Land of the Dead (2005) (1 Viewer)

[Michael Allred]

Wow, "Land" dropped 74% this weekend, yikes! Quick life at the theater for this one. Sitting at #10 right now.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Great, the faster it's out of theaters, the faster we'll have the dvd. Hopefully it won't take 9 months like it took for the remake of 'Dawn' to hit dvd, that was one torturous wait. :frowning:

 

[DavidPla]

I'm sure this film will find quite the life on DVD! Could even maybe warrant a sequel... a sequel that is that won't take another 20 years.

 

[Michael Elliott]

On another board someone said there was a Romero interview on a Canadian show where he said he plans 2 more DEAD films using the surviving members of LAND. Anyone else hear this?

 

[Robert Ringwald]

I mean, even in Day the black guy (can't recall his name) doesn't kill Rhodes despite Rhodes having killed his friend. He backs off and is able to make his escape.

Although he doesn't go through with it, Cholo was willing to bomb Fiddler's Green. And even when warned "If you hit the building, you'll kill innocent people. If you hit the town, you'll kill most of our friends..." he still attempts to do it.

 

[Alex Spindler]

And that's why Cholo is lost. He's still driven by greed and class envy (and eventually some kind of revenge). He's lost perspective and pays for it.
I wish that the movie would have done better but I'm content with getting a great addition to the Dead series and a welcome return of quality Romero. I suppose had my hopes too high given that Romero's Dead series has not exactly had a fantastic box office track record. Still, was $40 million too much to ask? :frowning:

 

[todd s]

Maybe the poor box office has to do with gun-toting intelligent zombies. People want zombies motivated by thought of eating someone...not looking for revenge and their place in the world.

 

[BrettGallman]

I may be totally off here, but I am at least sure I know that the main beef is not with the "lack of continuity" (meaning, when the movies actually take place in regards to each other), but rather with the fact that civilization, which should have come to a halt, has still evolved.

Now, with my attempt to resolve this. I think (if I'm remembering correctly), one of Romero's many points in interviews leading up to Land centers on the human willingness to just ignore the zombie problem. Sure, civilization may have been affected by the zombies, but why couldn't they (and their technology) evolved to the point that it has in this latest movie? Maybe this is just Romero's way of showing the symptoms of ignoring the zombie problem. Maybe they (well, mainly the rich) have just spent all these years holed up in their little cities, living life as we know it today, while completely ignoring the zombies. And this is what "Land" is about, on one level: what happens when you choose to ignore a problem for too long (Riley, of course doesn't help this at the film's conclusion, and this stands as my major criticism of the movie, but that's for another post). This is really just a really strained attempt at working logic into a series with loose continuity (much like the Halloween series). I actually just like to think that each film just represents the time in which it is released, like others have suggested.

 

[Alex Spindler]

It's an interesting point as to what Riley could or should have done at the film's conclusion.

I'm of the opinion that Land opens with the realization that there is no way to defeat the zombies. The scientific inquiry of Day is trying to understand the phenomenon and eventually work up a way to control or end it. But by Land, everyone is operating under the resignation that this is the way the world works. But because of the machinations of one man, Kaufman, it's reached an entirely different level. Suddenly, it's not just living (as opposed to surviving) among the zombies but it's an entire artificial society that works to shield them from the zombie threat entirely. If you weren't on the ground floor among the peons but instead inside Fiddler's Green, you'd almost be able to forget that there were zombies at all.

Unfortunately the fantasy world is built by playing on old concepts (like playing to greed, power, and vice) and is doomed to fail. Kaufman uses goons like Cholo to keep the little world going by killing and disposing of the more rebellious peons, but there is obviously an undercurrent always there that's threatening to bring it all down. And this is completely independant of the zombie threat.

I'd sort of liken it to the Road Warrior and Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. The outpost in Road Warrior is a good analogy for how Night and Dawn looked at the world. It's how to survive in the apocalypse against all threats. But Bartertown is an entirely different animal altogether, strung together by the few in power and threatening to burst at the seams from traitors in their midst.


I think Riley is along with everyone else in knowing you can never defeat the zombies. They are fueled by your own people, so the only time the threat is ever extinguished is when the last human is dead. So what would have been accomplished having killed Big Daddy and his entourage. If he's have fired 1000 bullets to kill 100 zombies he'd simply be short 1000 bullets when he gets up North. Killing zombies in Pittsburg accomplishes absolutely nothing. His goal is to go somewhere to survive, because he doesn't want to live in this artificial society.

In my opinion, the way Riley is the same with everyone else in Fiddler's Green is that he has no illusions that the zombie problem can ever be fixed. But he's different because he still respects the zombie threat, and is still attentive enough to realize that a change is in motion. Everyone else is blind to it all and distracted enough to go grabbing cigars and champagne to buy their way into a position of power. His focus is on getting necessary tools for survival and never underestimating the zombie threat.


That's my opinion why Riley doesn't kill any zombies at the end, other than to end the suffering of the poor bastards at the gate. He's not hiding from the problem or ignoring it. But his interest is to go north to avoid 'the people' which are the real threat now.

(and besides, we as viewers know that Big Daddy is a catalyst for the zombies, but Riley doesn't know him as anything other than a curiousity from the night before)

 

[Michael Elliott]

Several reports in Canada say Romero is coming back to shoot LAND OF THE DEAD 2 and 3. With the "lack of characters development", you might think this was a planned trilogy where stuff will be laid out in other films. Kinda like the KILL BILL thing.

 

[Shawn_KE]

LotD2 and 3? Well that could mean that Land of the Dead wasn't ment to be a direct sequel to the orignals.

 

[ChuckSolo]

It was a direct sequel and the fleeting vision of Tom Savini's biker zombie attested to that. I really enjoyed the film and didn't go in expecting a "scary" film per se although there were a couple of good jump scenes. I mostly went in to see the premise of the story and the makeup FX. I wasn't disappointed.
:star: :star: :star: :star: 1/2 out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:

 

[Michael Elliott]

Anyone here familiar with Paul Naschy's Waldemar series? These films are "connected" to one another, ala the DEAD series yet they are stand alone films. After watching my 6th (of 9?) Waldemar film I'm going to look at DEAD the same way.

LotD2 and 3? Well that could mean that Land of the Dead wasn't ment to be a direct sequel to the orignals.

That's what I was thinking (even with the cameo, which really doesn't mean nothing. There's a SHAUN cameo as well but we're not going to call this a sequel to that). NIGHT, DAWN and DAY could be a trilogy while LAND 1,2,3 could be another one.
If they're going to make two more parts I'd love to see the middle one a prequel to LAND. It would be great seeing how they cleared out the zombies to make this "safe place". It would also be good to see a film take place inside there.

 

[Kevin M]

even with the cameo, which really doesn't mean nothing. There's a SHAUN cameo as well but we're not going to call this a sequel to that

Yeah I was going to mention that myself, the Savini cameo was a wink to the fans and not an attempt to give an exact timeline to the events in the films AFAIC.