Matthew Chmiel

Yeah, you do bring up a solid point.

Maybe I'm just a jackass who just wanted a lot more out of this film and I should've known better. Oh well, I'll see the film again this weekend with (more of) my friends and see how I react to it then. The more I think about Land, the more I enjoyed it. Maybe it was the pissy mood I was in last night or something.

Jackskeleton

Ha, I agree with you Matt, While I have yet to see the movie, saying "I don't care about character development" doesn't excuse you from not having some in there.

jaeufraser

True, especially since...even he doesn't care about character development...his other Dead films still had it.

Not that I'm any less exciting to see it.

Matthew Chmiel

You know what this reminds me of Jack? Last year's thread when the Dawn remake was released to theaters and we all enjoyed the film, however, every other person to comment on the film responded with, "I hope they add more character development (in addition to the violence) to the unrated cut on DVD." I know the remake's unrated cut was only 10 minutes longer, but their were significant bits and pieces that greatly improved the film and cleared up some of the plot holes (such as how the first four survivors got into the mall). An additional 10 minutes of violence and plot could easily make this film better than it already is.

Oh, and since nobody else has asked yet, I do believe it is better than the Dawn remake. In all honesty, this is how I would rank the series thus far...

1. Dawn of the Dead (1978)
2. Night of the Living Dead (1968)
3. Land of the Dead (2005)
4. Dawn of the Dead (2004 remake)
5. Day of the Dead (1985) <--- A movie with a mediocre first hour and a solid last half an hour.

And I still like to believe that the 1990 Night of the Living Dead remake does not exist. YEAH.

Gizmo

Can't wait till Friday...wasn't Cholo in the original script for Day (which was awesome, wish Romero will one day make this)

scott shelton

After reading Matthew’s comments, and seeing the film tonight, I agree with most of his thoughts.

I thought it was fun, and a much better film than the other zombie flicks to come out recently. I was shocked that Romero was able to keep a similar vibe of dread that was featured in the other films. And due to the increase in budget, this is an improvement over, what I think is, the lackluster DAY.

As for the character development? That isn’t a problem. LAND is more of an action film and features an abundance of personalities. As a viewer, I “got” them all cleanly and quickly, which is what the film is going for. The DAWN remake *shudder* was so poorly put together that you wanted more from those characters just for the film to make sense. LAND doesn’t have that problem – it pumps along swimmingly because the picture was written and director so crisply.

The only thing I was bummed about was that it lacks an epic scope. I figured after DAY, Romero would go deep with his images, but the film still holds its cards close to the chest.

And I needed more Asia!

My audience went nuts at "the cameo." Seeing the old Universal logo was a nice touch too.

I thought it was pretty funny how they covered up most of the extreme gore effects: by having a “zombie” walk in front of them. Don’t fret, the film is still grisly.

And forget about the Bush bashing nonsense. The goons of Fiddler’s Green are clearly meant to be Enron, complete with the same logo.

So everybody support the film this weekend!

scott shelton

In the chaos, I just assumed they hid. But again, I wasn't thinking about that at the time.

Mutley Hyde

Saw Land of the Dead last night and it was great! My only complaint at all was that it was too short - the end really came up fast, and I was all 'noooo, don't stop now!' The acting was mostly believable by all the cast, and the gore, while not overly abundant in my opinion, was very satisfying. Much munchings and crunchings, and head blasts and such make Hyde a happy zombie-boy, and Land of the Dead delivers.

Dr. DVD

I love zombie movies and have seen the original Night, Dawn (78), and Dawn (04). Hell, I even get some guilty pleasure out of Resident Evil! I have not seen Day of the Dead. Will that hinder my enjoyment of this one or is it pretty much like the original Romero Dawn where all you have to know is that zombies are taking over the world?

jaeufraser

Considering that the plot of the Dead films have nothing specific to do with one another, I'd imagine you'd be fine skipping Day. Granted, you miss some of the evolution of the zombies, but they're all self contained stories so it shouldn't be an issue.

Better yet, just go rent Day and watch it.

Giantrobo

I keep wanting to call it "Lawn of the Dead".

I hope it delivers. Frankly the trailers have me kinda blah....now I know how the rest of you dvdtalk movie snobs feel when you see trailers that don't impress you.

MrE

Saw a free sneak and some of the audience also went nuts at "the cameo", probably the same folks who showed up at 4 o'clock for the 7:30 screening. I found that the minimal character development did not detract from the film, which happens over less than 2 days. In action films character development is not usually a plus. All in all, a solid addition to the franchise (with enough new threads that a sequel is not unimaginable...hmmm..."Planet of the Dead").

malkmuz

Whew, it's been awhile since I've posted here. I also saw a sneak last night in SF. I came into it with low expectations, and I was pleasantly surprised. I am a huge fan of the previous three DEAD movies, and of course there were minor quibbles with LOTD (the score, the jumpy scare tactics, the plot holes), but overall I really enjoyed it. The whole revolutionary theme and all the social commentary was great, and I can't wait for an unrated version!!!! I want more grue!

Dr. DVD

"Cameo"? Does this have to do with either of the first two Dead movies, or is it something hidden for insiders?

DthRdrX

Good Question. I can't wait to see this movie! During one of the trailers I swear I saw a flash of "someone" from the previous movie but it was so quick I wasn't sure.

Matthew Chmiel

Dr. DVD

Guess that means unless you are a total insider, you won't get it? Unless you mean

Seantn

Yep, that's the cameo they're talking about.

Zombie67

I'm surprised everyone wasn't aware of the cameo.
The picture has been posted on many sites.

Terrell

Okay, as someone who is not big on Zombie movies, I would like to ask a sincere question. Hopefully this doesn't sound like a thread fart, because it's not intended to be.

George Romero gets a lot of credit as a filmmaker, especially a horror filmmaker. He gets called genius. Frankly, I just don't see it. Perhaps I'm missing something, and if so, hopefully someone can explain it to me. I honestly haven't seen a film of his that I thought was good. I've seen 5 or 6 of his films, including the original NOTLD. I still wonder how that film gets so much praise, and considered a classic. The acting is horrendous on a level even greater than Jake Lloyd in TPM. The dialogue is atrocious. The film is not frightening, and seemingly lacking in production values.

Just so Romero fans know where I'm coming from, I consider Carpenter a far better filmmaker, and find his horror films signifcantly better than anything of Romero's. I'm a huge Carpenter fan. Halloween, The Fog, The Thing, Christine, and Prince of Darkness to be superior to Romero's films.

Can anyone shed some light on what I may be missing that others are seeing? Does anyone else feel the same? Maybe I'm just not into zombies. I'd like to try to grasp what others are seeing that I obviously don't. Then perhaps I'll check out Land of the Dead. Perhaps I should have started a new thread for this. If so, I'll stop the discussion here.

jaeufraser

Well, I can't convince someone to like Romero's movies...and I will openly admit that acting was never the strong suit in his films. As for NoTLD's low production values...well, it was a cheap low budget film, so that's pretty much it.

But look back...look at films before it. It's truly unique. And his horror films have a subtext to them that most horror films don't even think of. Not to mention his films pretty much wrote the book on modern day zombie mythology. plus as films of survivial, I think they're fantastic.

Now I can't convince one to like em. They certainly aren't flawless producitons and their low budget origins surely do show at times. But it's the innovation of his films (part of which involves judging the film from when they came out), the intelligence his horror films have that others don't. Oh, and quite frankly...the gore is awesome.

Thats my view anyway...he writes a good story, he layers it with depth, and he's wonderful at atmosphere. I just love these films. And given what they are, they were truly original and unique films that have, deservedly, prodived tons of inspiration to zombie films and horror films in general.

Terrell

I certainly see some of that in the films of his that I've seen. I have to give him credit on that end. Maybe it's just the limitations of what he's working with.

Have to agree with that point as well. Perhaps I see more from Carpenter because he is working with more resources than Romero.

Buford T Pusser

Hopefully I'll see this in the next week-just have to go when my friend and I can match up our schedules.

Dawn and Night are two of my favorite films. Day-not so much. I did enjoy the Dawn remake.

Giantrobo

I tend to agree and I'm a huge Living Dead/Zombie genre fan. I respect Romero for changing the way Horror was done with Night 68, but to me he drops the ball a lot too. For instance, Dawn 78 was great but all the silly shit like the elevator scene and other scenes ruined the movie for me. That's why I love Dawn 04 a bit more that the 78 version. To me, Day 85 was just a sfx gorefest, which was cool, but it had a half ass story.

Matthew Chmiel

Romero and Carpenter have had both their great filmes and their failures. Romero has the Dead series, The Crazies, and Creepshow. For each one of those, we get a Two Evil Eyes (one of Argento's worst as well), The Dark Half, and Bruiser. Carpenter has Halloween, The Thing, They Live, and In The Mouth of Madness. For each one of those, we end up with a Ghost of Mars, Village of the Damned, Vampires, and Escape from LA. If it had to come down to it, Romero's lesser of an output in filmmaking reigns supreme over Carpenter as simply put, the man has been involved with a lot of shit. Whereas Romero does make a comeback with Land of the Dead, Carpenter has been making shit films after They Live (with In The Mouth Of Madness being the rare exception to the rule).

And Carpenter having more resources? Pffft. Each one of the man's film is a "homage" or a "remake" of a previous film. He may get the bigger budgets, but the man has very few original ideas. He's made some damn fine creative spins (The Thing is one of the few remakes better than the original), as I mentioned earlier, the man hasn't made a good film in over a decade.

And I'll agree with everything jaeufraser posted. The man may not have the studio backing Carpenter does or the money, but Romero has brought things to the genre that nobody else has. His films might not be the most profitable or have the biggest of budgets, but the man is a fantastic storyteller.