Land of the Dead (2005) Reviews

• Where's my car?

  soulassassin20002005-08-25

  Most other comments seems to be infected by a classic case of -Let's read a plethora of theories and commentaries into this as an after-construction-kinda deal. It's easy to sum this movie up in one sentence: A violent story about a group of people in search for their missing car. This has been praised as a stand against class-society and apparently it should contain a vast amount on social commentary. Where? Name one action movie who hasn't got a rich villain and a poor hero or some misfit trying to set things right based on his unbreakable social pathos. And some of the huge plot holes: Well the monatery system in this movie can't be explained. Why does currency still work in a world where there a so few people, and plenty of goods to go around for everybody. The gated community is just a silly, awfully depicted place, instead of dealing with the situation they sit around drinking champagne and buying designer clothes. (Is this the huge social comment?!?) Why build a stupid land train when you can loot every tank regiment on Earth? Conclusion: After the three first (Night, Dawn and Day) Land... seems to be a world of it's own. It seems to be so far away from anything else, depicted in the first three, it could be a pilot for a TV-series. Many may complain about the one dimensioned actors but, be fair, how would ANY actor act in such a humourless, wafer thin story like this. The direction seems more to be inspired by army boot camp than any sort film-making. It follows the same concept over and over and over again: "Run-Shoot-Swear-Run-Shoot-Swear" And by God do not under any circumstances show any emotion except anger. I was almost breastfed with zombie movies and for almost 20 years it's been a great inspirational source. It pains me to see this movie and I hate to admit that not even me, one of the greatest fans on the genre, can protect Romero from this failure. Mr. Romero, get back to the drawing board, and better luck next time. I still have hope!

• Sorry fanboys, it's not that good...

  chas772005-06-27

  Nobody wanted this film to be good more than I. Last year when the script was posted online I read it in one sitting from start to finish. Totally fascinated. I thought it was a brilliant exercise in class warfare, race, the human condition, etc. In other words, more than the mindless Italian zombie movie, and more than anything Romero did before. It contained some of the elements that he retrieved from the original "Day of the Dead" script (that he wasn't able to film back then when his budget was cut by 2/3 or so)... Anyway, so I came to this movie with high expectations based on the phenomenal reviews by both media and the fanboys...maybe I shouldn't have read so much for this has to be the most disappointing movie of the year! First, if you come into this looking for gore, you are going to be disappointed. I believe there is more cannibalism and blood in last year's "Dawn" remake...weird that no one mentions that. But worse than that is the script. I get the feeling Romero had to cut a big bit down (what else is new, George?) from the script I read online because most of the character development was completely gone. Only "Cholo" (nice name) had any kind of motivation and even that could have been explained a lot better. Sure, he represents the working class that wants to move up in society but they could have done more with it...the scene where he gets blown off by Hopper looks like it was rushed. There was zero subtlety...not that well done. Simon Baker's character fared worse. We get the feeling that he and the Robert Joy guy had a bit of a history working together --that's it for his back story. A bit about his dead sister, nothing more. Sorry, it's hard to care about characters we don't know anything about. Contrast this with the scene in the "Dawn" remake where you actually had people sitting around talking about their stories, where they came from, etc. Like night and day, no pun intended. As for the "Fiddler's Green" refuge for the rich-- I was looking forward to seeing something out of Ballard's "High Rise" the way it was described in the press but Romero hardly even showed it or explained anything about it. Who were the people who lived there? How did Hopper decide who gets to live there and who stays in the city streets? where did the city people live? Could we see their housing situation? Too many questions, not enough answers. If a point was trying to be made about classism -- and it could have been a damn good one -- it sure wasn't made in this movie.

• Certainly a blood fest

  lastliberal2007-04-11

  Simon Baker leads in this film as a mercenary who wants to head up North. Maybe the undead do not like the cold. He find himself trapped between various warring factions, including a ruthless CEO (Dennis Hopper) who offers safety to the wealthy while allowing the unwashed masses to fend for themselves, a fellow mercenary (John Leguizamo) who will sacrifice anyone to advance his own agenda, and hordes of zombies who are starting to take steps up the evolutionary ladder. They actually used a gun in this film. First time I've seen a zombie do more than eat. They even went in the water. Apes don't do that! Lots of blood, but there was less action than I've seen and more talking. I love John Leguizamo, and that made it worth my time. Seeing Asia Argento (xXx) wasn't bad either.

• Not bad, but not great

  joestank152005-07-01

  Land of the Dead - The 4th part of George A. Romero's zombie quadrillogy. It's been decades since the dead began to walk the Earth, and now they practically own it (except for Canada for some reason). There is one last little mega-city that is surrounded by electric fences, armed patrols and barbed wire on one side, and nothing but water on all other four sides, because the dead supposedly don't like water. Despite the fact that the surrounding lands are rife with zombies, this metropolis is incredibly corrupt. All thanks to evil bureaucrat Kaufman (Dennis Hooper, who I had a ball watching) who makes all but a select few rich folks (who have never seen or fought a real zombie) live in slums. There you can get your picture taken with zombies, or watch zombie fights (they fight over animals and the occasional human). There are a few mercenaries paid to make runs in a giant tank truck for precious commodities in the outside world. Now I like George and could thank him endlessly for starting the zombie franchise, but he has always favored gore just a little more over character development, and has always liked his zombies just a LOT more than his humans. Heck in this movie, the zombies are practically the good-guys! They're just like you and me, except they rip people's arms in two (and I do mean length-wise) and tear belly button rings out of people. They are actually pretty intelligent and moderately fast at walking. By far the biggest threats in Romero's movies (most notably "Big Daddy" (Eugene Clark). For the most part though, it works, and it's good gory fun. Except the character development thingy. While I don't begrudge Romero for having fun with his zombies, I wasn't too sympathetic to Riley (Simon Baker) or Slack (Asia Argento). Riley, like Romero it seems, is just tired of character development as he has Riley say "I'm fed up with back-stories". But Riley dear boy, that's how the audience grows to care about you. Slack almost kills several of her fellow team-mates and does not grow at all, but that's the script's fault. Both of these characters, however are played well for what the actors are given. Surprisingly the secondary characters are far more endearing. Cholo (John Leguizamo) was not only believable as a merc, but I was quite sympathetic to him as he realized that he was a pon. "Pilsbury" (Pedro Miguel Arce) and Charlie (Robert Joy) are endearing and funny. So the effects are good. The story is iffy. The acting is good. The character development is iffy. The ending is really lame. This gets an overall B

• Complete Disappointment!

  Blkpetal2005-06-29

  This movie was terrible! The storyline - can't use the word plot as that would give it too much credit - was tedious! Some say it was a great perspective on class? Are you kidding me!!! From the HORRIBLE acting to the complete and utter Lack of dialog, characters changed motives, desires and allegiances so quickly without any second thoughts. Plus, a lot of scenes just plain didn't make Any Sense! *SPOILER* I realize that the two troops were sent up to keep an eye on our main characters but why in the world did the big guy suddenly knock out that woman?!?! What was with that? The gratuitous female-on-female scene? What purpose did that serve? Only the one zombie guy seemed to be learning anything and leading the troops yet was able to avoid huge blasts from explosives while zombies around him exploded? These characters have such amazing aim at such strange points but then they can't kill this One Zombie? And everyone in the van just blindly follows Choro but then immediately switches alliances? And what was with the girl who was ready to nuke the entire city but then, when asked to fire on a bunch of zombies and half-eaten civilians all of a sudden she has a heart? Plus, even after Choro turned into a zombie he was able to carry out his revenge? Not only was he able to remember to kill that CEO guy but also he was able to find him that easily? And what was with the horribly, cheesy ending where they just want a place to live?!? Uh, hello, have we forgotten that THEY ARE DEAD!!!! Kinda the Premise of the movie!!! Oh I just was SO disappointed - and I gotta say, I didn't have high expectations or anything, I just couldn't believe how bad it really was. My boyfriend and I looked at each other after the movie and were so angry - he had been particularly excited about this one and I thought the idea that the zombies would possibly be learning something well that was neat. OH SO SAD when a Great series like this jumps the shark!