I was very weary about the release of yet another contemporary zombie film being unleashed into the world after such sub par attempts in recent years barely making satisfactory status. Yes, I know, Romero...he is the guy that started this whole thing. He wrote the book.

He IS the master, but after so much time away from what he created, was he going go into unattached delusion like Wes Craven did with his last attempt at reconciling with the monster he created? Was he going to give too much control to the studio heads that finally had the sense to give him the cash to make the film, thus taking a back seat to the project and let his vision go down the drain like Clive Barker has recently done with the Hellraiser series? Or even worse, would Romero just give into the contemporary undermining of "the rules" (zombie DO NOT run people... nor do they jump kick, fly, or say "braaaaains...") of the zombie world and let what has become "successful" dictate the fate of his holy grail?

Overwhelmingly surprised, and completely overjoyed, Romero did not suffer any of these pitfalls. And not only has he created what potentially could be the greatest zombie film of all time, he has proven that the zombie films that have etched themselves in stone as the holy bible of the genre he created were no accident at all. This of course, is a testament to the man's genius.

Forget anything negative you've read about this film. I'm here to tell you, they're wrong. From start to finish this movie takes us into the heart of the zombie apocalypse and gives us a blood splattering take on the plight of the living souls, trying to survive in a world full of emptiness.

As all of Romero's zombie films, this movie also serves as a commentary to what's going on in the world that surrounds us. The theme of a struggle to live a life well lived remains true in this Land of the Dead. In a world filled with death knocking at everyone's door, money, power and control still seem to corrupt absolutely, and taking a step outside our own problems with foreign policy, the parallels seem to hold too true to what's real and what we see in this movie. Another reason to applaud the genius of Mr. George Romero. Bravo.

I guess "Batman Begins" was just too good to be true.  The universe could just not deliver two potentially excellent films in the span of only two weeks.  I'm sad to say it, but "Land of the Dead" is getting an unfortunate "Thumbs Down" from me.

The first twenty minutes are fantastic.  The showing of the living dead trying to live like normal human beings is truly creative.  Unfortunately, after that, things just go slowly downhill.  The idea of the zombies becoming smarter is actually quite cool.  I just wish it was developed a bit clearer.

I have more to say, but I am far to tired right now.  I'll have more later.

Alright, here's my official review for the film:

George A. Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" is not only a great film in its own right as a horror film, but it may just be the smartest fright flick ever made.  Full of subtle (and not so subtle) jokes laced within the horror, "Dawn" not only frightens the viewer but it can also make the viewer think.  This is something that you just do not see anymore, especially in the horror movie.

Before "Dawn" there was "Night of the Living Dead" and afterwards there was "Day of the Dead."  And while I believe both to be great movies in there own right, they never reached the same level of, well... genius that the first one gained.  Now, twenty years later, Romero is back to finish the saga that he began.  And as any horror fan knows, "Day" was originally to be the great zombie opus that would have wrapped the series up.  Unfortunately, a slashed busget prevented it from being the grand showing it truly could have been.  Supposedly, "Land of the Dead" carries with it ideas that just couldn't be made through "Day."

Unfortunately for "Land" (and I really, really hate typing this) it seems that Romero has lost his touch.

"Land of the Dead" is one of those movies that just has so many great ideas.  I love the characters, and without a doubt, they are the best part of the film.  Every actor does a great job with the part and, in traditional Romero fashion, every character is completely memorable for their own special reasons.  Specifically good is Robert Joy as the Charlie, a man whose face has been maimed through fire which actually leads one to believe him to be a zombie in an early scene.

Strangely enough, though, even the good characters have their flaws.  Namely, Dennis Hopper.  Hopper's character of evil mogul Kaufman could have been completely memorable.  You can just tell that there was a great villian down there that could have been explained just a bit more clearly and whose motives where great.  Unfortunately, he is reduced to just a side-liner character who is just kind of... there.

As mentioned earlier, the great thing about Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" was that subtley played a key factor.  Well, in "Land of the Dead," the word 'subtle' goes out the window.  In an attempt to poke fun at the Bush era of terrorism and paranoia, the film falls way short.  The moment Leguizamo actually said, "I'm going to put a Jihad on him" I think I inadvertantly cringed.  The same goes for an early line from Hopper in which he directly qoutes Bush.  It was just so obvious, that it almost felt as if the movie paused as if to ask, "Do you get it?"

Still, I am happy to say that the gore is in full force and the zombies look decent (I thought some of the extended brows on the foreheads looked a bit campy).  I especially enjoyed the animatronic decaying zombies that defiantly had a great creep factor and I'm also glad to report that C.G.I. plays a very small role and only does so for one zombie that actually is pretty damn cool.  I just wish they where put to better use.

In the end, the main problem with the film is that it's just incoherent.  I feel like there is a good forty or so minutes missing.  Things happen too fast and potential side stories are brought up and dropped almost immeadiately.  And, seeing as both "Dawn" and "Day" run over the two hour mark, I am left with the conclusion that perhaps a wary Universal Studios wanted to make sure it ran at just the "right" amount of an hour and a half.  To me, that is the only way that can justify the strange pacing and the even stranger and all to abrupt ending where it almost feels like the credits start rolling halfway through one of the character's sentences.

Here's hoping for a Director's Cut DVD that will hopefully really pack in the character development and appropriate pacing.  Until then, I am tearfully giving this one a "Thumbs Down."

** out of ****

I have to agree with SyCo, this film had so much potential, but unfurtaionlly it never reached it.

LIST OF THING GEORGE ROMERO DID WRONG IN THE MOVIE

Happy ending (fuck you if you claim this is a spoiler I'm saving you money)
Slow zombies
Idiot humans
Bad actors
Bad music (again Dawn of the Dead has a kick ass  sound track)
Pathetic scenery
Created a "leader" zombie

New rule for myself: never watch a potentially great movie after suffering a mega hang over (it was Senior Week after all).

I just got back from seeing "Land" for the second time, and I now ask that my first review be disregarded.  While still the least of the series and while I still have problems with the ending, I apologize for actually writing "Romero has lost his touch."  There are some truly great moments in this flick and some very deep thought.  One major thing that I now realize is that this movie is not a great movie about zombies, it's a great movie with zombies in it.  

There's a great difference.

*** out of ****

I will watch this when it comes on TV, this sounds like Resident Evil 3.

Night of the Living Dead is a classic of course, Dawn Of the Dead a rare superior sequal. I cant comment too much on the third as I havnt seen it in a long time.

But I still wonder the reason why even bother to make another, apart from making loads of money without spending it.

It is a shame really as the trilogy is it is was a great zombie collection. I really see no point in making another.

When i first heard about this i went crazy.

When i saw it i did the complete opposite.
Yes it is enjoyable and worth your money.

But it is so cheesy.
Definitly one of the worst zombie movies in my opinion.
But it was enjoyable.

Victim of his own work... sad as it is, we all knew it was coming... "well, those of us who've loved and followed this great director/writer/editors life"

I thought the film was fantastic in so many ways... the slow lumbering Zombies was a welcome back to what all the buzz was about in the 60's and the classic Romero Dialouge was in tact here too. You just can't write this stuff, you can't... While All the zombie movies are coming down the pipe line and flooding out the citys below us all, they are all lacking the charm of what makes them what they are... LOTD is what it is... A REAL ZOMBIE MOVIE!! Like it, love it or hate it... it is more true to the genre than any zombie movie in the last 15 years... ironic enough, THE NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD REMAKE marked that post op date

DAWN REMAKE was shit... it was. It had so many cheese ball momonets and the soundtrack all of you paint puffers are raving about was utter ass in a zip locked bag.

LOTD made it's mark... ROMERO became a victim of the genre he created and now millions of youth, who don't understand or know what this man is all about are lashing out against him for muking up a genre "he created" LOL!!!

You all are too funny...

So the waynes brothers fuck up comedy every movie they make... but you don't see millions of people lashing out against their un-funny asses... now do you???

LOTD is KING of the HILL for a long time to come I believe... it was just a brilliant display of every zombie movie ever made and then pulled off with "some" notible actors... which I never thought in a million years would make it shine...

I give it 5 stars and two thumbs up... It had a few flaws but they were few and far between when in conjunction with how the genre is to evolve.

Balt~

C'mon Balt, tell us what you really think.


Phil

I wouldn't say that Land of the Dead is on of the best zombie movies out there, but I do think it was up there, it is a good movie.
It has some random characters, some are very useless.  But the leader zombie shows that even a zombie can evolve and think.  As for the actor, it had two big names that I knew of.  John and Dennis.  Other than the fact that George A. Romero can't improve the zombie more than he has, I'm sure that everyone can find something they like.

Want to know a good zombie movie?

Shaun of the Dead


SORTA SOILER (IF YOU CARE)




Why in god's namew would you pick Canada to go to?

In conjnction with what was said early on...

I'd like to point out a few flaws so I don't sound like hot air against a pigs ass here...

The lead Zombie... was lame... it was. I thought that by design it was ok, but the need to keep that one zombie alive, while hundredes around him died, was lame as all hell.

I thought that him knowing everything and everyone else not knowing everything was also a bit water logged.

I thought when he showed the one zombie how to fire the gun and aim it was dicked out stupid. Why or how would she not know to just shoot the living?? She'd be all over that trigger I believe.

I thought the rich weren't used enough.

I wasn't satisfied with alot of the city scenes and how the people were used in the story...

I thought that Dead Rekoning should have been used more too, maybe to go to other citys and supply them too or something...

-------------

With that said... I loved the movie! I thought it was brilliant and a great show piece for George Romero's talents. He had some fantastic stuff in this movie.

I loved alot of the dialouge. It was sharp, funny at times and made you think and feel... that's hard to do in a movie.

I loved the way he pissed on 21st centeury living too. When the zombies get into the tower and start feasting on the rich... there was alot of social commentary going on in them scenes... one that stood out the most to me was the woman with the belly button ring... LOL!! He basically pissed all over pop culture in this movie and in a way down hollywoods throat at the same time.

I loved that about the film.

Was it as driven as Dawn Remake? Nope! But then again, it didn't have anything to prove like Dawn remake did.

I liked the ending to a degree... it was fitting. I wished to god by the end that lead zombie would have bit the fuckin' dust, but oh well... I just think this movie was what it was... and that is a kick ass zombie flick for the masses to see how it is done.

I really dug the fact the zombies didn't run... I'd trade a semi smart zombie for a fuggin' track star zombie anyday... Who knows, maybe all you cry babies will get there wish in the next romero zombie film when the zombies have learned how to talk and run by then. LOL!

Balt~

The more I see it, the more I love this fucking movie.  As Balt stated above, the dialogue is actually some of the sharpest in any movie in a long time.  Even the quick lines pack an emotional feel (like Cholo saying, "Isn't that always the way?  You get so far only to have some one bite you out of nowhere.")  Even upon a third viewing, though, the ending still bugs me.  And I don't mean the way they keep Big Daddy alive (I liked Simon Baker's ending line; reminded me of "We're them and they're us.")  My problem is just the abruptness of it all.  Besides that one problem, this one is gold.  Never have I liked a potential "Thumbs Down" movie so much more upon a second and third viewing.

Final score for me:

***1/2 out of ****