Official Land of the Dead Thread

[Bad Zombie Night]

I think it's just business... The theater chains make those decisions based on turn out... You're right though... There are crappier flicks out there that are beating Land... I think it's now at #21.

[R-Complex]

Hmm, don't know about this one. I'm from the Pittsburgh area and never heard fireworks referred to as "skyflowers".
I didn't mean that they called them "skyflowers", but that it was a reference to the (I assume) major yearly fireworks display that's a Pittsburgh tradition. See Zambelli's history with Pittsburgh and fireworks:
Fireworks! (http://www.post-gazette.com/obituaries/20031227zambelliobit2p2.asp)

[Bad Zombie Night]

I didn't mean that they called them "skyflowers", but that it was a reference to the (I assume) major yearly fireworks display that's a Pittsburgh tradition. See Zambelli's history with Pittsburgh and fireworks:
Fireworks! (http://www.post-gazette.com/obituaries/20031227zambelliobit2p2.asp)

GAR should put out a hint book that uncovers all the hidden meanings, and obscure references buried in the film.

[R-Complex]

..are u kidding me, Pulp FIction..i'm getting tired of fanboys R rating excuse, here's some Recent R rated flops for you:


Passion of the Christ - $370,782,930
Matrix Reloaded - $281,576,461
Terminator 3 - $150,371,112
Gladiator - $187,705,427
Air Force One - $172,956,409
Hannibal - $165,092,268

..those numbers are domestic only... case closed
Case far from closed!

I wouldn't call myself a deluded fanboy but these comparisons are really irrelevant strawmen. Matrix Reloaded!?!?! The marketing and star power of that film guaranteed a 200 million box office take! T3 and Hannibal.... sheesh, talk about an unfair fight! You're comparing fiscal apples to oranges here.

Also, while I certainly respect people's negative opinions of Land', I fail to see how it's demise at the box office has any bearing whatsoever on whether it's a good film or not; arguments defending or denigrating a film via fiscal success have little to do with the film itself. I truly doubted Land' would do better than the Dawn' remake due to the release date (pushed forward from Oct. to June up against Bewitched and WotWs), and budget (btw, someone asked whether it had surpassed its budget yet. It did: it cost 15m to produce). It brings to mind another film that critics and audiences shunned, propelling it into box office failure: John Carpenter's the Thing. It cost about 13 million to make and only grossed $13,782,838.00- a major flop! I think most here would agree with me that it's a classic horror film that still beats the hell out of cgi laden star led extravaganzas today. The Thing had the misfortune to be released at the same time as E.T., Tron and Star Trek II- all of which crushed it into obscurity, only to be praised years later as a worthy horror classic. While Land' has certainly not done well, it isn't the flop many are insinuating (of course interpretation of a flop versus a success is a thin line), and even if it's numbers don't result in enough interest for a sequel, I don't consider it's box office haul as a valid indicator of whether it's a great film or not.

Finally, argue the merits or lack of merits of the film itself. Tell us why you hated it! Don't dredge up numbers to bolster your case; they don't mean much compared to actual criticisms like weak acting, plot problems, bad screenplay, etc. Give details and actual analysis- don't tell me a film sucks because yourself and others hated Land' and aren't filling the theaters to see it, tell me in your own words why it's a bad film! Box office gross is interesting but it's available to all with internet access; posting the numbers repeatedly like some puerile mantra really is irrelevant. And using the numbers as fuel for a film review becomes the equivalent of a truckload of drunks driving by a bookstore and yelling Thomas Tryon sucks! They really are empty opinions with nothing to prop them up.

[R-Complex]

GAR should put out a hint book that uncovers all the hidden meanings, and obscure references buried in the film.
How cool would that be! Coming from the only guy in the audience of Dawn 04 to applaud at the women's wear scene where the store is named Gaylen Ross, I think that'd be great!
Or how about one of those "The Science of" books? Max Brooks' book is in the same vein but a detailed book exploring the science of zombies, the details of what a city would go through when the grid breaks down, etc. Someone call a publisher! :drinking:

[Brody]

....the details of what a city would go through when the grid breaks down, etc. Someone call a publisher! :drinking:

You're onto something.

Don't just stand there. Get busy. :clap:

[Quinn]

I was kinda hesitant to join the post release discussion because everyone I feel has a right to his or her opinion. The one thing that I will say is that publicity and advertising really is key in making any movie a blockbuster, otherwise things like toys and Burger King tie ins would be nonexistant today. Land had almost zero, where as Fantastic Four had oddles and made mega bucks.While Land may or may not be good in your opinion, it is a better film than Fantastic Four. So is quality a reason for Lands earnings? Also while one could say that Fanstic Four made bank due to its low rating, a counter would be Dawn making big bucks but also being rated R. However once again Dawn had a good deal of advertising (comercial, the USA preview of 10 min). I think a good test will be the new Rob Zombie film. Its rated R and has had a good deal of advertising. So when it comes out how well it fares compairtively to the other openings and blockbusters that week will be a good indicator of Lands overall fate in the eyes of Universal and a insight into Lands earnings.
Have a good day
Quinn

[R-Complex]

Don't just stand there. Get busy. :clap:
......now where do I get a "live" specimen to start my research on....? <grabs biology textbooks from shelf>
:zom3:

[Slas[-[er]

Case far from closed!

I wouldn't call myself a deluded fanboy but these comparisons are really irrelevant strawmen. Matrix Reloaded!?!?! The marketing and star power of that film guaranteed a 200 million box office take! T3 and Hannibal.... sheesh, talk about an unfair fight! You're comparing fiscal apples to oranges here.

Also, while I certainly respect people's negative opinions of Land', I fail to see how it's demise at the box office has any bearing whatsoever on whether it's a good film or not; arguments defending or denigrating a film via fiscal success have little to do with the film itself. I truly doubted Land' would do better than the Dawn' remake due to the release date (pushed forward from Oct. to June up against Bewitched and WotWs), and budget (btw, someone asked whether it had surpassed its budget yet. It did: it cost 15m to produce). It brings to mind another film that critics and audiences shunned, propelling it into box office failure: John Carpenter's the Thing. It cost about 13 million to make and only grossed $13,782,838.00- a major flop! I think most here would agree with me that it's a classic horror film that still beats the hell out of cgi laden star led extravaganzas today. The Thing had the misfortune to be released at the same time as E.T., Tron and Star Trek II- all of which crushed it into obscurity, only to be praised years later as a worthy horror classic. While Land' has certainly not done well, it isn't the flop many are insinuating (of course interpretation of a flop versus a success is a thin line), and even if it's numbers don't result in enough interest for a sequel, I don't consider it's box office haul as a valid indicator of whether it's a great film or not.

Finally, argue the merits or lack of merits of the film itself. Tell us why you hated it! Don't dredge up numbers to bolster your case; they don't mean much compared to actual criticisms like weak acting, plot problems, bad screenplay, etc. Give details and actual analysis- don't tell me a film sucks because yourself and others hated Land' and aren't filling the theaters to see it, tell me in your own words why it's a bad film! Box office gross is interesting but it's available to all with internet access; posting the numbers repeatedly like some puerile mantra really is irrelevant. And using the numbers as fuel for a film review becomes the equivalent of a truckload of drunks driving by a bookstore and yelling Thomas Tryon sucks! They really are empty opinions with nothing to prop them up.


..i think u've kinda misstepped my point..i was just clarifying that a major R rated release is very capable of making $150 hundred mill..and it's not that uncommon...with the current Zombie craze and Gar's return LOTD was definatley riding a wave into the box office...to say that because LOTD doesnt gross $150 hundred mill its a failure is silly, not saything that, however, theoritically i think a rule is a well to good perceived fillm by audiences can double its budget...so Matrix should make $300 hundred mill and LOTD should make $35-40 mill

"The marketing and star power of that film guaranteed a 200 million box office take" ..My Big Fat Greek wedding made $280 hundred mill, nuff said ...'The thing" was released in 1982 and is not really relevant in terms of box office numbers today ...

...u don't consider box office haul as a valid indicator of whether it's a great film or not BS,..70% audience drop off after first week isnt a indicator, yah and denial isn't just a river in Egypt, i think its a perfectly reasonable indicator and America has clearly spoken...

[Slas[-[er]

I was kinda hesitant to join the post release discussion because everyone I feel has a right to his or her opinion. The one thing that I will say is that publicity and advertising really is key in making any movie a blockbuster, otherwise things like toys and Burger King tie ins would be nonexistant today. Land had almost zero, where as Fantastic Four had oddles and made mega bucks.While Land may or may not be good in your opinion, it is a better film than Fantastic Four. So is quality a reason for Lands earnings? Also while one could say that Fanstic Four made bank due to its low rating, a counter would be Dawn making big bucks but also being rated R. However once again Dawn had a good deal of advertising (comercial, the USA preview of 10 min). I think a good test will be the new Rob Zombie film. Its rated R and has had a good deal of advertising. So when it comes out how well it fares compairtively to the other openings and blockbusters that week will be a good indicator of Lands overall fate in the eyes of Universal and a insight into Lands earnings.
Have a good day
Quinn


..a point needed to be made is that film quality and marketing are not mutually exclusive,...that is to say marketing campaign and film budget are not the only two things dependent on eachother...months before LOTD's release the studio formulated an idea of the films worth, very poor potential most likely, and launched its marketing campaign accordingly with regard to investment and its ROI potential.....the studio would have Blitzkriegd the public with LOTD if they percieved it to be a 'GREAT' Film like so many fanboys like to declare...Yes, Fantastic Four is not oscar worthly cinema, but it has tremendous ROI ability in its' brand and production budget and was campaigned accordingly...

[Quinn]

I guess if the studios perception dictates the quality of film or perhaps the potential for it to be sold to the audience than why does a film such as Rejects get the ad hike with a relatively low budget and little known actors when something like Below which had the same level of cast and percieved level of quality, but has elements that are more easily marketed gets the shaft? Is it the studio, the quality of the movie, or merely the percieved quality of the movie?
I think thats why this discussion is going to go around and around again, becuase people percieve the films merits diffrently and thus that forms their opinion of Lands and indeed any films success or failure. I see Land as a good film and thus see issues like ad time, release timing, or just the general bad movie season as reasons for its failure to earn 30 or so million. Others see the film as bad and use similiar reasons on the opposite side of the fence to show why it failed. Either way as far as return on investment Universal cant be too mad. It cost 13 mill to make and will proably make 25 to 30 with worldwide and DVD sales.
Finally I think alot of people thought that Universal moved Land up to Summer becuase of its quality. I tend to think it was either because to get the DVD out for Halloween, or to make Doom a sure fire hit in the fall as opposed to it going against more well known blockbusters like the Star Wars movie or War of the Worlds. Land was kinda of the crazy little film to be relased in the summer so that a film like Doom could bring in good dough. Because when you think about it, if Land was released in the fall would anyone be expecting it to make 20 million right out of the gate, very doubtful. A film even if subpar can be released in the fall at Halloween and make good money due to the season or even the general lack of films being released then. I think that is kinda the reason why RE 2 was intially deleayed.
Have a good day
Quinn

[corgi37]

My gut instincts tell me Slas[-[er is some thing we dont really see much around here.

A Troll. It will get my respect when it has posted 500 times, until then, it is a just a dick head to me.

And here's why, Dickhead.

I am Australian. Our rating system is NOT THE SAME as the U.S. Comprehend? I was stating that Pulp Fiction was probably the last fully successful "R" release here in Oz. That is because our "R" rating forbids any one under 18 seeing it.

Why are you so glad LOTD has failed? Does it rock your little boat? Citizen Kane was a flop too. If you want to get into brass tacks, Apocalypse Now was considered a flop too.

So, get a dog up ya, Troll.

P.S. LOTD has a MA rating when it opens here in 2 weeks. That means any one can see it, though its supposed to be 15 years and older. That is good, but i still dont think it will take more than $500,000 - $1mill here.

[corgi37]

Wow! That was a nasty post, wasnt it?

[Pain]

Wow! That was a nasty post, wasnt it?

Very subtle! :lol:

Regardless of any negative comments here i'll still be there on opening day to see it. When the rest of the world no doubt have it available on dvd :x

[Slas[-[er]

My gut instincts tell me Slas[-[er is some thing we dont really see much around here.

A Troll. It will get my respect when it has posted 500 times, until then, it is a just a dick head to me.

And here's why, Dickhead.

I am Australian. Our rating system is NOT THE SAME as the U.S. Comprehend? I was stating that Pulp Fiction was probably the last fully successful "R" release here in Oz. That is because our "R" rating forbids any one under 18 seeing it.

Why are you so glad LOTD has failed? Does it rock your little boat? Citizen Kane was a flop too. If you want to get into brass tacks, Apocalypse Now was considered a flop too.

So, get a dog up ya, Troll.

P.S. LOTD has a MA rating when it opens here in 2 weeks. That means any one can see it, though its supposed to be 15 years and older. That is good, but i still dont think it will take more than $500,000 - $1mill here.


..u didnt say Oz in ur initial statement, u should clarify that better..USA is the central Hub of the Film World it's the standard...noone gives a F what pulp fiction made as R rated film in OZ no offence...

..yes it does please when i hear Herbie beat Land of the DumFUk's AZZ like Ike turner..it gets me hot actually..America has spoken and rejected this film cuz its Sh!T and i'm proud of them for having some taste...if on the other hand LOTDwas a brilliant masterpeice and Gar got rejected at the box office regardless, tho i wouldnt be too shocked, i'd be livid and disillusioned with America..but as it is America backs my assessment and so i am in jubliee

[Slas[-[er]

I guess if the studios perception dictates the quality of film or perhaps the potential for it to be sold to the audience than why does a film such as Rejects get the ad hike with a relatively low budget and little known actors when something like Below which had the same level of cast and percieved level of quality, but has elements that are more easily marketed gets the shaft? Is it the studio, the quality of the movie, or merely the percieved quality of the movie?
I think thats why this discussion is going to go around and around again, becuase people percieve the films merits diffrently and thus that forms their opinion of Lands and indeed any films success or failure. I see Land as a good film and thus see issues like ad time, release timing, or just the general bad movie season as reasons for its failure to earn 30 or so million. Others see the film as bad and use similiar reasons on the opposite side of the fence to show why it failed. Either way as far as return on investment Universal cant be too mad. It cost 13 mill to make and will proably make 25 to 30 with worldwide and DVD sales.
Finally I think alot of people thought that Universal moved Land up to Summer becuase of its quality. I tend to think it was either because to get the DVD out for Halloween, or to make Doom a sure fire hit in the fall as opposed to it going against more well known blockbusters like the Star Wars movie or War of the Worlds. Land was kinda of the crazy little film to be relased in the summer so that a film like Doom could bring in good dough. Because when you think about it, if Land was released in the fall would anyone be expecting it to make 20 million right out of the gate, very doubtful. A film even if subpar can be released in the fall at Halloween and make good money due to the season or even the general lack of films being released then. I think that is kinda the reason why RE 2 was intially deleayed.
Have a good day
Quinn


..i don't even see it as an issue..i think LOTD fails on both fronts, as a fast-paced summer action movie or as a literate satircal horror film...dont know if that makes much sense, but i do not see any merit in this film whatsoever for fans of any Genre...i cant speak for Universals impressions.. but i imagine they might be using DOTD 2004 as the standard to compare this films success or failure...there so many factors invovled its complex to predict what it could have made in different scenarios....however, a Halloween release without the Rock i think it could have made $35-40 mill easy in the first weekend...but the studios looking for a $60 million dollar weekend or so... what did RE2 make anyways cuz that movie SUXD!!

..another thing i always said there was no such thing as a bad zombie movie...but i was wrong after i saw..Land of the Dead cuz it SUXX#@@!!

[Slas[-[er]

My gut instincts tell me Slas[-[er is some thing we dont really see much around here.A Troll. It will get my respect when it has posted 500 times, until then, it is a just a dick head to me.



..i avg like 5 posts a day since i joined..how does that make the definition of a troll u Retard!

[R-Complex]

..i think u've kinda misstepped my point..i was just clarifying that a major R rated release is very capable of making $150 hundred mill..and it's not that uncommon...with the current Zombie craze and Gar's return LOTD was definatley riding a wave into the box office...to say that because LOTD doesnt gross $150 hundred mill its a failure is silly, not saything that, however, theoritically i think a rule is a well to good perceived fillm by audiences can double its budget...so Matrix should make $300 hundred mill and LOTD should make $35-40 mill
I agree that an R rating does not necessarily doom a picture to failure, but it is certainly a valid influence. The lackluster marketing campaign as well as the unfortunate release date of Land’ were definitely factors as well. I hardly think that a film that has surpassed its budget in profits while yet to reach Europe or Japan (where Romero is a cult favorite and has even been dubbed “Grandfather Zombie”) is a failure. And that’s not even considering the potential dvd sales. I admit that Land’s performance at the box office was disappointing, but I don’t think it falls into the “flop” category nor does it preclude a sequel.
..My Big Fat Greek wedding made $280 hundred mill, nuff said ...'The thing" was released in 1982 and is not really relevant in terms of box office numbers today ...
Maybe I’m missing a component of your argument but I fail to see how My Big Fat Greek Wedding is even relevant to the discussion. Of course My Big Fat’ did phenomenally well, but for every small film made by unknowns there are thousands of small films made by unknowns that fall to the wayside and are never heard from again! My Big Fat’ was the cinematic equivalent of winning the lottery (I can’t believe I used the word “cinema”.... I am such a pretentious prick). My Big Fat’ is a glaring example of the exception, and really doesn’t bolster your argument. As for the Thing: How does it being released in ‘82 remove it from the discussion?!?!?! Of course it’s relevant to box office totals 25 years ago as well as today! I feel as if I’m missing some aspect of your argument here.....
...u don't consider box office haul as a valid indicator of whether it's a great film or not BS,..70% audience drop off after first week isnt a indicator, yah and denial isn't just a river in Egypt, i think its a perfectly reasonable indicator and America has clearly spoken...
Nope. No impact at all. I’ll say it again: box office haul has no bearing whatsoever on my opinion of a film, nor should it influence any one else’s opinion. Adopting your view, Titanic is the best film ever, hands down, I-am-right-you-are-wrong, greatest masterpiece to date film! In fact, since 28 Days Later grossed $45 m., Dawn ‘04 nearly $59 m., and Day’ $5 m.- and the combined total of these films is just over 1/6th of Titanic’s take- Titanic stomps all of these into irrelevance! I don’t see how American’s impact on the box office has any bearing on the issue. Nor does the opinion, as reflected in box office totals, of Great Britain, Japan, etc., have any importance here. Adhering to your criteria of box office success equaling a film’s worth, I suppose Bollywood productions are the greatest films for they consistently rake in loot that would make a Dawn’ pale in comparison.

[R-Complex]

I guess if the studios perception dictates the quality of film...
Great post Quinn. Literate, thoughtful and reasoned. :think:

[Brody]

Alright let's relax guys. Another healthy debate chalked up to our love of the genre; it's just a matter of opinion, thats all. So much being said after a few pages I'll just chime in as merit calls.

I'd say Devils Rejects is getting a boost merely for it being 'something else'. This film is not common and is being called a 'standout'. It's paying homage of course with its TEXAS CHAINSAW/LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT mentality but when is the last time we have seen something like this? Does the TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE count? OR was it that that film was highly succesful that this might be a trend in Horror? Give me something gritty and dirsty. I don't want to know what you did last summer; I wan't to see the carnage first hand. They are marekting this with a "WE DARE YOU TO SEE IT" approach.

Part of me has to admit that upon seeing the final cut of LAND they knew they didn't have much to work with. We can't say it wasn't marketed cause it was but we're talking a sub-genre R RATED Horror film at that. It just doesnt have that ZING so what's to market? Are they gonna spend 15 Million more on it?

I think a rare event an R Rated film is capable of grossing 150; its a stretch. Im thinking $50 to $80 Million is the best stretch

Interesting Link (http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2005-03-15-showest_x.htm)

I'm with Slasher. LAND sucked hard. (You guy's know that I have felt this way). I was truly let-down. Romero (or whomever) just dropped the ball. If they had something to market they would have. Shaun was marketed heavy and it payed off. It really was hilarious and fun and full of the zombie love. DAWN 04 payed off as it had the horror action down perfectly. 28 Days Later payed off as it had the 'reinvention of Zombie Horror'. It did what RE failed to do and that was scare us.

I'll say it here and now: I Am bummed LAND flopped.

[Quinn]

Thanks for the compliement R-Complex much appreciated.
Have a good day
Quinn

[Slas[-[er]

I agree that an R rating does not necessarily doom a picture to failure, but it is certainly a valid influence. The lackluster marketing campaign as well as the unfortunate release date of Land’ were definitely factors as well. I hardly think that a film that has surpassed its budget in profits while yet to reach Europe or Japan (where Romero is a cult favorite and has even been dubbed “Grandfather Zombie”) is a failure. And that’s not even considering the potential dvd sales. I admit that Land’s performance at the box office was disappointing, but I don’t think it falls into the “flop” category nor does it preclude a sequel.

Maybe I’m missing a component of your argument but I fail to see how My Big Fat Greek Wedding is even relevant to the discussion. Of course My Big Fat’ did phenomenally well, but for every small film made by unknowns there are thousands of small films made by unknowns that fall to the wayside and are never heard from again! My Big Fat’ was the cinematic equivalent of winning the lottery (I can’t believe I used the word “cinema”.... I am such a pretentious prick). My Big Fat’ is a glaring example of the exception, and really doesn’t bolster your argument. As for the Thing: How does it being released in ‘82 remove it from the discussion?!?!?! Of course it’s relevant to box office totals 25 years ago as well as today! I feel as if I’m missing some aspect of your argument here.....

Nope. No impact at all. I’ll say it again: box office haul has no bearing whatsoever on my opinion of a film, nor should it influence any one else’s opinion. Adopting your view, Titanic is the best film ever, hands down, I-am-right-you-are-wrong, greatest masterpiece to date film! In fact, since 28 Days Later grossed $45 m., Dawn ‘04 nearly $59 m., and Day’ $5 m.- and the combined total of these films is just over 1/6th of Titanic’s take- Titanic stomps all of these into irrelevance! I don’t see how American’s impact on the box office has any bearing on the issue. Nor does the opinion, as reflected in box office totals, of Great Britain, Japan, etc., have any importance here. Adhering to your criteria of box office success equaling a film’s worth, I suppose Bollywood productions are the greatest films for they consistently rake in loot that would make a Dawn’ pale in comparison.

...70% drop off after first week speeks volumes...it is a failure in my opinon, regardless of the marketing campaign....industry looks at the domestic 'box office numbers'..noone cares about DVD sales right now..okay of course its gonna make money on DVD duh..u dont figure in DVD sales, overseas sales, cable deals with HBO or that crap and than hand in the tally...the industry will determine its success or failure by its domestic box office take...not by its deal with HBO in 2 years....

....on that point, Big Fat Greek Wedding..i was just trying to illustrate the power of word of mouth...of course that is not the standard i surely wasnt suggesting that..'Th thing' is totally removed, there was completely different industry standards in 1982 its totally removed from discussion...$20 mill in 1982 is comparison to $20 mill in summer of 2005 are u F'ing kidding me!!

..again a 70% drop off after first week paints a pretty vivid picture...it's not a perfect science i aint saying that..if u look at it logically, certainly a blockbuster like Fantastic Four making $200 mill is not a fair comparison to the piano making $20 mill...there not the same category...by comparing numbers of a summer blockbuster like Fantastic Four to blockbuster like Spiderman 2 u can get an indicator....or by comparing LOTD to DOTD 2004....Titanic was an incredible film and i might argue mabye the greatest film of all time in terms of a combination of production and cinematic excellence...and it was rewarded accordingly so...America BOx office is the standard we use and it has been since films inception here what else would we use...just like MLBA is the standard for comparing american baseball players and stats from past eras...u don't compare the value of Babe Ruths homerun record to Japanese players..

[Slas[-[er]

I was truly let-down. Romero (or whomever) just dropped the ball. If they had something to market they would have. Shaun was marketed heavy and it payed off. It really was hilarious and fun and full of the zombie love. DAWN 04 payed off as it had the horror action down perfectly. 28 Days Later payed off as it had the 'reinvention of Zombie Horror'. It did what RE failed to do and that was scare us.

I'll say it here and now: I Am bummed LAND flopped.

..percisely the studio had nothing to market..the film just does'nt have any hook

[R-Complex]

...Another healthy debate chalked up to our love of the genre; it's just a matter of opinion, thats all.
:greet:
Yep....
I'd say Devils Rejects is getting a boost merely for it being 'something else'. This film is not common and is being called a 'standout'. It's paying homage of course with its TEXAS CHAINSAW/LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT mentality but when is the last time we have seen something like this? Does the TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE count?
I think the TX Powertool Slaughter counts as does the Dawn' remake. I'd also include Haute Tension in there. I welcome new (as opposed to remakes) horror films that pay homage to their 70s cousins. The dirtier, grittier, and uglier the better!
Part of me has to admit that upon seeing the final cut of LAND they knew they didn't have much to work with. We can't say it wasn't marketed cause it was but we're talking a sub-genre R RATED Horror film at that. It just doesnt have that ZING so what's to market? Are they gonna spend 15 Million more on it?
I guess it would be redundant of me to say I disagree. But I tip my cap to ya, for we agree that all this bickering comes from a passion for the genre and not anything personal or malicious is intended! :eat:
(What's with me and the smilies tonight...?)
I think a rare event an R Rated film is capable of grossing 150; its a stretch. Im thinking $50 to $80 Million is the best stretch
Agreed. An optimistic stretch at that.
It did what RE failed to do and that was scare us.
That gives me an idea for a new thread..... Maybe tomorrow.
...LAND flopped.
Aaaarrghhhhh! The FLOP word! Take it out back and shoot it in the head! :zom2: <tips "cordially disagree" cap towards Outland Pics>..... I can't stay mad at a guy who has MacReady as his avatar.......
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/Sugriva/Thing.jpg

[Slas[-[er]

I guess if the studios perception dictates the quality of film...


...what the studios perception of a film dictates the films quality..in the eyes of the public..i surely wasn't saying that...just that the studios marketing campaign will be in accordance with their perception of the films worth, quality is the wrong word,.

[R-Complex]

.......industry looks at the domestic 'box office numbers'..noone cares about DVD sales right now..okay of course its gonna make money on DVD duh..u dont figure in DVD sales, overseas sales, cable deals with HBO or that crap and than hand in the tally...
:doh: You're kidding me- right? Dvd sales, international markets and cable distribution don't contribute to the tally? Wow....
....Big Fat Greek Wedding..i was just trying to illustrate the power of word of mouth...of course that is not the standard i surely wasnt suggesting that..'Th thing' is totally removed, there was completely different industry standards in 1982 its totally removed from discussion...$20 mill in 1982 is comparison to $20 mill in summer of 2005 are u F'ing kidding me!!
I understood the comparison and simply pointed out how it was a massive non sequitur. I'm not comparing 20 m. in '82 vs. 20 m. today; the point is that the Thing barely broke even and Land' not only broke even, it surpassed it's production budget within two weeks. Not a great achievement but certainly relevant here.
...America BOx office is the standard we use and it has been since films inception here what else would we use...just like MLBA is the standard for comparing american baseball players and stats from past eras...u don't compare the value of Babe Ruths homerun record to Japanese players..
Again, ya lost me. Yes, American box office is the standard we use to determine how much a film makes but not wheter it's a quality film! And I don't think your grasp of the foreign film market is that firm; the performance of an American production in Japan or elsewhere is often more important than domestic sales.

[Slas[-[er]

:doh: You're kidding me- right? Dvd sales, international markets and cable distribution don't contribute to the tally? Wow....

I understood the comparison and simply pointed out how it was a massive non sequitur. I'm not comparing 20 m. in '82 vs. 20 m. today; the point is that the Thing barely broke even and Land' not only broke even, it surpassed it's production budget within two weeks. Not a great achievement but certainly relevant here.

Again, ya lost me. Yes, American box office is the standard we use to determine how much a film makes but not wheter it's a quality film! And I don't think your grasp of the foreign film market is that firm; the performance of an American production in Japan or elsewhere is often more important than domestic sales.


..techincally they do contribute to the tally...but the industry uses the domestic box office numbers as the guage in determining a films success, thats the reality...film critics are not going to hold judgement on LOTD being a flop to see how does with its HBO Deal in 2 years that is ludicrous..theyll judge it as failure or success now..

..throw it out of discussion..

..no its not a exact barometer for a films quality, of course not, but american box office is not an unreasonable method for film comparison in trying to deduce a films cinematics merits...what the hell else would u use...i guarantee you noone in AMerica or HOllywood gives a damn what LOTD made in LUxembourgh or any other foreign place..

[Mindtraveller]

box office is not an unreasonable method for film comparison in trying to deduce a films cinematics merits...

Wrong. Something that has been forgotten by most people is that cinema is first and foremost an artform. Hollywood has taken it and turned it into part of the entertainment industry, just like what has happened with many other forms of art.

This is why the only thing box office figures can dictate is the (lack of) financial success a movie has achieved.

Where artistic merit and depth are concerned, a film by itself possesses an inherent value, and it's up to the individual to understand and acknowledge it. This value is unmodified by the financial gains the film might have earned.

[zombiekilling101]

ok.. for all this "hollywood isnt art talk" thats just bullshit. So by me being a "indie" filmaker, that makes it art, but if i were to get into hollwoood, with studio money, than it suddenly wouldny be?

[Brody]

This thread is going all over

Hollywood first and foremost is a business. This is why they call the Industry or The Business

Hollywood regulary makes films they are banking on (no pun) to be profitable. Domestic Box Office Gross is indeed the strongest indicator on whether or not we'll see a sequel.

The rare films that Hollywood does turn out; think 21 Grams, Million Dollar Baby or Sideways that may be construed as art and usually very passionate and emotionaly tied works (I'm speaking in general terms and comparing to Fantastic 4 for example) but it is the War of the Worlds, Batman Begins and Fantastic Fours that make the wheels go round in that town.

Back on topic

$20 Million is not a good indicator we'll see another George A Romero Directed Zombie Film. A $60,000,000 Dawn of the Dead (04) ? There is a high chance we might see one in the future

[Mindtraveller]

ok.. for all this "hollywood isnt art talk" thats just bullshit. So by me being a "indie" filmaker, that makes it art, but if i were to get into hollwoood, with studio money, than it suddenly wouldny be?

This is an assumption on your part. As Outland Pictures already mentioned, Hollywood might release -from time to time- a film that has artistic merit, but it basically strives on mindless entertainment that sells. Independent films aren't automatically art either, there is as much crap going on as there is in the mainstream.

[Brody]

Somewhere above Dawn 04 was mentioned (when is it no mentioned in these healty debates?) in regards to marketing....

For me, the opening sequence alone is worth the price of admission. That sequence is what I wish there was more of in these Zombie films. I can assume they put that on USA NETWORK cause they knew it kicked ass. They saw it and said "Oh yeah."

Now take LAND. IS there any ONE sequence that just kicks ass in this film? FOr me there was not one single moment where I was stoked; sans maybe the opening LOGO.

But.........

Out of respect for the board members here; I am going to stop saying it was a flop or that it sucked. I'll choose my critique prose with a bit more precision and tact!

:drinking:

[zombiekilling101]

Now take LAND. IS there any ONE sequence that just kicks ass in this film? FOr me there was not one single moment where I was stoked; sans maybe the opening LOGO.



:drinking:

I think the best sequence was in the garden with the zombies. that was a great intro back into the romero world.

[Brody]

I respect that angle and well put with "...back into Romero's world." :clap:

[Mindtraveller]

IS there any ONE sequence that just kicks ass in this film?

The sequence where the zombies rise out of the water is pretty good, although -as it has been mentioned before- it's an obvious... homage (?), maybe nod is a better term, to Carnival of Souls.

[Brody]

Interesting!

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9963/cos4pw.jpg


Ill keep my eyes peeled to for this film (I have never seen it!)

[Bad Zombie Night]

The sequence where the zombies rise out of the water is pretty good, although -as it has been mentioned before- it's an obvious... homage (?), maybe nod is a better term, to Carnival of Souls.
...And I thought GAR had a soft spot for the movie Shock Waves. :roll:

Maybe if GAR gave it some thought, he could've had a Zombie vs Shark scene like in Zombie, except on a massive scale... He could've had an under water scene, where his two or three dozen Zombies crossing the channel, meet up with a school of great whites! :shock:
Now that's what you call film making!

[Brody]

Now that would have kicked ass! :drinking: :scare: :)

[zombiekilling101]

Now that would have kicked ass! :drinking: :scare: :)

jeez that would have been awesome, i heard awhile back though that george had an underwater zombie scene, but than pirates of the carribean came out so he took it out:x

[R-Complex]

Interesting!
Ill keep my eyes peeled to for this film (I have never seen it!)
:shock:
You must see this film! The Criterion edition is phenomenal. It's influence on NotLD is really apparent after seeing it the first time. It's kind of like the best episodes of Twilight Zone with more emphasis on paranoia and fear than an abject moral lesson. Absolutely essential!
And the pasty faced ghouls....... :scare: man I love b&w films!

[Slas[-[er]

Wrong. Something that has been forgotten by most people is that cinema is first and foremost an artform. Hollywood has taken it and turned it into part of the entertainment industry, just like what has happened with many other forms of art.

This is why the only thing box office figures can dictate is the (lack of) financial success a movie has achieved.

Where artistic merit and depth are concerned, a film by itself possesses an inherent value, and it's up to the individual to understand and acknowledge it. This value is unmodified by the financial gains the film might have earned.

..BS!!..are you making grand pronouncements that u know what art is..HOW dare u....that it is not Spiderman 2 and its vibrant and colorful CGI work..but it is ur darling indie film with great depth and substance BS!....Spidermans beautiful CGI's have just as equal much artistic merit as anyother BS art u subject urself too...and how dare u deem to know otherwise..is just as much an art form as anything u declare to be an artform...the truth is nothing is not art..there is only good art and bad art..and that is all subjective...i would much rather guage a films merits and worth on Box Office numbers, which i think paint a far more clearer picture and are much more objective as they represent analysis from a much larger pool...as oppose to some reviewers biase opinion on what they declare this film to be or not to be or what is art...

This is an assumption on your part. As Outland Pictures already mentioned, Hollywood might release -from time to time- a film that has artistic merit, but it basically strives on mindless entertainment that sells. Independent films aren't automatically art either, there is as much crap going on as there is in the mainstream.

..Again how dare u deem to know urself what Hollywood films constitue having artistic merit...it is a impossible and endless relativistic aesthetic debate..

[ZOMBATCommand]

I just wish Romero would have had all the money he needed for "Land". When I met Greg Nicotero he was talking about doing all these insane effects like having lots of animatronic zombies that were so rotten you could see through them and none of it was in the film.The budget was just too small.

[Mindtraveller]

..BS!!..are you making grand pronouncements that u know what art is..

Eh, I know what art is.

that it is not Spiderman 2 and its vibrant and colorful CGI work..but it is ur darling indie film with great depth and substance BS!....

You are putting words in my mouth, you are deviating the conversation twisting ideas to fit what you wish I had said. Please read the posts I have made in this thread.

Spidermans beautiful CGI's have just as equal much artistic merit as anyother BS art u subject urself too...

Nope. Spiderman's visuals are aesthetic values only. Great craftmanship, though.

and how dare u deem to know otherwise..is just as much an art form as anything u declare to be an artform...the truth is nothing is not art..there is only good art and bad art..and that is all subjective...

Wrong again. Art is not completely subjective, it actually is mostly objective, only entering the subjective realm once it has been established as art.

i would much rather guage a films merits and worth on Box Office numbers, which i think paint a far more clearer picture and are much more objective as they represent analysis from a much larger pool...as oppose to some reviewers biase opinion on what they declare this film to be or not to be or what is art...

Well, that's your choice. Me, I'd rather gauge a film's merit based on its own value, and then using my own observation, analysis and critical thought.

..Again how dare u deem to know urself what Hollywood films constitue having artistic merit...it is a impossible and endless relativistic aesthetic debate..

I don't understand why you keep saying "how you dare". I know what art is.

This kind of postmodernist thought about how everything and anything is art, and how there's only good and bad art is probably one of the worst things that have happened to any and all artforms.

[Slas[-[er]

Now take LAND. IS there any ONE sequence that just kicks ass in this film? FOr me there was not one single moment where I was stoked; sans maybe the opening LOGO.



...kick ass sequence in LOTD??..sure...that scene where there crusing along in that moded parking shuttle and the driver hooks the steering wheel..and the dude gets thrown and inadvertenly chainsaws his friendly blonde passenger in two..that was wicked awsome..oh wait.. that was DOTD 2004 my bad...

...okay okay..how about that scene where those zombies full ablaze are still insistently chasing their victims down ...a very cool scene....oh damn my bad, thats 28 days later....

..i guess i cant think of any right now

[Brody]

I think the bottomline reasoning here is

Art is subjective. One man's Monet is another's Velvet Dog's Playing Poker.

I tend to be on the curve of thumbing my nose at Spiderman 2 or Fantastic 4 being art. This is merely my opinion and nothing else.

[Slas[-[er]

Eh, I know what art is.



....BHWHAHAHA!#!! ...do you know what a ridiculous lunatic statement that is!..you know what art is!!.. u sound like a mad man

...u know what art is..than please define it for us..that is a pretty lofty postion to be the one deciding what art is, and im not sure u are capable of having such a position....nor would the public deem u to be worthy of such a position....and how dare u deem to know what artistic value Spider man 2 merits..that is just some aesthetic visuals??...complete mad man u are!

[Mindtraveller]

....BHWHAHAHA!#!! ...do you know what a ridiculous lunatic statement that is!..you know what art is!!.. u sound like a mad man

...u know what art is..than please define it for us..that is a pretty lofty postion to be the one deciding what art is, and im not sure u are capable of having such a position....nor would the public deem u to be worthy of such a position....and how dare u deem to know what artistic value Spider man 2 merits..that is just some aesthetic visuals??...complete mad man u are!

The problem is that at the moment you are not willing to listen and understand, you are mostly concerned with trying to disregard what I'm saying by using ad hominems.

I've engaged into an exchange of ideas regarding this topic several times in my life. The thing is that if the person I'm talking to is not willing to listen, but is only worried about "winning an argument", then such a conversation is futile and a waste of my time.

If you wish to discuss these matters in a rational and civilized manner, then you are more than welcome, although I'm not sure such talk should belong here, as the thread would be derailed. Just let me know.

[Slas[-[er]

Wrong again. Art is not completely subjective, it actually is mostly objective, only entering the subjective realm once it has been established as art.


..WHAT!@#!! "once it has been established as art"..by who u Ass, what governing body is deciding this....ur moma has just as much right to establish something as art as anybody else...which is to say nobody..what a ridiculous statement not even worth responding too

[Slas[-[er]

The problem is that at the moment you are not willing to listen and understand, you are mostly concerned with trying to disregard what I'm saying by using ad hominems.

I've engaged into an exchange of ideas regarding this topic several times in my life. The thing is that if the person I'm talking to is not willing to listen, but is only worried about "winning an argument", then such a conversation is futile and a waste of my time.

If you wish to discuss these matters in a rational and civilized manner, then you are more than welcome, although I'm not sure such talk should belong here, as the thread would be derailed. Just let me know.


..u read my mind, enough with this nonsense...lets get back to some good old fashion LOTD Bashing@!!!

[goesaround]

You are right.'Carnival of Souls' is one of the scariest movies of all times.I saw it on t.v. on creature feature. This was 1969 I was 17 and I was making a P.47 Thunderbolt. Well I glued the wheels to the cockpit I was so scared!! B/W Creepy Reality The ghost-ghouls definitely influened Romero. In fact one of them that appears in the car window threatining the girl is recreated as a zombie in Night of the Living Dead!! The zombie coming out of the water is actually a exact shot of Apocalypse now!!! I wonder why the guy 'Herk' something never made another horroe flim after 'Carnival of Souls'? Or did he?

[Mindtraveller]

..u read my mind, enough with this nonsense...lets get back to some good old fashion LOTD Bashing@!!!

That settles it with you then.

If anyone else is interested in talking about the subject, the invitation is still open, be it via PM or by starting a thread at the chat lounge.

[Slas[-[er]

... you are mostly concerned with trying to disregard what I'm saying by using ad hominems.

...my point is intended to be addressed to all persons not specifically "you" ...i address all persons who would make such statements...and yes i had to look that one up (ad hominem)..

[Slas[-[er]

Now take LAND. IS there any ONE sequence that just kicks ass in this film? FOr me there was not one single moment where I was stoked; sans maybe the opening LOGO.


..another kick ass scene in LOTD is when there in that narrow chamber and the defence system goes nuts with the guided lazer beam and starts annihilating all the troops...that was wicked bad ass..

..what??

[Brody]

Now I am on the hunt for Carnival. Damn it. I must see this! :x :scare:

[tarman]

this thread is getting just plain silly! :loon:

[Bad Zombie Night]

OMG! It has finally happened!


Land broke the $20M mark as of Tuesday and it has made a total of $20,037,030
Now all you Land fans can rest in peace. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/zzzgoodnight.gif


On a secondary note... Land has opened in Mexico and Italy, bringing in another $675,097 making the grand total $20,712,127!

WOW! Can you feel the energy! http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/nanners/0489.gif

[Slas[-[er]

OMG! It has finally happened!


Land broke the $20M mark as of Tuesday and it has made a total of $20,037,030
Now all you Land fans can rest in peace. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/zzzgoodnight.gif


On a secondary note... Land has opened in Mexico and Italy, bringing in another $675,097 making the grand total $20,712,127!

WOW! Can you feel the energy! http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/nanners/0489.gif

http://img131.echo.cx/img131/5552/j8napplause6ec.gif

[checksum]

Hello All,
I'm sure everyones had their rant about LOTD but I just saw it last night at its only screening & the New Zealand film festival.

Been hanging out for this movie all year.

I thought it was the worst of the four (five if you count the night remake),

Zombies were excellent,
Gore, fantastic.

Problem:
-Very half assed to average opening sequence.
-Zombies just were not scary
-Bullshit typical blockbuster muppet movie characters that were so shallow you didn't care whether they lived or died( biggest letdown of all ).
-More of a comedy movie about some shitty characters that happened to also have zombies in it.
-Too short

I wanted to be scared and leave the theater thinking ....what if....
But it just didnt happen.
Im sure this is an excellent zombie film for a 14-15 year old who isnt a whining zombie purest like myself.

I love zombie films and ill take what I can get so thank you George for fulling the void, again.
I will be waiting for the DVD release.

[Mindtraveller]

I will be waiting for the DVD release.

One thing I hope happens when Universal releases it is that there'll a Director's Cut edition, with much more character development and added scenes. In addition to this, I really hope there was an alternate ending shot, and in case it's better, it would be great if it is included as the ending for the DVD, with the theatrical one added as a bonus thing along with other deleted / alternate takes.

[Brody]

-Very half assed to average opening sequence.
Yes. Kind of starts with a whisper sans the B & W Universal Logo and Montage. Zombies walk in park past Gazebo, several zombies play music (I almost gasped when I saw this; so lame), Zombie couple holding hands (WTF?) and our Big Daddy Main Zombie want's to fill up a car that doesnt exist. (ain't no simple footstep gonna DING that bell)
-Zombies just were not scary
Not at all. In contrast? 28 days Later rageombies are freaky with that red eyes, black blood thing going on. Just last night I was watching the 'Night Remake' and damn it if these zombies arent scary. The entire opening sequence I was getting a kind of heebee jeebee feeling
-Bullshit typical blockbuster muppet movie characters that were so shallow you didn't care whether they lived or died( biggest letdown of all ).
Characters sucked balls. Major disapointment. Asia is hot and all but do we care abut her? Do we really hate Hopper cuase we're told we have to? Are we really supposed to feel sorry for Charlie cause he's a tard?
-More of a comedy movie about some shitty characters that happened to also have zombies in it.
Comedy? I didnt laugh unfortunatley. At least Shaun had me going.
-Too short
At the rate the film was going maybe it was better to be over with.
I wanted to be scared and leave the theater thinking ....what if....
Bam! You just nailed it! Thats the thing with the undead genre. When its over you are left sitting there thinking "WTF would I do?" and this film gives ZERO vibes on this level. All of the other films have done this for me; yes, even RETURN.
But it just didnt happen.
No. No it did not.
Im sure this is an excellent zombie film for a 14-15 year old who isnt a whining zombie purest like myself.
I agree.
I love zombie films and ill take what I can get so thank you George for fulling the void, again.
True that and to be fair; yes of course.
I will be waiting for the DVD release.
Me too. ****. Im a junkie anyway.

[checksum]

Thanks for the excellent reply.

Id have to say 28 Days later is the 2000 period onwards zombie king for taking itself seriously, especially with the DVD darker alternate ending.

AND

The Dawn remake not for the movie itself but the end sequence from the credits onwards.

My hopes are now set on
Rise of the Undead (http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_4547.html)
as this film alludes to some serious character development.

[Rookie]

stop picking Land apart, I can pick apart the 2 and a half hour docudrama known as dawn 78 to make it sound like complete crap to...

[corgi37]

Well, it says where i am from in my details every time i post, Brainiac.

Actually, India is the number 1 film capital of the world. Followed by China. Give it 25 years, and you Yanks (and us too) will be grovelling to them.But, thats beside the point.

There is 1 thing about LOTD that i feel makes it different ot the other GAR dead films, and that is the way the zombies walk.

It just doesnt seem right. I cant fully put a finger on it. Big Daddy is the worst of all. I dunno, just cant figure it out. They...gee...i guess they "stagger" differently.

[checksum]

well at least 2005 is rich pickings for zombie fans
05 movies (http://www.undeadfilms.com/year_list.php?year=2005)

[Bad Zombie Night]

There is 1 thing about LOTD that i feel makes it different ot the other GAR dead films, and that is the way the zombies walk.

It just doesnt seem right. I cant fully put a finger on it. Big Daddy is the worst of all. I dunno, just cant figure it out. They...gee...i guess they "stagger" differently.
OMG, is it possible?
Has corgi joined Land bashing club?

Welcome to the club! :clap:

[Mindtraveller]

My hopes are now set on
Rise of the Undead (http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_4547.html)
as this film alludes to some serious character development.

Sounds interesting, thanks for the heads up.

[Slas[-[er]

stop picking Land apart, I can pick apart the 2 and a half hour docudrama known as dawn 78 to make it sound like complete crap to...

..go ahead tool...u don't know sh!t about horror films anyways!
signed George A Romero

[Brody]

OMG, is it possible?
Has corgi joined Land bashing club?

Welcome to the club! :clap:

This house is clean. :)

http://twinpeak.club.fr/Gladys.jpg

[Rookie]

..go ahead tool...u don't know sh!t about horror films anyways!
signed George A Romero


Okay lets Start off...

Story: The Story starts in a newsroom, Showing Fran sleeping in some corner under a nice toasty coat, The chaos of the newsroom, people screaming this and that. Why would these people be screaming and general chaos? Its a newsroom. They of all people should be use to disasters. They fallow them all the time.

And why the hell is the place even secure? Flyboy manages to get in just fine around the stations 1 cop. 1 ****ing cop protecting a news station. You think it was like this on 9/11? I really don't think so.The acting is over done really heavily to almost day of the dead standerds in this part(Screaming for the sake of screaming? Pah)


That place would be SWARMING with zombies from all the movement in and out, so they use ONE cop to protect the place.

How long have they been covering the out break? The camera man told Fran that they were switching over to the emergency broadcast network at 12:00(Which is weird since they were watching news latter in the movie, alah plot hole anyone?)

Then you get flyboy, the extra cool helicopter pilot with the leather jacket and large sun glasses. Oh baby!

Then the Camera suddenly shifts to the Ghetto, showing a swat team or whatever the Hell Romero tried to make it into. Some racist guy there for the sake of being racist(Why the hell were they even there at that building? Romero never gave any explanation for that. besides getting Martenez? Shouldnt they be woried more about the Zombies then some Gang leader?)

They already kill Martenez on the roof don't they? Then why the hell did they all rush in the building?

They rush into the building, The fat italion guy goes crazy(Insert needless exploding head shot here) They end up killing him...

Finaly a zombie comes into the movie, up to this point in the movie, there had been no zombies, almost 10 minutes with out any zombies at all, just news people shouting at each other and throwing papers and over acting, and the racist shooting someone in the face and getting killed.

Now The zombies of Dawn of the Dead 78 were the worst zombies of any movie in the dead movies.

1. They didn't show any cause of death(No bite marks on a huge portion of them)
2. They were blue
3. Nurse Zombie (nuff said)
4. Pink Blood.
5. Horible death scenes.(The zombie who got his head cut off from the chopper was so fake)

I havn't seen the orignal dawn more then about 3 times, because I don't find sitting down for 158 minutes for a zombie movie that enjoyable.

158 minutes. Thats TWO AND A HALF HOURS long. JESUS CHRIST THIS MOVIE DRAGS ON FOREVER.

Ahem anyway.

The scene where they break into the one apartment and the black guy is like "shoot it man, shoot it!" Why the **** didn't he just shoot it? He had a gun didn't he? But no of course he couldn't because he had to have his attention drawn away from getting attacked. The white kid falls over some chair, and a zombie capabul of moving 2 mph is trying to get through a maze of chairs at him *cue fast pased music here*

Does the kid just shoot him? No of course not he has to fumble around with his guns for another 30 seconds.

arg, Then you get the scene of the Afro zombie going up the stairs, the lady hugging him and him going "rwar!" in the most retarded zombie growl ever(Besides big dady possibly) While the military just stands by watching him dig into her(trying to show off the awesome pink blood effects romero? Good job!)

Arg this is hurting my brain. The only purpose of the ghetto scene was to introduce peter to rodger. The movie never gave a reason for them being in the building(or why they had stacked the zombies in the basement room? Who the hell was picked for the job of dragging the zombies in that room? Most of them wern't even in bags.) Would have liked to see what happend to the one legged preist though.


Movie shifts to fly boy picking up some radio and reporting that the operator was dead, post abandoned.

Wait.. Wasn't flyboy and fran just at the news station? How did they get through a city infested with the living dead with out any weapons? (Well Flyboy can't shoot anyway, so it wouldn't have helped)

Peter and Rodger drive up...
Wait a second? Wern't they just in the ghetto? How could they leave their posts with out any problem at all, drive through town to the helipad? With zombies everywhere?

*insert Pilato cameo here*

I like how easily they just take the chopper to? No one else had thought of that I guess! They had enough time to drive through a city infested with zombies, wait for Rodger and Peter and no one else had taken the Chopper..

Yea, whatever.

They take off, introduce each other(insert awkward social sitation here, "I don't know you, but my boyfreinds freind says your okay") and fly over some country side. Now comes the only decent scenes in the movie.

The army/red neck milita killing zombies and having fun. Why was this good? because it was action with a point(unlike the ghetto scene which was just redundent) They were having a good time, mopping up the undead, drinking beers. Actully TRYING to solve the problem, insted of ya know...sitting on their asses in a mall for 7 months..

What the hell was with the car blowing up? it's like the frames were edited by a drunk bamboo.(Car being left out in the middle of no where was convienent, it being full of gas was to, don't you think?)

Romero shows his love for red necks just like in Night of the living dead.

(I would have liked to to seem them use those Arty peices though)

Arg will post more later, But as you can see, this movie is far from perfect....

[corgi37]

You just mentioned some very vital and important parts of the movie, and as such, they cannot be critisized because GAR made them and DAWN is one of the greatest movies in history.

Though, why didnt Woolley revive? And, he wasnt Italian. Not many Italians called "Woolley.

Anyway, i aint jumping on the anti-LOTD thing like you lemmings. It aint bad. Just, different.

And, it smashed through the $20mill mark! Soon to skyrocket (or, is that "flowers in the graveyard?") into $21mill.

Europe is where the gold lies for this turkey, er, movie.

[Mindtraveller]

[Land of the Dead] aint bad.

Indeed, but, it ain't good either. It's just perfectly mediocre, and that's what's so sad to me.

[Quinn]

Hey Slasher, please be quiet. Rookie was trying to make a point, the same as you so please do not try to question a persons appreciation of horror films. Also I have kinda given up on this Land discussion. Not because I feel the movie is bad, but becuase people have already established what the film represents to them and I do not feel like reading peoples reasons for the films success/failure because I already have formed what I think.
Either way Have a good day, and as Bob Ross says God bless,
Quinn

[VXTip556]

dude i totally got the movie on limewire and watched it 2 more times oh i cant wait till its on DVD OMG sooo goood

[FatherJack]

Rookie what cut of the Dawn did you see?

Okay lets Start off...

Story: The Story starts in a newsroom, Showing Fran sleeping in some corner under a nice toasty coat, The chaos of the newsroom, people screaming this and that. Why would these people be screaming and general chaos? Its a newsroom. They of all people should be use to disasters. They fallow them all the time.
In most disasters the dead don’t sit back up and eat the living, a little panic may be justified even from jaded news crews.

And why the hell is the place even secure? Flyboy manages to get in just fine around the stations 1 cop. 1 ****ing cop protecting a news station. You think it was like this on 9/11? I really don't think so.The acting is over done really heavily to almost day of the dead standerds in this part(Screaming for the sake of screaming? Pah)

The station is part a local emergency plan and was used to notify citizens of safe zones ect. The guard we see may not be the only one around, plus you get a feeling the other cops may be busy.

That place would be SWARMING with zombies from all the movement in and out, so they use ONE cop to protect the place.

It was in the “safe zone” behind the police lines, those lines were failing that is why they ran.

How long have they been covering the out break? The camera man told Fran that they were switching over to the emergency broadcast network at 12:00(Which is weird since they were watching news latter in the movie, alah plot hole anyone?)

Some suggest it is the “next day after Night” the time line in these movies has always been screwy, but not more than 48 hours after outbreak. The news they watched was from another station, in a smaller “safe zone” . In Romero’s zombie movies the system breaks down slowly bit by bit.


Then the Camera suddenly shifts to the Ghetto, showing a swat team or whatever the Hell Romero tried to make it into. Some racist guy there for the sake of being racist(Why the hell were they even there at that building? Romero never gave any explanation for that. besides getting Martenez? Shouldnt they be woried more about the Zombies then some Gang leader?)

They are trying to clear out the undead in the basement of the building. Martenez is some sort of community leader, maybe a gang member, who is protecting the building. By this time mandatory destruction of all dead bodies has been announce. The people in the building are not complying with this order, and are a risk to every building around them. So the cops come in to remove the problem.

They already kill Martenez on the roof don't they? Then why the hell did they all rush in the building?

To kill the Zombies.

They rush into the building, The fat italion guy goes crazy(Insert needless exploding head shot here) They end up killing him...

Woolly is obviously the symbol for the breaking of the police department. He is obviously crazy and projecting his fear onto the minorities he already hates.

Finaly a zombie comes into the movie, up to this point in the movie, there had been no zombies, almost 10 minutes with out any zombies at all, just news people shouting at each other and throwing papers and over acting, and the racist shooting someone in the face and getting killed.

Some horror movies spend 20 to 30 minutes before we “see” the “monster”. No problem with that.

Now The zombies of Dawn of the Dead 78 were the worst zombies of any movie in the dead movies.

1. They didn't show any cause of death(No bite marks on a huge portion of them)
2. They were blue
3. Nurse Zombie (nuff said)
4. Pink Blood.
5. Horible death scenes.(The zombie who got his head cut off from the chopper was so fake)

There are restored copies that fix the pink blood. The zombies varied from flesh colors to green to blue the coloring on some copies is so bad they look like smurfs.


I havn't seen the orignal dawn more then about 3 times, because I don't find sitting down for 158 minutes for a zombie movie that enjoyable.

158 minutes. Thats TWO AND A HALF HOURS long. JESUS CHRIST THIS MOVIE DRAGS ON FOREVER.

Some people like a movie that takes its time and not rushes to the end. They like the time to enjoy the story and characters.


The scene where they break into the one apartment and the black guy is like "shoot it man, shoot it!" Why the **** didn't he just shoot it? He had a gun didn't he? But no of course he couldn't because he had to have his attention drawn away from getting attacked. The white kid falls over some chair, and a zombie capabul of moving 2 mph is trying to get through a maze of chairs at him *cue fast pased music here*

Does the kid just shoot him? No of course not he has to fumble around with his guns for another 30 seconds.

Panic makes people do dumb shit.


Then you get the scene of the Afro zombie going up the stairs, the lady hugging him and him going "rwar!" in the most retarded zombie growl ever(Besides big dady possibly) While the military just stands by watching him dig into her(trying to show off the awesome pink blood effects romero? Good job!)
Panic again and the collapse of control or care by the protective authorities.


. The only purpose of the ghetto scene was to introduce peter to rodger. The movie never gave a reason for them being in the building(or why they had stacked the zombies in the basement room? Who the hell was picked for the job of dragging the zombies in that room? Most of them wern't even in bags.) Would have liked to see what happend to the one legged preist though.

One of the cops mentions the people in the building are keeping their dead. One of the zombies comes out of a laundry shoot. That is how they are getting them in there. Why are they doing it? They can’t let go of their loved ones.


Movie shifts to fly boy picking up some radio and reporting that the operator was dead, post abandoned.

Wait.. Wasn't flyboy and fran just at the news station? How did they get through a city infested with the living dead with out any weapons? (Well Flyboy can't shoot anyway, so it wouldn't have helped)

Peter and Rodger drive up...
Wait a second? Wern't they just in the ghetto? How could they leave their posts with out any problem at all, drive through town to the helipad? With zombies everywhere?

*insert Pilato cameo here*

I like how easily they just take the chopper to? No one else had thought of that I guess! They had enough time to drive through a city infested with zombies, wait for Rodger and Peter and no one else had taken the Chopper..


All of this implies they are taking advantage of the collapsing “safe zone” they have been in. The police and army are loosing their grip on the city and the zombies are spreading chaos and confusion.

They take off, introduce each other(insert awkward social sitation here, "I don't know you, but my boyfreinds freind says your okay") and fly over some country side. Now comes the only decent scenes in the movie.

The army/red neck milita killing zombies and having fun. Why was this good? because it was action with a point(unlike the ghetto scene which was just redundent) They were having a good time, mopping up the undead, drinking beers. Actully TRYING to solve the problem, insted of ya know...sitting on their asses in a mall for 7 months..

The slum stuff and its reason for being there I covered up above. As fro them sitting in the mall, it was safe, had plenty of supplies. All they could have been outside was food for the dead. The situation was hopeless and they got suckered by their greed and complacent nature.

What the hell was with the car blowing up? it's like the frames were edited by a drunk bamboo.(Car being left out in the middle of no where was convienent, it being full of gas was to, don't you think?)

Don’t remember this part well enough to discuss it.

In many ways I agree with you the film is slow and the pink blood was a poor choice. The acting varies wildly from really good to laughable. But the story is there, and most of the decisions made are explained in one way or another.

[Zombie Survivor]

Why don't you give this movie a chance? I haven't seen this movie yet, but Romero has tried to make a good movie of it. You guys keep complaining about this and that. It seems like LotD is the worst zombie movie ever according to you critics. Instead complaining, you could also mention the good sides of the movie before you lose a extremely dedicated zombie fan.

Keep in mind that a movie is NEVER perfect. There are always some flaws, plotholes etc. Believe me I've had experience with it on other forums... I quit the other forum because they only talked about the flaws and plotholes... It doesn't matter to me if there are plotholes in a movie. This are the things I look for in a movie:
--- Are there zombies in it?
--- Do the zombies look good?
--- Is there a good atmosphere?
--- Is there gore in it?
--- Does the gore look (slightly) realistic?
--- Is the story believable?

I also sometimes feel like a stranger here, I like some of the movies you hate. That's because I look first at the good things of a movie before I say that the movie was a piece of :poo:. Here are a couple of movies I love and you guys hate:
--- House of the Dead }}} Good movie with great action scenes and good looking zombies.
--- Dawn of the Dead '04 }}} The movie that started my passion for zombies.
--- Resident Evil 1 & 2 }}} Good story, great action scenes and lots of zombies and other creatures.

I know that everybody has a opinion and I respect that, but you could also be a bit more positive about a movie for the people who haven't seen the movie (or must wait for months).

Just be glad that there are still zombie movies/fans out there... :zom1: :) :zom1:

P.S.
I'm sorry if I made some spelling and grammar errors.

[goesaround]

Your very right! You dont have to be 'zombie correct'. I enjoyed all the movies you mentioned on one level or another. Enjoy what YOU like. Life is way to short to satisfy other people's taste. The intensity of the criticism to 'Land of the Dead' to be fair is in relation to the amount of time and passion many of us put into this flick for over ten years! Iwas dissappointed. But there were things I loved. The opening credits were brilliant. The scene in the liquour store, (I'll say nothing more about it in case of spoilers for you)I enjoyed alot. The scary menacing zombies in the woods when the open jeep stop. That was pure Romero apocalypse feel, the hanging zombies like targets was excellent..So yes these and a few others made me see it twice(Plus it's Romero) and I cant wait for the CD. So enjoy lad and let peoples negativity roll off your back like water off a duck!!

[MonsterHunter]

Your very right! You dont have to be 'zombie correct'. I enjoyed all the movies you mentioned on one level or another. Enjoy what YOU like. Life is way to short to satisfy other people's taste. The intensity of the criticism to 'Land of the Dead' to be fair is in relation to the amount of time and passion many of us put into this flick for over ten years! Iwas dissappointed. But there were things I loved. The opening credits were brilliant. The scene in the liquour store, (I'll say nothing more about it in case of spoilers for you)I enjoyed alot. The scary menacing zombies in the woods when the open jeep stop. That was pure Romero apocalypse feel, the hanging zombies like targets was excellent..So yes these and a few others made me see it twice(Plus it's Romero) and I cant wait for the CD. So enjoy lad and let peoples negativity roll off your back like water off a duck!!

How was the music in this movie? Classic Romero ,Nu metal or something else?

Im not going to see this movie before the DVD release since it will not be shown in any theaters near me.

:cry:

[Brody]

Why don't you give this movie a chance? I haven't seen this movie yet

Exactly. You have not seen this movie yet therfore you have no idea how bad it is nor hwhat a letdown you are in for.

but Romero has tried to make a good movie of it. You guys keep complaining about this and that. It seems like LotD is the worst zombie movie ever according to you critics.

He tried? Well I'm sure UWe Boll tried to make a good House film but failed iserably at that didnt he? Is LOTD the worst one ever? Not ever. But it is behind Night, Dawn, Day, Dawn 04, 28 Days, Return and Shaun in my opinion whereas, as I keep saying, it shouldh have been Magum Opus. This should have been the MOTHER OF ALL DEAD FILMS. In fact, even a few of the Italian films are better than this one.


Instead complaining, you could also mention the good sides of the movie before you lose a extremely dedicated zombie fan.

Hmmm. What good sides? No really. I'm sitting here thinking "What can I say good about this film?" and nothing is coming to mind. Seeing Asia Argento maybe. Some 'decent' zombie effects make-up (If not waaayyyy to fresh for my liking in this time-period.


Keep in mind that a movie is NEVER perfect. There are always some flaws, plotholes etc. Believe me I've had experience with it on other forums... I quit the other forum because they only talked about the flaws and plotholes... It doesn't matter to me if there are plotholes in a movie. This are the things I look for in a movie:

I mostly agree with you. And I too can handle plot holes and flaws. I do not expect perfection per se. Although for what it is worth I can name quite a few films that I find perfect in everyway (Godftaher 1 and 2, Apacalypse Now, Platoon, Jaws, Halloween, The THing, Road Warrior... etc etc etc)


--- Are there zombies in it?

Well yes. BUt House had zombies too. THis doesnt make it cool.

--- Do the zombies look good?

A little fresh for me personally; softball girl has like one wound with ZERO decomposing. That I found weird. And i highly doubt she was i nthe middle of a sofball game recently. My ideal zombies look like the ones from NIght 90 version. I like when they resemble the humans they once were.[/QUOTE]

--- Is there a good atmosphere?

No. This movei fails to create any kinf of atmosphere whatsoever. Unlike 28 Days Later or Shaun for example.

--- Is there gore in it?

Yes. NOt to shabby either.

--- Does the gore look (slightly) realistic?

I have never personally witnessed someone reaching into a dead persons throat and yanking out their guts and eating them; but I imagine that is what it might look like.

--- Is the story believable?

Eh. This one lacks just on so many levels.


I also sometimes feel like a stranger here, I like some of the movies you hate. That's because I look first at the good things of a movie before I say that the movie was a piece of . Here are a couple of movies I love and you guys hate:

It's okay. I'm a seasonal vistitor myself. I burn out and then come back a few months later. I always check in but it usually takes a good dead flick to get me excited.

--- House of the Dead }}} Good movie with great action scenes and good looking zombies.

You should be banned for life from ATZ

--- Dawn of the Dead '04 }}} The movie that started my passion for zombies.

I love this film. Opening sequence stil blows my mind, thje charcters are great, nice ambiguous ending. Cool film.

--- Resident Evil 1 & 2 }}} Good story, great action scenes and lots of zombies and other creatures.

Watchable on a Saturday Night HBO nothing on kind of way... RE was alright but RE 2 sucked major balls. What was that ridiculous dude in a costue thingy? Horrible film. Almost as bad as HOUSE. At least HOUSE has some naked chicks.

I know that everybody has a opinion and I respect that, but you could also be a bit more positive about a movie for the people who haven't seen the movie (or must wait for months).

I too respect everyones opinions. nO I cannot be a bit more positive for your sake. Dont read the reviews if you dont like to. IN fazct? Go see it already (er... too late) or seee it on DVD and then come back and lets talk.

Just be glad that there are still zombie movies/fans out there...

[Mindtraveller]

Here are a couple of movies I love...

--- House of the Dead }}} Good movie with great action scenes and good looking zombies.
--- Resident Evil 1 & 2 }}} Good story, great action scenes and lots of zombies and other creatures.

Well, you are probably going to love Land of the Dead.

That's what makes it different for some of us. I don't look for great action scenes in a zombie movie, I look for suspense, horror and a creepy atmosphere.

[ZOMBATCommand]

I was slightly disappointed with "Land" as well, especially after meeting Romero, Savini and Greg Nicotero. I met them right before they started filming and they were all so exited about it. Like I said before, Nicotero was saying how he had all of these sick effects he wanted to do, nothing like anyone has ever seen before, so naturally I was exicted about it.

I had also never seen a Romero film in the theater, so opening day of "Land" I was right there, one of the first in line.

I think "Land" had none of the atmosphere that "Dawn" and "Day" had along with none of the suspense. There were some old cliched "zombies sneaking up on people" tricks to spook the audience, but nothing really clever. Also, it became apparent that Nicotero had no budget at all, and therefore wasn't able to do any of the cool effects he had planned to do. Although Nicotero was in the movie as the draw bridge zombie. And what was up with Big Daddy? Only his face was messed up, no decomp anywhere else. His head was shiny and clean, he has no bite marks anywhere and no signs of a traumatic death. I guess he died while sleeping in his coveralls?

Nicotero talked about doing zombie puppets that were so rotten you could see through them with the puppet operators digitally erased out of the scene. They also talked about not doing any CGI zombie effects, but did you notice that every single head shot in the film was CGI?

You are right, after 20 years, this should have been Romero's Magnum Opus. All in all I liked the film, the social commentary was there as usual, but it just didn't feel as gritty or as real or as "Romero" as the other films. At least "Dawn" is what it is, a comic bookish sometimes silly adventure full of zombies and political commentary. Plain and simple. It never tried to be more than what it was.

"Land" also had sub-plots that were never explained or explored, like the Irish guy who was trying to rally people against Kauffman, who was he, we never got to understand anything about him and his relationship with Kauffman. And why was Kauffman having people killed and disposed of in secret? Who were those people?

Maybe we'll get lucky and the DVD release will have all the best parts put back in or at least make a little more sense.

[Mindtraveller]

Maybe we'll get lucky and the DVD release will have all the best parts put back in.

Unfortunately, it's been said that the DVD will get 6 more minutes added. Not much can happen in that amount of time... :(

[ZOMBATCommand]

Cr@p, I hope that's not true. This was the only time in Romero's career that he was able to film the movie that he wanted to make, an un-rated DVD cut. I really hope he didn't throw away the opportunity to finally put out an unrated movie the way he envisioned.

In the past he got to film unrated movies, but there was always a problem with distribution and all that. This was his one chance to do it his way. Film it unrated, let the MPAA cut it down to R and then release it unrated on DVD.

[Brody]

That's just it though.

All of this mystery footage left on the cutting room floor is going to be put on the DVD and its going to be that much better. If you pile more shit on the plate you just have more shit; it isn't going to taste better.

Romero is not a good filmmaker. :puke: :x I am sorry to feel this way if I am upsetting anyone. I love Night. I love Dawn. I love Day. All for many different reasons but it is what it is.

Excuses excuses excuses is all I keep hearing on LAND. The big one? Budget. Let's look at a couple films that have small budgets but seemed to have done without:

Land had a $15 Million budget

28 Days Later - $8 million budget
Texas Chainsaw Remake - $9.5 million budget

My point? More money would not have solved this problem.

[Mindtraveller]

I can't help but think that Romero compromised his vision to please Universal. That, or he has softened up way too much with age.

[ZOMBATCommand]

Nice avatar of R.J. MacReady Outland Pictures. He's my hero. One of my many tattoos is the main title logo from "John Carpenter's The Thing".

[jackskellington]

Unfortunately, it's been said that the DVD will get 6 more minutes added. Not much can happen in that amount of time... :(

Everybody seems to be hoping for all of this bonus feature and deleted scene stuff as well but does anyone really think that will make a difference? The lack of violence and gore in this movie isn't the problem, it's the unlikeable characters and weak ass story. They can put an additional 6 hours of gore into the DVD and it won't make a bit of difference. This movie tanked and there's no way around it.

[Mindtraveller]

Everybody seems to be hoping for all of this bonus feature and deleted scene stuff as well but does anyone really think that will make a difference? The lack of violence and gore in this movie isn't the problem, it's the unlikeable characters and weak ass story. They can put an additional 6 hours of gore into the DVD and it won't make a bit of difference. This movie tanked and there's no way around it.

Personally I couldn't care less for violence and gore. What I was looking forward to was story and character development, in addition to an alternate, better ending.

[Slas[-[er]

Rookie what cut of the Dawn did you see?

In most disasters the dead don’t sit back up and eat the living, a little panic may be justified even from jaded news crews.

The station is part a local emergency plan and was used to notify citizens of safe zones ect. The guard we see may not be the only one around, plus you get a feeling the other cops may be busy.

It was in the “safe zone” behind the police lines, those lines were failing that is why they ran.

Some suggest it is the “next day after Night” the time line in these movies has always been screwy, but not more than 48 hours after outbreak. The news they watched was from another station, in a smaller “safe zone” . In Romero’s zombie movies the system breaks down slowly bit by bit.


They are trying to clear out the undead in the basement of the building. Martenez is some sort of community leader, maybe a gang member, who is protecting the building. By this time mandatory destruction of all dead bodies has been announce. The people in the building are not complying with this order, and are a risk to every building around them. So the cops come in to remove the problem.

To kill the Zombies.

Woolly is obviously the symbol for the breaking of the police department. He is obviously crazy and projecting his fear onto the minorities he already hates.

Some horror movies spend 20 to 30 minutes before we “see” the “monster”. No problem with that.

There are restored copies that fix the pink blood. The zombies varied from flesh colors to green to blue the coloring on some copies is so bad they look like smurfs.


Some people like a movie that takes its time and not rushes to the end. They like the time to enjoy the story and characters.


Panic makes people do dumb shit.

Panic again and the collapse of control or care by the protective authorities.


One of the cops mentions the people in the building are keeping their dead. One of the zombies comes out of a laundry shoot. That is how they are getting them in there. Why are they doing it? They can’t let go of their loved ones.


All of this implies they are taking advantage of the collapsing “safe zone” they have been in. The police and army are loosing their grip on the city and the zombies are spreading chaos and confusion.

The slum stuff and its reason for being there I covered up above. As fro them sitting in the mall, it was safe, had plenty of supplies. All they could have been outside was food for the dead. The situation was hopeless and they got suckered by their greed and complacent nature.

Don’t remember this part well enough to discuss it.

In many ways I agree with you the film is slow and the pink blood was a poor choice. The acting varies wildly from really good to laughable. But the story is there, and most of the decisions made are explained in one way or another.


http://img131.echo.cx/img131/5552/j8napplause6ec.gif

[checksum]

"Land" also had sub-plots that were never explained or explored, like the Irish guy who was trying to rally people against Kauffman, who was he, we never got to understand anything about him and his relationship with Kauffman. And why was Kauffm

Like I said earlier, and some might not like this, but I'm going to say it any way....

Land of the Dead could probably be classed as "not a zombie film".

Land of the Dead was a movie about some shitty hollywood blockbuster characters( who were all as deep as a puddle ), using a plot fresh from the 1.5h get bums on seats no brainer script department.
That...... happened to also have some Zombies in it.


PS sorry for not having a signature image that takes up 3/4 of the screen

[Slas[-[er]

Why don't you give this movie a chance? I haven't seen this movie yet, but Romero has tried to make a good movie of it. You guys keep complaining about this and that. It seems like LotD is the worst zombie movie ever according to you critics. Instead complaining, you could also mention the good sides of the movie before you lose a extremely dedicated zombie fan.

Keep in mind that a movie is NEVER perfect. There are always some flaws, plotholes etc. Believe me I've had experience with it on other forums... I quit the other forum because they only talked about the flaws and plotholes... It doesn't matter to me if there are plotholes in a movie. This are the things I look for in a movie:
--- Are there zombies in it?
--- Do the zombies look good?
--- Is there a good atmosphere?
--- Is there gore in it?
--- Does the gore look (slightly) realistic?
--- Is the story believable?

I also sometimes feel like a stranger here, I like some of the movies you hate. That's because I look first at the good things of a movie before I say that the movie was a piece of :poo:. Here are a couple of movies I love and you guys hate:
--- House of the Dead }}} Good movie with great action scenes and good looking zombies.
--- Dawn of the Dead '04 }}} The movie that started my passion for zombies.
--- Resident Evil 1 & 2 }}} Good story, great action scenes and lots of zombies and other creatures.

I know that everybody has a opinion and I respect that, but you could also be a bit more positive about a movie for the people who haven't seen the movie (or must wait for months).

Just be glad that there are still zombie movies/fans out there... :zom1: :) :zom1:

P.S.
I'm sorry if I made some spelling and grammar errors.

..personall i could not give a ~F~ if LOTD or a film has plot holes, bad character development or flaws?? this stuff wayyyy overrated i think...plot holes??...F! don't be afraid to try and deduce some ideas yourself instead of just having it spit in ur face....LOTD as a whole is just very weak..nevermind little flaws..ooh that characters wearing a different tie from the last scene..who cares!..its the fundamentals of the film that fail miserably imho..

the characters in the story on both sides are very uncompelling dull one dimensional and just uninspiring...i think mabye only one two decent bad ass characters could have saved this..this film needs a Han Solo or a Pvt. Hudson or a Rhodes.. instead of a Riley or a Charlie and the dialogue overall is very mediocre plain flat does not jump off the page....

the story itself is cool, i read another poster once just describing the plot and i was kinda standing on end..the idea that just a short river basically was dividing the zombies from the civillians is really frightening concept..said to myself that could be really cool scary..oh wait thats LOTD, how did that not work??,,

...i just think the way the story unfolds on screen is just not wicked badd ass and kinda corn ball and feels too 'scripted' and contrived...things that bugged me; growling zombies, 'zombie boss' idea is just silly and corn ball....zombies just walking around like normal dudes....good guys being untouchable....Dead reckoning was very unutiliized ( the parking shuttle in DOTD 2004 was wayy more bad ass, chainsaw scene is awsome)...Big Daddys uncanny ability to appear in places....main character fatalities are lame...zombies seemingly jumping out from behind trees in the dark and biting u on the hand ..

...in the first three films the victims fall to zombies is more determined by precarious, complex or trapped situations....which creates a more agonizing exhillirating horrific scene..watching ur character dance on that tight rope and there fate being held in the hands of split second decision ...instead of cue zombie jumpes out *bite* "i gotcha"..as the more i think abou it that's my biggest issue with this film is the stupid zombies...subtract the zombies and this film is okay (no im not seriously suggesting this)

[Slas[-[er]

You are right, after 20 years, this should have been Romero's Magnum Opus. All in all I liked the film, the social commentary was there as usual, but it just didn't feel as gritty or as real or as "Romero" as the other films. At least "Dawn" is what it is, a comic bookish sometimes silly adventure full of zombies and political commentary. Plain and simple. It never tried to be more than what it was.


..people say my expectations were to high and that's why LOTD failed from my perspective..i was very much a realist, posters declaring LOTD destiny to be Gar's Magnum Opus or greatest zombie masterpeice ever are really Dreamers..his last zombie film was in 1985 people (given he's done work since then)..that's acient in director years...to expect him to be able to have sustained that magic and brilliance achieved from that era to today..or to just magicly reawaken it after 20 years is very unrealistic.....like ive said in previous posts that creativity and magic is not sustainable...most great directors do their best work in early years than fade fast...

..tho it shouldn't have took much magic to make BIG Daddys stupid F[ing "Growl" disappear!

PS if i made any spelling or grammar errors im not Sorry..Tough

[corgi37]

Zombiesurvivor - I agree with you statements, but not on your ratings of movies. But, thats cool.

You know another thing that i think is weird about LOTD.

This is going to sound odd, but the production values are too good. Man, what am i saying!! hahaha. I guess i am not used to such a large budget for a GAR movie. Lord, i am not turning to the dark side!! No, no no.

I liked it alot. The old fella gave us what we wanted. Plenty of gnarly zombies, feeding shots, head shots, some cool "gags", decent actors, fantastic sets & lighting (Uniontown - no one can make abandoned towns like GAR) - and still we (as in, you guys) complain.

Still, Big Daddy is rather annoying.

No, no no - i will never join you!

Arrrghghghgh.

[goesaround]

What I am waiting for in the dvd is not salvation for the flick I am waiting to hear Romero's commentary as it plays..I want to hear what he has to say.. particularly by then when all the confetti has fallen to the floor.

[Mindtraveller]

No, no no - i will never join you!

Arrrghghghgh.

Heheh, let go, just let go!

Seriously though, you don't need to "join" any sides here. It's not like we must submit to some sort of equivalent to Newton's third law. Yes, a lot of people seem to get a rather disturbing enjoyment in bashing the movie to no end, and on the other hand you have those who will defend the movie saying how great it is.

The truth, though, is usually at a midpoint. The film is not the crapfest some claim, nor it's "great" as others say. It has its good points and its bad ones. As I said in a previous post, Land of the Dead, simply put, is a mediocre endeavor, with some really nice ideas that don't get developed to their best extent. That is the whole feeling one gets throughout the movie, kinda like "ok, it's building up, something cool will happen next... well, not now, but it's still building up" and then, all of a sudden you see the credits roll. I think that is what led to many frustrations, which in turn became fuel for bashing.

Still, the main point I wanted to make is that you don't need to "join" anyone to acknowledge the film's flaws, just like you don't need to enter a club to recognize its assets.

[guerrilla]

I have a question. I've been meaning to ask this, but, well...while it's on my mind now...

What the hell is up with "sky flowers"? Sky flowers???? It's not as if it was set so far in the future that the population forgot that they are (were) called "fireworks". And it's not like it carried on throughout, with different terms for various things we're familiar with...just the stupid "sky flowers". I didn't get the point of that.

after watching the film i always figured the term "sky flowers" was used because thats the term Charlie used and his character came off kind of slow mentally to me.

[guerrilla]

..u didnt say Oz in ur initial statement, u should clarify that better..USA is the central Hub of the Film World it's the standard...noone gives a F what pulp fiction made as R rated film in OZ no offence...

..yes it does please when i hear Herbie beat Land of the DumFUk's AZZ like Ike turner..it gets me hot actually..America has spoken and rejected this film cuz its Sh!T and i'm proud of them for having some taste...if on the other hand LOTDwas a brilliant masterpeice and Gar got rejected at the box office regardless, tho i wouldnt be too shocked, i'd be livid and disillusioned with America..but as it is America backs my assessment and so i am in jubliee

i agree with the troll statement towards this guy. anyone saying they're glad herbie beat LOTD and then says he's glad america has taste is only looking to bash LOTD. no one can honestly say the Herbie film has any possible standing as a good film.

[Jason Voorhees]

I don't want to hear anymore bashing of people who like this film. It has already been established that some of you don't. We get it. Give it a rest. Let someone else state their opinion before you tell them how wrong they are. http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/Snowserpent/jvsmily.gif

[tarman]

zombie survivor, you just made my day :) its about time somebody saw this argument from a better perspective.

[Slas[-[er]

i agree with the troll statement towards this guy. anyone saying they're glad herbie beat LOTD and then says he's glad america has taste is only looking to bash LOTD. no one can honestly say the Herbie film has any possible standing as a good film.


..yah your right..i'v officially wrote LOTD Basher on my resume

[Brody]

Slasher

Although we seem to agree on our assessments of the film I have to say I am not glad Herbie beat it out. I did indeed expect more from GAR; the magnum opus so-to-speak.

America has spoke? I agree with the general sentimenet that the film was a let-down and fails on all levels. Coincidentally:

Rottentomatoes gives it a:

Reviews counted: 143
Fresh: 104 Rotten: 39
73%

and

Metacritic is giving it

http://www.metacritic.com/_images/scores/scorehead_critics.gifhttp://www.metacritic.com/_images/scores/71.gif 7.1
It appears we may be inthe minority but never-the-less dont be an ass about it, huh?

[corgi37]

Yeah, its so odd. The critics love it, but the "fans" hate it.

I dont at all. I think its pretty damn good.

But, man, i wish Big Daddy didnt grunt so bloody much.

And, i dunno, he just walks too weird. Too powerful. I really wish he had only 1 arm like in the script.

[Zombie Survivor]

Outland Pictures: "You should be banned for life from ATZ"
Why should I? Only because I like a film you hate?

Tarman: "zombie survivor, you just made my day its about time somebody saw this argument from a better perspective."
You're welcome and thanks.

We are all individuals, nobody acts the same (except in a emergency :lol: ). So why should that be different if you are a zombie? I think it's rather dull if every zombie walked the same and moaned/roared the same. Big Daddy is just a (rotting) individual.

[Slas[-[er]

Slasher

Although we seem to agree on our assessments of the film I have to say I am not glad Herbie beat it out. I did indeed expect more from GAR; the magnum opus so-to-speak.

America has spoke? I agree with the general sentimenet that the film was a let-down and fails on all levels. Coincidentally:

Rottentomatoes gives it a:

Reviews counted: 143
Fresh: 104 Rotten: 39
73%

and

Metacritic is giving it

http://www.metacritic.com/_images/scores/scorehead_critics.gifhttp://www.metacritic.com/_images/scores/71.gif 7.1
It appears we may be inthe minority but never-the-less dont be an ass about it, huh?

...that post was ages ago..i have matured much since than so....S~T~F~U

[jackskellington]

What are you guys arguing about anyway? I've completely lost track.

[Pain]

What are you guys arguing about anyway? I've completely lost track.

Yeah, calm down kiddies!

THis movie is already almost ruined for me. At least can we say something constructive in regards to the movie?

[jackskellington]

This thread is still about a movie?!!

[Darth Erroneous]

After 2,355 posts it seems like everyone is thoroughly pissed off at each other in one way or another. :roll:

[Pain]

This thread is still about a movie?!!

Yes, one that doesn't get a release here for anothe month and a half! So i'm already annoyed!

[jackskellington]

After 2,355 posts it seems like everyone is thoroughly pissed off at each other in one way or another. :roll:

I'm certainly not pissed. I didn't like Land very much but I respect the fact that alot of people did and that's just great for them. Some sincere debate in the forums is what I come here for, but not to see people straight up insulting one another.

[Darth Erroneous]

I'm certainly not pissed. I didn't like Land very much but I respect the fact that alot of people did and that's just great for them. Some sincere debate in the forums is what I come here for, but not to see people straight up insulting one another.
I wasn't saying you were pissed. I apologize for my generalized statement. What I meant is there have been plenty of side-tracked sub-topics that have certainly struck nerves of other posters. Eventually once a thread reaches a certain size there will be some hard feelings. :)

[jackskellington]

I didn't think you were saying I was pissed. I was just agreeing with you. BTW, I love your signature!! That's hilarious! :)

[Darth Erroneous]

I didn't think you were saying I was pissed. I was just agreeing with you. BTW, I love your signature!! That's hilarious! :)
Oh, ok! :lol: As for my signature, I try to change it up every now and then just to keep things fresh. :)

[goesaround]

You know even though I was dissappointed in Land I still want the movie to do well. For two major reasons. I still care a great deal for George Romero and I want their to be money for him to do a sequel. I think he will realize what went wrong with Land and I'm sure he knows what it is and I believe he will get back to his cinematic roots and make the stunner this should have been. So yes I'm not about bashing but hoping.

[Brody]

Outland Pictures: "You should be banned for life from ATZ"
Why should I? Only because I like a film you hate?


I meant that in such light-spirit; not at all serious.

...that post was ages ago..i have matured much since than so....S~T~F~U

Take off the internet muscles and relax. You're being an ass; I'm being nice enought to let you know. Unless you're living in dog years; that post wasnt a terribl long time ago.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5224/slasherchild7cf.jpg

[Slas[-[er]

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5224/slasherchild7cf.jpg

Bwhhahaah!! ....very close except u forgot my Herbie t-shirt

[Zombie-A-GoGo]

2 out of the last 15 posts were actually talking about Land of the Dead. Get back on topic.

[Shotgun]

Thats why I started that new one, this thread had turned into a bitch fest, few people were :loon: acctually reviewing the movie anymore just bla bla bla.

Besides with over 150 pages anything new just gets lost in the mix.

[Zombie-A-GoGo]

It doesn't mean you just go start a new one. It'd be better if you tried to steer the conversation back in the right direction.

[Shotgun]

Well I also thought this thread was for peoples opinions and reviews of the movie, my post was just to say hey look it's in the dollar theater now. Didn't mean start probs. :drinking:

[Zombie-A-GoGo]

Fine. Do whatever you want. Go nuts. Everybody have a ball.

[Brody]

What are we talking about again? Oh yeah.. Land sucked balls.

:clap:

[Bad Zombie Night]

Fine. Do whatever you want. Go nuts. Everybody have a ball.
Go-Go... Keep your head up... Don't lose your faith. :)

[Zombie-A-GoGo]

You're right BZN.

If this doesn't shape up into a Land of the Dead thread by the end of the day, and if you guys continue arguing stupidly with one another, this thread is going down. Last warning.

[jackskellington]

Is this all it takes to turn people against one another? Just a disagreement over a movie? I guess it's because it's a Romero flick, 'cause you really don't see all these insults and shit at the Resident Evil thread. Look, I think pretty much everyone at ATZ is a Romero fan, but we should all respect each others opinions whether good or bad. Romero has made shitty movies in the past and will probably strike out one or two more times before it's over, but one thing remains true throughout...It's just a movie folks!!!

[Pain]

Yeah and it's a damn movie i've still not seen yet. One i have being looking forward to for years. I have tried my hardest to steer my self away from any spoilers and so far it has succeeded. I have no real idea what happens apart from the odd little bit.

One question though for anyone here who has seen it. Out of the previous three movies, which would you say it is closest to in atmosphere? From what i have seen and heard i would hazard a guess at Day, or does it feel like none of the original 3?

[jackskellington]

I guess the atmosphere would be compared closest to Day being that it's dark most of the time, but to be honest, it doesn't compare to the other 3 in the atmosphere category.

[Slumlord]

One question though for anyone here who has seen it. Out of the previous three movies, which would you say it is closest to in atmosphere? From what i have seen and heard i would hazard a guess at Day, or does it feel like none of the original 3?

I, for one, liked the movie but as far as atmosphere it really doesn't compare to any of the others at all. In Land of the Dead everyone is out in the open, it's cold, dark, but the feeling of impending doom won't be there. It's in the future now so the "Oh my god, look at all the zombies" feeling is worn off and everyone knows how to deal with it.

[Bad Zombie Night]

I guess the atmosphere would be compared closest to Day being that it's dark most of the time, but to be honest, it doesn't compare to the other 3 in the atmosphere category.

It's one of the darkest films that I've seen in a while... You'd almost think the sun was taken over by the Zombies too, because I can't recall any daytime shots... It would've been nice to have a few daytime scenes in the movie though.

[JFAK075]

Hey all,
Well, I finally got a chance to see LOTD. I went with a couple of guys from work (we ate at a Mexican restaurant and got some beers before hand. So, we were all in a good mood and psyched to see this movie.)
It was just okay for me. I thought the Dawn remake was MUCH better. This movie seemed to move a little too fast and I never got the feeling the main characters were in any real trouble. On a whole it just seemed off. Not a bad movie. Worth renting. I'd give 2.5 stars out of 5.
-John

[hatefuldisplay]

I enjoyed Land. I plan to get a DVD copy when it is released and get Eugene Clark's autograph at HorrorFind next month.

Sure, it is flawed. But, I think it spanks Day.

One thing that surprised me was the amount of shock parts thrown in. There seemed to be more in Land than in the other Dead films. Or perhaps it has just been a long time since I've seen the others in theatres. Any one else think that?

[Bad Zombie Night]

One thing that surprised me was the amount of shock parts thrown in. There seemed to be more in Land than in the other Dead films. Or perhaps it has just been a long time since I've seen the others in theatres. Any one else think that?
Hateful, How do you define "shock parts" in Land... Give me an example or two... I just want to make sure, I know what you're referring to... This could be interesting.

[Pain]

It's one of the darkest films that I've seen in a while... You'd almost think the sun was taken over by the Zombies too, because I can't recall any daytime shots... It would've been nice to have a few daytime scenes in the movie though.

I was wondering about that. I can't recall seeing any pics or shots with daylight scenes in them. Personally i think horror that happens during the day is far scarier, as it's unexpected.

One concern i do still have about Land is the use of familiar actors and actresses. Whereas the first three consisted of relative unknowns. I just can't help thinking that this will work against it. Guess i'll find out in September (or possibly before if i'm lucky)

[Bad Zombie Night]

Corgi's fears about how dark the film might be were justified... I think they did have one or two day shots, but even they were on poorly lit, overcast days... You got the feeling the sun never came out in this world. :roll:

[jackskellington]

The only daytime shot I recall was at the street market thing that the "poor" people had going. Kinda reminescent of a Conan movie.

[Bad Zombie Night]

The only daytime shot I recall was at the street market thing that the "poor" people had going. Kinda reminescent of a Conan movie.
Yeah, that's the only one I remember too... I'm sure it was during the daytime, but sometimes it's hard to tell... I guess sunblock wasn't in great demand.

[Slas[-[er]

Corgi's fears about how dark the film might be were justified... I think they did have one or two day shots, but even they were on poorly lit, overcast days... You got the feeling the sun never came out in this world. :roll:


..that's because its a post-apocalypse period...what did u expect sun shining, rainbows beaming and and birds singing :puke:

[jackskellington]

..that's because its a post-apocalypse period...what did u expect sun shining, rainbows beaming and and birds singing :puke:

Just because the dead have risen doesn't mean there's gonna be a change in the weather patterns does it? So yes, I would expect that during the day the sun would be shining and after a storm there would be a rainbow and seeing as how zombies can't fly, I would expect to hear birds singing. Then again, Romero will probably ruin his next movie, (if there is one), by introducing flying zombies!

[hatefuldisplay]

Hateful, How do you define "shock parts" in Land... Give me an example or two... I just want to make sure, I know what you're referring to... This could be interesting.By shock parts, I meen shots made to make people in the audience jump. One such part was the scene in which the apparently decapitated zombie rolled his head back into place to attack. I don't know if this makes sense to any one else. I enjoy a good jump during a film. This one just seemed to have a lot more focus on scaring the audience than in previous films. Once again, I've only seen it once and it may just be me.

[Bad Zombie Night]

By shock parts, I meen shots made to make people in the audience jump.
OK, that's what I thought you meant... If I remember correctly, this is what Tom Savini referred to as cheap thrills, or peek-a-boo scenes that are put into movies to give the audience a jolt (he either talked about it in the commentary on the NOTLD 90' or the Dawn DVD).

One such part was the scene in which the apparently decapitated zombie rolled his head back into place to attack.
Yeah, wasn't that great? I thought that was one of the few truly creative scenes in the movie.

Here's the other shock scenes, that come to mind, from the other Dead movies.

Night of the Living Dead (68')

The cemetery Zombie grabbing Barbara.
The Skull at the top of the stairs (Probably one of the all-time shock scenes).
The Zombie grabbing Ben through the window scene.
Dawn of the Dead (78')

The Zombie grabbing Stephen when he came out of the airport hanger.
The Zombie kids running out of the door. (Maybe not too scary, but you said, WTF?).
Stephen being grabbed in the boiler room by that Zombie.
The Zombie grabbing Peter while he was running through the mall.
Roger being tackled by that Zombie in the department store.
Day of the Dead

The opening scene (Dream).
Bub jumping out at Sarah.
Steel getting grabbed and bitten from behind.
When Sarah and McDermott were running through the cave.
The Zombies grabbing Sarah in the helicopter (Dream).
Land of the Dead

The Zombie jumping on Cholo in the liquor store.
The same store... The Zombie bitting that guy's hand.
Decapitated zombie rolled his head back into place to attack. (Credit to Hateful)
The kid on roller skates... Where the Zombie jumped out at him.
In Dead Reckoning... The Zombie coming from above on Pillsbury.
I can't think of anymore.... Feel free to add to any I've missed... I'm sure they're debatable.

[jackskellington]

The biggest shock part I've ever seen is when the credits began rolling at the end of Land without a shred of horror preceding them!

[Darth Erroneous]

The kid on roller skates... Where the Zombie jumped out at him.
Rollerskates?!? He was on a skateboard! Gosh! :lol:

[Bad Zombie Night]

..that's because its a post-apocalypse period...what did u expect sun shining, rainbows beaming and and birds singing :puke:
Maybe if the post-apocalypse was caused by multiple nuclear devices, or it was the result by some kind of natural disaster (Think: The Day After Tomorrow)... Zombies causing problems with the weather or the atmosphere? What else can we blame them for? :zom1: :lol:

[Bad Zombie Night]

Rollerskates?!? He was on a skateboard! Gosh! :lol:
LOL!
Rollerskates? Skateboards? ... What a moron that kid was. :?

[Darth Erroneous]

LOL!
Rollerskates? Skateboards? ... What a moron that kid was. :?
"We're going to drop you at this dock alone to wait for a boat. Here's a gun and some weed to dull your senses because it's not like your in a zombie infested area or anything." :loon:

[Slas[-[er]

Maybe if the post-apocalypse was caused by multiple nuclear devices, or it was the result by some kind of natural disaster (Think: The Day After Tomorrow)... Zombies causing problems with the weather or the atmosphere? What else can we blame them for? :zom1: :lol:


..noo but the Government system has collapsed and they control the weather.. so its a realistic idea

[jackskellington]

..noo but the Government system has collapsed and they control the weather.. so its a realistic idea

WHAT? The government controls the weather? WOW!!!!!

[Darth Erroneous]

Yeah, Skellington, you didn't know that? The Weather Channel is secretly owned by the government and has weather controlling satellites in orbit. If the weather channel wasn't always correct then they would lose ratings and be cancelled. When the weather channel was taken over by the zombie hordes, they took control of the satellites and now nobody knows where to find them. :lol:

[jackskellington]

This just proves my theory that Al Roker is a CIA spy who can see you through your television and he lost all that weight in order to step through the screen so that he can abduct you and summon the alien mothership to land and anal probe us all!!!!!

[Darth Erroneous]

This just proves my theory that Al Roker is a CIA spy who can see you through your television and he lost all that weight in order to step through the screen so that he can abduct you and summon the alien mothership to land and anal probe us all!!!!!
Bastard! My Spanish Courier Pigeons and I shall organize!

[jackskellington]

I'm gonna ask the little man who lives in my thumb about this! He's the same one who warned me about the Fed Ex guy being Charles Manson's uncle. Oops!!! I've said too much! Now I'm gonna have to hang a frog outside my bedroom window tonight!!!

[Zombie-A-GoGo]

Land of the Dead.

[Bad Zombie Night]

... And now Ladies, and Gentlemen.... let's get back to Land of the Dead.

[Bad Zombie Night]

Land of the Dead.
Damn! You beat me to it... You have to teach me that sometime. :)

[jackskellington]

Sorry guys, just couldn't resist that government conspiracy thing!! Let's see now...That's right, Land kinda sucked!

[Bad Zombie Night]

Land of the Dead

The Zombie jumping on Cholo in the liquor store.
The same store... The Zombie bitting that guy's hand.
Decapitated zombie rolled his head back into place to attack. (Credit to Hateful)
The kid on roller skates... Where the Zombie jumped out at him.
In Dead Reckoning... The Zombie coming from above on Pillsbury.


Can anyone think of any other cheap scares in Land?

[hatefuldisplay]

The rat coming out at the kid with the skateboard.

I've only seen it once, sorry. I'll try to think of more, but it seems there were several in it.

[Darth Erroneous]

How about the two girls kissing? I was so focused on that, that when the zombie grabbed them I was like, "NO! Lesbians! Leave them be!" :lol:

[Brody]

For me; Land failed to scare or create any forboding atmosphere of doom and terror. Therefore; there was not a scare for me. :x :scare:

[Darth Erroneous]

For me; Land failed to scare or create any forboding atmosphere of doom and terror. Therefore; there was not a scare for me. :x :scare:
I agree. When you look at the first three, you can see GAR's fingerprint in the way it's delivered (articstically) When you look at LOTD it stands out like a sore thumb. It's different in every way. It looks different, sounds different, and leaves the viewer with a different impression. It's like he painted the first three with watercolors and did the forth in oil.

[Mindtraveller]

Well, how about we have fun saying what we would have done differently?

For example... *Spoiler Alert*

Big Daddy - Not as smart, not even one roar coming out of his mouth, one arm.

The scene where Asia Argento's character is thrown into a cage with a couple of zombies... How about she fights for a while, then one of the zombies manages to bite her enought for her to fall down, where she is eaten by the undead. That, I think, would've sent a message of "This is one of the actors that has been billed as part of the lead, and she's already dead.. we don't know what will happen next".

Make Kauffman more realistic and less cartoon.

Get rid of Dead Reckoning.

Let some of the lead zombies get destroyed.

And so on...

Edit: Notice how I said "Asia Argento's character"? That's an indication of how immersive the movie is, I can't even remember her name.

[hatefuldisplay]

How about the two girls kissing? I was so focused on that, that when the zombie grabbed them I was like, "NO! Lesbians! Leave them be!" :lol: LMFAO. Yeah. As a typical man, I must admit to being a bit disappointed there.

[Slumlord]

Can anyone think of any other cheap scares in Land?

Ancient zombie appearing out of nowhere and biting Cholo.

[Darth Erroneous]

The ancient zombie was good. How about when Asia Argento's character blew ol' boy away in the back of the car. I thought they let him stick around a while and then BLAM!

[Bad Zombie Night]

Ancient zombie appearing out of nowhere and biting Cholo.
Yep... You got the right idea Sl... I forgot all about that one. :)

Btw... Where in in the hell did that one come from anyway?

[zombiekilling101]

Yep...
Btw... Where in in the hell did that one come from anyway?

duh, hell is full remember.:loon:

[Bad Zombie Night]

duh, hell is full remember.:loon:
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. :loon:

[zombiekilling101]

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. :loon:

i know jeez...:roll:

I wonder how brittle she would be, seeing that shes like 10 years dead.

[Bad Zombie Night]

i know jeez...:roll:

I wonder how brittle she would be, seeing that shes like 10 years dead.
LOL! Yeah... They're pretty sneaky when they get to be that age... You'd almost think Cholol would hear her old bones creaking.

[corgi37]

Still, out of everything, at least we know one thing.

Those of us who liked it are gonna gleefully fork over the money for the dvd. Oh, and it hasnt even hit cinemas here yet, so i get to enjoy that too!

But, those who didnt like, are gonna have to pay for the dvd anyway, no matter how begrudgingly.

Suckers!

[Darth Erroneous]

What I would like to see is a box set with all four movies and new and updated extras. Make it an 8-disc set and they would have a deal.

[Bad Zombie Night]

But, those who didnt like, are gonna have to pay for the dvd anyway, no matter how begrudgingly.

Suckers!
Just as long as the Land DVD gives me new on the extras, you won't see me complain. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/Rant.gif

[Darth Erroneous]

"Buy the twenty-disc Land of the Dead Special Deluxe Collectors Platinum Edition today for only $129.99." :lol:

[Bad Zombie Night]

"Buy the twenty-disc Land of the Dead Special Deluxe Collectors Platinum Edition today for only $129.99." :lol:

LOL! OK... Tell me what's on it?

*I need to know the answer*

[Rookie]

I want a laser disc land of the dead.

That would rock.

[Bad Zombie Night]

I want a laser disc land of the dead.

That would rock.
I wouldn't count on that happening. :-(
You still have a LD player?

[Rookie]

Haha yea, The player is huge! haha, but i love em for some reason.

[Slumlord]

Haha yea, The player is huge! haha, but i love em for some reason.

But it's not much fun flipping the disc over to side 2 halfway through the movie.

[DocZomby]

Still, out of everything, at least we know one thing.

Those of us who liked it are gonna gleefully fork over the money for the dvd. Oh, and it hasnt even hit cinemas here yet, so i get to enjoy that too!

But, those who didnt like, are gonna have to pay for the dvd anyway, no matter how begrudgingly.

Suckers!
I've stated before & I'll say it again, I'm not buying that DVD! Perhaps years from now when it's in Walgreens in their special deal bin, but that would be only for nostalgia.

[corgi37]

Yeah, sure you wont buy it.

Drop your pride, and join us.

JOIN US!

[Bad Zombie Night]

We'll never join you! http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/Signs/sw017.gif

[Lefty44709]

Hey guys, first post ever. Been visiting the site for months... HUGE Zombie fan, just giving my two cents of what I would have done differently with LOTD (didn't hate it, definitely didn't love it...)

My story would have been having Riley and Cholo questioning why they are wasting all of their time getting supplies just to support Kaufman. I would have had them team up with the person who wanted to lead the resistance (can't remember his name) and packed in as many civilians as possible into the Dead Reckoning.

Instead of trying to take over the town they were currently living in, they would try and find somewhere new to go. They could find a couple of places that seemed safe, but alas, there'd be a Zombie Attack just when they felt that it was safe.

Back in Kaufmans territory, you'd have the evil crew (the ones in charge) but you'd also have people that were too afraid to join the resistance, and chose to stay in safety.

Big Daddy would still attack the city, meanwhile Kaufman hires assasins to trak down the Resistance. Eventually the resistance would have to decide whether they should go back and save the city, or continue their quest for their own safe haven (remember there would still be good people back in the city).

Don't have an ending for this situation, but basically, I think this would at least bring back some of that feeling of dread, each time the resistance would feel safe, but face another attack.

OK, now I'll wait to get torn apart!

LOL, just my two cents.

[Bad Zombie Night]

That's not a bad plot Lefty... I think it's more interesting than the story that was shown to us in the theaters. :mrgreen:

[Darth Erroneous]

I agree with BZN. Good story. Keep up the good posts, Lefty. :)

[Coffe]

I saw the movie on opening weekend. It was awesome and all, but someone decided to bring the baby to the midnight show. Of course the baby cried, so I did the politest thing I could do...Smacked the baby :evil: ....nah I just moved away.

[Bad Zombie Night]

I saw the movie on opening weekend. It was awesome and all, but someone decided to bring the baby to the midnight show. Of course the baby cried, so I did the politest thing I could do...Smacked the baby :evil: ....nah I just moved away.
They let a baby into a R rated movie?
What in the hell is the world coming to? :loon:

[zombiekilling101]

yeah lefty, that is pretty cool. I wouldnt like Cholo to be a good guy though.

[Bad Zombie Night]

Box Office Update:


Land dumped 128 theaters before going into this weekend, but added about another 150 G's to the pot... This now makes the grand total to be at $20,262,135 with 229 theaters still showing the film.



No update in the overseas totals. :-(

[zombiekilling101]

thats good, it should easilly make that overseas

[Bad Zombie Night]

thats good, it should easilly make that overseas
If Land does nearly as well as Dawn 04', they'll be OK. :)

[zombiekilling101]

If Land does nearly as well as Dawn 04', they'll be OK. :)

im sure it will make some bucks

[corgi37]

If you aint with us. Then you are against us. We do not negotiate with terrorists.

Right, thats it. I'm telling George about this.

Ungrateful sods.

[Pain]

No update in the overseas totals. :-(

TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES
Domestic: $20,262,135 96.8%
+ Overseas: $675,097 3.2%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

= Worldwide: $20,937,232

[Sadogoat]

There's no update in overseas totals because its not opened in most countries yet (aside from Mexico & Italy). The UK still has to wait until September 9th to see it in theatres.

[Lefty44709]

yeah lefty, that is pretty cool. I wouldnt like Cholo to be a good guy though.

He doesn't need to be good. He could be the antagonist in the group, out for himself.

The story is probably too big for one movie, it'd probably have to be another trilogy or something.

First movie sets up why the resistance is breaking off into another group.

Second movie revolves around finding new places to live, constantly being attacked, and will set up Kaufman sending assasins to kill the resistance, meanwhile also setting up the large zombie attack on the main setting.

Third movie would wrap everything up.

I just wish LOTD would have been a little deeper. When I left the movie I didn't say "well now that was garbage" but I also didn't say "That was great" Usually after I see a Zombie Movie, I drive around with my wife and point out places we could try and stay at if we had to (we've settled on a sewage plant that have curved fences making it hard to break into) after LOTD, I just went home and went to sleep.

[Bad Zombie Night]

No update in the overseas totals. :-(
TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES
Domestic: $20,262,135 96.8%
+ Overseas: $675,097 3.2%



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

= Worldwide: $20,937,232

What I meant was, they haven't updated the figure since the last time which was $675,097. ;-)

[Pain]

What I meant was, they haven't updated the figure since the last time which was $675,097. ;-)

Fair enough old bean!

[zombiekilling101]

after LOTD, I just went home and went to sleep.

you poor bastard:)

[corgi37]

Opens here in Oz next Thursday. Now, i know there not many Aussies here anymore, but what the frig.

Tonight on Channel 2 at 10pm, LOTD gets reviewed on the MOvie Show. They are flogging this weeks show by showing some very good footage. I actually couldnt hear most of the voice over, because the silly old bitch at work was yakking away (We watch tv during our breaks. Its so much more civilised). But, i am sure there will be a interview with either GAR or Simon Baker.

The hosts of the Movie Show are always in Cannes, and in fact, are judges on several panels, so scoring an interview would not surprise me.

[Bad Zombie Night]

Opens here in Oz next Thursday. Now, i know there not many Aussies here anymore, but what the frig.
I wish Land the best of luck, when it makes its Australian debut. :)

[jackskellington]

They let a baby into a R rated movie?
What in the hell is the world coming to? :loon:

They shouldn't let people with babies into ANY movie theaters. The one my wife and I go to here has a sign at the ticket window stating under no uncertain terms that people with babies will not be allowed in. Granted, the young kids are still gonna be noisy when they go see Herbie and things of that nature, but that's to be expected in a movie like that and at least those kids can understand the order to sit down and be quiet, whereas infants just scream and scream like there's no tomorrow. Oh yeah!!! Great story Lefty!! BZN was right about that sounding better than what we got to see. One thing I would do though, is leave out Big Daddy altogether. Having the zombies learn things is fine, but let them do it on their own...There's no need to have a leader of any sort.

[preacher]

id have thought the whole notion of babies being brought into a cinema is disgusting not from our perspective but from the fact that the super duper dts surround sound and the flashing images are going to scare the crap out of the little thing

[eardrumbuz]

id have thought the whole notion of babies being brought into a cinema is disgusting not from our perspective but from the fact that the super duper dts surround sound and the flashing images are going to scare the crap out of the little thing

Well, there are a lot of stupid people out there. i was annoyed at all the people who brought toddlers, and even 5 or 6 year olds, to see Star Wars Episode III. Mostly I was annoyed cuz I went to see it at night. If they insist on bringing the little ones the least they can do is go to an early show. Everyone knows the ratings are there for a reason, but many people choose to ignore that when taking kids to the movies. It's a shame.

[Brody]

People who cannot control their children or send thier little batards out alone are way uncool.

I took my 5 year to see SW SITH and he sat quietly the entire time and whispered when he needed to say something.

I have taught him well.

[Bad Zombie Night]

Box Office Update:


As of 7/26/05, Land of the Dead US total is:

$20,304,500


Overseas Update:

As of 7/25/05, Land of the Dead Overseas Total is:

$1,529,553





The Worldwide Total is now: $21,834,053

[corgi37]

Well, its takings are looking better by the week.

Anyway, SHO NUFF, LOTD was on the "Movie SHow" last night here in always sunny Oz. Lots of footage, mainly from the beginning. Interviews with Hopper, GAR, Baker & Argento.

Hopper was coherent.
GAR was, well, GAR. He just looks so cool. If there's any doubt he dont like Bush, it was disspelled here. He's such a cool old hippie.

Argento was lovely. No make-up, and still looked hot. She talked about her long relationship with GAR. She said he and her father are very close friends, which she said is not often the case among directors of the same genre.

Baker was the star. He too loves the political undertones in the film, and indeed, GAR's work. He said he remembers the 1st time he watched Dawn in his early 20's and QUOTE: "It was after about 15 bongs".

Asia, who was sitting next to him, sort of looked blank for a second, probably to let the Aussie accent filter through, and when she realised what Baker said, she laughed. He really is a funny guy, with a great (typical) cheeky Aussie attitude, that i must admit, sadly, aint used in the movie.

The 2 hosts of the show, both frequent judges at Cannes (told ya's, Aussies are taking over!) gave the flick 3/5 & 3.5/5.

Also, gotta say, unlike what happened in the U.S., the ad campaign here is full steam ahead. Ads are frigging everywhere. Baker is back home here, and is appearing on every show you can think of. He was even in the major Melbourne paper yesterday, enjoying a coffee, and talking up LOTD. He too aint too fond of old George W.

So, its all systems go for next week. I am really surprised about the buzz for this film. I dont expect miracles, but if it makes $1-2mill, well hell, thats ok.

[jackskellington]

Also, gotta say, unlike what happened in the U.S., the ad campaign here is full steam ahead. Ads are frigging everywhere. Baker is back home here, and is appearing on every show you can think of. He was even in the major Melbourne paper yesterday, enjoying a coffee, and talking up LOTD.

Well of course the marketing is heavy overseas. It bombed so badly in the states that they're pushing for a "last ditch effort" to hopefully get consideration for a sequel. Don't think it's gonna happen though.

[Bad Zombie Night]

Well of course the marketing is heavy overseas. It bombed so badly in the states that they're pushing for a "last ditch effort" to hopefully get consideration for a sequel. Don't think it's gonna happen though.
I think the only way it would happen is if the budget was considerably less... Knowing GAR, a budget less than $10-12M would not be acceptable... Frankly, I think GAR makes much better movies, when he has less money to work with.

[eardrumbuz]

I think the only way it would happen is if the budget was considerably less... Knowing GAR, a budget less than $10-12M would not be acceptable... Frankly, I think GAR makes much better movies, when he has less money to work with.

i don't see the overseas push as a "last ditch effort" at all. horror films generally do very well in parts of europe and asia, and have become quite popular in oz (if they weren't always). i think it will do well enough overseas to warrant a sequel. that is if he wants to do it, of course. i don't know if he really does, but i guess he wouldn't turn down the offer.

i just wonder if romero could pull a "mario bava" and return 3/4 of his budget if he felt he could make a good movie for less!

[corgi37]

I dont think budget has anything to do with it. I think alot of the undertones of this movie just didnt rub the right way with alot of Americans. LAND will probably be appreciated in 5 years time more than it is now. Once George W is just a retired billionaire, and all the right-wing chicken hawks have piped down, i think Land will hit its place.

I really think the political undertones have played a part in it not doing too well.

i can imagine some dude in his pick-up truck in Tenn asking his drinking buddy what it was like, and when Bo, or Duke, or Bubba said "Man, its all leftie pinko crap - well, scratch another potential fan, who will then go and watch Pearl Harbour again.

I aint being a dick, and i aint knocking the current political and cultural changes in the U.S., i am just commenting on a potential reason why it was so looked forward to, and then, so lambasted.

Cause, could be that its crappy too.

But, i dont think it is.

[Lefty44709]

Maybe you're right, but I didn't enjoy the movie, and I'm certainly no fan of Bush.

One thing is that when Kaufman made the comment about not negotiating with Terrorists, people applauded, and it didn't seem like a "well he just slammed bush" type of applause....

People didn't realize it was a slam, they were agreeing with him.

[jackskellington]

Once George W is just a retired billionaire, and all the right-wing chicken hawks have piped down, i think Land will hit its place.

i can imagine some dude in his pick-up truck in Tenn asking his drinking buddy what it was like, and when Bo, or Duke, or Bubba said "Man, its all leftie pinko crap - well, scratch another potential fan, who will then go and watch Pearl Harbour again.

I aint being a dick, and i aint knocking the current political and cultural changes in the U.S.

Well you certainly didn't come across as a dick or as knocking the current political and cultural changes! That's sarcasm in case you couldn't tell. I happen to be pretty right wing myself and I drive a pick up truck and have "drinking buddies" as well as very good friends in the great state of Tennessee and yes, I do take insult to what you said. Leave your politics at the door unless it's a thread where someone is asking. As for Pearl Harbor, alot of us had grandparents who gave their lives there so you need to tread very lightly and think about your statements before you post them. After ZAGG left the other day, I would think things like this wouldn't be posted so soon. I don't knock on Aussies or the government there because I don't live there and I would think that you would offer the same respect to us. This is BULLSHIT!!

[Lefty44709]

Seems like this thread doesn't want to stay on course some times...

In an attempt to bring this back to Land of the Dead, I'd like to make an observation about "smart zombies" in the Romero world.

In the original Night of the Living Dead, the Zombies were far from dumb. They used rocks to break the lights on a car in the beginning of the film, and then in the end of the movie, several zombies picked up crosses, and other battering rams to try and break open the door of the cellar.

Also, they weren't "zombies" in the classical sense. In that they weren't only looking to eat people. They were the unburied dead brought to life, and they had homicidal tendencies.

For example in the beginning of the film, the first Zombie killed Barbaras brother, but didn't eat him, he immediately went after Barbara, as the movie progressed it was revealed that they were cannibals.

Lastly, I don't see how anyone could say that the orginal Dawn of the Dead was better than Night of the Living Dead.

NOTLD was the perfect zombie movie. You had the confusion of the situation, they used news reports perfectly throughout the film, the pure horror of the dead walking the earth, and the great sense of claustophobia of having all of those people in one house.

DOTD was classic, but I've never loved it as much as other people b/c of the way it ended. I understood the commentary about the chain gang trying to take over the place in the end, but I found it ridiculous. I think it was the music that was chosen, and just the way they went about treating the Zombies when they broke in. I just couldn't stomache that music though, that had to be the worst part of it for me. It just seemed silly.

With that I gave DOTD an 8 out of 10, but you have to give NOTLD a 10

[jackskellington]

I'm with you there Lefty. I enjoyed Night WAY better that Dawn, but I think that's just 'cause it's the first zombie flick I ever saw. Dawn is a completely different movie and I still love it, but Night gets my vote as best of the Romero movies just as Land gets my vote as the worst.

[SGT. DEATH]

I'm with you there Lefty. I enjoyed Night WAY better that Dawn, but I think that's just 'cause it's the first zombie flick I ever saw. Dawn is a completely different movie and I still love it, but Night gets my vote as best of the Romero movies just as Land gets my vote as the worst.
Jack as I my self have not seen Land and by the sound of the majority of this thread it sounds bad,I dont think anyone could put me of watching this but I would like to know how bad it really was in you view.Was it just the worst from the dead series or was it House of the dead bad.Its hard for any one who hasn't seen this film to gauge how bad yous really think it was. :drinking:

[goesaround]

I'm with you guys completely! Night of the Living Dead was one of the most important films in American film history.Period end of story. I loved Dawn, and Day and Night 90 but Night I saw in the movies and you know what I'm still scared. I dont even want to talk about land. But I've said it before I think his next flick given the parameters of what he will have to work with and the scenario of what the sequel will be I predict another film perhaps equal to Night of the Living Dead

[Lefty44709]

Jack as I my self have not seen Land and by the sound of the majority of this thread it sounds bad,I dont think anyone could put me of watching this but I would like to know how bad it really was in you view.Was it just the worst from the dead series or was it House of the dead bad.Its hard for any one who hasn't seen this film to gauge how bad yous really think it was. :drinking:

I don't think that Land of the Dead was horrible. It just didn't have any oomph to it.

When I watched the movie I was never tempted to leave the theater, and I was even slightly entertained, but the best way to describe it, is that i kept waiting and waiting for it too have a great moment, and it just never did.

In my opinion it just didn't have the atmosphere.

[SGT. DEATH]

I don't think that Land of the Dead was horrible. It just didn't have any oomph to it.

When I watched the movie I was never tempted to leave the theater, and I was even slightly entertained, but the best way to describe it, is that i kept waiting and waiting for it too have a great moment, and it just never did.

In my opinion it just didn't have the atmosphere.
Would you class it as a bad movie among zombie movie,could it get into you top 20 or top 50 even.Im notreally looking to know how it fails but more how badly it fails.Could you put in the same catagory as Zombie 3 or 4 which are a bout my all time worst or house of the dead which although bad I still enjoyed or even good movie just not the class we expect from GAR. :drinking:

[Lefty44709]

HMMM...

I think it's a different movie from any other Zombie Film, b/c it's not about the outbreak, it's so much later than the outbreak, so comparing it with other films is kind of rough.

Obviously Shaun of the Dead, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead are on one level.

28 Days Later and Dawn of the Dead '04 are much better films.

It's nowhere near as bad as house of the dead, I liked it better than Day of the Dead.

The best i can say is that it's middle of the pack. I didn't watch it and hate it while I was watching it, it just didn't blow me away.

[jackskellington]

Jack as I my self have not seen Land and by the sound of the majority of this thread it sounds bad,I dont think anyone could put me of watching this but I would like to know how bad it really was in you view.Was it just the worst from the dead series or was it House of the dead bad.Its hard for any one who hasn't seen this film to gauge how bad yous really think it was. :drinking:

In my opinion it's the worst of Romero's zombie movies. HOTD was just ridiculous and not even in a good way where it would become a cult classic. Land was just missing something for me and I think alot of people have been saying it's the atmosphere which I'm tempted to agree with. There hasn't been a horror movie in many years that gave me that feeling of dread that Romero's zombie movies had so I was really hoping to capture that feeling again with Land, but as badly as I wanted it to be, it just wasn't there. It's not "get up and leave the theater" bad, but then again, I've never walked out on a movie and never would. You certainly can't critique something you didn't see through to the end, right? It's got good effects and a good steady pace, but it just doesn't shine. I hope you enjoy it better than I did and I look forward to your review of it! When does it come out there again?

[Slumlord]

Well, after watching Day of the Dead again I actually found myself having more appreciation for Land of the Dead. I wanted the zombies to rip those bunch of loud mouth soldiers apart, watching Bub again was cool and I kept comparing him to Big Daddy. So yeah, I liked Land of the Dead.

[corgi37]

Jackskellington - You are a A-grade moron.

You didnt get what i said.

How you could possibly correlate watching Pearl Harbour, the bull-shit movie, to denigrating the dead of that horrible true event, is beyond me.

I dont want to get into a pissing contest, but read people's posts carefully without jumping in.

I was saying that people's current views, and the current political situation, might cloud people's views on LOTD.

Same as Rambo was viewed as so cool, then became a bit of a joke a few years later.

[Bad Zombie Night]

I dont think budget has anything to do with it. I think alot of the undertones of this movie just didnt rub the right way with alot of Americans.
I really think the political undertones have played a part in it not doing too well.
Obliviously corgi, you haven't paid much attention to what people dislike about the film... Scroll back, and read some of the posts. :mrgreen:



i can imagine some dude in his pick-up truck in Tenn asking his drinking buddy what it was like, and when Bo, or Duke, or Bubba said "Man, its all leftie pinko crap - well, scratch another potential fan, who will then go and watch Pearl Harbour again.

I dont want to get into a pissing contest, but read people's posts carefully without jumping in.

You don't want to start any trouble? Really?
Then why are you stereotyping people living in Tennessee? Have you every lived there before?

I was saying that people's current views, and the current political situation, might cloud people's views on LOTD.

Frankly speaking, I'm consider myself to be on the moderate left... I wouldn't give a rat's behind whether Land of the Dead showcased a scene, where Zombies broke into the Republican National Convention, and proceeded gobbled everyone up... That wouldn't make the film any better or worst in my opinion... The films problems run way deeper than that.

[Emper0r]

I think the GAR fans are dissapointed because it doesn't feel like a GAR movie, but I think the film is great. In fact, so do the majority of the critics www.rottentomatoes.com 71% is great considering the genre.

[Bad Zombie Night]

I think the GAR fans are dissapointed because it doesn't feel like a GAR movie, but I think the film is great. In fact, so do the majority of the critics www.rottentomatoes.com (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/) 71% is great considering the genre.
Thanks Emp.
I knew you would understand. :)

[SGT. DEATH]

In my opinion it's the worst of Romero's zombie movies. HOTD was just ridiculous and not even in a good way where it would become a cult classic. Land was just missing something for me and I think alot of people have been saying it's the atmosphere which I'm tempted to agree with. There hasn't been a horror movie in many years that gave me that feeling of dread that Romero's zombie movies had so I was really hoping to capture that feeling again with Land, but as badly as I wanted it to be, it just wasn't there. It's not "get up and leave the theater" bad, but then again, I've never walked out on a movie and never would. You certainly can't critique something you didn't see through to the end, right? It's got good effects and a good steady pace, but it just doesn't shine. I hope you enjoy it better than I did and I look forward to your review of it! When does it come out there again?
Its released here early sept and then Doom in october I hope.Its as I thought people are just more disappointed with film rather than hate it.If this was made by anyone else the views of this thread may be different for the very same movie. :drinking:

[jackskellington]

Jackskellington - You are a A-grade moron.

You didnt get what i said.

How you could possibly correlate watching Pearl Harbour, the bull-shit movie, to denigrating the dead of that horrible true event, is beyond me.

I dont want to get into a pissing contest, but read people's posts carefully without jumping in.

I was saying that people's current views, and the current political situation, might cloud people's views on LOTD.

Same as Rambo was viewed as so cool, then became a bit of a joke a few years later.

You know Corgi, there's no need to resort to name calling, alright? I read your post VERY carefully...

Once George W is just a retired billionaire, and all the right-wing chicken hawks have piped down...

Is that not insulting right wingers? Not all of us are evil you know!

i can imagine some dude in his pick-up truck in Tenn asking his drinking buddy what it was like, and when Bo, or Duke, or Bubba said "Man, its all leftie pinko crap - well, scratch another potential fan, who will then go and watch Pearl Harbour again.

Is that not a terrible insult to the good people of Tennessee and a stereotype of Southerners in general? I notice you only brought up the Pearl Harbor thing and not any of this other stuff that you wrote...Why? I'm from the South and I'm damn proud of it and I'm honored to have friends from Tennessee. What you said was insulting and there's no other way of reading that statement. Now you've resorted to name calling which is most likely a childish guilty reaction. I've not had a problem with you before and I don't want one now and I'm quite sure a Moderator is gonna step in sometime today and tell us both to pipe down but I think that you owe an apology for what you posted. If this thread gets shut down, make no mistake that it was YOU that caused it. JV has already had to come on this thread several times telling everyone to leave politics out of it, but for some reason you felt the need to bring it right back down to that and then throw in a couple of insults to boot.

[Kemper]

this movie was being set up for a DVD release i'm sure. This movie was very good entertainment that didn't get the props it deserved. I think people aren't ready for thinking zombies yet.

[Lefty44709]

I don't think it was just the "thinking" zombies.

1) There weren't enough zombies.

2) The people didn't know the Zombies were coming, so there was no sense of dread.

3) A lot of the allure of Zombie Movies is trying to figure what they are, where did they come from? In this movie there was none of that. The zombies were already established, and the people dealt with them. Thus, no scary atmosphere.

4) The Zombies were just too far along. I would have preferred a movie that would link the two time periods. If this movie was simply about how Fiddlers Green was set up, and then the next movie was the exact same movie as LOTD, then there probably would have been less complaints.

After 20 years without a Romero Zombie Flick, I think there wasn't enough looking back at the Original Trilogy. Right from the start it was a totally new movie. I think people were looking for a connection, and we didn't get that.

[Brody]

Everytime I see someone mention "In time people will come to appreciate this film...."

No. We won't. We aren't robot's. The film sucked. The film is a major let-down not only to horror films but zombiedom in general.

I keep seeing mention of 'Political Undertones'. Whatever; just because GAR uses a few lines of dialogue that mention's 'Terrorist's' doesn't make this an intelligent film.

This film was not entertaining. This film was one of the biggest let-down's I have ever seen in the theatre and whether or not people are ready for thinking zombies' I have no idea; for me it's a bad idea. It takes away the 'Zombie' part.

And there surely wasn't enough zombies. This is about the bulk of the ZOMBIE CAST

http://www.aullidos.com/Images/Estrenos/landofthedead-7.jpg

I wonder how RT is giving this a 70% Fresh Rating. I mean this film sucked balls. This film is missing all of the ingedients of a good horror film:

Atmosphere
Characters
Shock
Suspense
The unknown
Story

oh yeah

and TALENT


Land sucked. Just admit it and quit hanging on. George is done.

[Bad Zombie Night]

I don't think it was just the "thinking" zombies.

1) There weren't enough zombies.

2) The people didn't know the Zombies were coming, so there was no sense of dread.

3) A lot of the allure of Zombie Movies is trying to figure what they are, where did they come from? In this movie there was none of that. The zombies were already established, and the people dealt with them. Thus, no scary atmosphere.

4) The Zombies were just too far along. I would have preferred a movie that would link the two time periods. If this movie was simply about how Fiddlers Green was set up, and then the next movie was the exact same movie as LOTD, then there probably would have been less complaints.

After 20 years without a Romero Zombie Flick, I think there wasn't enough looking back at the Original Trilogy. Right from the start it was a totally new movie. I think people were looking for a connection, and we didn't get that.
Excellent post Lefty. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/ThumbsupYellow.gif
These points are well thought out IMHO.

[zombiekilling101]

Excellent post Lefty. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/ThumbsupYellow.gif
These points are well thought out IMHO.

i agree:clap:

[Rookie]

I hate how people bash Land about the social comentary and praising Dawn 78 as masterpeice. Dawn had a load of mistakes...


Revealing mistakes: When Stephen and Peter are locking the front door to the mall, they are shown talking to each other from two angles, so it would appear they are side by side. However, an old woman zombie can be seen in both shots, proving it's the same spot from two different angles.


Continuity: The blood on Roger's face in the truck scene suddenly disappears after he turns around.


Revealing mistakes: When Roger hits a zombie with his truck, the trampoline the stunt man bounces off can be seen briefly.


Continuity: The zombies around the car inexplicably disappear as the car explodes.


Continuity: When Peter and Roger open a department store door, Peter throws the keys into the store before being attacked by zombies. Yet, in the next shot, he is fighting with a zombie over the keys, which are still in the lock.


Continuity: When the redneck posse shoots at an abandoned car with zombies around it, we cut away briefly. Cutting back to the car, it explodes, but the zombies have disappeared.


Continuity: Peter shoots through the airport door several times, yet when the children zombies burst out, the holes are gone.


Revealing mistakes: When Peter and Roger drive to the truck depot, Peter whoops "Three more." In the background, a van can be seen driving past.


Revealing mistakes: A grenade in the back of the raiders truck is obviously a fake.


Revealing mistakes: When Roger runs out of a truck back to the mall, one particular zombie in a red and black striped shirt gets out of character, and decides to tuck in his shirt.


Continuity: When "Wooly" starts going crazy shooting all the tenants in the apartment building, Roger rips off his gasmask twice.


Continuity: Peter and Roger are cops in Philadelphia, but when they drive to the docks, their police car is that of the Pittsburgh PD.


Audio/visual unsynchronized: When Peter talks to Steven at one point, his hand blocks his mouth. But, moving away for a few seconds, it can be seen that Peter's lips do not match the words.


Crew or equipment visible: When Roger closes the truck door after saying, "Let's go, number 2," a crew member can be seen in the door's window.


Revealing mistakes: In the end, Sledge kills one female zombie with a blow to the head. He then knocks another zombie into a tepee, which falls onto the female zombie. She raises a hand to block the tepee, revealing that she is nowhere near dead.


Revealing mistakes: When Peter shoots the biker with the tommy-gun off his bike, blood is already on the ground.


Revealing mistakes: When Peter shoots Blades off the second floor of the mall, he falls vertically, yet the shot of him hitting the fountain shows him falling in a "stunt" arc.


Revealing mistakes: When Peter shoots Blades off the balcony he falls over backwards. In the next shot he is falling over face first.


Revealing mistakes: When a one-armed female zombie grabs onto the back of the hero's car as they drive through the mall, she is shot through the eye. When blood comes pouring down, it can be seen that the zombie has a mustache. (For the main part of the zombie, a woman was used, but stunt man Taso N. Stavrakis took over for the part of being dragged behind the car.)


Continuity: On a close up of the "machete zombie", the skin around his eyes is standard flesh-tone, not zombie blue or gray.


Continuity: When Peter tells Roger to shoot the zombie with the tire iron, Peter's rifle is on his left shoulder. It jumps to his right shoulder, then back to his left, in successive shots.


Audio/visual unsynchronized: In the "Director's Cut" version, the stairwell argument is edited such that when Fran says "Stephen, for God's sake!" her lips are actually saying "We've got to get up on the roof!". Compare this scene with the theatrical cut.


Crew or equipment visible: Reflected in a window when the PA system is saying "Now is the time to save, shoppers".


Continuity: A zombie is pushed backwards off a balcony, but in the next shot it does a front flip over the railing.


Revealing mistakes: When Blades sprays a seltzer bottle at the camera and soaks two zombies, a reflection of the optical flat can be seen (the piece of glass to keep the camera safe from effects) in the middle of the shot.


Continuity: As the Trivia Section notes, shooting of the movie was done during the Christmas Season, and was suspended during the holidays to avoid the cost of re-hanging decorations. As a result, Penneys (the store they keep going in and out of), has a sign in the window saying "After Christmas Sale" later in the movie.


Revealing mistakes: At the airfield, as Roger is filling up the helicopter, a zombie climbs over some crates to get him. As he gets to the top, the blades of the helicopter chop the top of his head off. This causes blood to ooze out of the top of his head and down his body. The pump/tube for the fake blood can be seen coming from up behind the crates and up the zombies pants leg.


Revealing mistakes: When Stephen is attacked by the zombies in the lift at the end of the film, the tube that pumps the fake blood can be seen briefly when one of the zombies bite his leg.


Continuity: In the truck, after Roger is almost attacked by the female zombie, Peter puts his gun down, but he is holding it again in the next shot.


Revealing mistakes: When Peter and Roger are blocking the doors with the trucks, in the shot where you see a little hill, there's a woman running to get out of the shot.


Revealing mistakes: When Fran first meets Steven (David Emge) at the WGON TV station, she calls him David.


Continuity: Steven tells Fran to meet up on the roof of WGON at 9:00PM because they are going to run. They meet Peter and Roger at the police dock in order to refuel. As the chopper takes off, we see a large office building in the background. In the lower right hand of the screen is a digital clock, the type you'd find outside a business to inform people the time/temperature. It reads 6:00.


Revealing mistakes: When Roger and the other police officer throw the woman zombie onto the couch in the projects and shoot her, the string used to pull away the bullet hit on the zombie's forehead is visible.


Revealing mistakes: In the TV studio, when Stephen (David Emge) informs Fran (Gaylen Ross) that they're going to flee via helicopter, Ross accidentally refers to Emge as "David" rather than "Stephen". By the time the goof was realized, Ross was in Europe and unable to loop the line of dialog.


Crew or equipment visible: When Peter, Roger and Stephen are attacked trying to get the cart up stairs, (the part were Peter throws a Zombie over the balcony into the fountain) a crewmember's hands can be seen preventing the Zombies that are attacking Stephen from bumping into the camera when he knocks them away. This is visible only on full-screen prints.


Audio/visual unsynchronized: Just before dying in the elevator, Fly Boy "fires" his pistol and shots are heard, but the gun doesn't actually fire.


Crew or equipment visible: When Peter grabs and throws the two zombie children onto the couch at the airport before shooting them, a hand can be seen entering the top right-hand portion of the screen.


Continuity: In the final scene on the roof when Fran is waiting to see if Peter will come, it is pitch black outside. Then as they are taking off in the chopper only a few seconds later, it is light out.


Revealing mistakes: When Roger is supposedly putting gas in the helicopter, he actually has the nozzle stuck in a footstep used for climbing up and inspecting the engine. The step has a spring-loaded cover that swings inward. The gas nozzle is simply stuck inside the cover.


Crew or equipment visible: A crewmember's hand can be seen in the right upper corner of the screen just as the children come out and attack Roger during the airport hangar scene



How the hell can you people think that the orange blood in Dawn, and the Blue zombies Looked better then they do in Land? Are you on Crack? Tripping of meth while snorting lines of PCP? Day is the only movie where the zombies looked beter then in Land.

Land isn't Dawn, It isnt Night, It isn't Day. You already have a night remake, you already have a dawn remake. What the hell did you people want? Cry it isn't Dawn, Get over it.

The comentary in Dawn of the dead is on the lines of.
Stephen "Why are they coming here."
Peter "This place ment something to them, it was important." Or bla bla bla. Thats it! Thats all the comentary that was in Dawn, You assumed everything else from the rest of the movie.

So? It isn't dawn 2. Get over it.

[Slumlord]

Everytime I see someone mention "In time people will come to appreciate this film...."

Well, everyone disliked Day of the Dead at first and was a huge flop according to the documentary newpaper clippings. Even the little notepad on the inside of the DVD said something like that. Then, of course, alot of people start liking it saying it's f'ing awesome, best of the three. Now they are expecting the same thing to happen here.

I liked Land of the Dead for what it was and liked it even more after watching Day of the Dead again. Day of the Dead is the only movie where I wanted everyone to get wiped out by the zombies because the characters were loud and obnoxious. Only character I liked was the chopper pilot (he knew his shit and didn't really yell) and Bub but yet, I still think the movie is great. I would have really liked to see it in it's original form with the zombie armies fighting each other and such.

But back to Land of the Dead, it did need more zombies and heavy metal music or the cheesetastic keyboard music like in Day of the Dead. If a new zombie movie comes out though no matter who does it, you have to do something new. The whole 'stick a few people in a building who strive to survive and die anyway' is worn but there really is only so much you can do with zombies. Here, zombies are established and people have been dealing with it and I liked that approach. But that's just me.

Everyone can say it stinks and "This isn't GAR!" but I saw it, I liked it, and I'll stick with my opinion. I'll be buying this one when it's released.

As for Rookie's huge post :) I did the same thing with Night of the Living Dead the last time I watched it. I sat there and picked apart everything... I hate it when I do that.

Examples:

They always say George Romero didn't explain how the zombie outbreak started. But, they mention it's radiation from a shuttle that was shot down returning from Venus.

All dead people return to life. There were 2 'unbitten' bodies that came back to life. Lady stabbed with a garden spade and Johnathan... the dude with the queer driving gloves. Yet, in Day of the Dead, Frankenstien is shot in the chest but doesn't get back up.

Zombies picked up stones and threw them, used a table leg to bang down the front door, were afraid of light (?), tried to open doors using the door handle, used a garden spade to kill someone. I'm already seeing intelligence here.

Nobody really checked the upstairs very well for anything but just one room.

Why turn on all the lights? Isn't that like saying "Here I am!"

Barbara sat in front of a window while whining about how her brother died. Isn't there a zombie horde building up outside? None of them see her or try to grab her through the window?

Zombies ate insects.

Ben shoots at a gas pump... hello?

I really need to let more time go by between viewings. :lol: That way I'll enjoy the movie instead of over-analyzing it.

[NeonExile]

I tried to read enough of this thread to see if anybody had posted this info yet, but my eyes started bleeding after 50 pages or so and I had to stop. Anyway, LOTD will be released in the UK on Sept 9th, and not in August. HOWEVER, if you're in London or you feel like travelling, its first public showing will be at the Summer Screen film festival on the 20th August. The showing will be outside, on a massive screen, and seating is, frankly, a bloody great field. The evening kicks off with music at around 7.30, a showing of Shaun Of The Dead at around nine, and then Land Of The Dead. Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright will be attending, and there are rumours that George Romero may make his first public appearance in the UK in some stupid amount of time. They probably aren't true, but at least we could throw shit at him if it's really bad.

Anyway, for more info on the venue and how to get tickets (priced at a shockingly reasonable £12.50 for the evening), go here (http://www.somerset-house.org.uk/summer/) and follow the relevant directions.

If you already knew all this, humble apologies. If you didn't, you're welcome. There are still tickets available.

[corgi37]

Good info Neon. Wish i was in U.K. SOunds like it will be a great night.

LOTD opens this Thursday here in Oz. Very big publicity happening here at the moment. Ads everywhere! Simon Baker is selling this very well. Here's everywhere at the moment.

And to continue on the bloopers aspects of the DEAD movies.

Why didnt Woolley revive?

[tarman]

wooley probably did revive - we just didn't get to see it. i'm all for bloopers, but that's kinda stretchin' it :loon: i just watched dawn of the dead last night and realized again how awesome it is... blue make-up, bloopers, pink blood, and all!

people killing people probably lead more to the rise of the zombies than actual zombie attacks.

[Slumlord]

Revealing mistakes: When Fran first meets Steven (David Emge) at the WGON TV station, she calls him David.

HA! How did I miss that? I went back and watched it again and sure enough "David, we can't..." 2 seconds later "Stephen, we can't just leave."

[Slas[-[er]

#1 http://boxofficemojo.com/images/2005/weddingcrashers.jpg

[Slas[-[er]

I hate how people bash Land about the social comentary and praising Dawn 78 as masterpeice. Dawn had a load of mistakes...


Revealing mistakes: When Stephen and Peter are locking the front door to the mall, they are shown talking to each other from two angles, so it would appear they are side by side. However, an old woman zombie can be seen in both shots, proving it's the same spot from two different angles.


Continuity: The blood on Roger's face in the truck scene suddenly disappears after he turns around.


Revealing mistakes: When Roger hits a zombie with his truck, the trampoline the stunt man bounces off can be seen briefly.


Continuity: The zombies around the car inexplicably disappear as the car explodes.


Continuity: When Peter and Roger open a department store door, Peter throws the keys into the store before being attacked by zombies. Yet, in the next shot, he is fighting with a zombie over the keys, which are still in the lock.


Continuity: When the redneck posse shoots at an abandoned car with zombies around it, we cut away briefly. Cutting back to the car, it explodes, but the zombies have disappeared.


Continuity: Peter shoots through the airport door several times, yet when the children zombies burst out, the holes are gone.


Revealing mistakes: When Peter and Roger drive to the truck depot, Peter whoops "Three more." In the background, a van can be seen driving past.


Revealing mistakes: A grenade in the back of the raiders truck is obviously a fake.


Revealing mistakes: When Roger runs out of a truck back to the mall, one particular zombie in a red and black striped shirt gets out of character, and decides to tuck in his shirt.


Continuity: When "Wooly" starts going crazy shooting all the tenants in the apartment building, Roger rips off his gasmask twice.


Continuity: Peter and Roger are cops in Philadelphia, but when they drive to the docks, their police car is that of the Pittsburgh PD.


Audio/visual unsynchronized: When Peter talks to Steven at one point, his hand blocks his mouth. But, moving away for a few seconds, it can be seen that Peter's lips do not match the words.


Crew or equipment visible: When Roger closes the truck door after saying, "Let's go, number 2," a crew member can be seen in the door's window.


Revealing mistakes: In the end, Sledge kills one female zombie with a blow to the head. He then knocks another zombie into a tepee, which falls onto the female zombie. She raises a hand to block the tepee, revealing that she is nowhere near dead.


Revealing mistakes: When Peter shoots the biker with the tommy-gun off his bike, blood is already on the ground.


Revealing mistakes: When Peter shoots Blades off the second floor of the mall, he falls vertically, yet the shot of him hitting the fountain shows him falling in a "stunt" arc.


Revealing mistakes: When Peter shoots Blades off the balcony he falls over backwards. In the next shot he is falling over face first.


Revealing mistakes: When a one-armed female zombie grabs onto the back of the hero's car as they drive through the mall, she is shot through the eye. When blood comes pouring down, it can be seen that the zombie has a mustache. (For the main part of the zombie, a woman was used, but stunt man Taso N. Stavrakis took over for the part of being dragged behind the car.)


Continuity: On a close up of the "machete zombie", the skin around his eyes is standard flesh-tone, not zombie blue or gray.


Continuity: When Peter tells Roger to shoot the zombie with the tire iron, Peter's rifle is on his left shoulder. It jumps to his right shoulder, then back to his left, in successive shots.


Audio/visual unsynchronized: In the "Director's Cut" version, the stairwell argument is edited such that when Fran says "Stephen, for God's sake!" her lips are actually saying "We've got to get up on the roof!". Compare this scene with the theatrical cut.


Crew or equipment visible: Reflected in a window when the PA system is saying "Now is the time to save, shoppers".


Continuity: A zombie is pushed backwards off a balcony, but in the next shot it does a front flip over the railing.


Revealing mistakes: When Blades sprays a seltzer bottle at the camera and soaks two zombies, a reflection of the optical flat can be seen (the piece of glass to keep the camera safe from effects) in the middle of the shot.


Continuity: As the Trivia Section notes, shooting of the movie was done during the Christmas Season, and was suspended during the holidays to avoid the cost of re-hanging decorations. As a result, Penneys (the store they keep going in and out of), has a sign in the window saying "After Christmas Sale" later in the movie.


Revealing mistakes: At the airfield, as Roger is filling up the helicopter, a zombie climbs over some crates to get him. As he gets to the top, the blades of the helicopter chop the top of his head off. This causes blood to ooze out of the top of his head and down his body. The pump/tube for the fake blood can be seen coming from up behind the crates and up the zombies pants leg.


Revealing mistakes: When Stephen is attacked by the zombies in the lift at the end of the film, the tube that pumps the fake blood can be seen briefly when one of the zombies bite his leg.


Continuity: In the truck, after Roger is almost attacked by the female zombie, Peter puts his gun down, but he is holding it again in the next shot.


Revealing mistakes: When Peter and Roger are blocking the doors with the trucks, in the shot where you see a little hill, there's a woman running to get out of the shot.


Revealing mistakes: When Fran first meets Steven (David Emge) at the WGON TV station, she calls him David.


Continuity: Steven tells Fran to meet up on the roof of WGON at 9:00PM because they are going to run. They meet Peter and Roger at the police dock in order to refuel. As the chopper takes off, we see a large office building in the background. In the lower right hand of the screen is a digital clock, the type you'd find outside a business to inform people the time/temperature. It reads 6:00.


Revealing mistakes: When Roger and the other police officer throw the woman zombie onto the couch in the projects and shoot her, the string used to pull away the bullet hit on the zombie's forehead is visible.


Revealing mistakes: In the TV studio, when Stephen (David Emge) informs Fran (Gaylen Ross) that they're going to flee via helicopter, Ross accidentally refers to Emge as "David" rather than "Stephen". By the time the goof was realized, Ross was in Europe and unable to loop the line of dialog.


Crew or equipment visible: When Peter, Roger and Stephen are attacked trying to get the cart up stairs, (the part were Peter throws a Zombie over the balcony into the fountain) a crewmember's hands can be seen preventing the Zombies that are attacking Stephen from bumping into the camera when he knocks them away. This is visible only on full-screen prints.


Audio/visual unsynchronized: Just before dying in the elevator, Fly Boy "fires" his pistol and shots are heard, but the gun doesn't actually fire.


Crew or equipment visible: When Peter grabs and throws the two zombie children onto the couch at the airport before shooting them, a hand can be seen entering the top right-hand portion of the screen.


Continuity: In the final scene on the roof when Fran is waiting to see if Peter will come, it is pitch black outside. Then as they are taking off in the chopper only a few seconds later, it is light out.


Revealing mistakes: When Roger is supposedly putting gas in the helicopter, he actually has the nozzle stuck in a footstep used for climbing up and inspecting the engine. The step has a spring-loaded cover that swings inward. The gas nozzle is simply stuck inside the cover.


Crew or equipment visible: A crewmember's hand can be seen in the right upper corner of the screen just as the children come out and attack Roger during the airport hangar scene



How the hell can you people think that the orange blood in Dawn, and the Blue zombies Looked better then they do in Land? Are you on Crack? Tripping of meth while snorting lines of PCP? Day is the only movie where the zombies looked beter then in Land.

Land isn't Dawn, It isnt Night, It isn't Day. You already have a night remake, you already have a dawn remake. What the hell did you people want? Cry it isn't Dawn, Get over it.

The comentary in Dawn of the dead is on the lines of.
Stephen "Why are they coming here."
Peter "This place ment something to them, it was important." Or bla bla bla. Thats it! Thats all the comentary that was in Dawn, You assumed everything else from the rest of the movie.

So? It isn't dawn 2. Get over it.


..that's quite the arsenal of shots fired on DOTD there, for LOTD all i need is two words buddy: Big Daddy

[CABAL]

Hi all.

I read this forum a lot, but never really write anything in here.

LOTD went up friday in Denmark, and I went to see it with a friend who is also
a 'zombie fan'.

I've been following this thread since the beginning, and I've wondered which
side I would stand on after seeing the film. Sorry guys, but I must agree with
the 'don't like it' team. I thought it was totally lacking the things I like in the
better zombie movies. The feeling of desolation from Day of the Dead and
films like Omega Man.

The stupid sidekick was simply AWFUL, seemed like a 80's Rambo style movie
where a person says the same thing over and over again. I really found this
character annoying.

Big Daddy's constant howling got to me pretty quick. When he tried to save
the other zombies, I didn't know what to think. They way he howled at the
sky, in a laughter attempt, when he found out how the DADADADADA(the
thing you use to break rocks) works, made him look more STUPID than a
regular zombie. I can't help but think of animals using simple tools, like
monkeys or bird breaking nuts with a rock or something like that. They do
NOT seem stupid when doing so, but clever. Like when your cat can see you
using a doorknob, and trying for itself, or learning what it means when I get
out the watergun :)

Another thing that I though was strange, was when the gunner/driver girl in
the 'tank-wannabe' was aiming at the zombies almost at the end, and the
lead character says:"No! They just looking for a place to stay" :x

Another main problem was that the movie wasn't scary in the least, or
exciting in any way. You just sit there watching. It may be that the zombies
was well-made, but to me they were more like monsters..or demons. I like my
zombies looking like DEAD people, and not everyone dies in a car crash so that
the make-up team can make gruesome injuries to the faces.

On the positive side!! The movie wasn't boring, I had a nice time watching it.
Don't mock me, I mean that as being important.

Regarding slow zombies vs. rage zombies, I'm 100% for slow zombies. BUT at
the end of the day, it's all about what movie is the best! And this was no
match for 28DL, and, even though I hate it, Dawn04 was also better. Simply
because it was a better made movie.

Another movie series/franchise ruined. Go with the flow.

I hope I haven't offended anyone with this looong post! It's not my
intention.

Thanks,

Nicholas

[Bad Zombie Night]

Here's a new MoviesOnline Article with some new Land stills, and overseas release dates.

Link: Land of the Dead Intern. Release Dates update and new Pics ! (http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_5019.html)


Release Dates:

Australia: August 4th
Austria: September 2nd
Belgium: August 11th
Chile: September 22nd
France: August 10th
Germany: September 1st
Hungary: August 11th
Ireland: September 23rd
Netherlands: September 8th
Japan: August 27th
Singapore: August 11th
Spain: September 9th
Switzerland (French): August 10th
Switzerland (German): September 1st
United Kingdom: September 23rd
A few new pics - More at the website...



http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/ATZ%20Pics/LOtD010805-4.jpg


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/ATZ%20Pics/LOtD010805-1.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/ATZ%20Pics/LOtD010805-12.jpg http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/ATZ%20Pics/LOtD010805-10.jpg

[Darth Erroneous]

Great pics, BZN. I noticed a couple more of Number 9... :evil:

[Bad Zombie Night]

Great pics, BZN. I noticed a couple more of Number 9... :evil:
Yeah, she's a hotie!.... I mean for a Zombie that is. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/ornery.gif :zom1:

[Darth Erroneous]

Yeah, she's a hotie!.... I mean for a Zombie that is. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/ornery.gif :zom1:
Of course as a zombie only...heh, heh... :evil:

It's interesting though. Since she's dressed as a Softball player and has her bat, that would mean that she had it at the time she died. If that was the case, I wonder what degree of damage a Softball player could do to a couple zombies before eventually being bitten. Just "food' for thought...

[Bad Zombie Night]

Of course as a zombie only...heh, heh... :evil:

It's interesting though. Since she's dressed as a Softball player and has her bat, that would mean that she had it at the time she died. If that was the case, I wonder what degree of damage a Softball player could do to a couple zombies before eventually being bitten. Just "food' for thought...
Yeah, but in that first pic, with her and Big Daddy, it looks like she swapped her softball bat for a nice M-16. :evil: :machgun2:

I'd say that's a pretty decent trade! ;-)

[Pain]

September 23rd :x :x

At this rate it will be next bloody year before i see it :-(

[Bad Zombie Night]

I guess that kinda blows for you guys, and gals living in the UK, that you have to be the last ones to see this thing. :-(

[Pain]

Yeah, it sucks and blows. At least we get TDR this coming weekend :)

[Darth Erroneous]

Yeah, but in that first pic, with her and Big Daddy, it looks like she swapped her softball bat for a nice M-16. :evil: :machgun2:

I'd say that's a pretty decent trade! ;-)
Never take a bat to a gunfight! :machgun2:

[Bad Zombie Night]

Never take a bat to a gunfight! :machgun2:
I don't know.... Big Daddy is bringing his jackhammer with him... And I thought he was supposed to be smart? :? :loon: