MovieChat Forums > Land of the Dead (2005) Discussion > Mixed feelings

Mixed feelings

posted 6 months ago by [deleted]
6 replies | jump to latest

Night, Dawn, and Day are awesome.

Night revolutionized zombies and the themes of cultural commentary.

Dawn showed an excellent progression in special effects and a continuation of the commentary... though a little muddled by pacing.

Day was excellent on the special effects and a little aggressive on the social commentary. It has a tighter pacing than dawn.

Land employed an excellent mix of practical and CGI effects. The acting, commentary, and story suffer from a director who was getting past his prime.

I love the celebration of Romero's work but the film is hollow. It's on par with reading "Man without a Country" by Kurt Vonnegut. You want to support the creator but the work isn't as good.

[–] Zinger (2439) 6 months ago

Then you should definitely avoid Diary.

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

That was really bad when I watched it back in 2008.

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

I just finished it again for the first time in a decade. It's a hard movie to watch. It's dull.

[–] twinA (4921) 5 months ago

All of George Romero's 'Dead' films are very character driven with a deliberate penchant for stage style acting, lending itself terrifically in smaller scale productions where it's easier for film enthusiasts to get immersed in the stories and settings he creates.

It's awesome that George doesn't resort to heavy exposition in order to spell everything out about what's going on. However, the tone of 'Land' comes off as inconsistent, in my opinion, making some scenes which should have been more dramatic, such as the Dead Reckoning mobile getting ambushed by ghouls feel more comical in its timing and action-oriented, losing tension it should have had.

~~/o/

[–] Aylmer (616) 5 months ago

The film is a bit of a mess for sure but it's levels better than DIARY or SURVIVAL (which has to be Romero's worst film along with one of the worst zombie movies I've ever seen, and I've seen all the Italian ones). LAND was frustrating for me because I was a DAWN fan for years and had read that LAND was going to be everything DAY was supposed to be but couldn't due to the budget issues. He finally had a big budget paired with a zombie movie, and what did he do with it? He made a mildly diverting movie with a very weak climax and nothing real to say. It probably hurt it most to have such bland characters with the most interesting being the one intelligent zombie (who is a little TOO intelligent and inexplicably so). It also had a very inconsistent tone which killed a lot of tension and excitement in favor of cheap laughs.

[–] twinA (4921) 5 months ago

While George's social commentary is more explicit in 'Land', namely between the division of the have and have-nots, he does offer a subtle undercurrent in the very foundation of Fiddler's Green itself. Its very existence may serve as a last bastion of former civilization, but it also highlights a pervading attitude behind its development that clings to something it wishes to preserve, something that never was; a chimera, an illusion meant to keep people in a lonely, helpless state.

Much like the ghouls, there is nothing recognizably human about it. It is a system which only exists to justify itself. We see the ghouls capable of learning new behaviors, suggesting they are slowly regaining their sense of reality. They are regaining their conscience; their breath of humanity and depth of spirituality. Whereas with Fiddler's Green, what is purported as their conscience is actually a deep-seated self-justification.

~~/o/