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

[Toonloon]

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

[Geizeh]

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

[zomtom]

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

[Toonloon]

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

[dracenstein]

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

[EvilNed]

I generally like it. It's an OK zombie flick, and definetly a notch above the average zed movie out there. Having said that, the film was (and still is) compared to Dawn and Day and I feel that those films are simply superior flicks. 1) The writing in Land is lazy. Plenty of the characters act in a stupid manner and make decisions that nobody in that situation would. Like the character Mouse sitting tight and listening to heavy music instead of keeping his senses focused on spotting any zombie activity in his vicinity. The soldiers wasting lots and lots of ammo just to waste a single zombie. Too many actions in this film feel like they don't make any sense. 2) The characters are charicatures, not persons. Something happened inbetween Day and Land with Romero. He started writing characters that were given cool nicknames and had funny little quirks about them. None of these guys feel all that realistic. It even started in Day, if you will, with the character of Frankenstein, but he felt acceptable within the limits of that world. But in Land there's too many. There's the burned-to-a-crisp Sharpshooter Charlie, the Dwarf running the night club, a squadron of tough-as-nails soldiers who all introduce themselves as if we're in a video game. To top it off, Riley, our protagonist, is a kinda boring dude. Simon Baker underacts this hero and he's just... boring. There are literally no interesting relationships in this film, where we there were plenty of interesting ones in both Dawn and Day. 3) The money issue is kinda dumb. What use is money? What is Cholo gonna do with it? And why doesn't Kaufman just give it up? It's worthless outside Fiddler's Green anyway. 4) Big Daddy could've been handled better. He's to "nice". He kills plenty of people but he doesn't bite into any of them. He should've been more of a brute. Shouldn't we be at least a little bit afraid of him? 5) It's way more of an action film than either Dawn or Day ever was. And the action is pretty bland, with plenty of cheap scares.

[MinionZombie]

I've always liked Land ... although I did love it to begin with ... I'm downgraded to "liking" it a fair bit. I think that's a good place to be with it. Some things it gets right, other things it gets wrong. There are a few things that have stood out to me over the years as little disappointments or annoyances - lines of dialogue that were too blunt, certain actions that were too iffy, and yeah, even though I initally liked Big Daddy ... all that flippin' howling all the damn time ... Christ! It is a bit slap-dash in places, and some of the CGI blood is disappointing (albeit understandable on the schedule and budget Romero received), but there's also many things I really dig about it. Sure, it's not up to the standard of the original three, but it's decidedly above the majority of zombie films out there, and is a pretty fun ride. It just needed some work and a big old dollop of subtlety ... the message is rather blunt, although nowhere near as blunt as in Diary of the Dead (which, unfortunately, was like being smashed over the head with Thor's hammer). As for the money issue: 1) Any money blowing around loose would have either been stolen already in the early days of the outbreak, or rotted away into mush if just blowing around outside in the weather. 2) Any money in banks would be too well defended behind vaults - with zombies all around you can't stage a flippin' heist to get it out of there, and you might require power, so if there isn't any you're doubly stuffed. 3) Money does have value - it's something that all the people recognise from the old world, it's something all of them understand ... it's also a way to control the people under Kaufman's roof. They have their own mini economy within the walls of Fiddler's Green - as well as all the other places Kaufman set up elsewhere in other locations (he makes mention of that, and was planning to head to one of those locations before Big Daddy got him). To say that the money is worthless is absolutely daft - it's a mini economy (replete with bars, gambling, prostitution etc) that all the residents understand from pre-zombie days, and Kaufman is pulling the strings and controlling the flow of cash. Simple. I've never understood why some folks don't get this, or don't buy into the idea. It's always been very straight-forward in my mind. I do think Land is unfairly slagged off in it's entirety for a collection of sins and failures that certainly don't outweigh the good elements. If some changes could have been made to the script and the on-screen execution, it would have been bloody great ... we'll have to settle for good & solid instead, but I'm still pleased with the flick as a fan. I've not re-watched it lately, but I have seen it numerous times over the years. Easily his best post-1990 flick by a country mile in spite of its mixed flaws.

[Andy]

I famously dont give land any slack at all, i hate it. I hated it when i first saw it and i hate it a little bit more everytime i watch it. its the movie marked romero's change from a genius into a hack as far as im concerned. I wrote a lengthy post on why i hated it several years ago, because i kept getting asked lol. EDIT - Found it, now bear in mind i posted this in 2009. A lot of people have asked me in the last few weeks what my big issue with land of the dead is, ive had PM's from a couple of members asking me to explain myself, how can I rank a Romero movie my personal worse movie ever? Well im setting out my points here, before I do so though, I want to point out, this is not open for debate, I dont need persuading and my mind wont be changed. I hate land more than any other zombie movie, that includes night of the living dead 30th anniversary edition, contagium, the day remake, children.. any other piece of shit zombie flick you care to throw out, I rank land worse. Dosnt matter what anybody posts in this topic, you will not change my mind on this matter so don't attempt to. I am simply laying out my reasons, as I have been asked to several times. OK lets begin. OK lets start with the setting. The whole setting is wrong, we are lead to believe that this movie takes place 3 years after day of the dead, one of my favourite movies of all time, yet the atmosphere looks like its come from the dawn of the dead time period. Let me elaborate, in Day, you have your survivors in the bunker, they fly 100 miles up and down the coast looking for other survivors and they find zilch. Watching this movie, you really do get a sense that this is the end, this is it, the human race is fucked. Land on the other hand, an entire city has somehow been missed off the zombie map? Your kidding me right? An entire city full of bums and tramps, seriously the lowest of the low, societies bottom rung.. these guys would be the first to die if a zombie apocalypse actually happened, who are more concerned with getting drunk and gambling than they are about the undead horde outside? Yeah right, as if these idiots would survive.. how the hell have a group of bums and tramps got to this city? “what if they weren't tramps before Z-Day?” Were they normal people beforehand and then they reached the city and succumbed to Kaufman rule and happily accepted living as a tramp? Really?... Also on the topic of the atmosphere/setting, what's up with the scale? Again using day of the dead as a reference, Logan says that they outnumber humans by around 500,000 to 1. Just take a minute to think about that scale, 500,000 to 1... how many zombies come after the helicopter when they disturb the city at the beginning? Fucking loads... how many engulf the bunker at the end? Fucking loads..... Now in land, how many zombies are attacking the city? What about 20 or 30? WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE REST OF THEM? On a giant zombie vacation? Your seriously expecting me to believe this is 3 years AFTER day, zombies outnumbered humans by 500,000 to 1 and threw massive attacks of hundreds of zombs at whatever survivors there where and now all of a sudden there's only about 30 of them attacking a city? A full city with lights and noise that could be heard for miles away? Seriously? Incredibly stupid stupid stupid Romero. Next up is the story, now I have to admit I avoid watching this film whenever I can, it pains me to watch it, so im not 100% up to speed with the story but from what I remember, there's a good guy who is charge of “dead reckoning” (ohh ill get to that) and there is a bad guy, chodo or something.. I always think of the dog from wizard of oz when i hear his name mentioned so from now on ill be referring to him as toto.. they have some kind of rivalry going on i think even though its never explained as they both fetch things for Mr Kaufmann and his city. The good guy wants to leave the city and be a kind of wondering nomad amongst the zombies, although again, its never explained why he dosnt just do this? he needs Kaufmann's permission for some reason which isnt explained.. this movie does that alot, i guess romero didnt have time for explainations.. Anyway toto however, he wants to live in the tower in the middle of the city with all the rich folks and thinks he can buy his way in, but Kaufmann tells him to fuck off, he gets mad and steals dead reckoning, and drives off, letting a huge unstopable group of about 25-30 zombies into the city which the military, which has up to this point survived for 3 years of zombie apocalypsee so they cant say their not experienced, anyway this military cant handle a school group size gang of zombies. Toto then aims some missiles at the city and demands $1,000,000 (ill get to that too) or else he'll blow it up. Then the good guy goes out of the city in a car of some sort, with his crew and gets dead reckoning back, saving the day. Am I the only one who thinks that is absolutely ridiculous? I was writing better stories in primary school (elementary school to you Americans) and this has come from George Romero.. the creator of the holy trilogy of movies. Did he envision this during a seizure of some kind? Seriously.. its tragically bad, it is the single worse storyline ive ever heard for a movie. Fact. First off dead reckoning, not only has this city had time to build and fortify itself while the rest of the world falls to pieces and zombies take over, but the inhabitants of said city have had time to build a huge armour plated “big brother of the buses from dawn'04”.. where exactly have they got the materials for this? Where does it get its ammo for its incredible arsenal? Come to think of it, how the hell do they keep it fuelled up? Something that size must get through a good few gallons every mile, its fair enough saying they scavenge it but where and how far must they travel? Its simply not realistic and the movie makes no attempt to explain this, its just there and your expected to accept it. Now you might say im picking too deep, but am I? Look at how far we pick the trilogy every day and how well they stand up to scrutiny.. there are no (or very few) plotholes in the original trilogy and none as gaping huge as this. OK dead reckoning. Not realistic. Next up is Toto's demand for $1,000,000. my only question with this point is why? In a post apocalyptic world, what use is money? (Think start of day, outside the bank) Why dosnt toto ask for fuel, ammo, food, drink, weapons, armour, vehicles, general supplies.. anything USEFUL.. what the hell is he going to do with $1,000,000? buy a beach condo in Florida? Even if he does want $1,000,000 that badly.. why dosnt he just drive to a bank and grab it? Would be easier.. And I can hear some of you saying “but there would be other cities he could spend it there...” how do you know? When do you see these cities or even hear them mentioned?.. Again i remind you, in DAY, the group flies a helicopter 100 miles north and south and finds nothing at all.. and toto can simply drive to a neighbouring city in a vehicle that must get about half a mile to the gallon with no functioning petrol stations en route? And IF there are and we beleive this much, what makes you think they would use money? Money is used now because its hard to come by, you earn it, steal it or win it.. you dont just find it lying around in the street like you would in a post apocalypse zombie world (think start of day again...) if I was running a city in this kind of atmosphere, and god willing I will be one day, I would not use money as currency, id use something valuable like I listed above... food, drink, ammo, supplies.. anything I could use. Useful things. Another ill thought out plot point Romero.. This post is getting longer than I intended so I have one final point id like to touch on then ill wrap it up, big daddy. LOL What the hell is this? I wanna know what Romero was smoking when he thought this would be a good idea. Now let me just point out, as I said before, I love day of the dead and I freaking love bub. Genius idea. The difference? Well bub became domesticated by mimicking Logan and using faint memories that remained in the functioning parts of his brain, which isnt much so I put it down to mimicking behaviour.. although smart for a zombie, bub is still pretty dumb and I like to think of his intelligence as that of a dog. As Rhodes says, Logan is teaching him tricks and he is performing them. Thats my take on bub. Big daddy, first of all has a gay porn star name, secondly.. how exactly has cock daddy developed his intelligence “in the wild”? Never explained. Why only him? Why havnt any other zombies developed this level of thought? Never Explained. Why do other zombies follow him? I've discussed in other topics what I call the herd effect, where one zombie mindlessly follows another creating a herd, but it isnt a Romero based theory and there is no evidence to suggest it occurs in any of the trilogy, apart from maybe zombies following Stephen up to the lair in dawn, so again, never explained. Thats my problem with big daddy, potentially another good creation, he had the makings of a advanced bub, but nothing is explained about him.. we're just expected to believe that one zombie, and only 1 out of billions has developed rudimentary intelligence and the ability to lead and it is never damn well explained. Is he supposed to be the zombie equivalent of Jesus or something? Explain it to me George!? Its just baffling. Which brings me to my last, and most important point about this movie.. all the points above alone add up to a bad movie, but no-where near as gut wrenchingly awful as land is, so what is the last point that really tips this over the edge? George Romero. This is the man who brought me night of the living dead, Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead.. this man played a huge part in my childhood and gave me what I hope is a lifelong and joyful obsession some would call it. So imagine my feeling when I heard a new George Romero zombie movie was coming out and I would get to see it in the cinema? Now being born in 1985, this would be the first I get to see in a cinema too. And then I see it, and its everything I have stated above. From any other other name, this would be a bad horror movie.. but from George Romero, this is a spectacular disappointment and really made me question my following of zombie movies in general. Some would say thats my own fault for building up such big hopes, but when you think about the mans previous movies IE the holy trilogy “night, dawn and day”, I think I was quite within my rights to build up hopes and dreams. I mean fucking hell when I heard that Romero was making a new movie I was staying awake all night having wet dreams about what it would be like... and I got land. That my friends is a mental scar that will never heal. So, those are my main reasons for ranking land as my absolute worse zombie movie ever. I don't expect any of you to agree with me and I fully expect some of you to attempt to “win me over” or “prove my points wrong” and your fully welcome to, but I wont be responding.. as I said my points are my own and I havnt posted this with the intention of starting a debate to whether land is a good movie or not, I've posted it simply as its been requested.

[blind2d]

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

[Harleydude666]

Yes! To everything you wrote below. My thoughts exactly. Land is pure masturbation on Romero's part. He should be embarrassed. I famously dont give land any slack at all, i hate it. I hated it when i first saw it and i hate it a little bit more everytime i watch it. its the movie marked romero's change from a genius into a hack as far as im concerned. I wrote a lengthy post on why i hated it several years ago, because i kept getting asked lol. EDIT - Found it, now bear in mind i posted this in 2009.

[shootemindehead]

I've never minded 'Land of the Dead', it's an ok chapter in the original series. There are a number of problems with it, as there is with every single George Romero film, bar 'Day of the Dead'. The biggest of which is that it seems to be the LAST chapter of Romero's original dead series, as he's seen fit to launch this awful "reboot" nonsense, which has produced two of the worst zombie flicks yet...and that's saying something. Other problems have already been mentioned, the likes of stupid characters/death and some crap zombies. Eugene Clark simply just didn't get how to be a zombie and Savini's cameo is rubbish. The central political theme, of the widening gap between rich and poor is a good one. Far better than Romero's later "messages", but it needed a film with a longer running time. The ideas are just not fleshed out enough.

[Ragnarr]

Land just lacked the same "something" that Night, Dawn and Day had. Land begins with zombies playing musical instruments (the "bub" concept) and takes it further by jumping aboard Hollywood's boner for "the magic negro" film format (in this case zombie) which I believe had already been done to death with no pun intended. Overall, the movie tries so obviously hard to establish a microcosm of how GAR views capitalism/consumerism in general. GAR feels that all of his films for some reason NEED NEED NEED to make a statement about consumerism, and holy cow on a surf board wearing a top hat does he make that point soooo obviously clear that even some cross-eyed vegetable watching Land of the Dead would understand his point in the first five minutes! The movie is just cheezy and weak in my opinion, almost like Conan the Destroyer was after Conan the Barbarian's success. Land sucks more than a super massive blackhole, but a tad less than those other two more recent GAR stinkers. Irish cowboy's retarded feud on an island during the zombie apocolypse... oh c'mon now!

[facestabber]

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

[Ragnarr]

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

[bd2999]

I like it well enough, it is the best of the recent three flicks in the series but not as good as the original three films. To me the film worked in places but was just to flat overall. The gore was fairly good, but some of the CGI looked bad. The acting was meh to wooden throughout and I never felt a report with any character. I liked the general theme of the movie but I thought the execution was not as good as what we were used to. The Big Daddy thing and the zombies being left alone was also something I was so-so on. Zombies getting smarter was fine and has been building through the films. I thought the ending was underwhelming with just letting the zombies leave and the fact that they left on their own. It was not a bad zombie movie but it was not what came before. To me it is still better than Diary or Survival. I think Diary is more of a mess and Survival would have been fine if not for some of the bad CGI and some story issues but still not as good as land.