I see alot.....

[joeharley666]

of us arguing to death and debating to death on wether Land is a worthy picture. Myself, as a Romero fan since maybe 1975 and who has seen all of George's Dead flicks on the big screen, I didn't like the corny and cheesy script regarding big daddy.I thought it was the weakest in the series and had no atmosphere whatsoever, to me it bombed. I wanted something at least 2 hours long, NO smart evolving flesh eaters, and absolutely NO big daddy. I would have liked the element of surprise with some added tension that Romero used to supply. Instead he relied on alot of loud sounds and cheap gimmicks and bad cgi(zombie priest) to scare us. Like alot of what the terrible horror movies of today throws at us. I also felt George wanted us to get too close to recognizing and knowing these zombies on a personal level than the flesh eaters in his past flicks. Anyway...I hear alot of how it was bad because of how the studio handcuffed Romero and wanted it filmed as quickly as possible and the whole thing with the MPAA and a few more others. So I'm asking to those amatuer film makers or people who are more educated than I am in this field, because of those reasons given; if George was given more time and was not handcuffed and was not fighting with the MPAA....could this movie have turned out better? I find it hard to say yes because I wouldn't think the studio has any say over the big daddy cheese fest of a character or the pathetic line that Riley spews at the end "they need a place to live too or they deserve to live also" or something stupid to that effect. I think with these examples still in the script we would still see the same movie only with more gore. Does anyone think George made this picture to appease the MTV generation and just to make some big money? Not that it's wrong to make some money for himself, because George has every right and deserves to do so...but...I really thought after a 20 year layoff he would have delivered the hard-core fans the goods. I feel this was a let down. Anyway, was it Romero's intention to do so...or did the studio big wigs force him to write a cheese-ball? Because to me, that was where the movie failed. And do we expect the same level of cornyness in "Diary"? This was not a post to belittle or offend anyone who liked the film, I was just always curious to see if anyone felt the same as I did regarding the studios involvment and if this is the film George really wanted to make and if he's REALLY satisfied with it even after all this time.

[MikePizzoff]

Off topic, but..... NICE PRIEST SIGNATURE!!!

[bassman]

First of all.....you mentioned that there's several posts on the subject so why make another? Anyways, I'm one of the people that enjoy the movie for what it is and on the other hand, I understand your point of view because you're not the only one with it. In a nut shell, everyone has their own opinions. Take other's opinions for what you will and enjoy the films that you like. Some members here have difference of opinions about the original three films, so this is no new subject. All I ask from the people that dislike "Land" is to go into "Diary" with an open mind. Because by the descriptions of the movie that we've heard, "Diary" will be nothing like the original three or "Land".

[Fleshmunch]

I remember hearing about Romero's heavy metal zombie movie, The Diamond Dead, and knowing it was going to suck. I think it's all in the concept. Heavy metal + zombies = suckfest. Big daddy + smart zombies + monster truck = suckfest. Do the math and you'll see what I mean. I'll see Diary of the Dead because of my love for Romero's other good movies, but I'm very cynical that it will be any good. He has to earn back his street cred after releasing that Land StinkFest. If Land had only been kind of bad but with redeeming features, and not a total suckfest, I'd be much less worried about his next movie. BTW, I don't think more time or money could have helped much to redeem Land because the cast and the script were terrible to begin with.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Getting back down to basics, putting aside it's more obvious faults, LAND is still the best, and the most genuine "zombie flesheater" movie made within the last ten, or arguably even the last twenty years. No one here is saying that it is the best zed movie ever, or even that it is GAR's best movie ever, but go and watch ANY other genuine "zombie flesheater" made since 1990 or whatever and then do those maths While eugene clark was a big fat MISCAST as big daddy, a big mistake seeing as how the big daddy character was always going to be the "lead" zed, the rest of the zed characters, make-up's and persona's could, and should, be considered some of THE best seen on screen ... ever. And that, i believe, is something only a movie from GAR himself could deliver.

[capncnut]

Getting back down to basics, putting aside it's more obvious faults, LAND is still the best, and the most genuine "zombie flesheater" movie made within the last ten, or arguably even the last twenty years. Spot on really.

[DVW5150]

Progression takes change , some expect one scenario , others expect something else , some dont expect anything . I viewed 'Land of the Dead' with a completely clear mind of expectation . Trusting that Mr Romero would provide a visceral experience . Land took guts to make (pig intestines?), its not what some expected , were disapointed and thats that . Blah blah and blah : forg nat turd nackle match the maker with a touch of salt and you have corn bungle mashed nipple niks ... DEAL ? Land is a very suitable film in GARs tradition .

[HLS]

Yes, I feel that if Romero was given more control over the film it would have been a better movie. I liked the movie but it was not my fav of all 4. I was also disappointed with big daddy. I felt that if he was cast differently or even if they just gave him a better zombie makeup job, that it would have made a significant difference to the movie. I also found it very odd that bid daddy did not participate in flesh eating.

[capncnut]

Land was acceptable but the whole glossiness of it really disappointed me. The FX should've been a bit more 'back to basics' and the CGI was a little tacky in places. The story was fine but again, it was too glossy and should've been a lot more loose and docu-style. The only other real gripe I have with Land is Big Daddy. I mean Eugene was okay but the role was totally overplayed.

[coma]

Yes, I feel that if Romero was given more control over the film it would have been a better movie. I liked the movie but it was not my fav of all 4. I was also disappointed with big daddy. I felt that if he was cast differently or even if they just gave him a better zombie makeup job, that it would have made a significant difference to the movie. I also found it very odd that bid daddy did not participate in flesh eating. Nicotero dropped the ball totally and inexcusably on that one. And GAR for not saying "it sucks, it doesnt read, change it now" I cant understand how someone could present that to you and wouldnt think it was ass. Seriously, I made better zombies when I was 12 and they didnt even have how to fx books back then.

[Trin]

I really don't think that the limitations imposed on GAR made Land a bad movie. I also don't think that GAR was out to make a buck on Land. I think he's one of the few directors that is focused on bringing his vision to the screen in spite of any and all forces that would dictate otherwise. Day got poor reviews because a lot of people thought it was slow and focused too much on dialogue. I think GAR was bound and determined not to make that mistake again. So he over-corrected and made a fast action packed movie. I wholeheartedly agree that Land is still the best zombie movie made in recent times. That's a great observation and just goes to show that we hold GAR movies to a much higher standard than any old zombie flick.

[coma]

I really don't think that the limitations imposed on GAR made Land a bad movie. I also don't think that GAR was out to make a buck on Land. I think he's one of the few directors that is focused on bringing his vision to the screen in spite of any and all forces that would dictate otherwise. Day got poor reviews because a lot of people thought it was slow and focused too much on dialogue. I think GAR was bound and determined not to make that mistake again. So he over-corrected and made a fast action packed movie. I wholeheartedly agree that Land is still the best zombie movie made in recent times. That's a great observation and just goes to show that we hold GAR movies to a much higher standard than any old zombie flick. Every non GAR fan l know that saw land loved it. If it wasnt against a blockbuster like War of the Worlds or Batman BEgins it might have been extremely successful