Oct '14 *
For two decades after Day of the Dead, George Romero didn't do any new movies with zombies. I'm not sure if that was because Day of the Dead didn't get great initial reviews or if he was just burned out on zombies. Maybe it was a combination of both. But when it was announced that Romero would be doing a new zombie movie called Land of the Dead (2005), I was very excited. By that point, I knew the first three films very well. Being able to finally see one in theaters meant a lot to me back then and it still does.
With a cast made up of people like Dennis Hopper (Blue Velvet), John Leguizamo (Summer of Sam), Asia Argento (Demons 2), and Robert Joy (The Dark Half), Land of the Dead is a welcome entry to the Dead series. Set apart from the others by many years, it still manages to bring some of that charm that the first three movies contained inside a modern environment. Was it as impressive as the first three movies, especially Dawn of the Dead or Day of the Dead? Not quite, even with a big company name like Universal behind it. But it wasn't bad either, coming from a guy who hadn't touched zombie movies for twenty years.
So quit picking your nose and join me for another... Reviews with Ballz!
While Night of the Living Dead is the beginning of the zombie problem, Dawn of the Dead is a few weeks in, and Day of the Dead is at least several months in, Land of the Dead takes place several years into the zombie apocalypse. By now, people have learned a new way of living, or at least a way of "pretending to be alive", as Riley Denbo (Simon Baker) says in the very beginning of the movie. A crew with a weapon-rigged vehicle called Dead Reckoning raids abandoned towns for supplies all while trying to avoid being chomped on by the still very active living dead, Riley and Cholo DeMora (John Leguizamo) working with the crew, acting sort of as the leaders, though right away, the two are shown to not really see eye to eye. Of course, the supplies aren't really just for them, but they're for everyone inside of the secured city that they operate out of, especially the rich fuckers who live in the fancy tower called Fiddler's Green.
Instead of the scientists versus military scenario presented in Day of the Dead, this has more of a the poor versus the rich scenario. The poor are people like Riley and Cholo who live in a rather dirty, rundown environment outside of Fiddler's Green, though it has some areas of entertainment, like shooting paintball guns at zombies, while the rich are people like Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), who is pretty much the head of Fiddler's Green. The poor versus the rich isn't exactly an original concept, but it's pretty interesting when you throw it into a zombie apocalypse, showing how the future could possibly work if a zombie apocalypse ever really did occur. And the zombies do play a large role here, showing how they've also learned in their own way.
This movie had the biggest budget of any of the six Dead films so far, at $15 million, but a bigger budget doesn't automatically equal a better film. While the first three movies had very memorable soundtracks, this one has the generic, forgettable soundtrack issue that all newer movies seem to have. It's nothing bad, but it just doesn't stand out at all. Most of the characters also don't feel as polished as they could be. Cholo and Kaufman are easily the the best two characters and part of that is definitely because of the actors who play them, as well as Riley's sidekick, Charlie (Robert Joy). The gore is merely okay. There are a couple standout moments of gore throughout the movie though. Overall, where the previous films all felt like upgrades in those areas, the only real upgrade here is the plot, which was really just the next logical step.
And there's really not a whole lot else to say about this movie other than that Tom Savini makes a cameo as his character from Dawn of the Dead. First time a character carried over in one of the Dead movies. Unfortunately, he wasn't behind the movie's special effects. This movie does have quite a few flaws, but I still enjoy the hell out of it and it blows Diary of the Dead and Survival of the Dead out of the water. Maybe George Romero will wait another decade or so and then try again, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that. Especially since he's now got some comic book series called Empire of the Dead that involves some shit with zombies and vampires. I've never looked at it and from what I've heard, it's probably best to continue avoiding it.
If you've seen and enjoy the first three movies, then you might as well see Land of the Dead too. You'll probably appreciate some of what it has to offer. I don't know. Maybe I'm a little biased since it was the first and, so far, only George Romero movie I've been able to see in theaters, but I think it's fun enough for what it is and I always watch it too after I've watched the first three together. There's a theatrical cut and a director's cut. Might as well go for the director's cut. It has a small extra scene and some extra shots of gore. And that concludes this four-part review series! If you've been keeping up with these, thanks for reading.
My Rating: 4/5
For two decades after Day of the Dead, George Romero didn't do any new movies with zombies. I'm not sure if that was because Day of the Dead didn't get great initial reviews or if he was just burned out on zombies. Maybe it was a combination of both. But when it was announced that Romero would be doing a new zombie movie called Land of the Dead (2005), I was very excited. By that point, I knew the first three films very well. Being able to finally see one in theaters meant a lot to me back then and it still does.With a cast made up of people like Dennis Hopper (Blue Velvet), John Leguizamo (Summer of Sam), Asia Argento (Demons 2), and Robert Joy (The Dark Half), Land of the Dead is a welcome entry to the Dead series. Set apart from the others by many years, it still manages to bring some of that charm that the first three movies contained inside a modern environment. Was it as impressive as the first three movies, especially Dawn of the Dead or Day of the Dead? Not quite, even with a big company name like Universal behind it. But it wasn't bad either, coming from a guy who hadn't touched zombie movies for twenty years.
So quit picking your nose and join me for another... Reviews with Ballz!
While Night of the Living Dead is the beginning of the zombie problem, Dawn of the Dead is a few weeks in, and Day of the Dead is at least several months in, Land of the Dead takes place several years into the zombie apocalypse. By now, people have learned a new way of living, or at least a way of "pretending to be alive", as Riley Denbo (Simon Baker) says in the very beginning of the movie. A crew with a weapon-rigged vehicle called Dead Reckoning raids abandoned towns for supplies all while trying to avoid being chomped on by the still very active living dead, Riley and Cholo DeMora (John Leguizamo) working with the crew, acting sort of as the leaders, though right away, the two are shown to not really see eye to eye. Of course, the supplies aren't really just for them, but they're for everyone inside of the secured city that they operate out of, especially the rich fuckers who live in the fancy tower called Fiddler's Green. Instead of the scientists versus military scenario presented in Day of the Dead, this has more of a the poor versus the rich scenario. The poor are people like Riley and Cholo who live in a rather dirty, rundown environment outside of Fiddler's Green, though it has some areas of entertainment, like shooting paintball guns at zombies, while the rich are people like Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), who is pretty much the head of Fiddler's Green. The poor versus the rich isn't exactly an original concept, but it's pretty interesting when you throw it into a zombie apocalypse, showing how the future could possibly work if a zombie apocalypse ever really did occur. And the zombies do play a large role here, showing how they've also learned in their own way. This movie had the biggest budget of any of the six Dead films so far, at $15 million, but a bigger budget doesn't automatically equal a better film. While the first three movies had very memorable soundtracks, this one has the generic, forgettable soundtrack issue that all newer movies seem to have. It's nothing bad, but it just doesn't stand out at all. Most of the characters also don't feel as polished as they could be. Cholo and Kaufman are easily the the best two characters and part of that is definitely because of the actors who play them, as well as Riley's sidekick, Charlie (Robert Joy). The gore is merely okay. There are a couple standout moments of gore throughout the movie though. Overall, where the previous films all felt like upgrades in those areas, the only real upgrade here is the plot, which was really just the next logical step. And there's really not a whole lot else to say about this movie other than that Tom Savini makes a cameo as his character from Dawn of the Dead. First time a character carried over in one of the Dead movies. Unfortunately, he wasn't behind the movie's special effects. This movie does have quite a few flaws, but I still enjoy the hell out of it and it blows Diary of the Dead and Survival of the Dead out of the water. Maybe George Romero will wait another decade or so and then try again, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that. Especially since he's now got some comic book series called Empire of the Dead that involves some shit with zombies and vampires. I've never looked at it and from what I've heard, it's probably best to continue avoiding it.If you've seen and enjoy the first three movies, then you might as well see Land of the Dead too. You'll probably appreciate some of what it has to offer. I don't know. Maybe I'm a little biased since it was the first and, so far, only George Romero movie I've been able to see in theaters, but I think it's fun enough for what it is and I always watch it too after I've watched the first three together. There's a theatrical cut and a director's cut. Might as well go for the director's cut. It has a small extra scene and some extra shots of gore. And that concludes this four-part review series! If you've been keeping up with these, thanks for reading.
My Rating: 4/5
