Posted by AcidBrandon18 (746 posts) 1 year, 2 months ago

Poll: Land of the Dead (Movie) (45 votes)

I think it is a good zombie film. 24%
I think it is a bad zombie film. 69%
I don't like zombies regardless of the media that they are in. 7%

I recently re-watched the Land of the Dead, thanks to Netflix streaming, and was wondering what others felt about the film. Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead are some of Romero's best zombie flicks and I don't know how I feel about this film. Is it just me or have slow zombies become boring after the latest craze of fast zombies? What do you guys think of Land of the Dead?

#1 Posted by SeanCoughing (269 posts) -

I think it's a bad zombie film. Though it does have that scene where the zombie bites that lady's belly ring out, not sure if that counts for or against the movie but it sticks out in my mind all these years later.

#2 Posted by IBurningStar (2173 posts) -

I thought the zombies getting smarter think was flat out dumb. Not good dumb, either. I mean the bad kind of dumb. The kind of dumb that is more insulting than amusing. The film never became silly and corny enough for me to laugh at it, and it never established any sort of atmosphere or tension so it failed to be even remotely scary. It was all sort of just there.

#3 Edited by BisonHero (6532 posts) -

I mean, it's probably one of the more heavy-handed Romero films, if you continue with the "zombies represent the mindless masses of America" thing. While Dawn of the Dead was all about their consumerism and flocking to malls, Land of the Dead is more about the division between rich and poor (imagine that, years before all the Occupy Wall Street bullshit), with the humans in Fiddler's Green representing a sort of upper class, educated plutocracy, while the humans outside of Fiddler's Green and the zombies both sort of represent the middle and lower class, trying to get in with the wealthy people.

Then the lead zombie literally uses gasoline to kill the ruler of Fiddler's Green, because he's basically George Bush and wouldn't that be ironic. And eventually the zombies learn to stop being distracted by the "shock and awe" tactics of fireworks, just like Americans became rapidly less approving of the Iraq War, because symbolism. Or maybe the zombies are meant to be everyone who is not American, eventually turning on America because of their foreign policy or something? I don't know.

Anyway, in terms of the actual characters and events of the movie, I think it's alright. It's not the best zombie movie out there, but you could do a lot worse. You people saying it's a bad zombie film are crazy.

#4 Edited by Morrow (1829 posts) -

Slow zombies are boring and not convincing as a real threat.

I do like to watch LotD for cute Simon Baker though :]

#5 Posted by Clonedzero (4200 posts) -

Uh, Well since your poll options were limited i voted for good zombie movie.

However its a bad zombie movie, hell its a bad movie overall. However i still like it cus its good dumb fun.

Slow zombies when done right are more scary. Since they're slow the movie can take a slower pace, build up tension, ect. but horror movies these days are all about the jump scares eh? I just think fast zombies caught on because most film makers don't have the patience to do proper slow zombies.

Fast zombies are a significantly more dangerous and threatening thing, but they're not really scary. Since they're so fast you don't really have time to be scared, they jump out and attack. Though i will say my favorite fast "zombie" movie is 28 Days Later. (I know some asshole is gonna give me shit, i know they're not technically zombies) That movie did a great job.

Here, lemme put it in a way everyone can understand. Slow zombies = Alien. Fast zombies = Aliens.

#6 Edited by Stonyman65 (2709 posts) -

I wouldn't say it was "good", but it wasn't as bad as what a lot people claim it to be.

It's a fucking masterpiece compared to Survival of the Dead.

Speaking of zombie movies, we need another Zack Snyder directed movie in the "of the Dead" series. The 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead was probably the best zombie movie in over a decade.

#7 Edited by leinad44 (515 posts) -

It is a bad bad zombie film. And I love me some zombies!

I've watched it a couple of times trying to like it, but it is just so boring and dumb.

#8 Posted by Jrinswand (1709 posts) -

Land of the Dead is a bad movie regardless of the zombie's movement speed.

#9 Posted by MideonNViscera (2257 posts) -

Is this the one where it ends with someone about to kill the "boss" zombie and the "boss" human is like "No, leave him. He's just looking for a place to go"? If it is, it's a fucking retarded movie.

#10 Posted by SploogeStain (41 posts) -

Here, lemme put it in a way everyone can understand. Slow zombies = Alien. Fast zombies = Aliens.

The difference being Alien and Aliens are both great, whereas pretty much every fast zombie film I can think of with the exception of 28 Days Later is in the meh-shit end of the spectrum.

#11 Posted by AcidBrandon18 (746 posts) -
#12 Posted by drowsap (681 posts) -

Is a terrible movie

#13 Posted by crusader8463 (14422 posts) -

I seem to recall thinking it was ok. My favourites are still the original Romero one, and the original one they did in the mall. The mall remake one was ok, but I prefer the original more so. I love movies set in that time period.

Also, fast=infected slow = zombies.

#14 Edited by Redbullet685 (6044 posts) -

It's alright. Better than Survival, that's for sure!

#15 Edited by WilliamHenry (1203 posts) -

I thought the zombies getting smarter think was flat out dumb. Not good dumb, either. I mean the bad kind of dumb. The kind of dumb that is more insulting than amusing. The film never became silly and corny enough for me to laugh at it, and it never established any sort of atmosphere or tension so it failed to be even remotely scary. It was all sort of just there.

At least the whole zombies getting smarter made sense in the Romero universe, as it is following the zombie from Day of the Dead. Whether its dumb or not is up to your own personal opinion, but I didn't think it was terrible. Land clearly isn't as good as Romero's earlier movies, but its alright.

#16 Posted by Yummylee (21656 posts) -

It's been a while, but I remember thinking it was kinda mediocre.

#17 Edited by Max_Cherry (1133 posts) -

It was not good, but it was better than Day of The Dead.

#18 Posted by rebgav (1429 posts) -

It's a bad movie, an okay zombie movie, and a good Romero "the Dead" movie if we compare it to "Day of..." and "Diary of..."

No zombie movie will ever be as revered as the original Night and Dawn of The Dead movies because they won't have the "surprise" factor but I think that most zombie movies are terrible on their own merits, no need for the comparison.

#19 Edited by TheSouthernDandy (3872 posts) -

It's pretty bad but Diary of the Dead is SO much worse. Nothing but respect for Romero for what he did for the genre but he should stop making zombie movies. I didn't even bother with Survival. Also slow zombies are always the right choice.

On a related note World War Z was pretty damn good provided you don't go in expecting the book.

#20 Edited by OneKillWonder_ (1747 posts) -

Well, I would say it's somewhere in between. It's definitely not a great movie, but it's hardly unwatchable. I'd say it's more good than bad, though there is just some really dumb shit in it. There are some great gory moments in it. Plus it has John Leguizamo and Dennis Hopper.

Diary of the Dead would've been good if it wasn't for the unbearably shitty actors and dialogue. The movie actually had good atmosphere and pacing. Survival of the Dead is really, REALLY fucking terrible, and I don't say that about a movie very often. I could only sit through about half of it before I turned it off. Romero has completely lost his touch and inspiration. I've never been a huge fan of his anyway. I've always loved the hell out of zombie movies, but I never thought Dawn of the Dead was that good, and it really doesn't hold up today at all. The one time I saw Day I didn't care for it, but that was so long ago, I don't remember that much of it.

#21 Posted by Sparky_Buzzsaw (6198 posts) -

It's mediocre, through and through. Romero tries too hard these days to adapt his movies to whatever's currently popular in film, and it inevitably winds up dragging his films down. His heavy-handed messages are also growing a little old, but I suppose if they were done right and in the right film, I wouldn't mind them so much. But still, making a giant Hollywood movie about zombies that's also not-so-subtle jab at the discrepancy between the rich and poor seemed douchey then and now. The same goes for movies like Tower Heist.

If you want to preach a message, great. Have at it. But take a pretty goddamn close look in the mirror and make sure you're not the asshole you're preaching against first.

Moderator
#22 Posted by AcidBrandon18 (746 posts) -

Romero was also pretty cool in that Map pack for Black Ops.