Land of the Dead

Zombie films are a dime a dozen and even the ones that are lacking are enough of an entertainment. Romero's Land of the dead comes across as generic. Despite being steeped in darkness, it lacks the taut pacing and nerve-jangling suspense of 28 Days Later, and doesn't have the tongue-in-cheek approach evident in Shaun of the Dead. It's got great makeup, though. Credit Gregory Nicotero (who replaces Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead's Tom Savini) for making the zombies more frightening than campy. Ultimately, however, copious gore and rotting flesh can only do so much for a movie, and the lack of ambition in Romero's storyline is where Land of the Dead fails. The movie will appeal to those with a penchant for zombie flicks, but is unlikely to reach further - not even to the broader "general horror" market. It's not startling or frightening enough. However, this is a zombie film and that in itself makes it worth a glance.

The undead have taken over the world. What traces of humanity remain have taken to backing themselves into protected cities and getting supplies by venturing out in heavily armoured groups to raid smaller towns. One such city is formerly Pittsburgh, where the rivers provide natural protection and those who organised themselves into leaders have created a world of near normality while the rest live in the streets with less material and more risk. One of the raiders (Riley) is sure that he has seen evidence of learning among the undead but events within the city itself cause him more concern as his former second-in-command decides to take violent revenge for being betrayed by city boss Kaufman.

How you receive this film is more about you than the film itself (which I suppose is true of most things in a way – everything has a market somewhere). Those that will love it will be those looking for gore as their horror because the film delivers this in spades. The camera lingers on flesh eating, mutilation and some very painful sequences that had me looking away. However the problem for me was that it was just gore – not horror, not scares and not anything that made me feel uncomfortable in my own house. A minor criticism perhaps but let me assure you that me and zombie movies do not mix well and not only do I get scared during the films but also for days afterwards by the idea of it all.

Surprisingly then I was able to watch Land of the Dead with a detached air and it never convinced me of the world I was being shown. Part of this is budget but that's not all of it as I never bought the characters or main story either. The story in particular narked me because it did dominate the main horror (the mass of undead) and spent too much time on the detail of the human interactions and betrayal. In itself this is not a killer and indeed recently I saw The Mist do a very good job of making human monsters just as scary as the rubber ones but here Romero doesn't make as much of his social commentary as he could have done – OK so we have the haves and have-nots but beyond that we don't get much in the way of intelligence.

The cast reflect the low budget but are good enough for the level that this is working on. Baker is a bit bland but OK, while Leguizamo at least adds a bit of energy to his character. Hopper takes on a fairly easy role of just being a "Mr Big" character that even done in P Diddy/Daddy music videos in the past. Argento is sexy but little else while Joy is pretty good in his support character. Clark is better than a zombie character will get him credit for and makes his stuff quiet interesting and engaging. In regards getting the best "urgh" impact from his gore budget, Romero does well but I was surprised that he didn't do more as a writer or as director to do better with the characters or the tension/danger within the story; like I said, I was surprised by how much of an observer this film allowed me to be.

Worth a look for gore fans and those seeking out some old school zombies in the middle of these modern "28 Days Later" type ones but really this film is a bit of a disappointment in just how average it is. The gore is great but it produces repulsion, not scares and Romero cannot create a sense of genuine horror or fear as he tries to deal with a narrative that takes more than it gives.

There are films that had great potential but failed and it is so very obvious what went wrong that it's hard to believe that no one during production noticed it. "Lady Jane" (1986), "Lost in Space" (1998) and "Planet of the Apes" (2001) are some examples.

The potential of "Land of the Dead" lies solely in the fact that legendary filmmaker George A. Romero returned to the theme that made him famous. It is said that only after the success of modern zombie films like "28 Days later" and the "Dawn of the Dead"-Remake, Romero was given the money to make his own new zombie film. How ironic that he, who invented the modern zombie film, would now produce a film that is inferior to Zack Snyder's Remake of the Romero-directed "Dawn of the Dead".

FEAR is essential for any zombie movie. The feeling of "no way out". The foreboding that it will all be over soon. Hopelessness. Terror. Madness. If you know Romero's "Night of the living Dead", or its two sequels, you know the feeling.

"Land of the Dead" has no such thing. No one seems to be afraid. There is no sense of confinement. The guards of the city can drive around in their armored truck. When they do, there is no sense of terror to see that all of the country is now in the hand of the dead (just think back to the intense opening scenes of "Day of the Dead").

I know what you say know: Romero wanted it that way. He wanted to show how the remnants of human society got used to the zombies around them, oblivious to the threat. Still, it doesn't work. How can a horror film work when we never see horror and fear, REAL fear, on one of the actor's faces? To make it worse, there is no story in the film that would be exciting or interesting enough to make up for the lack of horror.

Due to the weak story, the acting is mediocre as well. For example, look at how Asia Argento is used, or mis-used, in the film. She is introduced by a scene where she fights against zombies in an arena. I said to myself: "I love Asia Argento. This is gonna be great!". In the next scene, Asia undresses, showing off her smart black bra. I thought: "This is even better!". Then... she puts on a chaste garment and, except for shooting a zombie now and then, does practically nothing for the rest of the film. What a waste of talent. Dennis Hopper, the other star of the cast, doesn't seem too excited about his part either. All he has to do is perform his usual bad guy routine. When given the chance, he can be one of the best actors ever (did you ever see Bruno Baretto's "Carried Away"?). Waste of talent.

And, by the way, I missed Tom Savini's unique special effects that contributed so much to the horror of Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" and "Day of the Dead".

Let me start by saying I'm a big fan of George Romero's previous films, especially the dead series. I thought he really hit his stride with Day of the Dead making a slick, structurally sophisticated continuation of his original idea. Not many people can pull off a sequel and I thought he did it twice with Dawn and Day. I also think he had something quite interesting to say with each of those films, layering thematic commentary under the story without distracting from main story elements or themes. His films were always about the shortcomings of man and the inability to work together in the face of danger. His films were always about the people, not the zombies.

But now he has tried so hard to make a political statement that he has hammered into his own genre at the expense of the film. It was interesting in Day when the scientist discovers that a zombie can regain some latent memory and begin to function in a more human way. I was very powerful when that zombie musters up just enough motor skill and latent memory to shoot the villain. It feels like a stretch to say that the zombies, or even the one zombie, in Land could make a conversion of understanding that leads an all out revolt. On an intellectual level, I understand it, but it just didn't work for me. This seems to me like a bigger deviation from the Romero concept then some of the things complained about in the many Romero inspired films recently.

The world described in the previews and press material doesn't seem fully realized. There is a huge divide between the rich and the poor. Why? How did it get that way. It doesn't seem like that would function well under the circumstances of the world as it is, especially in a small society. Why don't we find out anything about how this place works? How does Denis Hopper maintain his power? It is presented as a concept without any real thought. In the original film "The Island of Lost Souls" Doctor Moreau controls his population of beasts with fear. He cracks the whip, recites the law, and talks about the house of pain, which the audience knows to be the doctor's laboratory, but the beasts know it as a building where screams are heard. This is a stunningly well designed political metaphor. In Land of the Dead, I couldn't help thinking that the underlying political message was driving the story and that questionable things were written into the story for the wrong reasons. Money is a major plot device. Denis Hopper tries to escape the city with two large bags of money. What good is money outside the city? I was wondering, what good is money inside the city? Money only works if people believe in the underlying value of it. Most countries in the real world can't keep a stable currency. There is an aerial shot of the city during the day showing the streets deserted. Why are the streets deserted? Where are all the people? Later we see the same shot only the streets are now filled with Zombies. The characters keep talking about going to Canada as a safe haven. Why? Why is Canada safer than the United States. I was left to believe that this was more political commentary. Why are the Zombies trying to get to the city? They seem to be driven by some underlying, dare I say it, political motivation.

The film as a whole seemed less like a story of characters in a horrific world established in the earlier films, and more like a series of one dimensional vignettes based on thin political ideology – Rich verses poor, violence in America, mismanagement of government in post 9-11 society, negotiating with terrorists, yeah we get it. Not so subtle.

Simon Baker leads in this film as a mercenary who wants to head up North. Maybe the undead do not like the cold. He find himself trapped between various warring factions, including a ruthless CEO (Dennis Hopper) who offers safety to the wealthy while allowing the unwashed masses to fend for themselves, a fellow mercenary (John Leguizamo) who will sacrifice anyone to advance his own agenda, and hordes of zombies who are starting to take steps up the evolutionary ladder. They actually used a gun in this film. First time I've seen a zombie do more than eat. They even went in the water. Apes don't do that! Lots of blood, but there was less action than I've seen and more talking.

I love John Leguizamo, and that made it worth my time. Seeing Asia Argento (xXx) wasn't bad either.