Typical "Dead" movie of the 80's with 05' technology
After watching this mov...ie I was left feeling pretty much what I expected going in. Basically I wasn't all that surprised, but I wasn't completely let down either. After seeing all the other "Dead" films I understand that there is little more that can be done with this genre. Like Dawn of the Deads new ability to allow the recently deceased to run and sprint despite the zombie stereotype, this time the dead can now think and coordinate for themselves. Nothing revolutionary, but like any sequel (be it movie or video game), it's just another way to tweak and keep alive an old formula.
Like Dawn of the Dead, Land of the Dead keeps it's tradition with gratuitous gore and violence. The zombies still chew flesh, dismember and decapitate it's struggling victims in gruesome detail all while being torn apart by their comrads bullets themselves (their effects dept should collectively be patting each other on the backs for a great job). Like the movies of the past you'll see that the dead get their own form of poetic justice. After seeing their own kind being used as target practice and enjoyment for the living, they get that justice. Land of the Dead even goes as far as giving the dead side a main character of it's own. Apparently a black middle aged gas station attendant who seems to find enough sense to rally the rest of his dead cohorts into a somewhat organized army for a siege on the livings city. He even gets a hold of an assault rifle (apparently one with an endless clip). Again, that's the catch of this film, they can think now. And at the end, even the living protagonist lets the main character zombie off the hook from destruction by saying "Their just looking for somewhere to go...like us." Viola', a happy ending. Awww group hug!
All-in-all this wasn't a "bad" movie per-say, it did have Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo in it. It didn't hurt the movie, but in all honesty it really didn't help all that much either, but it was a good try. The only difference between this movie and the rest is that any sense of urgency or true survival is all but removed. Simply for the fact that this world already adapted itself to the fight against the dead, set up their daily lives with routine, an uneasy living sure, but they sort had it planned out, sort of.
The other films usually had the people going about their normal lives before it all went to Hell. And if you ask me, half the horror comes from that element, the part where your wonderful world as you know it starts going down the tubes. But Land is still functional as a movie and works simply because it tries to pick up where the other movies usually leave off. It's been done before with Day of the Dead sure, but this time it had a twist (an established city with an upper and lower class, instead of just some underground militia). The stage has been set and it's up to the viewer to decide if it was better or not. I liked it, didn't love it, I just liked it.
I enjoyed this movie more than any other zombie movie ...I've seen. It shows that zombies don't have to be mindless walking corpses. Previously, zombies were only able to act on the most basic of animal instincts: To feed. Zombies are still human, and one of the most basic human instincts is to learn. This movie exhibits that zombies still have human brains, and still have the ability to think. Numerous years after the original outbreak, there are only several safe havens left, meaning that there's hardly anyone out there for zombies to eat. The undead have vague recollections of when they were alive, and they try to reenact this. When they aren't consumed with feeding, they can learn.
If you're looking for a different type of zombie movie, look no further. The undead can think, learn, and fight back against the living. It's not just another run-of-the-mill gory brainless zombie movie. It's an evolutionary step in horror flicks. The only flaw here is that they're still slow.
As much of a fan as I am of George A. Romero Zombie movies, ...I was disappointed with this latest edition to the series. They all actually went on a slightly downward curve, although you can definetely see the evolution of series. Granted, its hard to have a really good plot in a dead movie, or at least one that rewards directors with box office dollars, but with the number of great fiction stories out now it seems this one could have been done better. It is actually a B-grade movie with A-rated FX. It also appeared that more emphasis was put on the meaning behind the story than with the strength of the story itself. Dennis Hopper definetely could have been used in a more powerful way, as well as the power and influence of the "Board". The most important thing to any dead movie is Fear, and this movie lacked it. Granted, the movie was based on a post-Risen world where recovery was already in place and "progress" was being made for safer survival, so Fear would be a slightly lessened expense...but portraying the zombies as "just looking for a place to belong" squashes any lingering fears that rightfully should still be there. So does that mean if we leave them alone then they won't try and eat us?
Those not familiar with the origin of Romero's Dead may not have such a hard time with this. As for the rest of us, the world of the living dead has been evolving into something other than the the devastatingly apocalyptic nightmare that should and will occur when dead begin to walk and consume the flesh of the living.
Let me put this out there. I love Geor...ge A. Romero. I love the original "Dead" trilogy. Even Day of the Dead, which most people consider a heaping-smelling-pile, I watch religiously a few times a year. The trilogy stands as the pinnacle of zombie films, for even though there was plenty of superfluous gore, the movies actually had messages against racism, consumerism, excess, and the like. They were written well, and the genius of the scripts shone from behind the occasionally shaky acting.
However, Land of the Dead is an abomination. Or I should say, it's a disgrace to the series. It isn't a terrible zombie film on it's own merits, but compared to it's brethren it's not worth the pixels I'm writing this review on. The movie is nothing but a glorified stream of F-Bombs. The script has characters repeatedly cursing and yelling, but with no actual substance to what they are saying. The point of the movie was to kill zombies and make it pretty, and it succeeded in that. However, I walked out of the movie with nothing but the occasional cringe and twinge in my stomach (especially at one particularly nasty scene involving fingernails being torn off backwards). I am disappointed with you, George Romero. I only give two stars because the action and atmosphere deliver, but do not compensate for the lack of substance and intellectualism.
The Only Thing That Scared Me Was the Ticket Price
Last time I checked, horr...or movies were supposed to be scary. I guess the great George R forgot this point. Land of the Dead is the most disappointing of his Dead series so far, and that's not good coming from me because I was not impressed much by any of his earlier zombie pictures, either. (Now the 2004 remake of "Dawn of the Dead" directed by Zack Snyder.... THAT is a good and scary zombie flick!) Romero went too campy in Land of the Dead, diffusing all fear from the film. The zombies where too few, too hackneyed, and therefore disappointing. Half of the time, you expected them to wink at the camera. Romero probably blew a lot of his budget to hire Dennis Hopper, who unfortunately gave a tiresomely staid, ho-hum performance. Any actor could have played his character just as well, since Hopper didn't ham it up like he is famous for. If you like Romero's campy style, this is for you. But if you want scary, see the Dawn of the Dead remake, or 28 Days Later.
