You know I bet if the film were much much longer,those demanding a longer version will whine the film is not as 'good' then and now is 'too long'.

Someone said it was good and left them wanting more. That is the result of good filmmaking and pacing. Yet if they did pad it out with even more footage. It would probably drag severely and feel less enticing and more overkilled.

I will use the extended version of Dances with Wolves as the perfect example. The 3 hour theatrical version is amazing cinema and is paced perfectly. It feels epic,is epic and yet you still want 'more' when it is overwith.

Yet the 4 hour extended version is a chore to sit through,the pacing is thrown off,and the 'feel' of the film is not the same. Yes you get 'more'(actually alot more),but it feels less than before. Instead of wanting 'more',you wish it were cut down abit and want 'less'.


The original Dawn of the Dead is another great example. The 126 minute Romero director cut is beautifully paced together to perfection. Meanwhile the rough 138 minute extended version drags big time and it's not the 'same' film anymore. Sure you get 'more' of the charecters you love and so forth. But more usually doesn't make it 'better' than before. In fact,it subtracks from the experiance than adds to it since everything gets bogged down with the additions and less than stellar editing.


Anyway Land I thought was a tightly put together film that didn't drag for one moment. It kept on track to move the story along and I was gripped into it from the begining to end.

So I doubt an even longer 20+ minute version would be 'better',since chances are it would drag severely.

Also since the script was pretty short and tightly paced like the film. I doubt there is that much 'worthy' extra footage that would 'enhance' the film any more. What we have is what we got and I don't mind it for one second.

Like the cover, since it's just the poster, which was pretty cool. Still, don't like the film that much. Maybe I'll find I like it more on DVD (this was true with Dawn '04). I agree with Julie Walker, but for different reasons. I don't want 'more' simply because I don't really like what's there (esp. the characters). I'm just hoping for more gore.

I am looking forward to more gore and have nothing against this unrated version:)

But many of the complaints seem to be that there is 'just' 4 minutes added and act as if it won't be 'worth' viewing or 'make much of a difference'.


They seem to forget gore additions don't add up to minutes worth of footage(unless you're talking Dead Alive which had 12 minutes worth of gore cut from the R version!). So 4 minutes of some gore footage + some extra dialogue here and there sounds about right and could add up alot in terms of impact.

Yet to many people are spoiled by the 'ultra extended version' where every piece of footage cut out for good reason(ie-pacing etc) is added back into the film to make it 'appear' longer and 'better' than the 'short' version.

Heck look at High Tension which had 40 something seconds of extreme gore cuts. There is a huge difference between the two versions despite less than a minute being added.
But I am sure some would look at the running time and complain "It's about the same length as the rated,what a ripoff!".

I agree with a lot of what you have to say about useless extended cuts that can damage a film's pacing. However, in the case of LOTD, I personally found the theatrial cut sorely lacking in any and all character development - thus, learning that only maybe 4 minutes of character development is put back in seems like a futile attempt to make these characters "real". I'm definitely going to check it out (and even buy it - I'm a zombie completist - need help!) and will eat my words right here if those 4 minutes can turn my opinion of the film around.

We've just posted some revised unrated artwork here

Hmm. I'm not sure if I like that artwork or not. At least it moved the unrated banner to the top and made it smaller.

new artwork is great.

That new cover looks like it was done by some junior high art class :(

I think the new cover looks awesome and even better than the original. I like the severed hand aspect,it's rather nice to see a slightly 'gruesome' image on a dvd cover for a change.

I like it too but I just think it looks like a rush-job or done on the cheap.

That severed hand was also an official poster; we have a couple up at my work still.

The revised artwork is definatly better... I thought this was a fun little movie, and will be happy to put it between the dawn of the dead remake and zombi 2

Nice cover....can't wait for the release!!!

That's certainly an improvement.

I really dig that new cover :thumbsup:

I missed this in theatres ill probley pick up the unrated. Also whats this about a select theater rerelease? I saw something about that on fangoria.

Loved the movie, can't wait for the DVD!!

Never got to see it,The agony. Dawn of the Dead is one of my favorite movies of alltime. Night was a classic,and Day while my least favorite is worth the price of admission for the opening alone. Can't wait to see Land.
First there was Night.....
Then the Dawn Came....
The Day ended...
Now welcome to....
George A Romero's
LAND OF THE DEAD
I know that was the cheesiest of cheese.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but the R-Rated Land of the Dead DVD is only available in Full Screen. I work at a major retailer in Canada that sells DVDs, and the only versions available are:

Land of the Dead - Unrated Widescreen
Land of the Dead - Unrated Full Screen
Land of the Dead / Dawn of the Dead (2004) - Unrated Widescreen Double-pack, and
Land of the Dead - R-Rated Full Screen.
I did a search on amazon.ca and amazon.com to see if a Widescreen R-Rated cut was available, and no dice. What the hell was Universal thinking?

Personally, I appreciate the extra gore in the Unrated cut, but the extra Cholo scene is embarassingly bad. In that respect, I prefer the R version, but I don't want it in Full Screen. That's insulting.