why people like land of the dead

[Zombielord69]

Now we all know that there are some that really dislike land of the dead. but there are alot of us that loved it. like me! :D If you enjoyed the movie tell me why.

For me it was great to see a romero zombie movie in theaters for once in my life. but of course that wasnt the reason why i liked the movie. I loved the Gore, the zombies, and cholos character. when he got bit it was really sad. I mean all he wanted to do was to move up to the good life. and the way foxy looked when cholo got bit was a look of loosing a friend.

[Cereval]

I'm too lazy to copy and paste and reformat, so HERE (http://www.preciousnightmare.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=687)'s my answer ... :rockbrow:

[MinionZombie]

Yep, I freakin' loved Land.

For me also, it was my first chance to see a GAR flick - and a GAR zombie flick (bonus!) - in the cinema. Saw it opening night here in the UK, September 23rd...then got it on DVD less than 3 weeks later from America, haha!

As for me, I love how it showed us the next step in the story - none of that "it's just started" crap we've seen TOO MANY TIMES. I love the music, the gore, the 'look' of the film...that whole vibe I was really into, the characters are both lovable but are also not fantastic human beings. It was great to see the next step in zombie evolution, it brought THOUGHT to the zombie genre again after too much Yawn04 stuff out there...many more reasons why I loved it, but flat out I just thought the movie was freakin' sweet.

[Adrenochrome]

For one, the gore - some of the gore scenes were the best I've seen in any flick (the zombie pulling guts from the vistims' mouth, CLASSIC - - face being ripped off of man, wonderful!)
2nd - I've always loved the feel of any post apocalyptic setting in movies; seeing (mostly) empty city streets, wild "market/trading post" type areas of town where people barter goods. The raids outside of the "camp" for food, water and supplies ... and I LOVED the mental evolution of the Zombies..... GAR showed in Night how they were slowly learning or adapting (using rocks and sticks), in Dawn he showed how they would "follow" someone (Stephen zombie) and in Day there was Bub. I loved how in Land they (the zombies) were vindictive; and at the end, "moving on".
I was quite pleased with Land of the Dead and have watched it at least a dozen times.


peace

[HLS]

i like it because it makes me love my home city of Pittsburgh even more! as a matter of fact I am about to upload a photo of it to my profile. i liked it for it had great acting. I felt that it needed a more graphic zombie feast scene.

[MinionZombie]

Another thing about Land - the use of CGI - for the most part you don't notice the CGI, it's often used to just fill in blank gaps or for background stuff. But when I watched the little featurette on the DVD about the green screen stuff I couldn't believe how much had been added in digitally.

Sure, it would have been better to have more practical blood gushing rather than CGI - at least for 'hero' moments - background is okay - but the one that got me was when Riley and Charlie walk out from the subway/underground and onto the street - the entire shot was green screen and put in later, I couldn't believe it. Now Land shows how CGI SHOULD be used.

Of course, you can't make the likes of "Serenity" with subtle CGI, but I'm talking about smaller scale, 'real world' flicks.

[erisi236]

hell I liked it for for if anything that fact that it was a GAR zombie film in the theaters, thats damn unusual. :D

[Tri0xin]

Because they had to wait twenty years in order to see a new Romero zombie movie!

[bassman]

Because they had to wait twenty years in order to see a new Romero zombie movie!
I think it would probably be the other way around. The reason that some people don't like "Land" is because they had to wait twenty years and during that time, they thought about what the next chapter should have been.

Then when Romero gave us his idea of the next chapter, they were mad because it wasn't what they had in mind.

That's the way it appears to me, anyway...

[MinionZombie]

And that's why folk shouldn't think about such things too much - or expect certain things - I've found many times, if you go in expecting something to be good, it'll only let you down.

Go in with excitement, but no expectations, and you'll do fine. I was just really chuffed that GAR had gotten a new flick out - and I was seeing my first GAR flick in cinemas...*damn that dancing Farley is hypnotising/sickening*...and so I had no expectations. I just sat there for the 90 minutes with my equally-excited mate and we just had the best time, so many "remember the bit" moments...*ahhh* I think I love "Land" more and more everytime I see it...and I loved it after my first time.

[deadpunk]

I loved it because it had something no other Romero movie ever had...A PLOT!

[Mike]

Land for me was a great experience, as like so many other people it was the first GAR film I had the oppurtunity to view in the cinema.

What I loved most about the film was the cinematography. The visual look of the film was amazing and is the style I prefer.

The cgi was also impressive although at times it was painfully obvious.

[MinionZombie]

Riiiiiight.....:confused:

[mista_mo]

I loved it...it's not the best (Day to me still has that title) but hell, I prefer it over Dawn. Remember, I'm a teenager. I like a hell of alot of action and believable effects, in that respect, Dawn couldn't hold my attention at all (I hated the blue green zombies and thought they were just silly as all hell) Land had that, and I know that ALOT of people are like me out there. In order for a film to capture and keep attention, it must first look good. Thats why I don't like Dawn so much anymore (night is watchable because it's in black and white and you don't notice the bright blood or the poor make-up as much) Honestly...I'll admit, I like Land because of the make-up, it's what caught and kept me interested, I mean the stuff they can do know is amazing. However, when a film can keep your attention you tend to look deeper into it, and more closely at the characters, which I did, and I liked em all. Blast me if you will for liking a film because of the make-up and effects (I mean, the way they used CGI was some of the best I've seen in a movie, cept for that priest zombie of course) but because of that, I was able to look at what else the film had to offer, and there is a hell of alot there.

[ZombieFood]

In a word: Zombies.

But zombies alone aren't enough to ensure that I'll enjoy it. It has to get me thinking "What if..."

And LotD did that. :D

[Monrozombi]

George Romero zombies, whether "intelligent" or not, they were Romero zombies, for the last 20 years everyone has tried to copy them but they couldn't replicate the originals like George. and just seeing george make a movie and actually being there and being part of its creation, albeit a small one, was special enough for me, i loved LOTD

[jdog]

a good flic in my books,but i expected alot more.
it needed a longer running time and a better ending but the gore is great.

[DjfunkmasterG]

gore alone can't save a movie, even a GAR movie. Gore was cool when I was 14, but now I look for the character development and people I will like and dislike. The only character most people even cared about was charlie. I would have cared less if anyone else got eaten alive. I liked Charlie, he was well played, everyone else must have had too much fun or was bored to death and phoned in their performaces.

Not all of LAND was bad, there were some decent visuals. I still love the opening crane shot down through the park passing by the really rotted female zombie, then once it got to Big Daddy it pretty much went downhill from there.

[mista_mo]

Riley was great...I thought he was a great character, and was well played, same with Cholo.

[MinionZombie]

Something I liked about Riley was that he wasn't a clean-cut likeable hero, he wasn't always the nicest guy and he wasn't into the whole community idea, he just wanted to live out his days in the wilderness...

[Skold]

i still love this movie. Here's a repost of mine from the old f0's: http://www.homepageofthedead.com/cgi/forum/forum.pl?f=a&m=11465

- Social commentary is back! And it was very well done. i wonder how many people who have seen this this film have realized that we are no different than the lower class here. Some kiss ass to move up (Cholo), some try to organize to no avail (Mulligan), and most don't care as long as they are entertained. Well done. There were also some less obvious allegories such as money is only worth something because someone says it is (in our case the US government, in the film Kaufman).

- The acting! Most of the acting in the trilogy was kind of flat. Not bad, but not great (i think Pilato is the exception here). i think the 3 best actors of the series are in LOTD - Leguizamo, Baker, and Joy. i was very skeptical about Leguizamo - i'd never heard of him and all of the sudden he's everywhere, but i thought he was great. Even with the rushed pace of the film, i enjoyed the characterizations of Cholo, Riley, and Charlie (mostly due to the actors i think).

- The scale! Dude, this movie was an epic. Remember when you first saw Dawn (after seeing Night) and was blown away by how epic it was? We saw the outbreak in the tv station, the projects, Philly (the building going dark still haunts me), redneck mid-PA, the mall, and the bikers. Then you thought that was going to be expanded in Day after the unbelievable opening in Ft. Myers, only to have it close in on one place. Well the epic is back. i've so wanted to see cities, abandoned towns, small ouposts, rural roads, sub-divisons. i loved that!

- Large scale feasting! We've only been treated to a few people at a time up until now. i've always wondered how crowds dealt with the outbreak. Here we have two (TWO!) scenes about that! The break in into Fiddlers Green was great. i loved seeing how we all got in each others' way. The scene where the bitten guy grabs a running girl's ankle was awesome! Then the city scene. We missed the carnage, but the aftermath was incredible! 50 zombies eating 50 people's remains - i've always wanted to see that!

- Savini! Best cameo EVAR! He even used the infamous move that he used on the "Machete Zombie" on a live person! Awesome!


Great flick! :)

[lullubelle]

Well I was one of those that did not like "Land" when it first came out, I was very much acostum to the old "dead" movies, but I have grown to like it and actually will say now that it truly is good, most of us old geasers grew up with one of the "dead" movie for me it was "dawn 78" and I remember not been to receptive of "Day", this may apply to other members too, but after watching the movie several times now, I can truly say I like it.

[MinionZombie]

When you mention Day that makes me giggle - because when Day came out it bombed and a load of people utterly hated it big style ... then it found it's home on video and became the huge cult success it is today and everybody holds it in high regard - it's exactly the same with Land.

When Day came along everybody was expecting another Dawn of the Dead, pie fights and a crazy, disco-loving time. But the 80's were all about giving up and the 'nuclear-thing' - not exactly a cheery time in GAR's world. With Land, people were expecting a movie just like the original three - most fans (me included) had seen the original trilogy in hindsight and were used to that small budget, independent, gritty look with the usual suspects behind the scenes. Land is 20 years later - the first flick many of us Dead Heads have seen in cinemas that is a GAR zombie flick (or just a GAR flick) - things have moved on, people have changed, but it's essentially the same.

All you gotta do in a situation like this is not expect anything. GAR made the movie he wanted to make - just like with Land - in time, the fourth flick will become more and more successful and more a part of the first three films.

[jdog]

When you mention Day that makes me giggle - because when Day came out it bombed and a load of people utterly hated it big style ... then it found it's home on video and became the huge cult success it is today and everybody holds it in high regard - it's exactly the same with Land.

When Day came along everybody was expecting another Dawn of the Dead, pie fights and a crazy, disco-loving time. But the 80's were all about giving up and the 'nuclear-thing' - not exactly a cheery time in GAR's world. With Land, people were expecting a movie just like the original three - most fans (me included) had seen the original trilogy in hindsight and were used to that small budget, independent, gritty look with the usual suspects behind the scenes. Land is 20 years later - the first flick many of us Dead Heads have seen in cinemas that is a GAR zombie flick (or just a GAR flick) - things have moved on, people have changed, but it's essentially the same.

All you gotta do in a situation like this is not expect anything. GAR made the movie he wanted to make - just like with Land - in time, the fourth flick will become more and more successful and more a part of the first three films.
i agree 100% with you on that.

[Harold W Brown]

The last time I saw a Romero zombie flick in theaters was in 1985. I had recently discovered Dawn on video, and was expecting something similar. My dad took me to a midnight screening, and as I let go of my expectations and watched the film unfold, I began to have what was - and what remains - the best time I've ever had in a theater. Believe it or not, DAY seemed "too slick" to be part of Romero's world at first! I was expecting the same grubby, DIY-looking action fest that I'd found in Dawn.

There was a similar initial deflation with "Land" - "this looks too polished, why the **** is there cgi?", etc. After repeat viewings, there are still things I'd change about Land (more daytime scenes, "dirtier" visuals), but it's settling into a comfortable spot within the series. As you watch again and forget your nitpicks, you can let the story Romero wanted to tell take hold.

[MinionZombie]

RE: the cgi in Land - I liked how it was used.

Well, I did and I didn't...I didn't like the CGI blood, it looks like CGI blood and was used a bit too much, just do it practically damnit! They did plenty of stuff practically...but we needed more real headshots and blood spurts.

However, CGI was also used well - watching the DVD featurette about the use of CGI in the flick was quite surprising - a lot of it I didn't even notice, and that's how CGI should be employed in most movies.

P.S. Land rocks! :cool:

[Brubaker]

Regardless of whether or not it measures up to other GAR films, Land is redeemed by the fact that nobody but GAR would have made that same film during that same year. Perfect or not, you can't watch it saying that a half dozen other directors would have done the very same thing.

[darth los]

RE: the cgi in Land - I liked how it was used.

Well, I did and I didn't...I didn't like the CGI blood, it looks like CGI blood and was used a bit too much, just do it practically damnit! They did plenty of stuff practically...but we needed more real headshots and blood spurts.

However, CGI was also used well - watching the DVD featurette about the use of CGI in the flick was quite surprising - a lot of it I didn't even notice, and that's how CGI should be employed in most movies.

P.S. Land rocks! :cool:

I feel the same way. You would think that with the success they had with prothstetic effects in the past, day in particular, that they would have kept with it. It's astounding how, even though they're over 20 years old, day's effects are still superior to lands. I hope that he listens to feedback from fans like us and does the effects the traditional way or until the cgi technology reaches the point to as you said, be indistinguishable from "real" effects.

[MinionZombie]

I'd imagine the reason a bunch of CGI was used to flesh out sequences like the truck rolling down the street (adding muzzle flashes, hits, head shots etc) is because of two things:

1) Too complex to set up and time correctly
2) Not enough time during the production for much more practical blood splatter

[MissJacksonCA]

When Land first came to theaters I went to see it. Yep first showing at the movie theater. I had to watch it alone so I wouldn't risk going with someone who's a theater talker (not to say Ive never talked during a movie but I mean there's just a certain time you need alone with a zombie movie). And boy did I love it. I loved it when I saw it again with some friends who wouldn't shut up. I saw it again with my boyfriend. I saw it again with someone I just met. I saw it again with my coworkers. I saw it again alone. I saw it again with my mum. I saw it again alone. Eventually I had to stop seeing it. I was after all going broke its not cheap going to the movies...

I thought hey damn... good looking cast... love Leguizamo... haven't seen Hopper for years... Asia was damn hot... and the Samoan guy reminded me of my boss... and wow never knew Simon Baker but I was like finally a good looking guy in a zombie movie. I really liked the way the zombies attacked the city and fought their way to the evil doers. I loved seeing Luigi turn into a zed. I loved near everything about it. The ending baffled me a wee tick but hey...

Then I came back to this website... and some jackass said he hated it... made me look twice at the ol dvd... and after much deep thought I began to dislike it. I've pretty much always had a problem with Romero. I mean why couldn't he keep following the same characters? Where the hell did Fran and Peta-boy end up? What happened to Sarah and John and what's his face? I had to know! It wasn't fair not knowing. Sure its fun to wonder where are they now. But I wanted to know. And then I began to watch this... and saw Day of the Dead... and thought... damn I hate those movies.

The zombies began to pose less of a threat to the remaining survivors... I mean it seemed like they were generally content to stay where they were from and wait for food to come to them. And then people had a 'safe' place to live even if they were forced to live like hobos in Hoover-towns while the wealthy hobnobbed in the green. And I mean them finding Pringles was just silly. How long would any remaining food stay preserved? This movie was LONG AFTER any of the previous films so it just seemed outright bizarre that they would be able to keep finding **** in surrounding areas. And the survivors seemed to have no means and no intentions of actually beginning to re-take the world from the zombies so it really bugged me. It was like they were content to just 'live' as they were. And then when he got into the whole 'underground' thing where they were throwing people into a ring and to watch zombies fight over 'em I just thought now we're going redneck crazy and the movie just began to seem even more stupid. Painfully stupid. The end was the worst part for me. I mean not even trying to kill the zombies while in the safety of Dead Reckoning? Thats silly and it was the final straw I tell you the final one!

Something else that bothered me was the character development you see in his previous films that was just missing from this one. It seemed like there were too many characters to develop and well... I was just disappointed :barf:

[darth los]

Most of the characters in land were shallow and self centered. There was really nothing there to develop, which is one of the reasons that i really couldn't root for anybody in the film. I think this was a technique he was using to make the zeds seem more sympathetic. In the previous 3 there was atleast one person or situation we could all identify with. It just didn't happen for me in this film.

[MissJacksonCA]

I just think he used certain well known actors like Hopper and Leguizamo to pre-establish their characters personality. I mean Hopper is typically evil and Leguizamo is oft selfish and dirty... Never heard of SBaker... Asia of course played the typical female... it was a disappointment on so many levels...

[darth los]

I just think he used certain well known actors like Hopper and Leguizamo to pre-establish their characters personality. I mean Hopper is typically evil and Leguizamo is oft selfish and dirty... Never heard of SBaker... Asia of course played the typical female... it was a disappointment on so many levels...


Well if we never agree on something ever again, which is a good bet, Atleast i made you see this film in a different light.

[MissJacksonCA]

yeah... AND A BIG BEAMING THANKS MAN FOR THAT...

[RustyHicks]

People like it, people don't like it. I'm one of the ones who doesn't like it.
I veiwed it a couple of times before giving my DVD copy away to a friend. I think it's great George is doing zombie films again, I just couldn't get into this one. I couldn't relate to any of the characters, couldn't even care about them, so I didn't get involved in the movie, as much as I tried.

[darth los]

People like it, people don't like it. I'm one of the ones who doesn't like it.
I veiwed it a couple of times before giving my DVD copy away to a friend. I think it's great George is doing zombie films again, I just couldn't get into this one. I couldn't relate to any of the characters, couldn't even care about them, so I didn't get involved in the movie, as much as I tried.

And don't think that gar is not in tune with what worked with this film and what didn't. I expect him to take the feedback both positive and negative and make a beter better film the next time out. I think because the way this film was recieved by fans is the reason that he scrapped the land sequel idea in favor of rebooting the series with diary.

[vito]

i still love this movie. Here's a repost of mine from the old f0's: http://www.homepageofthedead.com/cgi/forum/forum.pl?f=a&m=11465

- Social commentary is back! And it was very well done. i wonder how many people who have seen this this film have realized that we are no different than the lower class here. Some kiss ass to move up (Cholo), some try to organize to no avail (Mulligan), and most don't care as long as they are entertained. Well done. There were also some less obvious allegories such as money is only worth something because someone says it is (in our case the US government, in the film Kaufman).

- The acting! Most of the acting in the trilogy was kind of flat. Not bad, but not great (i think Pilato is the exception here). i think the 3 best actors of the series are in LOTD - Leguizamo, Baker, and Joy. i was very skeptical about Leguizamo - i'd never heard of him and all of the sudden he's everywhere, but i thought he was great. Even with the rushed pace of the film, i enjoyed the characterizations of Cholo, Riley, and Charlie (mostly due to the actors i think).

- The scale! Dude, this movie was an epic. Remember when you first saw Dawn (after seeing Night) and was blown away by how epic it was? We saw the outbreak in the tv station, the projects, Philly (the building going dark still haunts me), redneck mid-PA, the mall, and the bikers. Then you thought that was going to be expanded in Day after the unbelievable opening in Ft. Myers, only to have it close in on one place. Well the epic is back. i've so wanted to see cities, abandoned towns, small ouposts, rural roads, sub-divisons. i loved that!

- Large scale feasting! We've only been treated to a few people at a time up until now. i've always wondered how crowds dealt with the outbreak. Here we have two (TWO!) scenes about that! The break in into Fiddlers Green was great. i loved seeing how we all got in each others' way. The scene where the bitten guy grabs a running girl's ankle was awesome! Then the city scene. We missed the carnage, but the aftermath was incredible! 50 zombies eating 50 people's remains - i've always wanted to see that!

- Savini! Best cameo EVAR! He even used the infamous move that he used on the "Machete Zombie" on a live person! Awesome!


Great flick! :)

i cant agree more with you land is the second best in the series dawn being the 1st IMO and yeah the zombie blades cameo was awsome :) i hope if theirs a sequel for land he appears agian :cool:

[Doc]

1) Frist Romero film I ever saw.
2) Charlie
3) A large Feast of a big number of zeds devouring people.
4) The Blades Zombie(if that was him)

but that's all.

[vito]

1) Frist Romero film I ever saw.
2) Charlie
3) A large Feast of a big number of zeds devouring people.
4) The Blades Zombie(if that was him)

but that's all.

yes its him read a topic name blades and read the link i just recentaly found savini said hes him

[clanglee]

To be fair guys, this thread should be closed too. For balance.

[MissJacksonCA]

To be fair guys, this thread should be closed too. For balance.

lol... I dont think theyve ever closed a thread in a dead discussion

[clanglee]

just closed "why people hate lotd"

[MissJacksonCA]

ohhhh that's weird... hey new things everyday!

[Legion2213]

To be fair guys, this thread should be closed too. For balance.

+1

Bad call to close any thread IMO, especially when there was no nastiness or abuse going on in the "hate Land" thread. :(

[MinionZombie]

I ended it because it had run it's course at least twice already, nothing new was happening, people were getting sick & tired of it, and this "like" thread has barely had the action the "hate" thread has seen.

Haters are always so more vocal I guess. :rolleyes:

But that's off topic for this one, so...

One thing I love about Land - Charlie. :)

[MissJacksonCA]

Charlie was the quintessential sidekick but there wasn't enough emotion between him and his better looking half. Not emotion like the two of 'em saying 'i love you man' but y'know... it was cute and all how Simon Baker saved him from a fire but he acted so numb towards everyone like meh... who gives a hoot... who wants to align with that kinda person?

[MinionZombie]

I think the point is that Riley isn't a lovable character, he's a bit of a dick, like many of the characters in Land. They're either out for themselves or have given up ... or are just wanting to head to Canada and bury their heads in the sand.

Riley is kinda like the reluctant older brother to Charlie. I thought it was done quite well, but it was never intended to be all touchy feely between them.

I think also that part of the idea with Land is that, as one of the characters mentions, the zombies are living better than the humans are. There's a switch of roles in a way, the zombies can have stronger emotions - albeit basic in structure, mainly angry - than the humans, who are all just trundling along going "meh" at most things.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I CALL BULLSH!T!

If this stays open so should "Why people Hate Land of the Dead" It is not fair to people like me who loathe this film to not have a forum to voice my opinion when the minority, thats right, the minority, who like it can run off at the mouth with out any reprisals.


if you close one, you should close the other. However, could always start another "Why people Hate LOTD" threads. Youknow I will do it too. :evil:

[MissJacksonCA]

Ah I can see it a bit better now with that said but I still have a hard time with the movie just bcos I suppose in the end they've lost their will to fight for world domination and its like they've died inside like they have nothing left... and then they head to Canada like it'll be better there because what? Canada has virtually no people and thus no zombies? I just didn't get it.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Land of the Dead still sucks, now matter how you slice it.

[MinionZombie]

Well it's been proven several times already that Land is more liked than disliked on this forum - and that is an irrefutable fact, it just is, deal with it haters.

I'd already stated my reasons, but evidently the haters just hate and bitch and moan and just spoiled this thread, so I'll close this one too and consider the "is it good, is it bad, why so?" back and forth dealt with - it's been flogged to death beyond belief, and two opposing brick walls smashing their heads against each other is just lame at a point.

That poor old flogged horse.

I think it's a shame that this thread can't be given another shot at some life, when the other thread has been ridden more than a two-dollar-whore.