Why people hate LOTD

[Trin]

I can sympathize with Romero for getting his knees chopped off with the budget and timetables, and I think those things contributed to the lack of success for Land. But my beef with Land is still the lack of intelligence in the plot. Night, Dawn, and Day made sense. The settings, plot development, and character actions were all well thought out. I rarely found myself second guessing things. I often found myself applauding the ingenuity of the characters and the intelligence that Romero brought to the progression of events. Land was just the opposite. I found myself either scratching my head or shaking my head throughout. So much of the movie just didn't make sense. From setup to character actions to simple implausible events. I could list a dozen examples that you've all heard countless times. But I will list one, because this is where it all fell apart for me. When the zombies shambled across the bottom of the flowing river I just lost it. Early on they established that the rivers served as a natural barrier to the zombies and I thought that added nicely to a well conceived city setup. I assumed they meant that it was impossible for a creature of such limited physical ability to cross a river. Then they assert that the zombies had simply never tried?? Preposterous!! I don't know what would've come from a higher budget or more time to film, but I have no reason to believe my long list of gripes would be any different.

[clanglee]

This thread is undead. Someone shoot it in the head, quick!!

[xopher]

I can sympathize with Romero for getting his knees chopped off with the budget and timetables, and I think those things contributed to the lack of success for Land. But my beef with Land is still the lack of intelligence in the plot. Night, Dawn, and Day made sense. The settings, plot development, and character actions were all well thought out. I rarely found myself second guessing things. I often found myself applauding the ingenuity of the characters and the intelligence that Romero brought to the progression of events. Land was just the opposite. I found myself either scratching my head or shaking my head throughout. So much of the movie just didn't make sense. From setup to character actions to simple implausible events. I could list a dozen examples that you've all heard countless times. But I will list one, because this is where it all fell apart for me. When the zombies shambled across the bottom of the flowing river I just lost it. Early on they established that the rivers served as a natural barrier to the zombies and I thought that added nicely to a well conceived city setup. I assumed they meant that it was impossible for a creature of such limited physical ability to cross a river. Then they assert that the zombies had simply never tried?? Preposterous!! I don't know what would've come from a higher budget or more time to film, but I have no reason to believe my long list of gripes would be any different. Okay, yeah that I can agree with you there definitely. I kind of liked the characters and the over all feel, that's why I don't want to NOT like this movie, I saw so much potential but it never actually delivered and there were several things that didn't add up like you said. The water thing DID actually bother me considerably. What bothered me more though was the fact that there were no good claustraphobic scenes with the zombies. Most of the scenes were out in the open where there's really no danger of getting cornered. When I was a kid I was petrified of the zombies in GAR's movies, but that's because for such a slow moving fiend their strength is in corners and small rooms where the humans are out numbered, the ole' strength in numbers thing. When you're working on a low budget you're forced to do things on a smaller scale which in this case happened to be the older movies' strength. Land was too large scale, too action movie-ish, and too polished. Even though I like it, it really just wasn't made right. One more thing: Big Daddy was terrible and Eugene Clark as the lead zombie role was too, "Moses leads 'em out of Egypt" and not enough "the zombies are coming for you mwa ha ha ha ha ha!" As big a fan as I am for the social and political commentary, that was a little over the top. And now to say something that's probably going to get me stoned and put in the stockade: As shallow as he was, Reily was my favorite character.

[Trin]

I kind of liked the characters and the over all feel, that's why I don't want to NOT like this movie, I saw so much potential but it never actually delivered That sums it up nicely for me. If the movie was just horrible outright I could dismiss it. But it offered soooo much potential. I liked several of the characters and thought they were great additions to the Dead series. Charlie was my favorite (yes, I know that makes me goatboy around here - lol). To me Charlie was a stroke of Romero genius. While the troopers with their automatic weapons were dying he survived with his single shot, highly accurate, highly reliable weapon. After the first 15 minutes of the movie I was stoked. The atmosphere was just incredible. The action was fantastic. The conflict between Cholo and Reilly was a great foreshadow. I was thinking these guys are clearly prepared for survival. They have Dead Reckoning and the fireworks and they've figured it all out. Hell yes!! I was eating my popcorn and smiling and looking forward to seeing just how the zombies get the upper hand. And then they walk across the bottom of the river. wooot.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Well ya know ILM could easily fix this movie by erasing Big Daddy, just get another more TALENTED ACTOR and I think that would fix a majority of the problems. There is a decent story in this mess of a movie. I won't ever deny that.... I just wish someone could flush it out.

[Griff]

If LAND were to be considered a failure, then it would be an interesting failure. Its a movie full of ideas, that dares to try something radically different, yet doesn't quite deliver on the tremendous promise of its brilliant screenplay due to cutbacks. But that's another tale. I'd much rather sh*t on DAWN '04 instead. DAWN04 essentially steals its structure from NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, steals its antagonists from 28 DAYS LATER (which doesn't quite make sense here) and then just plays out in hapazard, inconsequential fashion (once everyone is safely in the mall, there is no more story - they have to throw random obstacles, like generator failure, at its characters to keep them busy). Even the ending, which begins as something stolen from MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE (in that they flee in a sailboat headed for an island), steals yet again from NIGHT (where all the characters die, even the lead protagonist) but fails to marry any of these elements in even a slightly meaningful way. Even in MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE, a self pro-claimed 'moron movie', there's the thematical resolution of them fleeing technology, the homicidal rampaging machines of man's own design, in a wind-powered sailboat - bound for a un-industrialized island destination. In NIGHT, everyone perishes due to their inability to give up their individual agendas and work together. Yeah, when simplified, it sounds kinda like a 'Sesame Street' sketch but, hey, that show was educational! Anyway, when the main character, Ben, is shot down by rednecks, its a kick in the guts - not because of the futility of it all, but because if that gun-toting posse had made some kinda effort to distinguish between the living and the dead, to communicate with those outside the group, then there may have been no such loss. As for DAWN04... well, its all made up as they go along. They escape on a boat because its an excuse to get them to leave the mall because they were really just sitting there with nothing to do. Call it convenience, call it contrivance, just don't call it good story telling. That they all get wiped out when they reach the island? I don't like my nihlism that merciful. I prefer the uncertainty of the original DAWN, where our characters still have will, and head back out into a world that just may not hold a place for them, whether they've got the fuel to get them there or not. If Romero had stuck with the helicopter as it left the mall, only to show it crashland in the woods where the zombies get to Fran and Peter, I would have felt cheated. I mean, it could have been done really cool with special effects and blood and sh*t but it wouldn't have the balls the actual ending does, essentially a big unanswerable question mark that gives us no easy way out. I should say that I do not hate the DAWN remake from top to bottom, its got stuff that a horror fan just has to enjoy (ie. the opening title sequence), but I will never commend it. Its completely bereft of any sort of originality or ingenuity, and even deserves to have stars deducted for being THE MOST EXPENSIVE ZOMBIE MOVIE EVER MADE. At a budget effectively more than double that of LAND, its no wonder the dumb dumbs got their rocks off. Sh*t story, sh*t characters, too much money and more cliches than you can level a shotgun at? A vote for DAWN04 is a vote for everything that's wrong with Hollywood ...and I rest my case.

[clanglee]

Wow, a pretty strong case it is too. Unfortunately, I still like Dawn '04 better than Land. For that matter. . .I liked Maximum Overdrive as well. . so. . .Put that in your pipe and smoke it!! I do agree that Dawn '04 did screw up in getting these guys out of the mall, no real reason to leave in my opinion. But the nihilism exibit in the end of that movie is pretty par for the course with zombie movies. Hell, George was gonna kill off the characters in dawn too originally. I dunno man. Land just left a bad taste in my mouth. I don't hate it. And if anyone else beside GAR had made it, I would have been more forgiving. But it was his movie, and he kind of took a crap on his own genre with it. Not a big crap. . but a crap nonetheless. So. . .umm. . so there!!

[Deaths_Shadow]

The reasons i didn't like land are because for me GAR usually used low key actors and i love it when any director goes this route as big named actors get enough glory (usually to much) and for me detracts from the film because sometimes your not looking at the character played in the film your thinking thats Dennis Hopper or thats John Leguizamo. Don't get me wrong there great actors, i just like my GAR movies like his previous 3, I don't mind somewhat intelligent zombies but for me these were waaay over the top. I remember first watching Day and Bub was such great acting it blew me away because it came across so realistic, And when the Doc got shot and Bub found him dead and got all emotional i really felt it. I didn't feel anything with Land. I also didn't like the FX for the zombies to be honest (flame if you must) i thought the FX for Dawn 04 or Resident Evil 2 looked better but i really prefer Day of the A Dead FX the best. Most of these zombies looked more like weird looking vampires. Heck Tom Savini looked almost exactly the same in Land as he did as a vampire from Dusk till Dawn. Besides Big Daddy the butcher carrying a knife the girl (while still wearing her uniform) with her cricket bat, just a little to much for me. And as far as the story goes, it was ok excluding the zombies going off into the sunset at the end (that just didn't make any sense to me) and them not wanting to launch a couple missiles at there asses (knowing they nearly got eaten and seen there friends getting treated like prime rib didn't make any sense either, thats a 2 in one shot screw up in my eyes) as the zombies retreated. I think for me it was trying to pack to much extra fluff and puff with a Hollywood shine. My girfriend (who i had to force to watch the trilogy and likes it after she seen it wasn't just blood and guts did not like this movie) for pretty much the same reasons. I've heard several people say that people were expecting more from this movie and i think in an odd way it was just the opposite,like the old saying sometimes less is more. Those other movies didn't have big budgets and were masterpieces compared to Land. I also think age plays a factor in who likes what. I would be willing to bet the older crowd such as i are more of the not liking Land and the younger crowd are more liked Land. If so its like listening to music at age 20 then you get to be 36 and can't stand whats on the radio. Not a bad or a good thing just sometimes thats the way it is. Sometimes old schoolers get set in there ways in life but it happens to most people as they get older and theres nothing wrong with that, theres not to many movies that catch my fancy as they once did. (except for 28 weeks later, and 30 nights looks to be killer and of course Diary and anything marvel based. ) Any hoot thats my 2 cents.

[xopher]

You know, that's something else aobut this film. The zombies WERE a just a tiny bit TOO smart. There was something about the way Big Daddy looked at things. He just had a little too much sense about himself, and they were just a TAD bit too organized.

[Danny]

AM I THE ONLY PERSON WHO LIKES THIS MOVIE!?!?!?

[SRP76]

I just watched again...and I still don't like it. Now, I actually remember most of the things that made me sit up and say, "how the hell?!!". I had forgotten how aggravating Big Daddy was. This guy was the Rambo and Stephen Hawking of the undead, rolled into one. Moves like he's alive (even though he's been dead for years), has some zombie version of "Spidey Sense" (so he knows Riley and the other guy are watching him), automatically is immune to fireworks (and instantly slings an assault rifle like he'd been carrying one for years), finds the human city untold miles away without so much as a map (so he has some "Deadhead GPS" downloaded into his brain), somehow understands the concept of flammable gasoline reacting with an ignited propane tank (and how the hell did he light the damn thing, anyway?! Big Daddy happened to have a Bic on him, or something?!)...it just goes on and on with him! Contrast that with the sheer stupidity of some of the "live ones". That idiot "Mouse" comes to mind: "oh, let's sit here in the middle of Deadworld, with HEADPHONES ON, so we can't hear a thing". Yeah, brilliant, buddy. I won't bother to berate the fool for his "skateboard backward from Eddie Munster" technique; I'm sure we all laughed at him for that before. That's the tip of the iceberg, really. Bad. Bad, bad.

[DubiousComforts]

Dawn 04 was a better movie. That's not saying very much. Both movies are turds, but at least Romero's movie attempts to present new ideas. DAWN '04 has a shopping mall and that's about the total extent of its ideas. About 15 minutes into the film, the characters happen upon a completely secure and well-stocked shelter, only to spend the rest of the movie obsessing about how to leave it. It's lazy filmmaking at best. 28 Days Later is a much better remake of the original DAWN, just minus the shopping mall.

[Danny]

*mind boggles* c'mon people, land wasnt the best but dawn '04 better? do i need to bring up the a-team "fixin' stuff" garage montage again?

[AcesandEights]

Well, as someone who liked both movies and thinks comparing the two is asinine, (but will still go ahead and do so in the next few words), I think that Dawn 04 hit the mark better than LotD did...but it was easy because the mark Dawn 04 was aiming at was so low. LotD really was a departure in many ways for Romero and it's ashame that he lost some people because he tried to do some things differently. Yes, there were quality issues in the movie, but...some people give a **** and some people don't. Some let their idea of politics dictate what they believe Romero was trying to say and this too bothered those people.

[xopher]

AM I THE ONLY PERSON WHO LIKES THIS MOVIE!?!?!? No, I enjoy watching Land Of The Dead. I enjoyed watching Dawn '04 as well. I also, though, enjoy talking about how each film could have been better, and the ways are quite numorous