No. How could I? Most of us have been watching the original three for quite some time.

On the other hand, there are members here that don't like "Day". Maybe it's because:
A)they just don't like it(which you may have the same feelings about "Land" and that's understandable because everyone has different opinions)

or...

B) they had such a strong feeling and a sort of "relationship" with the films preceding it that they just didn't want to see a different film.

[Fleshmunch]

I liked Alien, Aliens, and hell, even Alien 3 (not so much Alien Resurrection, but I'd still rather watch that than Land any day). I watched them all in order of release and carried my expectations from film to film. The aliens weren't radically different in any of them--they were pretty much the same threat--the only difference was the number of aliens combined with the politics and location of the humans facing them. The Queen was just a big alien that could lay eggs. I guess they were slightly smaller and faster in Alien 3 (and molten lava-resistant :rolleyes:), but they were still the same threat.

The zombies in Land are smart and that's the problem. It changed the whole nature of the threat. Bub was an anomaly, an aberration, and early on in the timeline to boot. It doesn't make any sense for the zombies to be getting smarter, to be evolving, when their brains are decomposing... If anything, they should be getting dumber! And their bodies can't last for years and years--they have to fall apart sooner or later, otherwise we're talking about the supernaturally-animated skeleton warriors from Jason and the Argonauts or Army of Darkness, which zombies clearly aren't!

The film was promoted and promised as the fourth installment of the Romero Dead series, not as a stand-alone project, so it's gonna get compared to the OT (original trilogy), just like the Star Wars prequels got compared, just like Star Trek: Enterprise got compared to Captain Kirk. They don't hold up and they insult the memory of the originals (to varying degrees). They were made for love of money, not love of art*, and are tainted as a result. If Romero made Land with good intentions, they were overshadowed, erased and destroyed by the time the film was completed, leaving only dogsh*t in their wake. I knew the film was gonna be crap the minute I saw the retarded zombie marching band in the opening credits, but I tried to like Land (oh, how I tried!), and found nothing of value in it. Nothing.

I left the theater shaking with rage and feeling more than ripped-off, like a piece of my childhood had been raped and murdered, the same way I felt walking out of the Phantom Menace. This wasn't like some sh*tty Puppetmaster or Hellraiser sequel you know is gonna be crap, this was supposed to be a serious attempt to revive the franchise or at least get one more made. This was supposed to be for the fans, not AGAINST the fans. I'm not saying GAR is entirely at fault, but he's not off the hook by a longshot. His name is on it and it sucks--it spits in the face of the fans and says, "Screw you, suckers!" That's the feeling I get from it, anyway. I didn't get that from Aliens. Aliens simply changed the number of monsters and pitted them against badass space marines on a colony instead of wimps on a spaceship. It did nothing to change what had come before--if anything it built on it and said, "the original was a great horror movie, now let's make this new one a great action movie!" :) I can dig it. It was faithful.

And I'm not trying to be a dick or start a fight or anything, I'm sorry if I give that impression. I'm trying to clarify my position and answer your questions, but I get kind of worked up and foaming at the mouth over Land because I see it as a betrayal of my love for the Dead films that came before... :(

* I'm not so naive to think that movies (outside of some micro-budget independents) are made for art alone. They are made to make money, but the ones that have that love of art component too are the ones that become classics. Anything else, no matter how entertaining, is forgettable trash. YMMV.

[bassman]

Believe what you will.......everyone has their own opinion.

But me, I'm happy to see Romero back after 20+ years of waiting. It's much better than most meaningless crap out there today....

[Deaths_Shadow]

One of the things I didn't like about Land was that it had too many characters. I liked the fact that Dawn and Day had fewer characters. It added to the atmosphere and made them more memorable. Land's shortish running time compounded this. Also, I'm sure this has been said a gazillion times already but I wondered why they seemed to have very advanced technology in Land.

I have to agree with you. Alot of different characters with there own agenda's (including big daddy) and the trilogy was easier to keep track of and you really knew each character's persona well, i didn't feel that as much in Land. It was there i know but i wasn't feeling it. But there were parts that felt romero'ish but not many at least for me. For the viewers who loved it, great. But with all things your going to have disagreements and there own oppinions and no one can change how you feel (unless you join a cult) :lol:

[Fleshmunch]

Believe what you will.......everyone has their own opinion.

But me, I'm happy to see Romero back after 20+ years of waiting. It's much better than most meaningless crap out there today....

And I'd rather he never came back if Land is all he has to offer. It's not better than most meaningless crap, which was not supposed to be any good in the first place. Land was supposed to have meaning and ended up meaningless crap. That's the difference. That's where the pain, the sense of betrayal, comes from.

I can shrug off the junk, the drek, but when a "master" comes out with a new movie, it's supposed to be good and meaningful and important. But when it fails, it makes them look like desperate has-beens grasping at straws, trying to undeservedly rekindle past glories. Romero, Hooper, Carpenter, Argento, Lucas, Scorsese, etc. All rendered irrelevant, obsolete.

[bassman]

Like I said, difference of opinion.

BUT, to say that Scorcese has been making bad films lately....well....All I have to say is "The Aviator" and "The Departed".

[Fleshmunch]

Like I said, difference of opinion.

BUT, to say that Scorcese has been making bad films lately....well....All I have to say is "The Aviator" and "The Departed".

I'll give you The Aviator, but Gangs of New York and The Departed were lackluster affairs at best. Gangs was too long and Departed was just an average, forgettable movie. I couldn't tell Matt Damon and Leonard DiCaprio apart for the first half of the movie, that's what he gets for casting two blonde leads. :lol: And that chick they were fighting over was not hot, I guess that makes her believable as a psychochiatrist but I'm not getting that special feeling in my pants over her. Nice headshots at the end but too little too late. Not Oscar-worthy, but maybe he will get it because they unfairly passed him over forever. But it's wrong to get a sympathy Oscar when you don't deserve it.

[bassman]

I would say you're in the minority with that opinion....

[coma]

Believe what you will.......everyone has their own opinion.

But me, I'm happy to see Romero back after 20+ years of waiting. It's much better than most meaningless crap out there today....
Me too, except I wasnt waiting. It was a triology and LAnd was a bonus that wasnt supposed to happen in the first place.
And I loved Alien and AlienS. saw them both in orignal release.

[Arcades057]

But me, I'm happy to see Romero back after 20+ years of waiting. It's much better than most meaningless crap out there today....

Agreed with the first part, not so much with the second. It was good to see another offering in the series, even though it was not expected (by me at least). I went in with high expectations, and was disappointed. I saw it again in theaters, this time expecting to be disappointed and I liked it a little more. Subsequent watchings have not made me like it any more. I remain lukewarm on my reaction to the movie. I neither love it or hate. However, there are far more things which I hate about the movie than I like.

On the second point, though, I'd like to remind you that Batman Begins came out aroundthe same time. Batman KILLED Land. I went to see Batman with low expectations, sitting there with a smirk telling my Batman-obsessed buddy how terrible it would be... I left that theater with a "WTF?!" look on my face, talking about how good it was. Then he ribbed me about wanting to take him to Land instead. I'd go so far as to say that the third installment of the Star Wars prequels was better, also released around the same time; same with Mr. and Mrs. Smith, another movie which I enjoyed more, and if I'm not mistaken, also made more at the box office.

We're at a site devoted to GAR. This means that the majority of people here respect him; however, it does NOT mean that the majority of us will openly fawn over any tepid play he puts out that's plagued by terrible acting, worse character development, and a plot that would choke a donkey. I do believe those who would are in the minority.

If you actually enjoyed the movie because of the plot, the characters, the setting, and all that jazz, bully for you; leave GAR out of the equation and see if it doesn't change your minds on it.

[bassman]

I do leave Romero out of the equation, as well as any past zombie films that I've seen. And I enjoyed "Land". I'm not saying that it's "awesome!" or "excelent!" or anything like that....it's just an entertaining flick.

I'm not claiming that it has no flaws. No one can. It has several things that most of us would have changed(I think we're all agreed on Big Daddy and the length of the film, amongst others). The original three films have flaws. There's not as many as there is in "Land", but they're there. I guess the difference is that I'm able to look past those flaws and enjoy it for what it is.

[Trin]

I had high expectations for LAND. I also had expectations (not necessarily high ones) that would not have been there had it not been GAR. My beef is that it turned into the type of movie I don't associate with GAR. I didn't expect a movie where I should turn off my brain and eat my popcorn and get spoon fed impractical plot, contrived conflict, and high action. That's just not GAR to me.

The original 3 movies had depth. When you dig into the plot or characters you find a lot to think about. With Land it's worse than the opposite of that. You dig into the characters and plot and things make even less sense than on the surface.

I went into Dawn '04 with expectations too. Expectations based on the fact that it wasn't GAR and was geared more to be an action movie. It met my expectations well and in some ways exceeded them. It was way more thoughtful than I expected it to be. The characters were more intelligent and planned than I expected. It had its problems, sure, but it didn't leave me questioning everything anyone did like Land.

I'm definitely a GAR fan and he can make a dozen more movies like Land and I'll see them all. But I won't call a hamburger filet mignon.

[DVW5150]

i can name hundreds of lines. "Good shooting, no such thing as nice shooting", "God really left the phone off the hook, huh baby?!" , "That's why I still love you Charlie, you still believe in Heaven.", "Somebody shot the little fat man.", "Isn't that what we're doing? Pretending to be alive..."

I could go on.

"I came to do something... What are we standing around for? Let's do something"

The theater loved that one. i could quote all day. Great lines that some critics referred to as almost poetry in a way. Compared to movies like Saw, DOTD 2004, Hostel, etc. where the dialogue is "Oh my God" or "Hello?" , Land's dialogue is really good.

This one, "Trouble?",The K-man replies," In a world where the dead are coming back to life , the word 'trouble' looses much of its meaning."*Kaufman picks nose*
Question: Cholo is asking Kaufman about his money, opening the champagne.What do you think he meant by "our nights together?" WTF? Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Cholo hands the small glass to K man.
I like how K man puts the drink in the proper glass, I noticed it in the theater.GAR mentions it in the commentary.

[acealive1]

i loved the movie personally. was there opening night.

[darth los]

You know, alot of you like to **** on Land because it isn't Dawn or Day. I never realized why until I thought about it. People like us who are in love with Romero's zombie films we're waiting to be dissapointed by Land. There is NO WAY it would ever live up to expectations. Thats why I saw it twice in theaters. The first time I watchec it, I was a bit dissapointed because it wasn't what I expected. But, I decided that If I saw it again, but this time watched it as a whole other flick, it might be better. I enjoyed it much better the 2nd time going in with the mind set that this was a zombie flick. Not a Romero zombie flick, but just a zombie flick. The original three have nostalgic places in our hearts and to try and accept a new film is almost impossible because its not familiar to us. If you compare Land to 99 % of other horror films in this country, it is brilliant and really ****ing good. All of my friends who are not obsessed with the trilogy like I am loved it. They ate it up. Because, they weren't in the ****ty mind-frame that we all are. Like look at the Star Wars geeks. They get all dressed up with their light sabers and **** and go see the new film and they come out like "That sucked. That was no where near the calibur of the first three". If George Lucas made the original Star Wars again, it'd be cheesy as **** and no one would be happy. Same with Romero. The bottom line is that we'd could have never accepted this film because we love the others too much. Do you get what I'm saying?

I don't think we could ever love the fims to much..:D

However like you said it's all relative. For example. I have a smoking hot girlfriend who dumps me. I'm used to being with a smoking hot chick so whatever girl i'm with is not going to live up to what i had, i understand you.
But even if I took the movie into a different context and not compare it to the other films it's still sub par imo. Like i've posted before, it felt to me like i was watching a sci-fi channel original movie. :barf:

[Philly_SWAT]

I look at it like this. It wasnt until I really got into Dawn that I came to appreciate Night and Land the way I do now. As mentioned earlier in this thread, Dawn is the masterpiece. That rare occurance where circumstances provide a 'perfect' movie. Both Night and Day are rife with things that I could complain about, and I didnt like either of them after initial viewings as much as I did after subsequent viewings. I believe that Land will end up being the same for most. I too was disappointed after seeing Land in the theatre, I was expecting (hoping) for something equal to or better than Dawn after such a long wait. What I got instead is a movie that I think fits nicely into the story set forth in the first three movies. The main thing about Land that sticks out from the rest is the recognizable actors. Actors that i have seen in several other movies makes it harder to suspend my disbelief that they are people in a 'dead' situation.

As for Arcades057's point about the wasting of bullets, there is an explanation. If Land is a relatively short time period into the outbreak, people would still not realize the gravity of the situation. They are ignoring the problem, and thinking that life can go on, and hopefully return to normal in short order.

[darth los]

The main thing about Land that sticks out from the rest is the recognizable actors. Actors that i have seen in several other movies makes it harder to suspend my disbelief that they are people in a 'dead' situation.

That was a big thing for me also. I couldn't get into it. If they were unknown then it would have been more real, the story would have been unique to them, like it was THEIR ordeal they were going through. The only thing i thought when i say leguizamo fighting zombies was" damn did super mario bros. suck." Casting relatively unknowns was a big part of the other films for me.