What's new

Land of the Dead (2005) (1 Viewer)

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
I buy that, Matthew, and hopefully the film will follow this logic. If it does, that will be just fine. :emoji_thumbsup:
EDIT: After thinking about it more, i'm pretty much 100% sure your right, Matthew, that the film will follow this train of thought.
 

Amy Mormino

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
537
The only objection I have with people talking about themes in Romero's work is that you might get the impression that his films are the horror equivalent of broccoli: good for you but not much fun. I try to approach his work as kick-ass gory entertainment first and then think about the deeper meanings he throws in. The genius of his films is that there's something for everyone (unless you don't like blood and guts in movies).

The Variety review is very encouraging, as it echoes what the previous fanboy reviews have been saying. This movie looks like a winner and I hope it makes a good amount of money.
 

Andres Munoz

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 21, 1999
Messages
2,489
Now, I just re-read the Fango article, and I am beginning to have a slight problem with the charactor of 'Big Daddy', he's supposed to be the leader, of sorts, of the zombies. I don't like this idea at all...I don't want them getting too smart on me as to have one zombie "call the shots" for the rest of them, that's going too far with the idea and could deaden some of the raw animalistic fury of the zombies.
I felt the same way when I found out that the Borg had a queen in Star Trek: First Contact. It took something away from the Borg IMO.

But I'll give Romero the benefit of the doubt. That man can do no wrong.
 

Alex Spindler

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Messages
3,971
That Variety review has me so psyched, primarily by giving a glimpse at some depth behind the setup of the film. I had been thinking this might be a 'last stand' ala Day of the Dead but it instead appears like the living attempting to 'live' among the dead.

Is it Friday yet?
 

MikeRS

Screenwriter
Joined
Jul 17, 2002
Messages
1,326
Hollywood Reporter:
By Michael Rechtshaffen
Bottom line: With George A. Romero taking back the reins, his "Dead" walk again to chillingly thoughtful effect.
After having to sit back and watch others remake his zombie classics -- minus any of the trademark sociopolitical subtext -- George A. Romero has returned to the land of the dead for the first time in two decades, and it's quite evident the godfather of the modern horror film still has much on his mind.
Receiving its world premiere at the CineVegas Film Festival, "Land of the Dead" is the fourth movie in what was originally a trilogy, beginning with 1968's seminal "Night of the Living Dead," the movie that has inspired a couple of generations of filmmakers.
The latest installment could well be Romero's masterpiece. Taking full advantage of state-of-the-art makeup and visual effects, he has a more vivid canvas at his disposal, not to mention two decades worth of pent-up observations about American society.
Even those walking dead have learned a thing or two in the interim.
Romero's legion of fans as well as those who like an allegory with the emphasis on the gory will likely show their appreciation by stalking the theaters in droves, giving Universal a very lively opening weekend, while enthusiastic word-of-mouth could give those zombies some legs.
Having staggered their way through "Dawn of the Dead" and "Day of the Dead," it's apparent those ever-growing masses of "walkers" have started to develop an appetite for more than just fresh flesh.
Following the grunting lead of Big Daddy (Eugene Clark), an imposing gas station attendant, the living dead have begun to sort of re-enact their once-normal lives prior to their affliction.
Meanwhile, the remaining affluent and powerful among the living have fortified themselves in an ivory tower -- a luxury complex called Fiddler's Green, which effectively looks down upon the less fortunate of the city's inhabitants who struggle to survive in the dangerous streets.
It's all the domain of the powerful Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), a slick CEO who keeps himself sequestered in the Green while hiring a group of mercenaries, led by Riley (Simon Baker) and his second-in-command, Cholo (John Leguizamo), to run retrieval missions beyond the electrified fences for luxury items.
But even as they plow their way through the armies of "stenches" in a massive armored vehicle called Dead Reckoning, there's an unstoppable unrest brewing among the dead and the living alike that's about to reach a boiling point.
Although Romero ventured outside his native Pittsburgh to shoot this one in Toronto, it's very clear, from the flag-waving vigilantes to the anti-terrorist rhetoric spewed by Hopper's big-money operator, that most criticisms are being leveled due south of the border.
But those familiar with Romero's work know that doesn't mean they're in for a Michael Moore diatribe. The horror show is still the main attraction, and "Land of the Dead" delivers the goods in harrowing, visceral heaps.
Bolstered by a talented cast that also includes Asia Argento as a tough cookie ex-hooker who joins Baker's entourage, the film never skimps on atmosphere, which at times verges on the horrifically poetic.
Adding to the uncompromising effect is Miroslaw Baszak's night-drenched cinematography, Michael Doherty's tight edit and a pulse-pounding score by Reinhold Heil and Johnny Klimek.
 

Colton

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 12, 2004
Messages
795
Saw this last night and it left a bad taste in my mouth.
I'm a big fan of NOTLD, DAWN and DAY and especially love the 2004 DAWN remake. Unfortunately, LOTD didn't give me the chills that 2004 DAWN had. For example, the zombies weren't as scary as the marathon-running zombies from 2004 DAWN. Although the zombie makeup was quality in LOTD - they didn't look threatening to me. The main characters aren't really scared of zombies either. They just see them as an annoyance and not much else - except:
Using zombies for entertainment purposes of getting your photo taken with a zombie and spray paint a zombie.

Also, the biggest disappointment for some diehard Romero-zombie fans is that Romero changes his storyline as to how zombies are created in LOTD. In the original NOTLD, DAWN and DAY, all dead are returned to life - no matter how you died. In LOTD, zombies are created by being bitten (a nod to 2004 DAWN remake). Otherwise, the story simply would not work because of having a city that is rife with crime (lower class section) and unable to keep tabs on population the city would have long been overcome by zombies.
The movie is very fast paced and the characters do not development from their introduction - love 'em or leave 'em. It was hard to care for anyone in this movie. Another thing, Romero shows us that zombies can care for each other - teach other zombies new skills and whatnot. It was as if he wanted you to cheer for the zombies and not the survival of the humans.
Pros: Great effects and costume design. Lots of gore!
Cons: Zombies can be loveable, caring creatures that are misunderstood, no character development and not scary
:star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:
- Colton
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
Romero shows us that zombies can care for each other...Zombies can be loveable
You mind running that by me again? :frowning:
In defense of the film, I suppose the humans aren't scared of them because the phenominon has been happening for many years and the humans are almost getting used to seeing zombies all over. That's just my take, I haven't seen it yet.
But those lines I quoted from Colton scare the shit out of me. :frowning:
 

Matthew Chmiel

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2000
Messages
2,281
In defense of the film, I suppose the humans aren't scared of them because the phenominon has been happening for many years and the humans are almost getting used to seeing zombies all over. That's just my take, I haven't seen it yet.
Well in progression of the series, I agree with Romero's logic.
In Night: everyone is afraid of them as the terror is just beginning.
In Dawn: it's becoming a massive problem and everyone is looking to survive. [Dawn takes place a few days after Night, correct?]
In Day: there are more zombies than humans, but survival is still the name of the game. [Day takes place a few years or more after Dawn, correct?]
In Land: zombies outnumber man and with technology and firepower, man can co-exist peacefully with zombies. However, zombies are still a problem, but one that could be ignored (or so we hope). [And my assumption would be that Land takes place YEARS after the events of Day.]
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
There's one thing that's always bugged me about the whole lineage of the zombies. Assuming that the zombies food supply has been all but cut off, meaning that their access to human's has been greatly diminished, and furthermore assuming that the zombies will continue to rot and decay until they can no longer even stand up let alone walk, the zombie population should have, in theory anyway, begun to slowly dwindle over the years.
 

aaron campbell

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 11, 2000
Messages
281
I'm wondering if I saw the same movie as those that have posted.Zombies shooting m16's,running,swimming,organizing, communicating. etc.. Not a scary movie for sure. Different strokes I guess. I'm glad it was free.
 

Matthew_Def

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
86
Aaron, Romero has admited aside from Night (and even that not so much), he doesn't make scary zombie movies. Land is no different.
 

Matthew_Def

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
86
Colton I'm glad I disagree with you. I hate Dawn04, It was a travesty, and completely unscary, which it tried so hard to do. I'm sure Land will be my kind of film. There are no nods to the remake in Land. Get that out of your head. Romero does not like it.
 

Andy Sheets

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2000
Messages
2,377
Romero has admited aside from Night (and even that not so much), he doesn't make scary zombie movies. Land is no different.
I think it's unfortunate that horror movies are so often judged strictly according to how "scary" they are because under that criterion virtually no horror film would ever stand up (unless you're a very sensitive person, I guess). I think the genre is much more flexible than that, but that's just me.
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
You know what, I respect George, I think he's a freaking genius, however he is a bit delusional if he truly believes that he doesn't make scary zombie films because he does...big time.
I hate it when a director takes the high road and claims that his/her film strictly deals with one all important thing when it clearly is about and deals with another, it makes them appear incredibly pretentious IMO.
These films are scary horror films with some observant commentary of the day mixed in, that's it. Does George honestly believe that people were going to see 'Dawn' in droves because they wanted to be floored by his social commentary? I hope he doesn't believe that, they went there to be scared shitless by zombies and to see people get their guts ripped out, and i'll bet that less than 20% of the audiences of that time even got the social message in that film.
I love the man, but he needs to come down off the horse with that sort of claim that he doesn't make scary zombie films.
Point is, George's metaphor's are presant, i'm not denying that, but they are not why people go to these films and IMO most of them couldn't care less about any social messages, especially in a horror film.
Now as for this new film, with each passing day and each passing post I am getting more and more concerned. As I said in a previous post, i've enjoyed pretty much any film that deals with the undead, I hope to God that that trend doesn't come to an end with the 4th film in George Romero's Dead series of all things! :frowning:
But so far, with the exception of a couple of good reviews which are my main source of comfort at this point, I don't like what i'm reading. :frowning:
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
The sum total of comments about this film have just about killed my interest in it. Last year's Dawn of the Dead was an enjoyable horror romp. This one sounds too pretentious. And I've never liked Dennis Hopper.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
Thanks Aaron, that helps confirm what I was thinking. Even if George is my uncle. j/k
 

Will K

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 6, 2001
Messages
1,011
my 2 cent

Well, it’s here and I am happy to report it’s a welcome addition to Romero’s bloody cannon of zombie epics.

It seems like yesterday I sat in a near-empty theater beholding the first George A. Romero film I was old enough to see on the big screen. It was 1985’s grimy(and unrated) Day of the Dead. That was twenty long years ago—a long time for Romero’s rotting, shuffling zombies to be dormant. It’s not just the dead that have been hungry. Devotees of the gut-munching, unholy trinity of Night, Dawn, and Day have long feared Romero would never get to do it again. Alas, the movie gods have seen fit to bless insatiable horror fans.

I don’t know how Romero felt about 2004’s version of Dawn, a good romp in its own right but not exactly a classic-to-be. Land of the Dead looks and feels like an answer to that film or, depending on who you ask, an antidote. Photographed in beautfiul 2.35:1 widescreen(a first for Romero, if I’m not mistaken), much of the film takes place at night. The image is often bathed in a ghoulish, moon-like blue that gives the film a terrific sense of unease. In fact, this film contains what is probably my favorite image of any of the Dead films: a Carnival Of Souls-esque tapestry of the zombie arrival. It’s one of those “Wow” moments I’m not sure will translate well to impending home video versions. The opening credits are memorably creepy and cool as grotesque black and white images crack and rot with the titles.

Whereas previous settings were largely confined to a farmhouse, a mall, and an underground bunker, Romero expands the backdrop to the big city, presumably what used to be Pittsburgh. To keep out the “stenches,” the city is barricaded. Life inside is hardly perfect. The only decent place to live is a luxury tower called Fiddler’s Green, an exclusive haven for the rich and high upper class, run by the Donald Trump-like Kaufman(Dennis Hopper, in a refreshingly restrained performance). The rest of city is inhabited by the homeless and lower class, who spend their time as street vendors or entertaining themselves in sleazy venues that evoke memories of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.

The plot kicks into gear when mercenary for hire Cholo(John Leguizamo) feels like he’s garnered enough money working for Kaufman to take up residence in the tower. Kaufman scoffs at the idea and wastes no time in tossing him out. Cholo initiates a revenge plan by stealing “Dead Reckoning,” a high-tech armored vehicle used for missions to recover goods and supplies outside the city. As Cholo can use its fire-power to blast Fiddler Green to bits, Kaufman makes a recovery deal with Riley(Simon Baker), a fellow mercenary recently arrested after rescuing a working girl(Asia Argento) from being zombie lunch in a shoot-up. The most entertaining character is Riley’s sidekick-of-sorts, Charlie(Robert Joy), a mistakably slow-witted man who was severely burned on one side of his face. Likely the most well-written character of the film, Charlie supplies the heart and humor that is occasionally needed amongst all the pervasive violence.

Matters are ultimately complicated when the walking dead make way to the city, seemingly led by the hell-bent Big Daddy, a zombie who almost isn’t. Clearly an extension of “Bub” from Day, Big Daddy is fueled by anger and has a learning curve the rest only seem to have traces of. In what may prove to the most controversial element to fans, Big Daddy proves to be quite resourceful when it comes to employing weapons commonly used by the living. It may seem like a silly idea, but the execution validates it as a natural progression.

What’s noticably different about this installment is the bigger budget. Because this is a major studio release, there’s a bit more action and more explosions than what we’ve seen before. Obviously, there were some creative compromises made to make this a crowd-pleasing summer film, which it is to an extent. Some may even hate it for this reason. If I have to complain about anything, it’s the 92 minute running time. It’s shorter and leaner than previous entries, but I have to give George credit for overcoming commercial considerations without totally sacrificing character development and his trademark social commentary. As far as pure diversion value, this is probably the most entertaining film Romero has ever made and absolutely his best in years.

Not to disappoint fans, Romero has packed the film with as much gore as an R-rating will allow. Heads are smashed, entrails are spilled, limbs ripped off, you get the picture. We even get the “dining” shots the Dawn remake was sorely missing. Undoubtedly, there were concessions made, but there are moist surprises aplenty. The salivation for an eventual unrated director’s cut has begun.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more







You will only receive emails from us. We will never sell or distribute your email address to third party companies at any time.

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
357,052
Messages
5,129,663
Members
144,281
Latest member
blitz
Recent bookmarks
0
Top