Recensioni degli utenti

Land of the Dead - The 4th part of George A. Romero's zombie quadrillogy. It's been decades since the dead began to walk the Earth, and now they practically own it (except for Canada for some reason). There is one last little mega-city that is surrounded by electric fences, armed patrols and barbed wire on one side, and nothing but water on all other four sides, because the dead supposedly don't like water. Despite the fact that the surrounding lands are rife with zombies, this metropolis is incredibly corrupt. All thanks to evil bureaucrat Kaufman (Dennis Hooper, who I had a ball watching) who makes all but a select few rich folks (who have never seen or fought a real zombie) live in slums. There you can get your picture taken with zombies, or watch zombie fights (they fight over animals and the occasional human). There are a few mercenaries paid to make runs in a giant tank truck for precious commodities in the outside world.

Now I like George and could thank him endlessly for starting the zombie franchise, but he has always favored gore just a little more over character development, and has always liked his zombies just a LOT more than his humans. Heck in this movie, the zombies are practically the good-guys! They're just like you and me, except they rip people's arms in two (and I do mean length-wise) and tear belly button rings out of people. They are actually pretty intelligent and moderately fast at walking. By far the biggest threats in Romero's movies (most notably "Big Daddy" (Eugene Clark). For the most part though, it works, and it's good gory fun. Except the character development thingy. While I don't begrudge Romero for having fun with his zombies, I wasn't too sympathetic to Riley (Simon Baker) or Slack (Asia Argento). Riley, like Romero it seems, is just tired of character development as he has Riley say "I'm fed up with back-stories". But Riley dear boy, that's how the audience grows to care about you. Slack almost kills several of her fellow team-mates and does not grow at all, but that's the script's fault. Both of these characters, however are played well for what the actors are given.

Surprisingly the secondary characters are far more endearing. Cholo (John Leguizamo) was not only believable as a merc, but I was quite sympathetic to him as he realized that he was a pon. "Pilsbury" (Pedro Miguel Arce) and Charlie (Robert Joy) are endearing and funny.

So the effects are good. The story is iffy. The acting is good. The character development is iffy. The ending is really lame. This gets an overall B

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.

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.

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.

George A. Romero returns to the zombie flick twenty years after his last dip into the genre with 'Land Of The Dead (2005)', a post-apocalyptic tale of human survivors in an undead-infested land. The picture deals with the class system, seeing its major setting - a walled city with a shopping mall at its centre - ruled by a rich board of directors who use the promise of a better life inside the tower to manipulate those who aren't fortunate enough to ignore the chaos outside. Continuing the 'smart zombie' theme of 'Day Of The Dead (1985)', the flick features a focal ghoul who becomes more intelligent and cunning as the narrative unfolds. The picture features plenty of neck-biting, blood-spurting, head-crushing carnage and it moves at a pretty quick pace, too. Its plot is pretty thin and its characters are all, essentially, stereotypes, but it's a fun experience throughout. It isn't as good as Romero's previous zombie stuff, partially because its subtext isn't as strong. Still, it's an enjoyable action-horror piece nevertheless. 7/10

I was able to catch an advance screening with friends last night, and maybe it was just the mood we were in, but we had a blast. It took me a few minutes to get the direction George was going with this one, but once I did, it cranked on almost every cylinder.

The first thing to note is this is not a serious, somber, scare you out of your pants zombie movie. What it actually plays out as instead is a social commentary on class, politics, and stereo types, while having a good time doing it. Think more Evil Dead meets Mad Max meets Night of the Living Dead, and you'll get a clearer picture of the movie George has made here.

Yes, it is very violent, and yes, there are plenty of "feedings." Highly recommended for those whose take zombie movies as seriously as they should.

George A. Romero's long-awaited return to the genre he helped create is a very, very mixed bad if not a consistently entertaining one.

Romero's greatest strength as a director have always been his creativity, creating iconic moments and literally raising the zombie from the ground up on low budgets and tight schedules. Thus, it's more than a little disappointing to see LAND, the first in his DEAD series to see major studio backing and his highest-budget to date, be so riddled with a distinct lack of imagination. Romero's depiction of a zombie-infested, post-apocalypse never feels as bleak or gritty as the brief glimpses afforded in his predecessors. Characters still speak of things like cars, countries, and pop culture in the present tense; what's left of society still somehow needs and uses currency that should've long ago been rendered worthless. The class divide still looks like the class divide now, shopping malls and luxury highrises replete with waiting lists and Boards of Directors are still open and operational as usual. It all feels artificial, incomplete; not completely surprising for a script strung together from unused pieces of DAY, but nonetheless disappointing.

The blockbuster budget is both a blessing and a curse. The scope of the film, though grander and more far-reaching then any of its predecessors combined, still feels claustrophobic and (ironically) devoid of life, and not in the good way. A long-dead Pittsburgh is never more than a few samey, empty-looking suburban streets with a suspicious lack of decaying carcasses and overgrown plant life. DAY's opening three minutes of a long-abandoned, desolate Orlando is more chilling and more grounded then anything this film has to offer. The relatively-straightforward plot often feels meandering and listless, going off on random tangents and introducing a rotating cast of wacky side characters more memorable than any of our leads. Said supporting cast, including standouts John Leguizamo, Robert Joy, Dennis Hopper, Eugene Clark, and Asia Argento, are this film's salvation, giving memorable and borderline-campy performances to make up for the nothing lead that is Simon Baker. He's a bland, generic "blonde hero guy" who's supposedly a misanthropic anti-hero but never comes across as anything more then mildly whiny, existing solely to perpetuate an already blatant political allegory that beats the audience over the head with how obvious it is. Then again, his spotlight is often drowned out by the mass of other supporting characters, which proves another fault by Romero. There are too many characters, and only so much runtime.

And yet in spite of that, the film's still immeasurably entertaining. Romero injects that indelible "X" factor that permeated his previous works and made them so beloved. The zombie makeup and gore effects, courtesy of Howard Berger and Greg Nicotero, are as good as they've ever been (save for some questionable CGI). The aforementioned supporting cast is lively and plays off each other well. And the action is as solid and gloriously pulpy as its ever been, one of the few areas where the budget really shines. Romero's no slouch, even at his most average he's still miles ahead of many other directors in the same sphere. LAND is deeply flawed, deeply imperfect, but then again you could say the same about what came before. It's still a solid B-movie, and at the end of the day that's all George ever wanted to make.

This is the first review I've written for IMDb. I must try hard not to fall into the AAAARGH!!! jaws of Report This. I'm 80 years old, have been attentively following national affairs since about 1938 (I was a fat kid from an abusive home, so hid and read a lot). So, the thing I admire the most about Land of the Dead is its being a splendid parable of life in 21st Century America (my Rastafarian daughter would say life in Babylon). It certainly captures its political and moral properties. Judging from a comment that Mr. Romero makes in one of the Bonus Features, this was intentional. Yay, Romero!

The movie's photography and special effects are super-fine. The actors are all quite competent, though … and this also is splendid … the only really charismatic performance comes from Eugene A. Clark, as Big Daddy the zombie leader. I was rooting for him all the way. Close to charismatic was Asia Argento, whom I first dismissed as an Obligatory Sex Interest with gymnastic abilities, but respected more and more as the film progressed. Overall, I almost never watch movies twice, but I'll sure watch this one again.

A great Zombie movie written and directed by the Zombie master himself George A Romero who created the Night of the living Dead film series which is mostly known for the second entry in the series Dawn of the Dead which is one of the greatest Zombie movies ever made.

This entry in the series takes place almost two decades after the Zombie outbreak where Zombies now cover the earth and whats left of the humans now live in a secure city lead by the super rich while the poor scavenge for food and supplies and man the defences of the city the scavenging crews are lead by Riley Denbo (Simon Baker) who wants out of the city while his friend Cholo Demora (John Leguizamo) wants into the tower where the super rich live but after a midnight raid on a small town filled with zombies goes badly they end up leading a horde of zombies right to the city's gate now they have bigger problems to deal with as the dead start working together to get there meal.

The blood and gore looks great and has much more detailed scenes of zombies eating people than most movies are willing to show especially in the Directors cut of the movie which is more graphic.

The makeup and green screen effects are pretty good for there time a little obvious now but in 2005 were passable also great acting all round the characters likable and unique.

I recommend this movie to any fan of zombie movies especially ones with plenty of blood and gore and a decent budget to make it look better than B movie zombie movies.

Zombies have taken over the world in Land of the Dead, the remaining survivors live within a walled city to keep the dead out. A revolution is brewing in a plan to overthrow the city. but outside the walls the zombies are developing their intelligence.

The plot kind of sounds a bit lame, but it really does work well and this is a zombie flick that can be taken quite seriously. Romero has again created something great on a tight budget, and he has done well to make it look good, with some great make up effects. The cast are all pretty good, there are some good characters and the dialogue is effective.

Overall Land of the Dead delivers all out zombie action that's great for fans of the genre, good work George.

8/10

This film by the master Zombies George A Romero is the key because the producers made it,but he's the icon,he's the hall-of-fame,he's the standard which created the living dead genre.Thematically deals about a bunch of people trying to live as though nothing has changed or at least that's what the administration believes.The protagonists understand that the world has completely changed.There's an administration sort of a self-styled government ruled by a magnate,the big man,Kauffman(Dennis Hooper).A dead-reckoning truck has been stolen by the second-in command(John Leguizano)and Kauffman wants him captured or killed and the $ 2 million piece of equipment returned.He assigns the mission to a group of valiant fighters(Simon Baker,Robert Joy,Asia Argento among others).The picture is reflective about society and I think he elevates the genre in that way .

The movie contains terror,action,scares,irony with some jokes, and lots of blood and gore courtesy of makeup specialists Greg Nicotero and Howard Berger.In the film appear known people and Romero friends in outrage cameos as Asia Argento ,she's known from small girl when Romero worked with her father in ¨Dawn of the dead(1978) and Two evil eyes¨; Tom Savini a master makeup who worked in¨Day of the dead¨among others and Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg director and starring of ¨Shaun of the dead¨the successful English Zombies film. George Romero is a sensational stylist,he's a great craftsman,besides he's a great storyteller.Romero is a master editor that's what makes this movie so great to watch because there's so much detail but he shoots so much coverage.Romero is always trying to hold on to how the story is best told to get his vision across.Night of the living dead is a masterpiece, but here Romero reaches another level another climax in this one. The motion picture will like to Zombies cinema enthusiastic and gore-fans.

This film was one that made me excited when I heard it was coming to theaters. This would have been my senior year of high school. My father introduce me and my sister to the trilogy at the time and this would be the first one that came to theaters in my life. We went to see this as a family and I really liked it. I've seen it quite a few times throughout the years on top of that. The synopsis here is the living dead have taken over the world and the last humans live in a walled city to protect themselves as they come to grips with the situation.

We begin with filling in the history of what has happened to the world. We know thatit has been overrun with zombies. We then learn that people have created safe places to live. This film revolves around Pittsburgh that is now known by the high-rise where all of the rich live, called Fiddler's Green.

It then shifts to the leader of a unit that goes out to collect supplies and bring it back to the city. His name is Riley Denbo (Simon Baker). He is joined by his friend of Charlie (Robert Joy). Later we will learn that Charlie was burned in a fire and half of his face shows the results of it. Riley did save him and he now feels he owes his life to him. He is a crack shot though so it works out.

This unit is scouting a town for supplies. They see zombies, but one of them draws Riley's attention. He is a former gas station attendant going by the name of Big Daddy (Eugene Clark). Some zombies step on the bell that announces a car is there. He comes out to gas it up, but finds there is nothing there. It seems he knows he is being watched and looks in the direction of Riley. He moans and zombies turn in that direction and head toward them. Riley believes they are thinking and communicating.

Baker's second in command is Cholo DeMora (John Leguizamo). He is dumping trash and we notice that there are bodies in it. He does the dirty work for the big boss of Kaufman (Dennis Hopper) and is trying to buy his way into Fiddler's Green.

This group goes about raiding this town of supplies. They have a giant truck by the name of Dead Reckoning. It is equipped with armor, machine guns, missiles and even has a launcher to send up fireworks. These are used to distract the zombies. Riley and his crew go about collecting supplies. There's a new guy in the team that goes with Cholo and his crew. They go to get booze and it results in the new guy getting bit. This is supposed to be Riley's last run and he didn't want anyone to die. This upsets him and causes everyone to head back in.

Cholo thinks it is his last run too. He thinks he has enough to buy his way into Fiddler's Green. He learns though that Kaufman won't allow it. He tries to politely reject Cholo who doesn't take it well. He goes about stealing Dead Reckoning and holding Kaufman along with Fiddler's Green hostage until he gets the ransom he demands.

During this, Riley goes to check on the car he bought and sees it is gone. Through interactions he goes to a local bar looking for Chihuahua (Phil Fondacaro), the guy running this place. He relays that he didn't do anything to his car, but that someone above him. This also leads Riley to seeing that the game for that night puts Slack (Asia Argento) in danger. She is saved and Chihuahua is killed. They're arrested.

Their way out involves helping Kaufman, trying to stop Cholo and getting Dead Reckoning back. Riley sees his way out and it appears that helping the big boss is the way to do that.

Now that's where I'm going to leave my recap of this movie. Where I want to start is that George A. Romero is probably my favorite director of all time. Dawn of the Dead is my favorite movie and I mean Day of the Dead is right there in my top 5 as well. What is really impactful from his series is how well he constructs the stories where you can enjoy what he is doing, while also reading subtext underneath it. I think this one is probably the most in your face with it of the 4, but I still think this is a worthy film with the other 3.

We really are looking at a capitalist society and what is going on in the United States at the time of writing this really fits with the commentary here. Kaufman along with his group is the ruling class. They have all of the money and power while we have the slums below. The character of Mulligan (Bruce McFee) is interesting because he is trying to rally the people since they outnumber the rich. The people are placated due to vices, much like we see today. Too many people are comfortable and don't want to get their hands dirty. It then becomes interesting here though is the zombies that attack the city.

From the beginning, Romero has introduced that zombies are primitive, but can learn. It is brought up in Dawn and Day. The next logical step we have here. Big Daddy pushes them forward. It is interesting with them attacking Fiddler's Green, the revolution that Mulligan wants happens when the zombies attack. On top of that, anyone who dies joins them as well. It isn't necessarily his vision, but it works.

The last little bit here I wanted to delve into would be Cholo. He's mad because he was spurned, which makes sense. What confuses me though is that his mindset is stuck in the old world. He wants Kaufman to pay him a monetary ransom. That won't help him outside of Fiddler's Green. I think this is really showing that he is blinded by rage and not thinking that it only has value if someone believes it does. Destroying Fiddler's Green makes it worthless.

Moving away from the story and the commentary, I'll go next to the acting. I'll be honest, I don't really care for Baker as our lead here. He is stoic which is fine. There's just something about him and I think it is that there's some really good performances around him that he gets lost. Leguizamo is one of them. I think he does a solid job as Cholo. You can feel his rage for sure. Hopper is good as the true villain of this movie. I liked Argento's performance. I think Joy is also solid. Clark as Big Daddy is good, but I don't necessarily think he's great either. The rest of the cast does really round this out for what was needed with cameos by Fondacaro, Simon Pegg, Edgar Wright, Greg Nicotero and even Tom Savini as zombies.

Really the last thing that I wanted to delve into is what really can be hit or miss for me are the effects. I think that the look of the zombies is really good. The ending sequence of mayhem for the climax I think works really well with what is done practical. I'm not surprised to see KNB's name in the credits. Nicotero is from the school of Savini and of course being the N in KNB. What I really have an issue with is the CGI. They relay on it a lot and most of it didn't hold up for me. It is a shame, but I get why it is used. Romero was given a big budget and worked with Universal. I'm just not the biggest fan.

In conclusion here, this is the weakest of the best 4 in the Dead series from Romero. I still think that this one has a good social commentary and it creates a world that sucks me in. I think that the acting is pretty solid across the board. The practical effects are on point, the cinematography is well done and the soundtrack fits for what was needed. If they didn't go with as much CGI as they did, I think this would have worked better for me. For me, this is a good movie. I don't think that it will ever go higher than that, but I still enjoy this for what it is. I'd still recommend it to fans of this series or if you enjoy zombie movies as it still one of the better ones in my opinion.

In a near future, the zombies are all around the world, and the human society is restructured and adapted for the new reality. In a protected city ruled by the powerful Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), the upper class has the usual privileges living in a fancy well-supplied building, while the poor people lives on the streets. Riley (Simon Baker) and Cholo (John Leguizamo) belong to a team that bring supplies (food, medicine etc.) to the city using a heavy truck called Dead Reckoning and designed by Riley. When Cholo is betrayed by Kaufman, he steals the Dead Reckoning and threatens Kaufman, who requests Riley to retrieve the vehicle, with the support of his friend Charlie (Robert Joy) and Slack (Asia Argento). But the dead are smarter and organized under the leadership of Big Daddy (Eugene Clark).

"Land of the Dead" is a great zombie movie. The story is a sort of "Mad Max" with "The Night of the Living Dead", full of the usual clichés, but I liked it a lot. Dennis Hopper performs a character worse than the zombies, and John Leguizamo and Asia Argento are excellent as usual. Simon Baker is a charismatic leader, and there is a hook between Riley and Big Daddy for a possible sequel, that I hope comes true. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Terra dos Mortos" ("Land of the Dead")