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

[bd2999]

Nothing is wrong with it, it is just not as good as the original three. It is a decent enough zombie movie and is better than the two that followed it but a fair bit. My issues are the following... 1. Acting is very wooden or over the top at times. One could argue that the original films had somewhat amaturish acting (depending on the one it is more or less) but they seemed like natural fits. Here it just seems to be more generalized and a noticiable problem. 2. Lack of connection with characters. This could be due to direction, acting, script or all of them. I think the strengths of the other films are that the characters seem human and at some level easy to relate to. Or at least some of them are. 3. Gore was good in parts but I did not like some of the CGI. It looked a bit corny when it came out and looks that way now too. The head flipping priest zombie for instance. 4. The story has a neat idea, ignoring the problem and the problems with a high class living off of the (exploiting) the lower, but the story lacked heart. It was a bit more overt beating us over the head, but not as much as Diary or Survival. The fact that it took a step in creating a new world from the old was neat but I did not feel I understood the new world well. The desire for money was both a good point (desire when in reality the desire for money is pointless when money is pointless) and a strange one at the same time. 5. The biggest one is probably that the movie could not have possibly measured up to the others. Both in terms of quality of the films and in terms of most of our nolstagia about them. It just was not going to happen but it could have come much closer than it did. 6. Another one is probably Big Daddy. I did not hate him as much as some but I did not like him. The whole thing had been going on longer so it makes sense that some zombie would get memories or something back at some rate. He just seemed over the top. I also did not get why the zombies just left at the end. The movie had this odd system were the humans raided the town at the start and the dead returned the favor and then just wondered off. If the intelligent zombie wants to do this, maybe. Seems to me the others would be driven to hunt every last person around until the bitter end. It was not a bad movie, definitely better than the majority of striaght to DVD or netflix zombie flix but not what we were expecting or wanting. And I think, as the first, this one suffers a bit more for following so closely after probably the best horror trilogy ever (maybe of any genre). The others, our standards were dropping but they still dipped a bit under on their own and Romero was a bit to heavy handed or confusing in his messaging (the guy is my favorite director classically, so I feel I can say that and still be a monster fan).

[petroag]

I'll preface this by saying that it has been quite a while since I saw Land and it probably deserves another watch from me. I thought the movie was OK and was fine with the intended theme related to have and have-nots within the city, but the Big Daddy idea and the ending are what bugged me the most. What I like about the zombie "monster" is that, on a single basis, the zombie is weaker and slower than the survivor and should be manageable by a cool headed person. It is only when that single zombie becomes a group that they begin presenting a significant threat to survivors. As such, the "monster" isn't the individual but rather the group. And the fear of every survivor isn't, just that they will be killed, but that they too may not have any choice but to be swept up and become yet another component to that "monster". How many characters, once bit, hold out the hope that maybe they can keep from "coming back"? Big Daddy doesn't follow that concept. Instead, because of his "intellect", he suddenly becomes something other than just another faceless part of the group. I don't want a zombie movie in which individual characteristics or justifications are assigned to any one zombie. And I certainly don't want a movie in which any attempt is made to create sympathy for the plight of the zombies. I don't want a zombie to gain a "soul" and sympathy. This movie just reminded me too much of "Battle for the Planet of the Apes" where we suddenly were asked to look at the apes as the "good" guys and cheer for their success. Men are bad and their actions and fighting against one another can get everyone killed. We see that in every Romero movie and it is a key and important element. But just because Romero points out that men can sometimes be an even bigger threat than the zombies, doesn't mean that we should ever reach a point where we feel "sorry" for the zombies. And I feel like that happened in Land.

[Harleydude666]

I'll preface this by saying that it has been quite a while since I saw Land and it probably deserves another watch from me. I thought the movie was OK and was fine with the intended theme related to have and have-nots within the city, but the Big Daddy idea and the ending are what bugged me the most. What I like about the zombie "monster" is that, on a single basis, the zombie is weaker and slower than the survivor and should be manageable by a cool headed person. It is only when that single zombie becomes a group that they begin presenting a significant threat to survivors. As such, the "monster" isn't the individual but rather the group. And the fear of every survivor isn't, just that they will be killed, but that they too may not have any choice but to be swept up and become yet another component to that "monster". How many characters, once bit, hold out the hope that maybe they can keep from "coming back"? Big Daddy doesn't follow that concept. Instead, because of his "intellect", he suddenly becomes something other than just another faceless part of the group. I don't want a zombie movie in which individual characteristics or justifications are assigned to any one zombie. And I certainly don't want a movie in which any attempt is made to create sympathy for the plight of the zombies. I don't want a zombie to gain a "soul" and sympathy. This movie just reminded me too much of "Battle for the Planet of the Apes" where we suddenly were asked to look at the apes as the "good" guys and cheer for their success. Men are bad and their actions and fighting against one another can get everyone killed. We see that in every Romero movie and it is a key and important element. But just because Romero points out that men can sometimes be an even bigger threat than the zombies, doesn't mean that we should ever reach a point where we feel "sorry" for the zombies. And I feel like that happened in Land. Bingo! I hated that Romero gave a handful of these zombies some personality and keyed in on them. That's the beauty of Night, they were just a bunch of nameless, faceless, flesh tearing ghouls. Just a mob of human monsters. When you give zombies personality or a soul, the actors completely overact.

[shadyJ]

A lot of these great horror film directors from the 70s and 80s seem to have lost their mojo somehow. Romero, Carpenter, Argento, Craven, Hooper, Dante, and so on. Perhaps success and acclaim brought on complacency. I think for horror you need an edge which can go soft when you get older. Perhaps its inevitable. I think Cronenberg is still making good movies but not horror movies so he is only a partial exception. Sometimes these guys still show a spark of ingenuity, like Carpenter's and Argento's entries for the Masters of Horror series, I especially like Dante's 'The Screwfly Solution'.

[zomtom]

I think another problem for Land was the disappointment of a lot of the fans. We were expecting a lot from this movie. A major studio was backing Romero and putting quite a bid of a budget behind it. Plus for the first time, there were known actors cast in a Romero flick. I think many of us had very high expectations when we went to the theater. Maybe too high; so that we ended up feeling let down by the end of the movie. Still, it's an okay flick in my book. Just wish they didn't have Big Daddy.

[shootemindehead]

Romero and Carpenter both had their balls kicked on the release of their masterpieces, much to their dismay and you can map their descent from there, although Carpenters road was more winding. 'Day of the Dead' had a mixed reception, at best, and 'The Thing' took a long time to find a general audience and failed miserably at the Box Office and IMO probably would have despite 'E.T.'. Both films are, quite correctly held up as classics today, but I believe that the negative reception they received upon original release did a lot to damage both directors and their outlook. The likes of Hooper, Craven and Dante were never that good to begin with. Tobe Hooper had one good flick in him, you know what that was. Craven is VASTLY overrated, even though 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' was good and I've never understood why Dante is held in such high regard by some genre fans. With Carpenter, it's a real pity, as I'd love to see him get his mojo back. I like him in interviews and I like what he says. Also, out of all of my old genre heroes, he still makes films that are watchable and some are still good. I have a soft spot for 'Prince of Darkness' and 'In the Mouth of Madness', even though I get a few stares when I say it. Even 'They Live' And 'Big Trouble in Little China' have grown on me in the last couple of years. Christ, I hated those films, but I finally "got" 'They Live' the last time I watched it. Cronenberg has always been interesting. But, these days, I'd rather have him make "straight" films, than genre material, although he was never really a horror director. I think 'A History of Violence' and 'Eastern Promises' are some of his best work to date and unlike Hooper, Craven and Dante, he's worth a look, every time.

[MinionZombie]

Cronenberg managed to pull away from the horror genre ... in-part by making his own sub-genre of 'body horror', and in-part by not allowing himself to get pigeonholed. I agree on AHOV and EP, both of which are great films, and I rather enjoyed A Dangerous Method ... although Cosmopolis was a pile of wank. Hooper directed Poltergeist (even if the involvement of Spielberg has cast controversy over the issue), which was excellent, and The Funhouse is a cracking little flick (even if the investor demanded the monster be shown in bright light, which was a big mistake). Likewise, Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is a crazed slice of entertainment - such a fun flick and quite rightly it didn't try to do the same thing as the first movie which is, of course, a cinematic landmark. Craven ... Last House on the Left, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream ... The Hills Have Eyes is imperfect, but iconic. I've not seen a bunch of his other flicks, mind, but he's certainly earned his iconic status. I'd say that as these guys get older, their priorities change - the 1960s political revolutionary spirit of Romero faded away by the 1980s - the dream never really came to fruition, he got battered around by the studio system in the 90s and 00s, and he's fallen into just being "the zombie guy". I think with a lot of these filmmakers, they lose their youthful spark, and if they don't have something else to move into (e.g. Cronenberg) then they struggle. Perhaps things like Masters of Horror allow them to just have fun and throw things about with low expectations from the audience. As for Argento - I think the above is part of it, but also the collapse of the Italian film industry. It was booming in the 60s/70s/80s, but then all the air flew out of it and you just get cheap junk like "The Card Player". There was a spark of what had come before in "Sleepless" initially, but that flick gradually petered out after a great opening act. Without the budgets or the skills available to pull of the sumptuous visual feasts of the 70s, it all becomes rather disappointing. Plus, times change. What worked in the 70s etc doesn't necessarily work now ... and the 1990s was a pretty dark decade for horror, with only a couple of highlights really worth mentioning (Scream, Blair Witch), with a bunch of lesser entries that are fun but just don't stack up against earlier entries in the genre/franchise (e.g. TCM3, New Nightmare).

[Andy]

I'd say that as these guys get older, their priorities change - the 1960s political revolutionary spirit of Romero faded away by the 1980s - the dream never really came to fruition, he got battered around by the studio system in the 90s and 00s, and he's fallen into just being "the zombie guy". So what your saying is that from land onwards, romero is deliberately making atrocious movies to try an get away from this Zombie Guy title? Interesting theory..

[blind2d]

Not sure if Minion was actually saying that, Andy, but yeah, maybe... huh. Oh, and Carpenter's work is awesome. Love it. ALL of it (I think). 'Land' for me will always be special. I remember the first time I saw it.... Dammit Mouse, you idiot! Sure it's not Romero's best work, but I still love it, because of what it was trying to be: not what it is. Can't say the same for its 'sequels'.

[krisvds]

I love Argento's work and to this day think Suspiria is one of the best horror films ever made. How the same director who made Profondo Rosso is able to do some of his more recent work is beyond comprehension. Mother of tears is at best a guilty pleasure but Inferno was architectural porn at it's best. Land of the Dead? Absolutely nothing wrong with it (okay, Big Daddy is kind of annoying) if you like cheesy eighties 'post-apocalypse' action films. It's not Day or Dawn, but I have a good time (re)watching the film now and again.

[Wyldwraith]

Land doesn't draw out some primal hate in me, and I do find it watchable..... HOWEVER, there ARE things about Land that bug the Hell out of me, and it DOES suffer from that reoccurring sense of implausibility that frequently grips the viewer. The entire money thing has always bugged me, yet when I went on to see Diary and then ::gags:: Survival, I felt something akin to pity for Land and I guess some sort of fan-sentimentality kicked in and I found I liked Land far more than Diary and vastly more than Survival. Yet Andy makes a compelling point. This was the movie that announced Romero had lost the magic. Diary and Survival were simply confirmation of what we'd come to suspect after Land. So I have a strangely two-sided feeling about Land. The disappointment factor however is something every one of us younger fans should understand though.

[MinionZombie]

What I'm essentially say, Andy, is that the fire in GAR's belly has become subdued and is now more like embers - that's how it feels in his filmmaking. His last three seem more like someone just having fun making movies with people he likes - albeit trapped within the zombie genre, somewhat cornered by the monster he essentially birthed. There was extremely rich socio-political material to draw from in the 60s/70s/80s when GAR was making his best work with his original core team of people ... and times change and move on and people filter away here and there ... there was a fair bit to draw from in the 00s, but at the same time you've got so many people all drawing from the same well ... and in GAR's recent flicks he seems to have not been so bothered with subtlety or subtext, which is a shame. Diary is like an anvil of commentary on a subject and generation of which Romero isn't a part of ... so blunt, so contrived, so disappointing. Plus, the tone of the movie shifts wildly, it can't really figure out what it wants to be, and the 'found footage' angle is so awfully played-out at this point (even in 2007 when it was released) that it just makes you cringe. I've got big problems with that movie now ... there's various bits I like, but ultimately my opinion of that movie has become pretty sour. Both Land and Survival on the other hand, I enjoy, even if they're not up to GAR's standards of old ... they each have problems, some small, some big ... but ultimately I quite like both movies (with certain caveats). I'd really like to see GAR be able to do a non-zombie flick. I know he's been trying, but he can't get the money for it ... but perhaps it's partly the projects he's trying to go after. I suppose if you've got a nice pay cheque coming your way for more zombie content, and without anyone offering to pay you for other things, you've got to go where the money is to pay your bills ... but it's sad at the same time. I am surprised by a seeming consensus among the haters that they feel Survival is worse than Diary. Why is that?

[Andy]

I am surprised by a seeming consensus among the haters that they feel Survival is worse than Diary. Why is that? Simple really, for all its faults diary is at least coherent.. survival is just a jumbled mess of a film, ive seen it a few times and i still couldn't tell you whats happening.

[AcesandEights]

Land was questionable due to a lack of dread, eye-rolling and poorly handled 'subtext' (it's not subtext when you do it that way, George) and horrible gag kills...so much more could have been done with the premise and opportunity. That said, it's still a decent zombie film and better, to me, than Diary (which was rank garbage) and Survival, which had potential and some okay moments, but was ultimately laughable. My original review of Land still stands, for the most part, though I feel I may have been a bit too charitable.

[erisi236]

Why was money worth anything in this world? That's one thing that never really connected to me or was just not explained. What exactly was this dude supposed to do with his ransomed money? Move into the tower of the guy he ransomed the money from? One thing that really bugged me was the humans reactions to the zombies, it's like it was the first day of the epidemic with them. You'd think after 5 or 8 or whatever years it was they would just see a group of zeds, and put one round in their head and finish it, instead what we got was panicking soldiers emptying magazines into one zombie, what the hell man. The humans at this point should have been like the dudes towards the end of the war in World War Z (book) where they could calmly take out a million of them and go on to the next city.