-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official Land Of The Dead Thread
- Thread starter Tedesco!
- Start date
- Status
cubicle47b
Member
I saw it at midnight. I'd set your expectations low or you're bound to be disappointed. I went with some very big fans of Night, Dawn, and Day and all but one of us (there were 7) thought it was awful. One of them described it as Resident Evil 3 (everyone's a crack shot and there's no feeling of dread) and sadly I agree.
cubicle47b said:
Most of the people in Romero's zombie films have been crack shots. If memory serves correct, most of the people doing the shooting are supposed to be commandos, so I don't think it's that the plausability is that far fetched.
You're the second person to have said something bad about the film. (the first being a reviewer for the Indy Star who claims he was a fan of the series but never got his facts straight) Most of the reviews I have read have been very positive about the film. I doubt I would be disappointed by this film unless the zombies broke into some musical number or something like that. As long as there are zombies and gore; I'll be satisfied.
cubicle47b
Member
Oh there's definitely zombies and gore and that's what made the movie for the person in our group who liked it. I hope you enjoy it.
Most of the people in Night and Day were crack shots (I remember them a lot better than Dawn)? They seemed fairly normal to me (as do most of the extras in Land) but the main characters in Land headshot at will.
edit: It should be noted that this is not my main complaint about the film. Also, I never said I was a fan of the series (I've seen them all once). I was with people who are.
Most of the people in Night and Day were crack shots (I remember them a lot better than Dawn)? They seemed fairly normal to me (as do most of the extras in Land) but the main characters in Land headshot at will.
edit: It should be noted that this is not my main complaint about the film. Also, I never said I was a fan of the series (I've seen them all once). I was with people who are.
Kabuki Waq
Member
There really isnt much hype for this movie at all ...even the dawn of the dead remake had more hype. I hope LOTD does well but i think it will bomb hard. 
Kabuki Waq said:There really isnt much hype for this movie at all ...even the dawn of the dead remake had more hype. I hope LOTD does well but i think it will bomb hard.
It's pretty much impossible for this film to bomb. It was made on a shoestring budget. The fact that it's getting a wide release alone will probably see it make its money back.
Kabuki Waq
Member
Willco said:
thats good to hear...judging by the trailer i would have never guessed it was a shoe string budget. Makes me worry about the action set peices tho.
Litigation Manuel
Member
I'm getting nervous, but that's good, I don't want to have too high of hopes going in. As long as zombies are ripping people apart and eating them, I'm sure I'll be more than pleased. Hell, there were only a few scenes like that in Dawn, and those made the movie for me (Silly bikers, you can't live without your intestines!).
Isn't this the start of a new series of Romero zombie films? Hopefully he makes enough to go through with those.
Isn't this the start of a new series of Romero zombie films? Hopefully he makes enough to go through with those.
Litigation Manuel said:
I'm a bit nervous too. I've heard takes from ALL over the place. Some people really hate it. Others really love it.
He said if Land of the Dead is successful, he'd like to do a new trilogy. This film is such a departure from the more realistic takes of the previous ones that I almost see this as a start of a post-Apocalyptic Mad Max type of zombie trilogy.
Kabuki Waq said:There really isnt much hype for this movie at all ...even the dawn of the dead remake had more hype. I hope LOTD does well but i think it will bomb hard.
I don't know what you;re talking about. I've seen the trailer for this film both on tv and before a movie. There are also a ton of internet ads for the film. While I don't think the film is being marketed to everyone, I do think it's being marketed to the right audience.
cubicle47b
Member
Maybe crack shot wasn't the right word. The main characters are using aim bots. Is that better? Yeah, they're mercenaries but the way they think and shoot can only be described as "action movie". They still drop fairly quickly but that's because zombies appear out of thin air to kill them (not that there's anything wrong with that).
There are quite a few feeding scenes so you should be happy.
The theater I saw it at was maybe 1/3 full. I have no idea if that's an indication of how well it will do or not (it was the only theater showing it last night within 50 miles).
There are quite a few feeding scenes so you should be happy.
The theater I saw it at was maybe 1/3 full. I have no idea if that's an indication of how well it will do or not (it was the only theater showing it last night within 50 miles).
cubicle47b
Member
Just read this. I think that was the problem most of us had with it.
Yeah, totally different concepts, that being the original trilogy and what he's trying to do with Land of the Dead. The original trilogy was people put in these horrible circumstances and how they'd react in modern times, with a dash of social satire. It was pretty realistic and gritty, like you could imagine the films occuring in real-life if there was ever a mass zombie outbreak.
With Land of the Dead he seems to be taking a more fantasy approach. And I applaud that. The gritty, realistic zombie survival movie has been done to death. Romero's done it and countless others have copied it. So he's trying to do something akin to a post-Apocalyptic Mad Max zombie flick, from what I can see, and I can totally dig that.
Give me something fresh.
It's not going to be a big hit. Hell, I don't think it will crack the Top 5. But it'll probably muster $5 tp $6 million this weekend and definitely turn a profit in it's theatrical run. And as with most horror movies, home video market is where the real cash is.
With Land of the Dead he seems to be taking a more fantasy approach. And I applaud that. The gritty, realistic zombie survival movie has been done to death. Romero's done it and countless others have copied it. So he's trying to do something akin to a post-Apocalyptic Mad Max zombie flick, from what I can see, and I can totally dig that.
Give me something fresh.
cubicle47b said:
It's not going to be a big hit. Hell, I don't think it will crack the Top 5. But it'll probably muster $5 tp $6 million this weekend and definitely turn a profit in it's theatrical run. And as with most horror movies, home video market is where the real cash is.
cubicle47b
Member
Opening night, though. And it's a zombie movie, it should be viewed late at night. Still, it was a Thursday and it was in Abingdon, Virginia (it was an hour drive for us).
Smart zombies are pretty fresh. The main zombie puts Bub to shame (at least from what I can remember).
True. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a Star Wars or Batman type reaction for this movie and I think a lack of that reaction doesn't necessarily mean the movie is bad or will have a negative reaction. I don't think it will gross $40, but I do think it will make back it's operating budget this weekend.
From the IMDB's review page.... mostly positive reviews...
Ordinarily studios don't even bother showing horror movies to critics in advance of their release. But director George A. Romero, who has become a virtual legend in the film business with such fright films as Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead, is obviously an exception, since he commands the kind of respect that other film makers of that genre only dream of.
It's all evident in many of the reviews of his latest film, Land of the Dead. "The godfather of the modern zombie flick shows us how it's done right: With fleet pacing, well-timed shocks and a stealthy satiric edge," writes Gene Seymour in Newsday. David Hiltbrand in the Philadelphia Inquirer declares: "The zombie king ... returns with his most ingenious and ambitious zombie film yet." Bob Strauss in the Los Angeles Daily News hails the movie as "certainly the best-crafted film Romero has ever made."
But Bob Longino in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution isn't about to accept Romero's credentials as a master filmmaker, writing: "Aside from the sick ick, there's really not too much 'master' going on here." And Steve Persall concludes in the St. Petersburg Times: "Romero originally planned a trilogy; this fourth movie takes us to the flesh trough one too many times."
Ordinarily studios don't even bother showing horror movies to critics in advance of their release. But director George A. Romero, who has become a virtual legend in the film business with such fright films as Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead, is obviously an exception, since he commands the kind of respect that other film makers of that genre only dream of.
It's all evident in many of the reviews of his latest film, Land of the Dead. "The godfather of the modern zombie flick shows us how it's done right: With fleet pacing, well-timed shocks and a stealthy satiric edge," writes Gene Seymour in Newsday. David Hiltbrand in the Philadelphia Inquirer declares: "The zombie king ... returns with his most ingenious and ambitious zombie film yet." Bob Strauss in the Los Angeles Daily News hails the movie as "certainly the best-crafted film Romero has ever made."
But Bob Longino in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution isn't about to accept Romero's credentials as a master filmmaker, writing: "Aside from the sick ick, there's really not too much 'master' going on here." And Steve Persall concludes in the St. Petersburg Times: "Romero originally planned a trilogy; this fourth movie takes us to the flesh trough one too many times."
Ash Housewares
The Mountain Jew
Tedesco! said:
I did see a zombie with a trombone...
dynamitejim
Member
Well, I just got back from seeing the movie. In a word: disappointing. Keep in mind I'm a huge Romero fan and Dawn is my favorite movie ever. My main problem is that it's waaaaay too short. Everything seems too fast paced. Another 30-45 minutes could've given the film room to breathe and some more scenes where we can sit still with the characters for a minute. I would have loved to see the "living" city and the poeple in it explored more. You really do get the sense that it's the last city standing.
The zombies themselves aren't as good as in the previous films. They seem too lucid, purposeful, and angry. Even Bub looked confused and scared more often than not. Land isn't quite as grizzly as Day either. Savini is still king when it comes to zombies/gore.
If I had to rank the movies it'd go Dawn, Day, Night, Land. As far as comparisons to other recent zombie movies, I'd say I liked Shaun of the Dead and 28 Days Later more. The Dawn Remake I thought was horrible, but it definitely at least felt "complete".
That's what's so frustrating about this movie. It follows the script from last August exactly, so I have to fault Romero for not having written in more character and scenario set up. It has a lot of potential, but as it is I'd rate it some where between "meh" and "pretty good" (that's like a 7.5-8 out of 10 :lol). The real test will be when it comes out on DVD. I sorta dug the Dawn Remake when I saw it in theaters, but couldn't sit through it at home. Oh well, guess I'll sulk and watch Dawn again.
The zombies themselves aren't as good as in the previous films. They seem too lucid, purposeful, and angry. Even Bub looked confused and scared more often than not. Land isn't quite as grizzly as Day either. Savini is still king when it comes to zombies/gore.
If I had to rank the movies it'd go Dawn, Day, Night, Land. As far as comparisons to other recent zombie movies, I'd say I liked Shaun of the Dead and 28 Days Later more. The Dawn Remake I thought was horrible, but it definitely at least felt "complete".
That's what's so frustrating about this movie. It follows the script from last August exactly, so I have to fault Romero for not having written in more character and scenario set up. It has a lot of potential, but as it is I'd rate it some where between "meh" and "pretty good" (that's like a 7.5-8 out of 10 :lol). The real test will be when it comes out on DVD. I sorta dug the Dawn Remake when I saw it in theaters, but couldn't sit through it at home. Oh well, guess I'll sulk and watch Dawn again.
cubicle47b
Member
He was comparing Bub from Day to the zombies in Land.
dynamitejim
Member
Tedesco! said:
Yes, I know. I was comparing the zombies from Day to the ones in Land. You know, Big Daddy vs. Bub. But that reminds me, the cameos were pretty cool.
VistraNorrez
Member
Just got back from seeing Land, and here are my first impressions.
It was pretty good, but disappointing. That's not to say it's bad, because it was very enjoyable and had some pretty good moments. I think Romero just missed the mark at parts. Those parts would be that it was too short and didn't have the character moments. I don't necessarily mean development, but scenes where the characters breath, and just be people. They all were on missions and they never just let themselves out of that mode.
I think that could have easily been fixed with an extra half hour. To me it felt as if we started in the middle of the film, and that it ended a little too early. A sequel could certainly be created (actually one is needed).
Other than that, everything else worked really well. These are easily the best zombies ever to be put on film. Well actually, let me talk about Big Daddy. He worked for what he had to do, but never quite reached the level of Bub. Bub for me is the ultimate zombie, he has the intelligence yet never did I think he was anything but a zombie. Howard Sherman was just fantastic. Eugene Clark can't touch him. Big Daddy was good, just not Bub good. I enjoyed his role a lot, but thankfully, there were other memorable zombies.
Number 9, and Butcher zombie were great. I really liked Butcher's walk, and nine had some cool makeup. There are certain other zombies I don't want to spoil, but I will say some badass things happened.
That brings me to the gore. Of course it was incredible. I can't believe this is R. It seemed like it had more gore than the unrated Dawn remake (which I thought could have been an R). I guess zombies being mutilated are A-OK for ther MPAA. It wasn't just gory stuff, it was quite creative as well. I can't wait to see what was cut.
Okay so now onto my favorite scene. It was definitely when we first met Slack. That sleazy nightclub, cage arena place was great. It had a lot of personality. And for anyone who didn't know this is were Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright are. They start off the scene if I am remembering correctly. Just a really great moment.
Other good moments would be some of Kaufman's and Cholo's stuff. They had some great lines, and to me seem liked the most real humans. Kaufman wasn't very developed, but we knew who he was and why he was like that. Certainly cliched but effective and quite enjoyable.
The worst scene was probably, I guess there wasn't really one. There was nothing I thought was so bad. There was stuff that could have been better though. Fiddler's Green could have been more explored. I don't think it was necessary, but it might have helped. The ending I like quite a bit, but it wasn't perfect. Like I said it needed something more. It wasn't quite a happy ending but some cheese certainly slipped in there. A few different lines, or maybe if they were just cut, would have improved it.
Okay, so how does it rank. Well that's though. I've only seen it once. I've seen the others countless times, and a large part of why they are so good is that they hold up very well to repeats. I think this one will as well, actually, but I can't say. I thought the Dawn remake might be better a second time, and that was only worse. Time will tell. I do however have an inclination to place it last. My rank is Dawn, Day, Night, Land. Maybe it is just as good as Night. Hard to tell.
I actually just watched Night last night (HarHar), and was suprised to find Land reminded me of it the most. The zombies in Night seemed pretty smart. They took out headlights, and almost seemed to be commuticating. The first zombie we see, at one point seemed to motion to these other two to follow him. I had completely forgot that. It was really great to see, actually.
There really is a lot more to talk about. Like the links to the other films, the music (which was great), the atmosphere created, etc., but I feel that I am getting a little long. One last thing though, I feel he did create a very believeable universe, and he as really developed these films quite well. I hope he gets to make another. I am eagerly anticipating it.
It was pretty good, but disappointing. That's not to say it's bad, because it was very enjoyable and had some pretty good moments. I think Romero just missed the mark at parts. Those parts would be that it was too short and didn't have the character moments. I don't necessarily mean development, but scenes where the characters breath, and just be people. They all were on missions and they never just let themselves out of that mode.
I think that could have easily been fixed with an extra half hour. To me it felt as if we started in the middle of the film, and that it ended a little too early. A sequel could certainly be created (actually one is needed).
Other than that, everything else worked really well. These are easily the best zombies ever to be put on film. Well actually, let me talk about Big Daddy. He worked for what he had to do, but never quite reached the level of Bub. Bub for me is the ultimate zombie, he has the intelligence yet never did I think he was anything but a zombie. Howard Sherman was just fantastic. Eugene Clark can't touch him. Big Daddy was good, just not Bub good. I enjoyed his role a lot, but thankfully, there were other memorable zombies.
Number 9, and Butcher zombie were great. I really liked Butcher's walk, and nine had some cool makeup. There are certain other zombies I don't want to spoil, but I will say some badass things happened.
That brings me to the gore. Of course it was incredible. I can't believe this is R. It seemed like it had more gore than the unrated Dawn remake (which I thought could have been an R). I guess zombies being mutilated are A-OK for ther MPAA. It wasn't just gory stuff, it was quite creative as well. I can't wait to see what was cut.
Okay so now onto my favorite scene. It was definitely when we first met Slack. That sleazy nightclub, cage arena place was great. It had a lot of personality. And for anyone who didn't know this is were Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright are. They start off the scene if I am remembering correctly. Just a really great moment.
Other good moments would be some of Kaufman's and Cholo's stuff. They had some great lines, and to me seem liked the most real humans. Kaufman wasn't very developed, but we knew who he was and why he was like that. Certainly cliched but effective and quite enjoyable.
The worst scene was probably, I guess there wasn't really one. There was nothing I thought was so bad. There was stuff that could have been better though. Fiddler's Green could have been more explored. I don't think it was necessary, but it might have helped. The ending I like quite a bit, but it wasn't perfect. Like I said it needed something more. It wasn't quite a happy ending but some cheese certainly slipped in there. A few different lines, or maybe if they were just cut, would have improved it.
Okay, so how does it rank. Well that's though. I've only seen it once. I've seen the others countless times, and a large part of why they are so good is that they hold up very well to repeats. I think this one will as well, actually, but I can't say. I thought the Dawn remake might be better a second time, and that was only worse. Time will tell. I do however have an inclination to place it last. My rank is Dawn, Day, Night, Land. Maybe it is just as good as Night. Hard to tell.
I actually just watched Night last night (HarHar), and was suprised to find Land reminded me of it the most. The zombies in Night seemed pretty smart. They took out headlights, and almost seemed to be commuticating. The first zombie we see, at one point seemed to motion to these other two to follow him. I had completely forgot that. It was really great to see, actually.
There really is a lot more to talk about. Like the links to the other films, the music (which was great), the atmosphere created, etc., but I feel that I am getting a little long. One last thing though, I feel he did create a very believeable universe, and he as really developed these films quite well. I hope he gets to make another. I am eagerly anticipating it.
VistraNorrez
Member
shantyman said:
No he isn't. Night is great, no doubt, and probably the scariest, but it is very amature. It is kind of a hard film to watch. Romero hadn't quite gotten a grasp for the directors chair and it shows. Still the film was very effective.
I just plain old enjoy Day better. I can watch Day much more than Night. It's just got so many great lines and characters. Bub is the greatest zombie. I think that is all that needs to be said.
Ash Housewares
The Mountain Jew
shantyman said:
bah! they've gone over bash 'em in the head! kill the brain and you kill the ghoul!
I liked the raw, unprofessional nature of Night. It is more documentary like. I also like how it is the beginning of this crisis- these people don't know what the hell is going on and they are trying to adapt as quickly as possible. It does not seem as scary to me when the zombies are an existing threat.
The scenes where the newscasts are on the TV are among my favorite scenes to watch in ANY film. It just seems so immediate and terrifying.
The scenes where the newscasts are on the TV are among my favorite scenes to watch in ANY film. It just seems so immediate and terrifying.
TJ Bennett
TJ Hooker
I just got back from seeing it and I have to confirm what the others have already mentioned. I was quite disappointed with Land of the Dead as my expectations were pretty high. Romero's Dead trilogy is a proud part of my DVD collection and Dawn of the Dead is one of my favorite films ever.
On a positive note the film looks great and Romero really gets the most out of his budget. Each set piece and location works well in his world and never feels cheap or low budget. Some die hard fans might not like the use of CG effects in the film but they are very restrained and work quite well in the context of the action.
Without question the biggest problem with the film is it's length. It needed to be a half hour longer at least. While I thought they devoted enough time to the evolution of the zombies (especially with Big Daddy) I wanted to know a lot more about the human characters. I wanted more intimate moments with Riley, Cholo, and the supporting cast. There are hints to the backgrounds of each character but they never really delve into what makes each person tick. I saw Land with a few friends and we all thought it seemed short. Does anyone know if Universal put on a length limit on the film? I would think Romero would want more than 93 mins to tell his tale (making it the shortest in length of his four zombie flicks).
You'd have to be deaf and blind to miss the social commentary of Land of the Dead. Romero isn't nearly as subtle as he was with his previous films. Two lines really stuck out more than anything else, Kaufman's "I don't negotiate with terrorists" and Cholo's "I'm going to put a Jihad on you." Romero's social commentary is always interesting but he really didn't intertwine it with the story very well in Land.
Despite my complaints I look forward to seeing it again to see if I enjoy it more a second time. I have my fingers crossed that we might see an unrated extended cut of the film on dvd before the end of the year.
Dawn > Night > Day > Land
On a positive note the film looks great and Romero really gets the most out of his budget. Each set piece and location works well in his world and never feels cheap or low budget. Some die hard fans might not like the use of CG effects in the film but they are very restrained and work quite well in the context of the action.
Without question the biggest problem with the film is it's length. It needed to be a half hour longer at least. While I thought they devoted enough time to the evolution of the zombies (especially with Big Daddy) I wanted to know a lot more about the human characters. I wanted more intimate moments with Riley, Cholo, and the supporting cast. There are hints to the backgrounds of each character but they never really delve into what makes each person tick. I saw Land with a few friends and we all thought it seemed short. Does anyone know if Universal put on a length limit on the film? I would think Romero would want more than 93 mins to tell his tale (making it the shortest in length of his four zombie flicks).
You'd have to be deaf and blind to miss the social commentary of Land of the Dead. Romero isn't nearly as subtle as he was with his previous films. Two lines really stuck out more than anything else, Kaufman's "I don't negotiate with terrorists" and Cholo's "I'm going to put a Jihad on you." Romero's social commentary is always interesting but he really didn't intertwine it with the story very well in Land.
Despite my complaints I look forward to seeing it again to see if I enjoy it more a second time. I have my fingers crossed that we might see an unrated extended cut of the film on dvd before the end of the year.
Dawn > Night > Day > Land
Ash Housewares
The Mountain Jew
Tedesco! said:
a couple weeks, I like it, but still... COME ON
and yes, TJ does have a magnificent avatar
TJ Bennett
TJ Hooker
Ha, glad you guys like the avatar. Bennett has got to one of the best/worst movie bad guys in the history of cinema. Chainmail vest + Freddy Mercury mustache + potbelly = intimidating character.
Back to Land of the Dead, even though it didn't live up to my expectations I think Romero could do great things with another trilogy. The main plot was solid, but it needed to be expanded on more. I definitely got a Mad Max vibe like other GAFers did (which is a good thing) and I like to see Romero build on the Dead story as George Miller did with Max.
Back to Land of the Dead, even though it didn't live up to my expectations I think Romero could do great things with another trilogy. The main plot was solid, but it needed to be expanded on more. I definitely got a Mad Max vibe like other GAFers did (which is a good thing) and I like to see Romero build on the Dead story as George Miller did with Max.
I am a huge fan of Night, Dawn, and Day, but I was pretty dissapointed in Land of the Dead. I like the movie but it doesnt' hold up well to the classic trilogy. I expected a grittier movie and didn't really connect with any of the characters except for Cholo. To me it felt like a John Carpenter movie and not a Romero movie. The vibe in the movie really reminded me of Prince of Darkness for some reason.
I've just returned from seeing it, and it's everything I was expecting. I read the script some months back, and everything I pictured in my mind about what the movie would look like was pretty much spot on. I came away very happy.
The only part that disappointed me was a scene that got cut.
I realized about halfway through that it was cut, and I was very disappointed.
Also, did Charlie remind anyone else of Ray Romano? I couldn't stop laughing when he'd talk, because he really reminded me of him.
The only part that disappointed me was a scene that got cut.
Guy hangs himself in the tower, comes back to life as a zombie, and Cholo (I think. Can't remember exactly) kills him in the pitch black.
Also, did Charlie remind anyone else of Ray Romano? I couldn't stop laughing when he'd talk, because he really reminded me of him.
Coin Return
Loose Slot
Ecrofirt said:
The scene was shot, and it will be on the DVD.
Virgin Wii
Banned
hiryu said:
Oh shit, this really is going to be Romero's greatest movie ever! I hope you're right.
Going to see it in about 26 minutes. Will report back.
I didn't think it was that great.
I thought the Dawn remake was a lot better.
They spent too much time on set up and exposition that by the time they got to the siege and getting the truck back it was nearly over and I was just bored of the whole thing. It didn't feel like much of an ending or climax.
The whole thing was just one cliche after another. The same group of characters in all of these movies. The same commandos, good natured hero, tough chick, loose cannon bad attitude guy and so on. Same situations too, like the good guy that gets bitten so they have to mercy kill them.
A couple things were really cool though. Pilsbury and Charlie were fun characters and the zombies coming out of the water was great.
The whole thing was just one cliche after another. The same group of characters in all of these movies. The same commandos, good natured hero, tough chick, loose cannon bad attitude guy and so on. Same situations too, like the good guy that gets bitten so they have to mercy kill them.
A couple things were really cool though. Pilsbury and Charlie were fun characters and the zombies coming out of the water was great.
I thought the Dawn remake was a lot better.
- Status