A very good film, but a below average Living Dead installment
Added 11/1/2009
To begin with, there's nothing wrong with this film. Strong directing and camera work, solid acting, nice special effects, and an interesting setting/premise work together to create a post-apocalyptic zombie film that is fun, borderline thought-provoking, and keeps one's interest throughout. However, as an installment in Romero's Living Dead series, it fails to hold its own.
In each of the previous Living Dead installments, Romero brought something new to the human drama, even while the basic premise essentially stayed the same. In the first film, it was an issue of humans having to work together in a crisis (with strong racial issues implied throughout). In the second film, there was a more analytical exploration of quality of life as a band of survivors is forced to confront loneliness, lack of purpose, and excessive consumerism. In the third film, man's inhumanity to man was explored in a far more merciless way and, as a side note, Romero showed that the zombies were capable of evolving into relatively benign and compassionate creatures, thus raising the question of who the real monsters were.
The problem is that Land of the Dead fails to add anything to this. Man is still being inhuman to man (though not in as compelling and terrifying a way), and the bit about the zombies evolving is forced down our throat like its a new idea. The human city is an interesting setting for a zombie film, and the armored tank ("Dead Reckoning") is certainly cool, but amidst all of the bells and whistles that make up this film, there is no true insight into the human condition at its core. Rich people are evil and mentally challenged people can be useful. That's all the film seems to say. There's a muddled message about terrorism in there somewhere too, but it's not of Romero's usual caliber.
Of course my biggest gripe with this film has nothing to do with its quality at all. I've been a Romero fan since I was a kid, and in all those years, across multiple viewings of each film prior to this one, it was always my understanding that the zombie disease was passed like a virus. A zombie bit you and BAM, you became a zombie too. In the first film, scrambling scientists speculate that extra-terrestrial radiation has caused all of the dead to rise, but I always assumed we weren't supposed to accept that explanation. After all, nowhere in any of the films do we ever see someone die of natural causes and then re-animate. All deaths are caused by zombies.
However, toward the beginning of LAND, a man hangs himself and immediately reanimates. It's entirely incidental to the plot, but it shatters mine and many people's forty year old misconception. I suppose this shouldn't make a big deal, but it does. Romero's basic premise is therefore no different than Ed Wood's in Plan 9 from Outer Space. Personally, I feel there's something far more compelling and exciting about the viral premise. The idea that one "patient zero" could start a global pandemic of this proportion fascinates me and somehow makes the outlandish premise just a little more believable than the idea that the dead are rising everywhere. I was the kind of kid that used to play Sim City, and my favorite part would be starting a fire in one building and seeing how fast it could spread across the city. No, I'm not a sadist or a delinquent. I'm a normal guy who is fascinated by destructive domino effects; how quickly one small occurrence can send ripples across cities, countries, and even continents. Land of the Dead has killed all of that for me. It's taken something away from the old Living Dead films that I used to get so much more out of.
So, in the end, Land of the Dead is a solid zombie post-apocalypse film, but if you love Romero's Living Dead films for the same reasons that I do, this is a film that you may choose to skip.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Not as good as Diaries of the Dead...
Added 8/24/2009
If you love George Romero and/or love zombie flicks in general, you will like this. Visually appealing. Not quite as epic as Dawn of the Dead. Few things are. ;)
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
This time it's personal!
Added 8/6/2009
The shuffling, lurching, snail-paced zombies are back, and this time they're showing signs of intelligence - more, in fact, than some of their living counterparts. This outing for Romero's living dead is reasonably entertaining and sometimes amusing. What's missing though is the acerbic humour that there has been in some of the previous movies. This is a straightforward zombie gorefest, and as such is pretty successful. It's worth mentioning Simon Baker, who plays against type and makes a surprisingly good intelligent action hero. Fun but forgettable.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Disappointing - all gore, no story
Added 7/26/2009
A continuation of Romero's Dawn of the Dead saga, this time a small group of survivors have gathered and barricaded themselves into a city (pretty clearly Pittsburgh for anyone who knows that city, although I don't think they ever directly mention this) and try to maintain some semblance of normalcy with the zombie hordes outside the walls. The zombies now have some type of rudimentary intelligence and can work together, they just aren't a group of mindless automatons. In this story the zombies assemble to lay siege to the city where the survivors are holed up.
My reaction to this film (and apparently shared by many other Amazon reviewers) was `Eh, nothing special'. Without the link to Romero's early zombie classics, this film would be fairly forgettable. There is lots of zombie mayhem in the story and lots of gore, but the story itself is pretty lame, and the acting is poor. The main bad guy isn't the zombies but the boss of the city (played by Dennis Hopper). He is more interested in acquiring money than anything else, and this seems pretty ridiculous given that society has totally collapsed. It seems to me that most survivors would be more than happy if he wanted to accumulate green pieces of paper.
The story starts as a small group of survivors is travelling around in indian country in a heavily armored vehicle (equipped with rockets and machine guns) searching for supplies. They loot a small town and snuff some zombies, but there is some tension within the group as some of the members are more interested in find loot they can turn into money (like liquor) than finding food or useful items. Upon their return to the city, it is pretty clear that Dennis Hopper is taking advantage of the situation to oppress the people and enrich his own pockets. The zombies in the looted town however decide they want payback and march to the city to destroy it. What follows is more than an hour of mayhem and the survivors fight each other and the zombies in a bloody free-for-all.
There are lots of gory scenes of humans fighting zombies, but this movie is undone by the weak storyline. I thought the stories in the first two movies in this series were great even though they didn't have the special effects of Land of the Dead. In the end, the only memorable feature of this film is the special effects. Watch once? Hell yes, for any fan of Romero or the zombie genre. Don't know that I would actually buy it though.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
This movie kinda sucked.
Added 7/1/2009
This movie sucked. It did't have a plot. It felt rushed. The zombies look like crap. Do yourself a favor and watch the dawn of the dead re-make!!!!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A very good film, but a below average Living Dead installment
Added 11/1/2009
To begin with, there's nothing wrong with this film. Strong directing and camera work, solid acting, nice special effects, and an interesting setting/premise work together to create a post-apocalyptic zombie film that is fun, borderline thought-provoking, and keeps one's interest throughout. However, as an installment in Romero's Living Dead series, it fails to hold its own.
In each of the previous Living Dead installments, Romero brought something new to the human drama, even while the basic premise essentially stayed the same. In the first film, it was an issue of humans having to work together in a crisis (with strong racial issues implied throughout). In the second film, there was a more analytical exploration of quality of life as a band of survivors is forced to confront loneliness, lack of purpose, and excessive consumerism. In the third film, man's inhumanity to man was explored in a far more merciless way and, as a side note, Romero showed that the zombies were capable of evolving into relatively benign and compassionate creatures, thus raising the question of who the real monsters were.
The problem is that Land of the Dead fails to add anything to this. Man is still being inhuman to man (though not in as compelling and terrifying a way), and the bit about the zombies evolving is forced down our throat like its a new idea. The human city is an interesting setting for a zombie film, and the armored tank ("Dead Reckoning") is certainly cool, but amidst all of the bells and whistles that make up this film, there is no true insight into the human condition at its core. Rich people are evil and mentally challenged people can be useful. That's all the film seems to say. There's a muddled message about terrorism in there somewhere too, but it's not of Romero's usual caliber.
Of course my biggest gripe with this film has nothing to do with its quality at all. I've been a Romero fan since I was a kid, and in all those years, across multiple viewings of each film prior to this one, it was always my understanding that the zombie disease was passed like a virus. A zombie bit you and BAM, you became a zombie too. In the first film, scrambling scientists speculate that extra-terrestrial radiation has caused all of the dead to rise, but I always assumed we weren't supposed to accept that explanation. After all, nowhere in any of the films do we ever see someone die of natural causes and then re-animate. All deaths are caused by zombies.
However, toward the beginning of LAND, a man hangs himself and immediately reanimates. It's entirely incidental to the plot, but it shatters mine and many people's forty year old misconception. I suppose this shouldn't make a big deal, but it does. Romero's basic premise is therefore no different than Ed Wood's in Plan 9 from Outer Space. Personally, I feel there's something far more compelling and exciting about the viral premise. The idea that one "patient zero" could start a global pandemic of this proportion fascinates me and somehow makes the outlandish premise just a little more believable than the idea that the dead are rising everywhere. I was the kind of kid that used to play Sim City, and my favorite part would be starting a fire in one building and seeing how fast it could spread across the city. No, I'm not a sadist or a delinquent. I'm a normal guy who is fascinated by destructive domino effects; how quickly one small occurrence can send ripples across cities, countries, and even continents. Land of the Dead has killed all of that for me. It's taken something away from the old Living Dead films that I used to get so much more out of.
So, in the end, Land of the Dead is a solid zombie post-apocalypse film, but if you love Romero's Living Dead films for the same reasons that I do, this is a film that you may choose to skip.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Not as good as Diaries of the Dead...
Added 8/24/2009
If you love George Romero and/or love zombie flicks in general, you will like this. Visually appealing. Not quite as epic as Dawn of the Dead. Few things are. ;)
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
This time it's personal!
Added 8/6/2009
The shuffling, lurching, snail-paced zombies are back, and this time they're showing signs of intelligence - more, in fact, than some of their living counterparts. This outing for Romero's living dead is reasonably entertaining and sometimes amusing. What's missing though is the acerbic humour that there has been in some of the previous movies. This is a straightforward zombie gorefest, and as such is pretty successful. It's worth mentioning Simon Baker, who plays against type and makes a surprisingly good intelligent action hero. Fun but forgettable.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
