You have to be logged in to comment! If you don't have an account register now for free! Your account allows you to post comments and reviews, upload videos and images, access or our forums, write personal blogs, and maintain your profile.
When I first saw this in thearters I fuckin hated this movie, but since years have passed its kind of grown on me. Its packed with gore(just like every other Romero zombie flick)and the acting isn't bad. Its still the least favorite of mine in the Romero Dead series. But if you like zombie flicks you'll definetly need to check this out.
Posted By: CountOrlok at 6:15pm, September 10, 2009
It has a good concept of the post-apocalyptic "class war" that is still going on and Dennis Hopper is always fun.
Only problem is Simon Baker who is boring as hell in this movie and I wanted his brains to get eaten by a zombie.
Not a classic, it could have been executed so much better. Watch Day of the Dead instead, which is way better than this.
Posted By: nkyphantom at 10:57pm, September 5, 2009
romero is the shit thats all i'm sayin
Posted By: groundgamer at 12:30pm, August 24, 2009
Land Of The Dead is probably one of Romero's best zombie movies. Everything you need is in this movie. Alot of gore, freaky zombie's, great acting and a load of fast paced action. Romero is a legend, creating a piece of gory art like this, with fantastic visuals and a plot to die for. The acting, as said begore, is great. The zombie's actually look, and sound like zombie's should. The rest of the cast are also brilliant. It's an all gore, gore fest of a movie. Land Of The Dead is one hell of a trip, so I highly reccomend!
Ahhh! Romero is a genuis and legend... My favorite ZOMBIE film... How it isn't rated higher is beyond me everything evolves in life, "WHY NOT ZOMBIES"... I saw this in the theater and fell in love personally thought to myself I can't wait for the unrated verision and bought it the release date and am thrilled to own it... Great movie with a cast that makes it the movie it is... See it for yourself
Land of the Dead is another masterpiece of a zombie film given to us by George A. Romero, a visionary director who loves to lace his zombie horror with political allegories. This film is the fourth of his zombie saga and was his first zombie film since Day of the Dead back in 1985. Twenty years is enough time to come up with something new and exciting, and that is exactly what Romero delivers. It may not be the best of his zombie films, but it certainly is a good one. Unlike most horror films, the film takes place in medias res (in the middle of things), and the zombies have a society of their own that is periodically disrupted by the vigilante invasions by the survivors. I really liked this film, but there are problems. First off, I have no problem with walking zombies, but after a while, it starts to become very camp and less terrifying. Second, the acting by some of the actors could be considered decent or below that. The example of below that is Dennis Hopper, who I have much respect for, especially after watching Speed so many times when I was a kid. But, in this film, his acting gave off a very cheesy vibe and it was hard to take his character as a corrupt millionaire seriously. John Leguizamo, fortunately, was better. Like in most of the action/horror movies that he is in, he plays a macho asshole who wants to make things right, however he can do it. His acting is fairly decent and I could take him more seriously than Hopper. Third, does this movie have a centralized plot or is it just mindless zombie violence? I don’t mean to put the film down like that, but after watching this movie many times, I can’t find a plot. If anything, it is Simon Baker’s character trying to receive the huge, monster killing machine, Dead Reckoning, for Kaufman, Hopper’s character. Those sequences of events make up a majority of the film, but it is not enough to be called the central plot. Now, for the positives. First, I loved the political allegory that Romero chose for this film. In this case, it was capitalism (that may be wrong, but that is how I interpreted it). I believe it is a political allegory for capitalism because, even in bad times, the rich stay rich or get richer, and the poor stay poor or get poorer. And when all chaos breaks loose, the rich get FUCKED. Plus, no matter what happens, the social hierarchy will reign supreme. Second, although the walking zombies are campy, Romero makes them terrifying by giving the ability to swim, use weapons, communicate, and reason. To be honest, I would rather fight a zombie that runs rather than a walking zombie that knows how to fire a machine gun. Third, although some of the actors do not exactly display the best of performances, most of the actors do. Robert Joy does an excellent job playing Charlie. But, come on, how can someone who has seen this movie not love Charlie? Next to Ed from Shaun of the Dead, he is one of the most enjoyable characters from a zombie film. Simon Baker delivers a good performance as well, but Asia Argento steals the show. She does exceptionally well in her role as Slack. Finally, the gore is absolutely amazing. Not only did I like it because there was a lot, but because it looked very realistic, except for some things where CGI was involved. And I did not really like that one zombie whose head was almost cut from its body, but is able to swing it forward to attack. Obviously, Land of the Dead is not Romero’s best zombie film, but it is very refreshing considering it was his first in twenty years when it was made. Finally, I have one question, when are we going to get …of the Dead?
Probably my least favorite of the Romero Films, Comes Land of the Dead. This film had alot of great qualities about it, One, being Asia Argento. Second The Zombie Effects were phenomenal KNB were at the top of their game. Lastly the sets really did Look bleak and added to the eeriness of the film. But what brought this film down for me was the subpar acting. And though I do tend to like Leguizamo, I don't feel his role in this film was adequate. I think the script lacked a special touch that I have yet to put my finger on. Was this film bad? no. Was it great? no. But was it Romero? yes...and that makes a huge difference. Its an enjoyable film, so long as you don't expect another Night, Dawn, or Day.
other than the new york yankees, and rangers, george romero's land of the dead is a perfect example of how you can have all the money in the world, and still suck. i love romero for taking voodoo mythos and creating the modern zombie, but this movie was just so half assed. every idea in this had promise,(other then intelligent and evolving zombies, that's retarded and always will be) a last human city, a cool zombie killing vehicle, and an arena where unfortunate people have to fight zombies.
but everything is just so underdeveloped. why is dennis hopper the rich asshole in charge? why would money have any value? i could see some random military guy and his surviving troops running the city and keeping the civilian populace under control, but why some random rich guy? why are all the roads clear? in every scene? as if there wasn't a society wide zombie apocalypse? there's no wreckage? of any kind? wtf? why are the zombies intelligent? why are they playing musical instruments in the first five minutes? instantly loosing me in the process. intelligent zombies are retarded. sorry george, i understand that you're saying humans are already zombies. and in some ways that's true, but the way to depict this philosophical observation is not to have zombies acting like their former human selves, it's dumb. and why in the hell is there a midget crime lord?! wtf!? nothing against midgets, but they're not intimidating, and they can't force regular size folk to do anything. so how did this particular midget assemble larger thugs to do his bidding? it's not funny, it's irritating. stop with the crime lord midgets for the love of god. the action scenes are bland and unmemorable, as well as irritatingly dumb at times. why does one, i assume somewhat trained, soldier slide down a rope into a horde of waiting zombies just off screen? he has no presence of mind or what? how did he live that long if he didn't pay attention to his surroundings? i've never been impressed with romero's directing ability, and the way this movie's shot is just as uninspiring. uhhh, i love you mr. romero for what you've done in the past, but what the hell?
thinking gang of zombies??? what a pile of crap ,dont give romero so much money so maybe he will make another good zombie movie!
Posted By: Necronatalusz at 2:41pm, February 23, 2009
Good movie.
Posted By: GGoblin31 at 11:07pm, February 19, 2009
Disappointing entry following the 'Dead' trilogy. This definitely had its moments, but overall didn't feel like a Romero zombie movie. I hated the CGI they used for head-shots and other effects. The "lead zombie" was fucking annoying the way he was always yelling like a retarded man. The idea that the zombies "learn" to use tools and guns is pretty lame. At least it's better than 'Diary of the Dead'.
Posted By: vegeta13613 at 10:51pm, February 5, 2009
I saw the movie thinking that I would see the same quality as I saw in the remake of Dawn of the Dead... I was wrong. This movie tried to be a comedy, and failed. It really didn't even bother with the scares. If the special effects were not done so well, I would easily believe this was just another Sci-Fi Channel throwaway movie. I didn't much care for Diary of the Dead, but even that was better than this. It gets a 4 and not a 3 because of the gore and good special effects.
I like it all but the smart zombie. I understand that the comics were like that but c'mon, zombies are not supposed to be smart.
Posted By: GRUDGE4life at 11:23am, January 22, 2009
there should be no arguing about the fact that Romero is the undeniable "god" of zombie films and he should give classes on how tomake billions on them...
This is the problem: Romero goes and gets big studio money to make a picture that he fills with quasi-stars and the whole thing falls apart. I didn't like this movie and I waited forever for this thing to come out. The whole concept of Fiddler's Green was ridiculous and so was the Leader Zombie. I liked Romero's DIARY a whole lot better than I liked this one.
The whole scene from beginning to end where the zombies rise up from the water one by one and then all form together and walk towards the camera is by far one of the greatest scenes i have ever witnessed in a film period! unbelievable scene...
This is where George takes his ...Of The Dead movies big budget Hollywood with poor results. Sure, its has a big name cast but besides Dennis Hopper they're all a rather annoying and uninteresting bunch. Simon Baker can act but his character is quite dull, John Leguizamo is a pain in the ass and Asia Argento just looks pretty. Even the story line being a metaphor for the Bush administration is rather flat,too. The zombies trying to communicate with each other just comes off as silly and the only thing saving this from half a skull are the gory set pieces. The zombie make up and effects look good and have evolved considerably from the blue face paint in his previous movies and the gory set pieces when they attack are still pretty sickening so George hasn't entirely lost his mojo. It is definitely on the decline though.
I dunno about this. I mean i know George is the man, and he cant keep making the same movie over and over......... But zombies communicating? It was funny in Return of the living dead("BRAINS!")
But not here. It takes the creepiness out of it. John Leguizamo is a fucking tool and a half and ruined every scene he was in. The retarted dude was fucking horrible too. Asia Argento slides by on her looks as usual. To be honest, dennis hopper brings the only good acting to this movie.
George (god bless him) is 113 years old this year, but the years have not been kind to his filmmaking.
Posted By: AshWilliams95 at 12:48am, December 25, 2008
I thought this movie was a great zombie film. Full of gore and of course zombies. Nothing did stand out but it was still a good zombie movie.
Storyline: Zombies to the human population are just a way of life they even have some on display that you can have your photo taken with. There is a safe place called fiddlers green where everyone wants to be and I can imagine why. Just a typical zombie film, shooting, eating, gore, violence and zombies. But these zombies are getting quite smart, they are learning how to bludgeon people to death with objects they can find such as baseball bats, iron pipes and golf clubs. They can even shoot guns now. 6/10
Acting: Average. 5/10
Special Effects: Really good, lots of blood, violence and gore that every zombie movie should have. The zombies looked cool aswell. 9/10
Best Scene: When the zombies invade fiddlers green. 9/10
Ending: The good guys save the day and some people from fiddlers green do survive. 5/10
Overall this movie was pretty good, just an average gory zombie movie but I like zombie movies and I give this one a 7/10
A far cry from Romero's earlier efforts in the genre, Land is just another glossy action movie with zombies. I gave it a 4, because I have seen it a few times, and I can't think of one single scene that stands out in my memory. Forgettable.
Posted By: Lyssa284225 at 1:16pm, December 17, 2008
The beginning of the end for Romero, methinks. Not too bad a movie, but it stopped being a zombie horror like the first 3 and turned into a (rather boring) action movie. Plus I thought that clever zombie Big Daddy was a rubbish idea. Diary's slightly better but not by much. Let's hope Island (or whatever it's going to be called) sees Romero returning to form.
I'll give this movie and extra point 'cause Asia Argento was lookin' pretty fine in it.
i hated this movie the 1st time i was really disappointing by all the CGI but after the second time watching it i stoped bitching about the CGI and payed more attention to the story and really liked it
I don't know why many people don't like this movie, for me it's much better than the other romero's films. This is a relativley high-budget film with good acting and story, which was original. Zombie make-up is much better than Romero's previous films and there is a lot of gore.
Posted By: tom holiday at 1:27pm, December 10, 2008
just an o.k. movie. Not nearly as good as your last movies. Keep up the zombie movies romero. I still like them.
This is one of his best plain and simple there is no arguing with me on this. Romero is my favorite director and when he came out with this movie in 05 i has happy.
I don't know why I liked this film so much, maybe it was because of a certain time in my life but I did like it. There is so great gore, cool zombies and some funny moments. Another great zombie film from Romero
Posted By: MrHorrorfest at 9:38pm, November 27, 2008
I hated this movie when I saw it the first time, but after seeing it again it kinda grew on me. my biggest problem is thinking zombies, there dead why would there brains work enough to think. and why dont zombies continue to rot and decay in these movies?
Decent at best.
Romero lost his touch.
The handful of redeeming scenes in this movie can't save the rest of it.
Plenty of modern zombie movies have been made that are much much better then this.
He may have created the modern view of zombies today, but he should have just sat back and watched his contemporaries at work.
Overall, had the feel of a Sci-Fi Original Movie.
Posted By: Romerofan123 at 2:48pm, October 28, 2008
Different but damn Romero can make zombie movies
Posted By: StayPuft138 at 4:36pm, October 22, 2008
Different from what I expected but it was just as good as I was hoping.
Posted By: WinterRaven at 5:54pm, October 13, 2008
I really liked this one. I liked seeing that after all the time that past the Zombie's weren't just soul-less, mindless monsters, they actually got pissed and fought back not just to terrorize but to get a bit of revenge!
Posted By: Protecious at 4:16pm, September 30, 2008
Finally his fourth entry arrived and didnt quite meet expectations but was very entertaining none the less. ends up being a bit similar to the remake of dawn of the dead, with the whole big vehicle plowing through zombies.
fun, entertaining, nothing tooo real original for a zombie film though, which was expected from george a. romero
Not the best of the series, But still a Romero flick. Romero at his worst is still leagues above every other director who takes a stab at the zombie genre.
Great gore, great action, and an awsome continuation to the "Zombies are learning" plotline from day of the dead.
Even viewing the trailers for this one I knew there was something I didn't like about it, and thus I never bothered to go to the theater and watch it. I am a Romero fan however and since I own all of his zombie movies I had to buy it, even if I didn't like it. As it turns out my expectations were correct. Though it is good I fins it to be the worse of all his zombie movies, even Diary IMO is better. The whole futuristic setup of the film just felt wrong, more like a Sci-Fi action movie than a horror. It wasn't creepy in the slightest. I didn't feel like I could ever be put in that situation, unlike in his other movies. In addition to that the movie is riddled with crappy CGI, does the movie have a lot of gore? Yes, but its more reminiscent of something from the Sci-Fi channel than a Romero movie. I like CGI when its good but bad CGI can really ruin the mood.
"Like all the other zombie geeks out there, I had extremely high hopes for this, George A. Romero's return to the genre that made him famous; a genre that, even if he didn't necessarily create, he managed to distill into a unique formula that inspired countless imitations. A recent "surge in the popularity of zombie movies" (meaning major studios learned there's money to be made in these types of films and started greenlighting them again) allowed Romero to secure the budget for this fourth entry in his "Living Dead" series.
I liked the way Romero showed the way life continued even after the zombie crisis. In a way, the inspiration for this seems to have been drawn from the stories featured in Skipp & Spector's "Book of the Dead" series, which featured short stories by various authors about the world both during and after the rise of the living dead as depicted in Romero's films. The Dead Reckoning truck was a good idea--finally someone in a zombie movie realized you need an armored vehicle to ensure your own safety, although nobody has learned yet that you should probably cover all exposed skin to avoid bites from the living dead.
On the down side, the motivation of the characters is muddled on all counts. Why does Leguizamo want money? Wouldn't money be worthless in a world made up of the living dead? And if money is worthless, how does Hopper maintain his power? After a living dead apocalypse, how could anybody become a waiter in a restaurant (as depicted briefly inside Hopper's luxury tower)? Do we feel sympathy for the zombies, or not? In all the other "Living Dead" movies, the zombies were a constant, claustrophobic threat. Here we're invited to side with them, and they mostly look silly. Even worse, "Land of the Dead" has absolutely zero atmosphere. The pacing is so rapid that there's barely enough time to think about what's happening, let alone allow any suspense to build. I wanted to see more of the world oustide the perimeter of the city. Instead, we only get a glimpse of one small town where the zombies lurk. You know when zombies are going to attack, so it's never a jolt, and I can't remember a single shock in this movie, or even a moment when I cringed. The inevitable invasion of the safe zone should have been scary, but was rather unspectacular due to the editing. The social commentary is heavy-handed and has been overstated. The gore in the movie is R-rated, and the effects aren't as good as Tom Savini's makeup FX in "Day of the Dead".
The other weird thing I noticed about this film is that it has "TV syndrome". At times it is shot and edited like an episode of "ER", as if it's got to get a big story over and done with in an hour's time slot. I don't remember one single conversation in the film that was not underscored by a vague "ominous music" score that was completely unmemorable and didn't belong there at all. None of the conversations seemed real, it was more like an episode of "Buffy the Zombie Slayer".
I didn't like "Land of the Dead" all that much. The remake of "Dawn of the Dead" was a lot more enjoyable; even though it was super-dumb, at least it had some good suspense in it, and some electric action sequences. "Land of the Dead" isn't scary at all, and winds up being very dull. I'm suspecting that since this movie was made for a major studio, Romero was working within certain limitations that affected the outcome of the film. "Land of the Dead" should have been better, and ultimately the anticipation of it was a lot more exciting than the film itself." --acidxian, imdb.com
This is not ROMERO at his best but it's still a very entertaining movie... one of the more memorable zombie films of the past 10 years. I loved ASIA ARGENTO in this she is super hot and bad ass (in a skanky kinda way..but hot thought)
JOHN LEGUIZAMO was wicked as usual! SIMON BAKER was a bit hard to except as the hero type after seeing him in L.A CONFIDENTAL (the gay actor killed the hotel with a tummy full of french fries and sperm!) But all jokes aside it a good movie the gore is great and I actually feel for the undead in this film it made think of the emotional conection he tries to get you to have with 'BUB' in DAY OF THE DEAD. You begin to feel bad for the plight of the ZOMBIE!!! It has a LOT of political subtones (some more obveous then others) but unlike DIARY OF THE DEAD it doesn't get lost in it! I really recomend this one if not cause it's a good movie then for all the wicked awesome gore. I give LAND OF THE DEAD 8 Asia Argentos in fish-net out of 10 Asia Argentos in fish-net!!!
Oh and look for the zombie cameos by SHAUN OF THE DEAD'S SIMON PEGG and SHAUN director EDGAR WRIGHT!
This movie is ok. Seemed boring and not scary and really nothing great about it. I was excited when i heard he was doing another dead movie, but then the reviews came and they said it sucked. I don't pay attention to those though so i rented it when it came out and man i was let down like a child who gets crap instead of what they wanted for their birthday. It is ok just a zombie movie that should not have romero's name on it.
this movie is pretty good, but I hate that Romero tried to humanize the zombies. Zombies are walking corpses, they're not supposed to have thoughts and feelings. The idea that zombies are mindless flesh eaters is what makes them so terrifying.
This one is way better than Diary of the Dead, but it's still a far cry from Night, Dawn, and Day
it was okay at best romero cant do better i mean look at dawn or night of the living dead
all in all the movie is decent but i waz a lil disappointed....:'{
Posted By: interpolchik at 2:45am, February 10, 2008
i love this movie. i like how they humanized the zombies. i especially love the little zombie couple that hold hands- that's cute. jon leguizamo is another reason why i like watchng it. can you say hottie?
THE HORROR HYPE METER Excited to see this movie? Rate it here!
