Land of the Dead (2005) (1 Viewer)

[Dome Vongvises]

Just a really quick question, what do you suppose the subtext for DR is? If Dawn was about consumerism, what do you suppose this one is about?

 

[Jon B NY]

Supposibly the subtext for this film is the War in Iraq. This is far from official though...I just heard it from a close friend who knows a few people who work in the horror movie industry.

 

[Kevin M]

The homage to CARNIVAL OF SOULS may hold more water than you may think

You do realise that I agree that it is most likely a homage to COS and the other titles were just a joke.....right?
I was going to throw in Rambo & Missing in Action as well but I thought that would be too obvious, maybe I should have, huh?

 

[todd s]

While I am looking forward to this film. It reeks of political correctness.
-First Zombies are slow
-Then they become fast and can run.
-Now not only are they communicating...they are firing guns.
What did the ACLU get angry about how zombies were being treated??
Seriously, I have no problem with them being fast. But, I am not thrilled with the idea of zombies communicating and firing guns. Takes something away from the whole mindless eating machine.

 

[Robert Anthony]

That's sort of the point though, Todd..it's what Romero was alluding to with Day of the Dead's "Bub" character. This is the natural progression.

And I think the general subtext of "land of the dead" is "complacency" and "Ignoring the problem." At least I think I remember Romero saying something similar to that in an interview. Although I've always thought the subtext in these movies was a mite bit overrated. It's not always implemented all that well, but the horror elements more than make up for it.

 

[Shawn_KE]

-First Zombies are slow
-Then they become fast and can run.
-Now not only are they communicating...they are firing guns.

The Dead are evolving.

 

[Matthew_Def]

The subtext is about being too comfortable. Sort of like America pre 911. It also is very critical of the Bush administration. Ignoring the problem was much more prevelant when he was writing the film for the 90s, but after 911 he changed it to what I said.

Horror elements, Robert? You mean the gore and stuff? Because, aside from Night(and even that was only kind of scary), the other two movies were not really scary at all to me. They had only a few moments. Dawn was more of a fun ride than anything. Day was just a cynical film. I don't expect Land to be very scary.

 

[Kevin M]

I don't expect Land to be very scary.

From the previews I've seen it seems to be a much more hardcore horror film than the others, I expect there to be much more "scare/thrill" moments than in the other three.....even if just as a convention to potential investors to get them interested I would think Romero would have upped the ante this way to draw in a younger thrill seeking crowd...and said investors.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Just a heads up, fella's, there's a great article in the new issue of Fangoria magazine that pretty much lays George's vision and intent for this film right on the table and confirms what Matthew said.

I'll post some excerpts from it later when I have more time, unless someone beats me to it before then. Great read, I recommend picking up this issue just for that alone.

 

[Robert Anthony]

The subtext is about being too comfortable. Sort of like America pre 911. It also is very critical of the Bush administration. Ignoring the problem was much more prevelant when he was writing the film for the 90s, but after 911 he changed it to what I said.

I can see that. Essentially--he's riffing on that sequence in Dawn where they essentially build their own apartment and just veg out for like, a month or so, and expanding it from there?

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

That's exactly right, Robert. George said in the Fangoria article that the theme that runs throughout these films is mankinds inability or unwillingness to deal with the situation and our refusal to give up on life as we know it. The charactors in these film's, especially this one, don't seem to acknowledge the fact that our time to rule this planet just might be up.

It's like we've assumed the position of the Dinosaurs, but unlike them we have the brains and intellgence to prevent, or in the case of these film's, try and hault our destruction...but they fail to realize they can't hault it.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

I don't think anyone can draw any reasonable sociological parrallels for the context of a film without seeing it first. To be honest, the subcontext here seems to be the fact that Romero is getting paid an assload of money to direct a big budget zombie flick. I'm really not buying into any of this. Not the movie of-course, I have super high expectations. But it just seems kinda pretentious to say something like, "Dawn Of The Dead was drawing sociological elements from the cultural conseumerism of the era and bla bla bla, therefore this film will symbolize how the walking zombie armies with giant machine guns are a reflection of Amkerica's political tensions andbjnbwqiwhffq." Sorry, it just seems really ridiculosu to me. This is going to be a huge blockbuster horror flick, nothing more. IO just hope Romero's still got it. I caught the original trailer with the trilogy clips and was mega hyped, but a little offset by all the big explosions and zombie mob with high powered automatic weapons and stuff. It was kinda cheese and I feel it derives from the horror of the intrinsic animal nature of the idea of these creatures. They are not fantastical monsters in wild settings, they are humans in a human world. There are no social constructs. They are dead people in the simplest sense, drawing on an intrinsic hunger to subdue their pain. It's relative and appeals to the juvenile fear factor that lives on in our subconscious, of the unknown and unusual. Night Of The Living Dead to me, was a sreal a horror film could get. This looks like it might suffer from the big-budget Hollywood syndrome. I hope not though, I still have high hopes...

 

[Matthew_Def]

Marco, I feel you are so off. George himself has said pretty much what I have said.

Quote:

Big budget? Haha, good one. This is low budget by Hollywood standards. You couldn't make a drama in Hollywood for that much. Romero snagged a few name actors this time as well.

 

[Rich Romero]

I think we all can safely just ingore everything that was said in Marco's post. Thank you.

 

[Kevin M]

Dawn was about mindless consumerism.

Yes, it was basically an allegory of how dangerous burying yourself in mindless consumerism and ignoring the real problems of the real world around you can be.

 

[Matthew_Def]

I think I should have just done that Rich. But I felt the need to rant.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

You all totally misread what I typed.

I recognize and acknowledge the subcontext of Romero's past films, but they were a product of a certain time and perspective and such elements were not consciously overt in the production process. As all great works of art, these facets and components were inherent to the thought and moment. All the recent talk and generic dissections and analysis of Romero's works in their recent publicity ride (with the Hollywood remake and widely-promoted multi-disc releases and so forth), coupled with the fact that you are all predicting the underlying theme of his next movie on the internet, based on the fact that his original trilogy was rooted in deeper significance, seems indeed very pretentious. Hollywood is paying him to return to the director's chair because if you guys haven't caught the trend, zombie flicks have been rising in popularity over the past few years and with the remakes and recent promotion, the studios smell a cash cow. Don't get me wrong, this is great news and I'm extremely excited that Romero is giving this another go, I hope it proves as successful and sincere as his past productions... but to predict the social contexts and try to somehow relate this to the Iraq war and all that bullshit seems incredibly silly to me. That's all I was trying to say, maybe I didn't express myself as well...

 

[Travis_S]

Variety's Review:

By JUSTIN CHANG

'Land of the Dead'
Asia Argento and Simon Baker find themselves at war with humans and zombies in ''George A Romero's Land of the Dead.''

George A. Romero shows 'em how it's done in "Land of the Dead," resurrecting his legendary franchise with top-flight visuals, terrific genre smarts and tantalizing layers of implication. Nerve-shredding fourth installment may not fully reclaim the visceral or satirical impact of the writer-director's 1978 masterpiece "Dawn of the Dead," but it's still a satisfyingly splattery feast of guts and ideas. Though Universal isn't flogging it half as aggressively as last year's "Dawn" remake, pic should grope its way to killer B.O. with no small help from Romero cultists, whose devotion will be nothing short of zombielike.

The horror maestro has come a long way since the third film in the cycle, 1985's "Day of the Dead," and an even longer way since his seminal 1968 classic "Night of the Living Dead." This time around, Romero is playing with bigger stars and a higher (though still modest) budget of about $15 million, as well as a new shooting location (Toronto, instead of his native Pittsburgh).

That said, "Land" is a tour de force of not only independent filmmaking but independent thinking, rigorously worked out on all craft and technical levels yet enlivened by its twisted engagement with the real world.

Romero's apocalyptic vision of an earth beset by endlessly self-perpetuating flesh-eaters remains as relevant and resonant as ever, and this time he's even injected some not-so-subtle political invective into the proceedings. At one point Kaufman, a corrupt, gray-haired city official, declares, "We don't negotiate with terrorists," making this the second actioner in recent months, after "Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith," to lob a grenade in the direction of the White House.

The city in question is one of humankind's last remaining holdouts, an island metropolis surrounded by water and electric fences that keep out the walking undead. Perched in a high tower that dominates the skyline, Kaufman (Dennis Hopper, his brow furrowed with self-entitlement) owns everything and everyone in the exclusive community of Fiddler's Green, advertised as the place "where life goes on," and where upper-class citizens are admitted only via waiting list. Those still outside on the streets, meanwhile, are in the early stages of revolution.

Cholo, one of several soldiers sent out on rescue missions to bring back food and supplies, sets things in motion when Kaufman refuses to let him move into Fiddler's Green. The disgruntled mercenary (a hot-headed John Leguizamo) promptly hijacks Dead Reckoning, an armored military vehicle that holds enough firepower to bomb out the city, which he threatens to do unless Kaufman meets his demands.

In response, Kaufman commissions Cholo's superior Riley (Simon Baker) to recover the stolen tank, accompanied by sharpshooter sidekick Charlie (Robert Joy) and gold-hearted hooker Slack (Asia Argento, putting a tough-talking spin on a familiar role).

Tension between Riley and Cholo, effectively fleshed out by Baker and especially Leguizamo, reps only one of the story's intriguing contrasts. Both guys want out of a nightmare situation, but where Riley hopes to start over away from civilization, social-climbing Cholo wants to retreat inside, into the ranks of the city's elite.

Romero clearly has a lot on his mind, working through issues of class, segregation, individualism and personal responsibility. As always, the scenario eerily and amusingly mirrors the times: Astute viewers will laugh at how the undead phenomenon has already become commercial fodder in the form of theme-park-style attractions and bloodsports. More chillingly, the gleaming facade of Fiddler's Green implies an entire nation struggling and failing to lead normal lives in a war zone, turning against itself in the process.

Most suggestive of all are the zombies themselves, who have become frighteningly resourceful and smart, having learned to communicate as well as use tools and weapons. Unlike the trendy, fast-moving denizens of the recent "Dawn" redux and "28 Days Later," Romero's walkers still shamble along slowly, yet with an increasingly purposeful gait that makes them seem all the more human. They also look more realistically undead than ever, thanks to pic's ace makeup team (led by Greg Nicotero) and special contact lenses that lend their eyes a bluish, otherworldly glaze.

Pic's ideas about continual evolution and advancement extend equally to the carnage, which for most auds will be "Land's" ultimate test. And Romero rises to the occasion with a mastery, discipline and gleeful sense of invention that shows just how far a slim budget can go given the right sensibility. Fans of the trademark spewing, sausage-like intestines will be quite appeased; few will be prepared for the semi-decapitated zombie (emphasis on semi) or the ugly disadvantages of having a pierced navel (you've been warned).

Romero has a way of at once honoring and updating modern horror-pic conventions, relying more here on shock cuts (with super-sharp editing by Michael Doherty) and surprise zombie ambushes than the queasy claustrophobia that pervaded "Night" and "Dawn." The upshot, happily, is a similarly blissful sense of unease.

Miroslaw Baszak's nuanced lensing, finding endless varieties in a predominantly gray palette, accentuates Arvinder Grewal's chilly production design at every turn. Reinhold Heil and Johnny Klimek's score is serviceably grim, with repeated patterns that evoke the restless walk of the damned.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Marco,
there's no denying the fact that this film is coming out now because zombie films have been doing well lately, however that is only one of the reasons. George is getting paid, of course, but he does nothing unless his heart is in the project, and this one has been bubbling inside his head for 20 years and he's genuinely excited about finally doing it.

And as for predicting what this film will represent, it's been well documented in magazines like Fangoria and on the net, we aren't speculating, all of the angles and/or quotes posted here either in part, whole, spoken or eluded to are from George himself. No offense intended, Marco, believe me, but giving us guff about it is a bit like shooting the messenger.

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 realize they are evolving, but this idea just makes me a little nervous. I don't mind the zombies using weapons, but 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'm remaining open, though, and i'll wait and see how it's handled.

 

[Matthew_Def]

John, don't forget Flyboy leading zombies at the end of Dawn. I imagine it is similar. Zombies are (now mostly) mindless, they tend to follow, always have.

I don't have a problem with them "evolving". For one it is not so much evolving as it is them remembering. They are humans after all. Secondly, zombies, above all, want to feed, at this point they have very little options. The humans have successfully locked the zombies out. So to feed they have adjusted and figured out a way.