Is Land of The Dead good or not?

[The Devistator]

Land of The Dead is my favorite zombie film so my question is what do you
think of it great,good,bad,would never watch it again if you paid me.???

[RIP]

It's not great by any means and it's not terrible either. I would say it was fair....."fair" would be the word for it. I own it on dvd and thought that it had some good actors in it but it just wasn't gory enough for me and didn't have some of the right elements like Romero's eariler films had.

[Zombie_215]

It wasn't my favorite, but it is a good movie.

[Subgenius]

I liked it enough to vote "good" on that list.

[LMOE]

It's very good, but in my opinion there are better ones.

[DarthJoe8]

It was okay, not the best but good enough....now start a poll on Diary of the Dead....:puke:

[zombie surfer]

I like it but it's my least fave out of them all.

[detpat]

i pretty strongly dislike it.

[Zombiegenocide]

next to the old dawn of the dead, it's one of my favorites.

[neoflux]

Those things are all relative terms.

If you compare it to Night, Dawn, or Day then it's pales.

If you compare it to some of the other zombie films made at that time... well at least they weren't running.

[UNDEAD FRED]

I put good, but its pretty good. I liked the gore, as far as Big Daddy, zombies dont roar. Asia Argento,mmmm mmmm very good.:). I wish people would not compare it to the holy trilogy.

[neoflux]

I wish people would not compare it to the holy trilogy.

Why? It's the 4th of the Dead film by Romero and it's suppose to be a 4th installment of the same saga. They all were made years apart from each other... hell there is a bigger leap going from Night to Dawn then there is from Day to Land on the grounds of technical, financial, story structure, etc. but we compare the trilogy films to each other all the time.

I mean the fact that you call the first 3 a Trilogy and then Land as something else shouts your feelings about the film even if you say it's good. Because basically you're saying.. yeah it's good... but it's not 'of the Dead' good.

-Mike

[Subgenius]

I put good, but its pretty good. I liked the gore, as far as Big Daddy, zombies dont roar. Asia Argento,mmmm mmmm very good.:). I wish people would not compare it to the holy trilogy.

Who says zombies don't roar?

[Victor Clark]

I thought that this was a good Romero movie, and a great zombie movie. It wasn't one of Romero's best best, but I still loved it. If you forget that it was directed by the same guy who made the "Holy Trinity", it's very enjoyable.

[UNDEAD FRED]

Why? It's the 4th of the Dead film by Romero and it's suppose to be a 4th installment of the same saga. They all were made years apart from each other... hell there is a bigger leap going from Night to Dawn then there is from Day to Land on the grounds of technical, financial, story structure, etc. but we compare the trilogy films to each other all the time.

I mean the fact that you call the first 3 a Trilogy and then Land as something else shouts your feelings about the film even if you say it's good. Because basically you're saying.. yeah it's good... but it's not 'of the Dead' good.

-Mike

NO, thats not what I said or ment. A lot of people will, and are still comparing Land and Diary of the Dead to Romero's first three "Of The Dead" films.

[neoflux]

NO, thats not what I said or ment. A lot of people will, and are still comparing Land and Diary of the Dead to Romero's first three "Of The Dead" films.

...and why is that a problem? I'm saying it makes scene and it's a better/ more apt compare then most.

[Zombiegenocide]

I put good, but its pretty good. I liked the gore, as far as Big Daddy, zombies dont roar. Asia Argento,mmmm mmmm very good.:). I wish people would not compare it to the holy trilogy.

holy trilogy? dawn is the only holy zombie movie. Night of the living dead is old and has practically no gore, and day of the dead is boring. they don't do anything in the movie.

[Subgenius]

holy trilogy? dawn is the only holy zombie movie. Night of the living dead is old and has practically no gore, and day of the dead is boring. they don't do anything in the movie.

In Day of the Dead, they do a lot! I never understand why people say that Day of the Dead was boring. Maybe they mean the new remake?

[ZombieGore]

I think its a good movie. Not exactly the same feel to it as the other of the deads. Reminds me more of an action movie than a horror.:machgun2:

[Creeping Death]

In Day of the Dead, they do a lot! I never understand why people say that Day of the Dead was boring. Maybe they mean the new remake?

Niether do I.
Day of the Dead was great. :guns:

[UNDEAD FRED]

Day of the Dead 85 was a great zombie movie, far from boring.


I can say that I allmost been banned on 2 occasions for flaming over Land of the Dead here. I miss the Land of the Dead wars back in the day.:lol:

[zombie surfer]

holy trilogy? dawn is the only holy zombie movie. Night of the living dead is old and has practically no gore, and day of the dead is boring. they don't do anything in the movie.

This guy has no f**king clue, if it wasn't for Night of the Living Dead we wouldn't have gory zombie movies. As far as Day of the Dead goes it has some of the best gore effect in any zombie film.:x:x:loon:

[Creeping Death]

This guy has no f**king clue, if it wasn't for Night of the Living Dead we wouldn't have gory zombie movies. As far as Day of the Dead goes it has some of the best gore effect in any zombie film.:x:x:loon:

'Nuff said. :clap:

[UNDEAD FRED]

The reason I referred to Romero's first three dead films as the "Holy Trilogy" was because of hearing Kevin Smith refer to Star Wars IV-VI as the "Holy Trilogy" at Comic Con a few years ago. I think all of Romero's 5 zombie movies are great. I just hope he keeps turning them out.

[Creeping Death]

The reason I referred to Romero's first three dead films as the "Holy Trilogy" was because of hearing Kevin Smith refer to Star Wars IV-VI as the "Holy Trilogy" at Comic Con a few years ago. I think all of Romero's 5 zombie movies are great. I just hope he keeps turning them out.

I agree on the Romero part.
Im waiting for Island of the Dead? :guns:

[UNDEAD FRED]

I agree on the Romero part.
Im waiting for Island of the Dead? :guns:

I heard that Afternoon of the Dead is Romero's next project:lol:......JK

[Creeping Death]

I heard that Afternoon of the Dead is Romero's next project:lol:......JK

Are you forgetting about Rush Hour of the Dead? :lol:

(couldn't think of another time in the day.) :doh:

[archivesofthedead]

Land of The Dead is my favorite zombie film so my question is what do you
think of it great,good,bad,would never watch it again if you paid me.???

I too really like this film. It's too bad Road of the Dead never came about. What happens to Riley!?!?! The world wants to know!

[NotoriousDIT]

the film was ok, but definitely not the best in the series. it had some interesting takes on a more apocalyptic setting, and the idea of zombies evolving is an interesting concept, but overall, the execution wasn't all I'd hoped for.

[neoflux]

I agree on the Romero part.
Im waiting for Island of the Dead? :guns:

It's still officially '... of the Dead'.

I think that's kind of funny in itself.

Night, Dawn, Day, Land, Diary...

This movie will leave you going '...'

The Critics say '...'

It could have it's one whos on first routine.

'Do you wanna go see a movie?'
'Sure what do you want to see?'
'...'
'Well what do you want to see?'
'...'
'You want to see nothing?'
'No, I've already seen 'Nothing'.'
'No not 'Nothing', nothing.'
'No I don't want to see it.'
'Who was talking about 'It''
'I want to go see ...'
'Yes ...'
'Exactly'
'You want to see 'Yes'?'
'No, I want to see '...''
'If you cant make up your mind, I'm not going.'

Ok lame joke... but had to get it out of my system.
-Mike

[MrShape666]

I still enjoy land very much, it might not be as good as the first three, but I still thought it was another winner for Romero. I was watching the BR of it this morning in fact.

Hmm, seems opinions have changed a bit about this film: Just a year ago I had a PM box full of hate mail (including one death threat) on various sights and was accused numerous times of things like "betraying zombie fandom" and the like just for daring to say I liked the film.

[detectivethorne]

For myself, I rate LAND as 'Good'. Technically speaking, the film is fantastically made. Folks rightly call it the most commercial of his DEAD films and, though polished to a studio-satisfaction shine, it still has the Romero grin lurking underneath. Small personal issues(believe it or not, not enough zombie variety for me!) keep it from really making the 'Great' grade, not to mention NIGHT and DAWN having raised the bar pretty high. But, in the end, it's probably more near the line between 'Good' and 'Great'.

The real surprise for me was that beyond the impressive ghoul make-up, some really great set-ups and an effective Klimek/Heil score, LAND was infused with sentiment I never expected to find in the genre.

One of the most appealing things about the film is it's so unabashedly optimistic. Outside of Hopper's Bush parody, Romero can't help but have a little faith in the inherent humanity in almost all the characters. In the DEAD films, he tends to follow the reasoning that the living are, far beyond the ghouls themselves, ultimately the real threat to survival; cursed by their own petty shortsightedness, people are still killing people.

In LAND, no less than four main characters defy the odds(in the film universe depicting a global undead apocalypse) and turn Romero's long established tradition on it's head. Not only do they retain their humanity in the face of a mind-numbingly violent and moral-shattering existence, but they actually manage to somewhat swing the pendulum of fate back in the favor of the 'good guys' by the end of the story. Romero even gives them a hopeful send off, one much more substantial than the vaguely positive one he allowed at the end of DAY.

[MrShape666]

My only complaints about Land have always been the same: I didn't like Eugene Clark's performance as Big Daddy, he wasn't believable. Jennifer Baxter's Number Nine should have been the lead zombie, she's the true successor to Howard Sherman's Bub from Day, her performance is fantastic. The ending could have been punched up a bit, and some of the comedy had to go. None of this really kills the film though.

Besides, if we can all still enjoy Dawn even with that godawful corny music that plays when Peter shoots the zombie instead of himself (which even Romero groans at), I'm sure we can forgive Land these few set backs.

[tunerfreak87]

Honestly what I didn't like about the film was the evolving zombies. How they could communicate and plot against the people? It also seemed that Romero didn't know what to do with the budget lol. But hey I still rated it good because I like the setting and the zombie effects were awesome. I do own it on bluray so I guess that says something. I just hope Romero doesnt do anymore zombie-evolution stuff anymore. It reminds me of Fallout 3 everytime I watch it!

[Gardenofstone10]

To me, at first, this movie seemed like a Super Mario Bros reunion (with Hopper and John) but after viewing it, I think it held its own. Absolutely had an Escape From New York feel to it, which is never a bad thing and it would be how the government would react. I know it doesn't have anything to do with Zombi 2 (Zombie) but the way that movie ended is how the reaction in this movie follows. I liked all Romero's other movies much better, but this is very watchable.

[Flesh Jester]

Looks like I'm the only one who voted bad so far. Id watch it again if I was bored and didn't have anything else to watch. In terms of story, characters, setting, plot, and the whole shabanga bang, I didn't really think this movie gave too much to the cause of expanding our beloved zombie genre. It was just a Romero movie with a budget, put out there to make money and provide the masses with an hour of entertainment. Even Diary of the Dead was better, but even then I think Romero is losing his edge. :cry:

[UseYourHeadCutOffTheirs]

In Day of the Dead, they do a lot! I never understand why people say that Day of the Dead was boring. Maybe they mean the new remake?



I'm so with you. Day of the dead is by far my favorite. It is very far from boring. Watching people get torn apart. And bub!?



But for land, I didn't like it at all. I'm not going to bash it too hard because tastes change. If I watched it again I may like or appreciate it more. But when I saw it in theaters, I almost walked about. Hated it. I couldn't really take john leguizamo seriously. All I could think of is the pest.

[Creeping Death]

I'm so with you. Day of the dead is by far my favorite. It is very far from boring. Watching people get torn apart. And bub!?



But for land, I didn't like it at all. I'm not going to bash it too hard because tastes change. If I watched it again I may like or appreciate it more. But when I saw it in theaters, I almost walked about. Hated it. I couldn't really take john leguizamo seriously. All I could think of is the pest.

Haha, the pest. :?

[2xSlick]

I really, really disliked this movie. The first three Romero films where essentially a character study where we watch a group of people try to work together and come to terms with the apocalypse with disasterous effect. Land skips all that and jumps to a few years after the outbreak. By now all the survivors should have some idea how to take care of themselves. Instead, the survivors are constantly getting pounced on by spring-loaded zombies because all the characters are looking in the same direction, even when they are supposed to be watching each other's backs. The whole class warfare was ridicoulous with every single rich person dieing while the poor rally to their own defense and have time to rack shotguns to try to look dramatic.

[goesaround]

I hated it in the theater and disliked it on DVD then Diary came out and I convinced myself at least it was better then Diary. But not now. The only scene in Diary that moved me was seeing all the zombies threw the barn window. That reminded me of Night which had no dumb comedy. Now I have to say I like Land more then Diary it's at least a movie. I loved the zombies in the woods when they stop the jeep and I love the line when he said nothing bad happens to him and the irony of he meaning his brother that touched me. Oh I loved the zombie guard in the liquor store..Just like at the airport in Dawn. But amitron zombies were laughable to me like Lincoln at Disney world. I wished they talked about the plague more... So overall Land has moved up for me like a car jacked up with a flat tire! By the way Day is great...In it's own way just as good as Dawn..Score card the Trilogy with Night at the top then way below Land then Diary but big hope for of the Dead..it looks like 'Day'. Thus spoke Zarathustra'

[Creeping Death]

I think that Riley Denbo (simon baker), saved this movie. :guns:
He was great in the movie, and a lot of people agree that he contributed to the liking of it.

Anyone agree? :think:

Note: I would've liked the movie without him, just not as much.

[goesaround]

Agree 100%

[UNDEAD FRED]

I just liked the whole movie, call me a Romero fan boy:lol:

[archivesofthedead]

I just liked the whole movie, call me a Romero fan boy:lol:

I'm with you on that. I'm a sucker for LOTD. It reminded me exactly why I love zombies.

[Subgenius]

I think that Riley Denbo (simon baker), saved this movie. :guns:
He was great in the movie, and a lot of people agree that he contributed to the liking of it.

Anyone agree? :think:

Note: I would've liked the movie without him, just not as much.

I agree. And, I would add Asia Argento to that for my own part. Land of the Dead was the first film that I had seen Asia in and I liked her in the movie. But, for me, Simon Baker did save the film. Casting is a crucial component of filmmaking.

[sk8rmichael]

it was a ok movie it had its goods and bads mostly bads tho like zombies weilding guns wepons so forth and zombies looking up at fire works?! 28 days/weeks are my fave zombie movies im actualy scared of fast zombies hahahahahahahaha =P cus they run at u O.O

[Kris1114]

I thought this movie was ok. But I did think they "humanized" the zombies too much in this one. Made them think too much & made it much less scary for me. The scene where the one zombie's spine & head hung limply behind him, only to whip suddenly forward to unleash his attack on that guy was badass though:clap:

[Zombob]

My vote goes to "good."

[ZombieToaster]

Id put it closer to great than to just good so i voted great. That being said it is ofcourse not even close to dawn or day... But what movie is?

[OVERKILL]

I kinda rank it higher than Dawn. Riley, Charley and Slack could be the best fighting trio in history. Riley is always serious and keeps his head about him, Charlie's a rifle crank and Slack is good at diffusing situations. Pretty Boy, Pillsbury and the rest of the crew were awesome too. It was a little hard to take Leguizamo serious at first but that's more my expectations due to seeing him in so many comedies, but he did a really good job and Cholo has become one of my favorite characters in the Romeroverse. I also agree that Big Daddy may have been a little much, Bub had Frankenstein as a coach, maybe Big Daddy was a similar experiment/pet that escaped. It had flaws no doubt, but was still a great movie. Plus it had the coolest quote when: the guy tried to hand Charlie a sub-machine gun and tells him it fire 14 rounds a second Charli replied "I don't normally need that many". For a hillbillie raised with a rifle in my hands, that made my day.

[Subgenius]

I loved the Charlie character. He was a good compliment to Riley Denbo. Charlie and Riley worked as a team and together they allowed the audience to see the characters better. One thing that Romero has done really well (except, maybe, in Diary of the Dead) has been developing interesting main characters.

[lomodus]

I gave it a Great, mostly because I liked that it started a while after the zombie apocalypse, giving us a little glimpse of what a future society in that setting would evolve into. Or devolve.

[DeAdLY SiNZz]

it was an okay movie i like when whats his face gets beaten and says no i want to see how the other side lives. but anyway its was decent zed flick.

[CityOfChicago]

I enjoyed it, have it on DVD and watch it from time to time. Leguizamo is brilliant, and he has so many little adlibs and cracks in it i keep laughing. "Hey nosepicker" and stuff like that.

I don't like the idea of Big Daddy getting "smarter" as he rots. Just makes no sense to me. I hung with the idea of Bub in Day, but thought of it mostly as reflex/recalled life experiences. Big Daddy seems outraged at the treatment of his "fellow zombies", and that's a bit to much for me to swallow (no pun intended).

But the effects rocked on several occasions. The cheerleader whose head gets split open by the end of the flagpole in the beginning, or the ANG guys atthe armory. And the scene with the zeds rising from the water was high in creep value, if not as scary as it could have been.

And CGI blood from exit wounds always looks fake.

[ZombieKat]

It was ok not the best or the worst.

[Eknytz]

Cholo has become one of my favorite characters in the Romeroverse.
Same here
------------

[CityOfChicago]

Well, it's my son's favorite. Then again, he's 2 - so take that how you will.

[UNDEAD FRED]

Its funny if you said if you like Land of the Dead 2-3 years ago here at ATZ, you were attack by vicious Romero hate mongers, and I fought back at every turn. I like LOTD better with each viewing. Romero is a Zombie God!!!

[Godzilla_Rules]

it was crap compared to day of the dead. It was not a horrible movie but it just was not scary

[DarthJoe8]

Compared to GARs other works it's a crap movie, that is, until Diary came along, now Land isn't so bad...:roll:

:lol:

[CityOfChicago]

I can't bring myself to call it crap. Compared to the others, it pales a bit, but we've all set the bar for expectations so high....

I think the "Dead Reckoning" veh was a bit much, and some of the acting was a bit wooden at times, but then again, nobody was gonna win any awards for acting in Dawn, and that was the best IMO.

Leguizamo was brilliant. Hopper was awesome, and the way he was a refelction of real people/politicains in the US cracked me up. The nose picking scene and the "We don't negotiate with terrorsist" were awesome. Flipside: Big Daddy was stupid ( a thinking zed who feels outrage about the treatment of 'his kind' - SUCKS!) and I thought the whole character of Riley was unlikeable. Just a smug cry-baby.

[Deadmanblues]

its good but I have to say it is the worst of the franchise. the big studio backing kind of didnt work with Romero.

[tunerfreak87]

its good but I have to say it is the worst of the franchise. the big studio backing kind of didnt work with Romero.

I felt like something was off there too.

[IMPYEMU]

Twas good not great. There are better Zed movies in my opinion.

[Frallon]

Decent Film,
there were only two things that drove me insane
1. The head zombie understanding that his comrades were in danger and setting out on a long journey to keep them safe (what kind of zombie has an attention span that long!)
n 2. Casting Benny Blanco from da Bronx, I've never been a fan of casting huge stars in zombie films, and he just stands out all over the screen.

[KillKaylaDead]

I thought it was a good movie. I love the idea of zombies being somewhat intelligent. Some parts were really silly though...

Also, I always picture Sid when I hear John Leguizamo speak. This is very distracting. :-(

[UNDEAD FRED]

Decent Film,
there were only two things that drove me insane
1. The head zombie understanding that his comrades were in danger and setting out on a long journey to keep them safe (what kind of zombie has an attention span that long!)


Was it a survivor issue, or a revenge issue? But yes it was kind of dumb, especially Big Daddy roaring. I had a issue with him not eating human flesh to.

[Frallon]

Was it a survivor issue, or a revenge issue? But yes it was kind of dumb, especially Big Daddy roaring. I had a issue with him not eating human flesh to.

Ik right, he goes through all this trouble to kill the head honcho he has some kind of grudge with, n then he doesnt even taste victory. lol

[Dr GonZo]

Great but not like Dawn of the Dead and NOTLD

[UNDEAD FRED]

I have allready seen it 10+ times, I now rate it Great. But I think most of the 80s horror is great to.

[ZomCom]

Big Daddy is a different kind of zombie, just like Bub was different. Heck, the Cemetery zombie in NotLD used a rock to break a window. I would not call that an evolution, zombies don’t reproduce, AFAIK. Call it an aberration. I don’t mind the occasional zombie standing out from the crowd. And, this is just in Romero’s movies. Many other movies have sentient zombies.

[AZombieAttack]

I kinda like the zombie plot that starts out, after the world has been over ran. I said good....

[SWAT Zombie]

i had high expectations before i saw this movie. i was a little disappointed after i did. i just felt the movie was too sympathetic towards the zombies, or at least big daddy and his main group. riley showing mercy at the end when he said "they're just looking for somewhere to go, like us" was a bit weak. i was looking forward to a showdown between the main characters and big daddy, but it didn't happen. big daddy was a lost opportunity to have a seriously vicious bad guy who was a serious threat. and they didn't explore the intelligence aspect far enough. big daddy gets hold of a steyr but doesn't really use it to any great effect. he then forces the cheerleader zombie to point the discharging m-16 at the soldier but they don't take that any further. but having said that, after a few viewings i got used to it and have found i do quite like it overall. seeing tom savini's 'dawn78' character as a zombie was awesome. would have been better if he had more of a role tho. and big daddy was ok, but how cool would it have been if it was Bub in that role instead, getting to see the progression of that character. i might not have minded the sympathetic leaning towards the zombies if it was him.

[Creeping Death]

i had high expectations before i saw this movie. i was a little disappointed after i did. i just felt the movie was too sympathetic towards the zombies, or at least big daddy and his main group. riley showing mercy at the end when he said "they're just looking for somewhere to go, like us" was a bit weak. i was looking forward to a showdown between the main characters and big daddy, but it didn't happen. big daddy was a lost opportunity to have a seriously vicious bad guy who was a serious threat. and they didn't explore the intelligence aspect far enough. big daddy gets hold of a steyr but doesn't really use it to any great effect. he then forces the cheerleader zombie to point the discharging m-16 at the soldier but they don't take that any further. but having said that, after a few viewings i got used to it and have found i do quite like it overall. seeing tom savini's 'dawn78' character as a zombie was awesome. would have been better if he had more of a role tho. and big daddy was ok, but how cool would it have been if it was Bub in that role instead, getting to see the progression of that character. i might not have minded the sympathetic leaning towards the zombies if it was him.


I think I might have to disagree here.

If they would've become any smarter, than the movie would be lame.
Land of the Dead was about the progression of the way zombies acted over time, not about them becoming rocket scientists. :drool:

[SWAT Zombie]

i didn't want them to become rocket scientists. the progression you mentioned is what i was talking about. i guess i should have used the term instinctive more so than intelligence. i just would have liked to see the gun use go further, make them a bigger threat. but i don't mean a horde of gun toting zombies (tho i wouldn't be opposed to that. i love taking on the MarSec zombies in Doom3) but at least big daddy and maybe one or two of his main group figuring firearms out. he showed the cheerleader what to do and it stopped there. i reckon a bit of a firefight between big daddy and riley would have been kinda cool too. i just would have liked it to be explored a little bit further.

[Creeping Death]

i didn't want them to become rocket scientists. the progression you mentioned is what i was talking about. i guess i should have used the term instinctive more so than intelligence. i just would have liked to see the gun use go further, make them a bigger threat. but i don't mean a horde of gun toting zombies (tho i wouldn't be opposed to that. i love taking on the MarSec zombies in Doom3) but at least big daddy and maybe one or two of his main group figuring firearms out. he showed the cheerleader what to do and it stopped there. i reckon a bit of a firefight between big daddy and riley would have been kinda cool too. i just would have liked it to be explored a little bit further.

Hmmm.
I guess we just disagree then.

I prefer to have them as dumb as possible, and a little bit of knowledge here and there.
But firing guns? Hell no! :loon:

[Zedo]

I didn't like the whole 'intelligent' zombie twist in the story but I found it had some humour and a few quite suspenseful moments. Simon Baker was great in this, as was Dennis Hopper.

[Creeping Death]

I didn't like the whole 'intelligent' zombie twist in the story but I found it had some humour and a few quite suspenseful moments. Simon Baker was great in this, as was Dennis Hopper.

I agree, Riley Denbo made this movie.
I can't imagine it without him. :think:

[sourceror]

It wasn't greatest zombie movie, but still good one. ;)

[Darius]

I dont get why people hate this for zombies being slightly more inteligent i mean they're using stuff SO WHAT? In night of the living dead zombies were actually quite fast if refered to the cemetary zombie plus they used rocks, in dawn of the dead it was clearly stated that some zombies are capable of using tools, in day of the dead Bub shot a gun...In all romero films (exept diary) zombies were able to use tools to bash things...

[DarthJoe8]

I dont get why people hate this for zombies being slightly more inteligent i mean they're using stuff SO WHAT? In night of the living dead zombies were actually quite fast if refered to the cemetary zombie plus they used rocks, in dawn of the dead it was clearly stated that some zombies are capable of using tools, in day of the dead Bub shot a gun...In all romero films (exept diary) zombies were able to use tools to bash things...

The difference for me is that in Night otLD the use of "instruments" was almost accidental.

In Land otD they jumped the shark, not only using "instruments" but planning, teaching other zeds, the use of tactics and strategies to attack the humans, to me that is just retarded. :roll:

What happened to, "They're dead, they're all messed up".:drinking:

[Creeping Death]

The difference for me is that in Night otLD the use of "instruments" was almost accidental.

In Land otD they jumped the shark, not only using "instruments" but planning, teaching other zeds, the use of tactics and strategies to attack the humans, to me that is just retarded. :roll:

What happened to, "They're dead, they're all messed up".:drinking:

That went out the window around the same time that social commentary in zom-flicks did.... :cry:

[UNDEAD FRED]

I didnt know that a zombie movie could personally offend someone. It is not going to win an Oscar, so just enjoy it.

[Subgenius]

The difference for me is that in Night otLD the use of "instruments" was almost accidental.

In Land otD they jumped the shark, not only using "instruments" but planning, teaching other zeds, the use of tactics and strategies to attack the humans, to me that is just retarded. :roll:

What happened to, "They're dead, they're all messed up".:drinking:

I don't agree that in NOTLD (1990) that the use of the rock to smash the window in the opening sequence (when Barbara was in the car) was merely accidental. The zombie attacked, banged on the window, looked down, picked up the rock, and used it to break the glass. It was quite deliberate and showed that the zombie used some brain function.

I have absolutely no problem with the so-called thinking zombies in Land of the Dead. In fact, I felt that the thinking zombies added to the idea of how horrific they can be versus the mindlessness of fast-running zombies. The shamblers become more frightening in that they do not merely shamble. It shows the same basic brain functions of non-sentient lifeforms that use basic rudimentary tools to catch food. Much like when a spider builds a web to catch bugs. Is that really intelligence, or merely just instinct?

Also, in Land of the Dead, Romero demonstrated that his zombies are actually aware of the environment around them and are aware of other zombies. Most of them never demonstrate intellect, but rather they just follow the leader (so to speak). Romero zombies are driven, as his films suggest, to consume the living by their "lizard brains" or that primitive core aspect to all humans. It seems fine by me that they work towards that goal by following what essentially became a pack leader in Big Daddy.

[DarthJoe8]

I don't agree that in NOTLD (1990) that the use of the rock to smash the window in the opening sequence (when Barbara was in the car) was merely accidental. The zombie attacked, banged on the window, looked down, picked up the rock, and used it to break the glass. It was quite deliberate and showed that the zombie used some brain function.

In 68 they didn't...and besides, that's a lot different than what GAR did with Land.

I have absolutely no problem with the so-called thinking zombies in Land of the Dead. In fact, I felt that the thinking zombies added to the idea of how horrific they can be versus the mindlessness of fast-running zombies.

Might as well just make them cannibals and skip all the dead and all messed up parts...

The shamblers become more frightening in that they do not merely shamble. It shows the same basic brain functions of non-sentient lifeforms that use basic rudimentary tools to catch food. Much like when a spider builds a web to catch bugs. Is that really intelligence, or merely just instinct?
I always thought that the zombies weren't the threat, it was us, the living who were the threat. What's the point in using zombies if you make them smart and thinking...use some other "monster"...there's lots to choose from.

Also, in Land of the Dead, Romero demonstrated that his zombies are actually aware of the environment around them and are aware of other zombies. Most of them never demonstrate intellect, but rather they just follow the leader (so to speak). Romero zombies are driven, as his films suggest, to consume the living by their "lizard brains" or that primitive core aspect to all humans. It seems fine by me that they work to wards that goal by following what essentially became a pack leader in Big Daddy.

Zombies aren't suppose to be aware of anything but where to find more food. Lizards do not have higher brain functions because they don't need them and neither do zombies, they only need to know, fight or flight and eat and f_ck. :lol: Zombies don't care about flight or f_ck and they shouldn't be getting mad when one of them gets killed. If that's the case then they shouldn't wanna eat their children and loved ones...

In LotD they were to organized for my liking. Remember, we're talking about DEAD reanimated corpses here. DEAD!! :scare: Isn't that scary enough??Of course, this is just one man's opinion.
:drinking:

Side note: The only time that I liked thinking zeds was in the Rising and City of the Dead, but there we're talking about beings possessing corpses.

[SWAT Zombie]

I always thought that the zombies weren't the threat, it was us, the living who were the threat. What's the point in using zombies if you make them smart and thinking...use some other "monster"...there's lots to choose from.

the point in using zombies that are smart and thinking is to provide a slightly different way of portraying zombies. if someone wants to make a zombie movie and make it a bit different by making some a bit smarter, why should they use some other monster. they don't want to use another monster, they want to use zombies. they just want to have something a bit different than the staggering idiot zombies that have been around for the last 40 years. but don't get me wrong, i don't want to see them sitting down and having sophisticated and articulate conversations like the gremlin who took some brain serum in Gremlins 2. i just like the idea of having them evolve a bit, just to keep it fresh.

and when was it said that zombies weren't the threat? isn't them being the threat, however thats portrayed, the point?

[Dogg Thang]

This was the Land of the Dead. It was not our land any more. The learning and organising of the zombies was something really only beginning but, for me, it fit with the whole feel of the movie. It is no longer our world any more. We die and something else will replace us.

This happens time and time again in history with seemingly very advanced civilisations crumbling and being replaced.

And, as far as this being a stretch for the whole idea of zombies, for me, I think it fits with what we saw in Night and Dawn and certainly then in Day with Bub. They are just like us. They're dead, they're all messed up. But they're just like us. And, if they can act out shopping by going on some dead memory, act out shaving, saluting, I don't see why they can't act out organising, act out becoming a force of their own.

After all, one of the most basic human survival methods is to form communities.

Notice too that they don't attack their own. As pointed out in Day, they aren't cannibals. There's a hint of the same message as Planet of the Apes here (even though apes actually do attack their own in real life) - we bring about our own downfall through conflict with each other. That has been key to all the Romero movies.

The zombies don't yet do that. In a way, they're more civilised than we are.

[tbrookside]

I found the changes in "zombie lore" in LOTD much more acceptable than the lapses in basic human logic.

To me it was absurd that US currency still had value. In that society, commodities like ammunition and food would be the only currencies. Dollars would be worthless. The society might have classes, so the whole "class struggle" thing Romero wanted to do was fine, but the classes would look more like those of the Middle Ages - with a military and technical warrior elite on top and everyone else under them. There wouldn't be a bunch of rich old ladies hanging out in a condo building as the ruling class.

But with those objections, it will still cool.

[Steve P]

To me it was absurd that US currency still had value. In that society, commodities like ammunition and food would be the only currencies. Dollars would be worthless. The society might have classes, so the whole "class struggle" thing Romero wanted to do was fine, but the classes would look more like those of the Middle Ages - with a military and technical warrior elite on top and everyone else under them. There wouldn't be a bunch of rich old ladies hanging out in a condo building as the ruling class.


Read about what happened in the Warsaw Ghetto. In a cut-off society complete with structures of class and wealth, both proved to be surprisingly robust. I suspect Romero got it absolutely right.

[tbrookside]

Read about what happened in the Warsaw Ghetto. In a cut-off society complete with structures of class and wealth, both proved to be surprisingly robust. I suspect Romero got it absolutely right.

I tip my hat to your fine example, but I think the difference is that in the Warsaw ghetto there was still an outside world where things like currency and jewelry still had value, and there was still an external society somewhere in the world where existing social distinctions still had meaning.

You have to personalize it and think about what your own reactions to the scenario would be. [And this seems like the right place to do that!] Would you personally regard currency as valuable? Maybe you would if you thought that other people would; any medium of exchange has value if enough people think that it does. But every time a scouting party went out, they could drive one of those fun vehicles up to a bank and get as much currency as they wanted. If you drop the population of the US 99.9% there's just too much currency "laying around" for it to retain value.

I think that character in The Stand got it right when she pointed to the diamonds her dead husband had bought her and said, "They're just rocks again, now." Something like that could never happen in the Warsaw ghetto because if you managed to get out, there was a whole world out there where things like diamonds were still valuable.