Official Land of the Dead Thread [Archive] - Page 9

Darth Erroneous

07-08-2005, 06:03 PM

I've finally seen it. So this is what everyone has waited for; the definitive review of LOTD. The review that really matters...not really. :lol: I really enjoyed LOTD. It had a great plot that kept me interested and the characters were well developed. I liked Riley, but Cholo grabbed my attention. I was more concerned about his scenario and was hoping that he would actually shell the hell out of FG. :evil: Pilsbury was sweet because that was last type of character I would expect to see in a zombie movie. Normally you only see the slender and more athletic characters. Pilsbury proved that wrong. The actors did a good job, especially Baker and Hopper. The actor who portrayed Big Daddy did an awesome job of expressing his emotions and feelings without the aid of words. Though not as good as Dawn, I give it an 8 out of 10. Damn good job GAR! :rock:

Zombie-A-GoGo

07-08-2005, 06:13 PM

Savini was probably busy with his make-up school. Either that or heaven forbid any FX company other than KNB gets to do anything these days.

Sorry. My hatred for all things KNB is showing.

Hey, what's wrong with KNB?

Brody

07-08-2005, 06:20 PM

Yeah in the last two catagories 'Land' wins but House of whatever wins in the 'biggest piece of crap' catagory as well!

LOL :) LOL

guerrilla

07-08-2005, 06:30 PM

i didn't mind HO1KC but i think rob zombies a HACK. maybe its just because i think the guys a moron. and LOTD ruled :drinking:

Bad Zombie Night

07-08-2005, 08:18 PM

Yeah, in the following categories:

1. The Boring as Hell Category
2. The Biggest Letdown Category
3. The biggest Choke Category

Yeah, It's a clean sweep for Land. :rock:

SteveVernon

07-08-2005, 09:58 PM

I think the problem with LOTD is the same thing that screwed up the remake of TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. Everybody was expecting it was going to have the same kind of impact that the original NOTLD had on the genre.

It's #4 in a franchise. Putting it out in the summer was a bad idea. They should have chucked this one into the Halloween market, when it's considered trendy to go get scared. It was a long shot against FANTASTIC FOUR and WAR OF THE WORLDS. Whether they stink or not, they're attracting a lot of traffic. Universal fumbled the release.

All that said, I kind of dug this film. Partly because it was the first time in a long time I've been able to hear the movie over the audience, (there were 5 of us in total - on a Friday night). Asia was a tough believable character, I really dug the scarred up sniper, Hopper tried to remain low-key (he's such a bad ham), and I kind of dug getting to know the zombies a bit.

I'd see it again, and I'll buy the DVD.

kmfdm56

07-09-2005, 03:54 AM

if not one agrees george changed the zombie genre with this one.

zombie_master

07-09-2005, 10:56 AM

I would like to comment on a post by Matt Apple in the now-closed "Land of the Dead Review Thread *Spoilers*".

Quote:

"3. Money - Also painfully dumb is the way money is portrayed in the movie. Why are people still using US dollars? Why would you work for it when it would be so easy to go to one of a thousand banks within a days drive and bust open a vault and take all the money you can carry? I have no doubt that some sort of medium of exchange would re-emerge as it is more efficient than pure barter but I would expect it to be something more like ammunition or cans of SPAM.
At the end of the movie when the Dennis Hopper character is getting the hell out of Dodge he takes a couple of bags full of cash. Excuse me?! What may be the last human city is getting overrun by zombies and the first thing he grabs is cash(which again I must say would be abundantly available in bank vaults all across America)? Where the hell is he going to spend it?"

:clap: An absolutely fabulous insight. I also believe it was mentioned elsewhere, but with 100-plus pages to sort through it's difficult to find.

In a survival situation, money is irrelevant. You can't eat it, drink it or defend yourself with it. It won't help you when the undead come to munch on your neck. But i suppose that you could smoke it........

I was, and still am a bit, puzzled by its use in the film. However, I did manage to find some insights.

People nowadays are so used to money as the be all and end all. With enough, it will get you whatever you want, no matter the situation. Money willl always be there because we do not know how to live without it. But to anyone in a survival situation, its useless. To a critical thinker viewing a film,
its silly. To an average non-undead-consumer-zombie person in an post-outbreak world, it may still have meaning as a form of trade.

However, in order to try and "rebuild and get on with life", something familiar would need to be brought back. Something big that reminded you of what life used to be like. And it seems that GAR tried to do that with money in the movie.

The trouble with money, is that it needs to be a restricted commodity. If they took Dead Reckoning and went on a bank run through suburbia, coming back with a truckload of money, anyone could be rich and money would soon become pointless.

Thoughts? Comments?

ZM :shotg:

Darth Erroneous

07-09-2005, 12:38 PM

So instead of Hopper's character grabbing money, in that situation he should've taken gold and silver? It would make sense to me because even before paper money was introduced all currency was comprised of precious metals. Although heavy, I'm sure that if he stuffed the same bags with gold bricks he would've held more value than the cash. Plus, gold is internationally accepted.

goesaround

07-09-2005, 01:36 PM

Yes like someone else said Peter grabs cash in Dawn and says 'You never know'. Given that he could have bought a nice place in fiddlers green with Fran. But it's true the only way the $ has value is if you accept the premise that Kaufman was able to start this highrise community with money. Because it seems one of 2 things happen during a apocalypse scenario and usually both as in 'Mad Max' happen. Either the people with the most guns,muscle,ammo,sex and food rule or the other scenario where people of good will create a harmonius democracy based on Communal principals. In both of those cultures cash means little UNLESS the Fascists or the community WISHES for it to be so. So frankly it is really unlikely Kaufman would be able to come into a new scenario with a bag of now abstract cash lacking muscle, men and guns and take over! Neither the Fascists nor the community minded would hand him the keys to the city(As they apparently did in this)So unless another community with limited ammo and food would drop everything at the site of bag of cash as the seem to have at Kaufmans arrival. So the only reason it worked here was it served George's political purpose for it to work but not within the logic of his other movies. The truth an Indian reservation would survive the best. They lived without money at a'primitive' level in a manner that would be considered the end of the world before the wonders of civilisation and would despite hardshop and the lack of Casino revenue undoubtly do so again. Either that or I'd go to a Kibbutz. Either way cash would not be the ticket in..

zombiekilling101

07-09-2005, 03:55 PM

there just using money to hold on to the old ways.. now there dead, thus the irish fellow is starting something new.

btw darth sexy
LAND ROCKED:) :drinking: :clap:

Darth Erroneous

07-09-2005, 05:03 PM

One of my favorite scenes is when Riley stopped the Woody along side the road. The images of all of the zombies in the foggy woods with the blue-ish light was one of the scenes that freaked me out the most. It was easy to imagine the entire country-side being overrun by zombies. Good job to GAR for being so visual.

zombiekilling101

07-09-2005, 05:16 PM

Darth Erroneous

07-09-2005, 05:46 PM

I liked Big Daddy's second in command, the one blonde girl with the section of her mouth removed. I'll bet she's pretty hot when not a zombie. :evil:

zombiekilling101

07-09-2005, 05:51 PM

I liked Big Daddy's second in command, the one blonde girl with the section of her mouth removed. I'll bet she's pretty hot when not a zombie. :evil:

yes #9 was great, and shes a babe in real life

Darth Erroneous

07-09-2005, 05:59 PM

yes #9 was great, and shes a babe in real life
Really? Any websites? :evil:

zombiekilling101

07-09-2005, 06:13 PM

Really? Any websites? :evil:

just go to imdb.. and the land section.. her character name is number 9... than look away:drool:

Darth Erroneous

07-09-2005, 06:14 PM

just go to imdb.. and the land section.. her character name is number 9... than look away:drool:
One step ahead of ya. I answered my own question right after I posted. Good stuff. :evil:

jackskellington

07-09-2005, 07:12 PM

my favorite scene is the opening in teh garden. that one old ass zombie and the zombie band was great.

whats your favorite zombies from it? mines teh tamberine one and the boyfreind zombie.. they looked great.

I thought the band looked and moved like cheap animatronics from the hall of presidents at Disney World. In hindsight though, they were probably the most interesting zombies in the whole movie.

Darth Erroneous

07-09-2005, 07:39 PM

I thought the band looked and moved like cheap animatronics from the hall of presidents at Disney World. In hindsight though, they were probably the most interesting zombies in the whole movie.

The Hall of President's kicks @$$! Do not destroy my childhood memories! :loon:

goesaround

07-09-2005, 07:54 PM

I hated that opening in the movie too, My son had it right,The zombies are always craving flesh.As long as we exist they hunt us. Not stand around. Your right man they moved like wind up toys. I knew it was a bad sign.But my favorite zombie scene was I agree with the poster who loved the zombies in the woods when the car stopped. That was what I love! That was menace. Not a angry car mechanic!

Bad Zombie Night

07-09-2005, 08:05 PM

I hated that opening in the movie too, My son had it right,The zombies are always craving flesh.As long as we exist they hunt us. Not stand around. Your right man they moved like wind up toys.
Does anyone recall the beginning to Day of the Dead?
There was some Zombies roaming around, but most appeared to sleeping, relaxing, and just plain chillin'... Many of the Zombies in Land seemed to get off their asses, and took on some kind of vocation.

Darth Erroneous

07-09-2005, 09:08 PM

Bad Zombie Night

07-09-2005, 09:18 PM

To me, it's not when the characters are running from zombies that is the scariest, it's when they're running around undetected, like in the beginning of LOTD. It's all about suspense. That's what really interests me about the zombie genre.

Undetected? You mean like Zombies having to wear those ankle braclets as if they were under house arrest?

Hmmm... Interesting. :think:

DocZomby

07-09-2005, 10:51 PM

Just got home from seeing this movie. I actively avoided information about this film in order to view it with fresh eyes and as few preconcieved notions as possible.

This movie was crap. I apologize for any offense, but I can see why GAR had trouble getting the funding for this. This movie looked like it could have been produced the same year as Day of the Dead(another GAR movie I didn't like). There were no, and I mean NO, scary portions of this movie. Everything was predictable and everything was old school in a bad way. This reminded me of going to a Chuck Berry concert in the mid 90's.

"hey theres Chuck singing Jonny B. Goode!" for the 784,392nd time... this year!"

It was a long wait, and I think it's clear that if 20+ years to plan and $20,000,000 to make it produced a 1.5 hour flick, then you don't have much to say as a film maker.

I'll anxiously await the sequels for Dawn '04 & 28 Days Later, I havevery faith that they'll each be better than this unrequested walk down memory lane.
:cry:

Bad Zombie Night

07-09-2005, 10:57 PM

corgi37

07-09-2005, 11:40 PM

Jennifer Baxter is a major hottie. Her imdb pic is gorgeous.

BTW, any info on what LOTD has earnt so far?

Bad Zombie Night

07-09-2005, 11:46 PM

As of Thursday (7/7/05), it has earned $18,181,245

It will probably top $20M over the weekend.

SGT. DEATH

07-09-2005, 11:52 PM

Well I hope so because love or hate this will influence zombie movies yet to conme in one way or another. :drinking:

DarthSexy

07-10-2005, 02:09 AM

Just got home from seeing this movie. I actively avoided information about this film in order to view it with fresh eyes and as few preconcieved notions as possible.

This movie was crap.

I'll anxiously await the sequels for Dawn '04 & 28 Days Later, I havevery faith that they'll each be better than this unrequested walk down memory lane.
:cry:

:poo: It is and :poo: it shall ever be, Here here!!! :clap:

Darth Erroneous

07-10-2005, 12:10 PM

Here's a question. When Cholo was approaching Kaufman in the garage he was shot numerous times and got back up each time, which meant that he had already died. If he had diedon his way to find Kaufman, how would he still know to find him? It seems that if he had just changed he would not be as mentally advanced as Big Daddy and No 9, yet he seemed more intelligent. I could be wrong, just an idea.

Vash

07-10-2005, 12:14 PM

Bad Zombie Night

07-10-2005, 12:20 PM

preacher

07-10-2005, 01:14 PM

i see fantastic 4 made a mint over the weekend

cant see LOTD on the top 30 films for this weekeend though

Bad Zombie Night

07-10-2005, 01:20 PM

cant see LOTD on the top 30 films for this weekeend though
I don't think they've update it yet, but it's not even in the top 13 anymore. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/cry3.gif

preacher

07-10-2005, 01:50 PM

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2005&wknd=27&p=.htm

the top 30 so far this weekend... and no LOTD

Bad Zombie Night

07-10-2005, 02:07 PM

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2005&wknd=27&p=.htm

the top 30 so far this weekend... and no LOTD
They just haven't projected the weekend sales for Land yet, so that's why it's not in the weekend top 30.

Darth Erroneous

07-10-2005, 02:13 PM

To be honest I think he died after get shot up by Kaufman. When he crouched down by the pillar in the garage,

So he transformed in a matter of seconds?

Bad Zombie Night

07-10-2005, 02:40 PM

So he transformed in a matter of seconds?
This is one of my gripes with this movie... Did you notice how GAR snuck that change in the movie using Riley, and his reminiscing about losing his little brother? He said that his brother died or changed (zombified) in a matter of hours (I forget, maybe wrong) after being bitten... I remember Peter in Dawn saying it took 2 or 3 days, I think.

Did someone copy Dawn 2004?

jackskellington

07-10-2005, 03:06 PM

This is one of my gripes with this movie... Did you notice how GAR snuck that change in the movie using Riley, and his reminiscing about losing his little brother? He said that his brother died or changed (zombified) in a matter of hours (I forget, maybe wrong) after being bitten... I remember Peter in Dawn saying it took 2 or 3 days, I think.

Did someone copy Dawn 2004?

Don't really remember how long he said it took in Land, but as for Dawn 78, Roger came back very quick didn't he? It didn't seem to me that Peter was in the room waiting for him to come back for 2 or 3 days.

Sadogoat

07-10-2005, 03:08 PM

Ummm.....bitten people can turn in a matter of minutes. This is nothing new to Romero's Dead universe. Remember Steve in Dawn Of The Dead? He died from severe blood-loss and multiple bites and quickly returned as a zombie. Roger survived several days because his wounds (a) weren't immediately fatal, and (b) were treated. There's nothing inconsistent here.

Bad Zombie Night

07-10-2005, 03:16 PM

Don't really remember how long he said it took in Land, but as for Dawn 78, Roger came back very quick didn't he? It didn't seem to me that Peter was in the room waiting for him to come back for 2 or 3 days.
I was referring to a nonlethal bite wound, and I think that's what Peter was referring to in Dawn 78'.

jackskellington

07-10-2005, 03:20 PM

Okay. I guess with the antibiotics and everything they were giving Roger it did take a little while for him to die. I thought you were talking about how long after death it took to come back.

Darth Erroneous

07-10-2005, 05:48 PM

Riley said that it took his brother no more than an hour. I do remember it took Roger a longer time to change in Dawn. Also, Cooper's daughter in Night took at least five hours to change (Just my guess off the top of my head). You have to assume that Barbara and Ben made it to the house in the late afternoon (4 or 5 o'clock while it was still light) and that it ended shortly after 11 o'clock. That's the best I can figure since there are cut scenes. If anybody else can get more precise figures that would help a lot.

Darth Erroneous

07-10-2005, 05:56 PM

Is it me or has John Leguizamo turned into a bad@$$? I think back to his older movies like Super Mario Brothers, the Pest, etc. Then he has these bad@$$ flicks like Spawn, Romero...I mean Romeo and Juliet (C'mon HE was bad@$$ in it), Empire, and then LOTD. I wish they would'nt have killed him off. :x

zombiekilling101

07-10-2005, 06:07 PM

I thought he was good in Land, but i dont really like his "syle" hes the male version of michelle rodriguez to me, same attitude in every movie. He was ok in the assualt remake too.

Darth Erroneous

07-10-2005, 06:11 PM

I thought he was good in Land, but i dont really like his "syle" hes the male version of michelle rodriguez to me, same attitude in every movie. He was ok in the assualt remake too.

I saw Michelle R. on an awards show once and she acted so much better than any of her movies. I think she tries to hard when acting.

"Reow! I smell...skanks!"

"Blow me!"

Bad Zombie Night

07-10-2005, 06:56 PM

Okay. I guess with the antibiotics and everything they were giving Roger it did take a little while for him to die. I thought you were talking about how long after death it took to come back.
I think they were giving Roger morphine or some painkiller to stop the pain, and not antibiotics... I don't think antibiotics would have any effect anyway.

corgi37

07-10-2005, 08:48 PM

The timing of the "comeback" depends on body size, fitness, severity of bite (bites). But, why pick on LOTD? It aint a mistake with Cholo coming back. Hell, lets bag Night too. Mrs. Cooper came back very quickly. Did she even get bitten? Her kid could have dug her liver/heart (whatever it was) with the trowel. You dont see her bitten! She was murdered!

I'm not having a go, but this is what is annoying me about peoples attitude to LOTD. Every minor, teensy-weensy little thing is under the microscope, and commented on (mostly unfavourably), yet the "untouchables" like NIGHT, DAWN, and the lamentable DAY are given a pass. Even the teeny-bopper DAWN04 is now better than LOTD. Though, i see many people were not around last year when the "How did Vivian get into the house" question was around.

Anyway, if we are talking faults, lets talk about Rob Zombie having cameras at his disposal.

Man, that is a major frigging fault.

Bad Zombie Night

07-11-2005, 12:18 AM

The timing of the "comeback" depends on body size, fitness, severity of bite (bites). But, why pick on LOTD? It aint a mistake with Cholo coming back. Hell, lets bag Night too. Mrs. Cooper came back very quickly. Did she even get bitten? Her kid could have dug her liver/heart (whatever it was) with the trowel. You dont see her bitten! She was murdered!

Coming back or turning is the same for everybody... Where did you get this body size, weight thing from? Dawn 2004 had something like that on their website, to explain why their version of the disease spread so quickly... Mrs. Cooper only came back quickly because she was dead... Nobody is disputing how fast a Night, Dawn, Day, or Land person turns once they are dead... What we are in disagreement over, is how fast a nonlethal Zombie bite makes someone turn in Land of the Dead... This is where I believe GAR changed his own rules to keep up with the Dawn 2004.

DocZomby

07-11-2005, 10:58 AM

Perhaps he's saying that a persons constitution, which can be dependent on fitness, plays a major role in how long someone survives after a non lethal bite. :think:

In any case, I would definately say that Dawn '04 is superior to LOTD. Even with it's faults.

And I think that the Land of the Dead forum is a very appropriate place for comments Bad & good about LOTD.

chickenchop1

07-11-2005, 12:07 PM

Coming back or turning is the same for everybody... Where did you get this body size, weight thing from? Dawn 2004 had something like that on their website, to explain why their version of the disease spread so quickly... Mrs. Cooper only came back quickly because she was dead... Nobody is disputing how fast a Night, Dawn, Day, or Land person turns once they are dead... What we are in disagreement over, is how fast a nonlethal Zombie bite makes someone turn in Land of the Dead... This is where I believe GAR changed his own rules to keep up with the Dawn 2004.

On a side note to this bite topic, I just watched Dawn 04, where Sarah Polley suggests that the only way you can turn into a zombie is if you were bit, (the scene where the old lady dies from gunshot wounds in the nursery).

But in Dawn 78, and Night, it's suggested that the recently deceased, as well as those bitten, turn into zombies.
Dawn 04 changes the rule a bit, where you have to be infected, and not just die to become a zombie, as opposed to Romero's films.

How fast can you turn from a non-lethal zombie bite in Romero's films? Roger seems to have taken a couple days considering all the time he was playing video games, shopping, shooting zombies in the mall.

Cholo was bit in the hand from Land, non-lethal, and it seemed to take him only an hour or so to rot, which was pretty fast. Since the zombie that bit him was the oldest, skin and bones, decayed corpse lady, maybe it had a concentrated amount of zombie toxin, which made Cholo die faster, and then quickly decay as seen in the last Cholo vs Kaufmann scene.

Brody

07-11-2005, 01:01 PM

I'm not having a go, but this is what is annoying me about peoples attitude to LOTD. Every minor, teensy-weensy little thing is under the microscope, and commented on (mostly unfavourably), yet the "untouchables" like NIGHT, DAWN, and the lamentable DAY are given a pass. Even the teeny-bopper DAWN04 is now better than LOTD. Though, i see many people were not around last year when the "How did Vivian get into the house" question was around.

Anyway, if we are talking faults, lets talk about Rob Zombie having cameras at his disposal.

Man, that is a major frigging fault.

First of all; LOTD sucks and is one of the biggest let-down's in Horror history. A major disapointment on every level. The reason everything is under the scope is becuase it's all too easy to pick it apart since it does fail on all level's. It's going to be an ever etranl question of "How could this fail?"

As far as Vivian getting into the house; who knows. Who cares. She could have been injured and went to the house for help and passed out in their living room or hallway; key could have been under mat; door could have been open; who knows? Why is that even a question?

And here we go again with Rob Zombie and cameras. HO1KC is a much more entertaining film than LAND and REJECTS will blow LAND out of the water. But that's a whole 'nother thread isn't it.

In my Zombie world you turn when you die and you definatley turn if bit. My bites turn you within 12 hours like an ebola strain for example; and if the bite is fatal and you die from your wounds of being bitten or attacked you turn almost instantly.

Bad Zombie Night

07-11-2005, 01:22 PM

Perhaps he's saying that a persons constitution, which can be dependent on fitness, plays a major role in how long someone survives after a non lethal bite.
Maybe so Doc, and I'm not going to argue with your logic here... I just don't see any of those guidelines expressed in any of Romero's dead films.

And I think that the Land of the Dead forum is a very appropriate place for comments Bad & good about LOTD.

Well said. :clap:

Btw... Congrats on your 1400th post! :mrgreen:
Have you decided on your new title yet?
Post your remarks here: Congrats! You Moved Up in Rank! (http://www.allthingszombie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3449)

Bad Zombie Night

07-11-2005, 01:39 PM

But in Dawn 78, and Night, it's suggested that the recently deceased, as well as those bitten, turn into zombies.
Dawn 04 changes the rule a bit, where you have to be infected, and not just die to become a zombie, as opposed to Romero's films.
I don't look at it as a rule change, but rather they used "Zombie virus" theme, as opposed to GAR's, "when there's no more room in hell" idea, although GAR does incorporate the virus idea when a person is bitten.... This was just one of the many changes in direction that Dawn 2004 took when making their film.

How fast can you turn from a non-lethal zombie bite in Romero's films? Roger seems to have taken a couple days considering all the time he was playing video games, shopping, shooting zombies in the mall.

Cholo was bit in the hand from Land, non-lethal, and it seemed to take him only an hour or so to rot, which was pretty fast. Since the zombie that bit him was the oldest, skin and bones, decayed corpse lady, maybe it had a concentrated amount of zombie toxin, which made Cholo die faster, and then quickly decay as seen in the last Cholo vs Kaufmann scene.

I'd say that idea is a bit of a stretch of the imagine, especially since we've only scene two people bitten, and turned in Romero's 4 films.

Bad Zombie Night

07-11-2005, 01:50 PM

As far as Vivian getting into the house; who knows. Who cares. She could have been injured and went to the house for help and passed out in their living room or hallway; key could have been under mat; door could have been open; who knows? Why is that even a question?

Good point OP. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/ThumbsupYellow.gif
I recall this being mentioned on the forums a while back, but I wouldn't consider it being a major continuity error in the film... Maybe she climbed through a window, or went through the front door? (where does it say that Zombies can't turn a door knob?) As long as it's within reason, is it always necessary to have everyone's movements traced from point to point to point?

Brody

07-11-2005, 02:18 PM

It's like when DAWN 04 came out and everyone asked "Well how did they get into the Mall?"

And then the UNrated DVD came out and actually showed them crowbarring and shooting the backdoor open, etc etc......

It's not necessasary to show e v e r y t h i n g :x

A Feast for the Fallen

07-11-2005, 05:09 PM

when is the offical releace date for LOTD i seen the posters in work the other week but no 1 seamed to no :scare: (sorry if its already been posted im just lazy and tired)

zombiekilling101

07-11-2005, 05:44 PM

when is the offical releace date for LOTD i seen the posters in work the other week but no 1 seamed to no :scare: (sorry if its already been posted im just lazy and tired)

it was june 24 for us in the states.I think Pain said something about 2 more months.. but i dont know..

outland and darth- Land rocks:clap:

Bad Zombie Night

07-11-2005, 05:51 PM

when is the offical releace date for LOTD i seen the posters in work the other week but no 1 seamed to no :scare: (sorry if its already been posted im just lazy and tired)

August 8th, 2005 at a UK theater near you.

A Feast for the Fallen

07-11-2005, 06:05 PM

Thanks looking farward to it :)

SGT. DEATH

07-11-2005, 06:35 PM

So have they scraped the September date,thats great we dont have as long to wait. :drinking:

Pain

07-11-2005, 06:42 PM

August 8th, 2005 at a UK theater near you.

Monday release? Strange, damned if i care though! Thanks for that BZN! :drinking:

Slumlord

07-11-2005, 06:53 PM

First of all; LOTD sucks and is one of the biggest let-down's in Horror history.

Biggest letdown would actually be House of a Few Corpses and DR. SATAN!! DR. SATAN!!!

HO1KC is a much more entertaining film than ...

LOL!! :lol: :clap:

How fast can you turn from a non-lethal zombie bite in Romero's films? Roger seems to have taken a couple days considering all the time he was playing video games, shopping, shooting zombies in the mall.

Plus, Roger had two chunks taken out of him.

Cholo was bit in the hand from Land, non-lethal, and it seemed to take him only an hour or so to rot, which was pretty fast. Since the zombie that bit him was the oldest, skin and bones, decayed corpse lady, maybe it had a concentrated amount of zombie toxin, which made Cholo die faster, and then quickly decay as seen in the last Cholo vs Kaufmann scene.

Well, that's a good way of thinking about it. He did get ugly rather quickly on his way to beat Kauffman's ass.

Bad Zombie Night

07-11-2005, 06:55 PM

So have they scraped the September date,thats great we dont have as long to wait. :drinking:
Now you have me second guessing. :?
Some websites are listing August 8, 2005 as the release date, and some saying September 9, 2005 is the release date.

So which one is it? :loon:

Pain

07-11-2005, 07:04 PM

Let's hope it's August! It's an ass not being able to follow this thread properly :x

A Feast for the Fallen

07-11-2005, 07:12 PM

I hurd it was september but wasnt to sure (i did work @ the filmworks in manchester up until a few weeks ago)

Pain

07-11-2005, 07:17 PM

If this list is correct then we are getting hit with the shitty end of the stick!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418819/releaseinfo

At least i don't live in Bulgaria :scare:

Bad Zombie Night

07-11-2005, 08:08 PM

If this list is correct then we are getting hit with the shitty end of the stick!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418819/releaseinfo

At least i don't live in Bulgaria :scare:

The IMDB link is probably accurate.

Here's the link I found that is contrary to that.
Monstersandcritics.com (http://movies.monstersandcritics.com/archive/moviearchive.php/Land_of_the_Dead/917)

Pain

07-11-2005, 08:14 PM

Found this on Empire online. They are pretty accurate, probaly the biggest movie mag over here

http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/futurefilms/viewfilm.asp?FID=11097

Bad Zombie Night

07-11-2005, 08:37 PM

Here's the long awaited box office update.

As of 8/11/05, Land had made $19,114,540

The film dumped over 1,000 theaters before this weekend, which accounted for the lost the poor earnings over the weekend... This is the beginning of the movie's 4th week, and it looks like the film is tapped out. :-( I check my local paper, and it not playing around my area anymore.

Zombie Box Office Top 10

Dawn of the Dead 2004..........$59,020,957
Death Becomes Her................$58,422,650
Pet Sematary........................$57,469,467
Resident Evil: Apocalypse........$51,201,453
28 Days Later.......................$45,064,915
Resident Evil.........................$40,119,709
Creepshow...........................$21,028,755
The Serpent and the Rainbow..$19,595,031
Land of the Dead.................$19,114,540
Pet Sematary II.....................$17,092,453

Yep... Land has jumped to the #9 slot, and hopefully by week's end, they will overcome the mighty The Serpent and the Rainbow at #8... But will GAR have enough to overcome Creepshow? That's nothing to brag about, considering that film was made only a million years ago. :roll:

Darth Erroneous

07-11-2005, 08:41 PM

What did Night, Dawn, and Day make in theatres alone?

Brody

07-11-2005, 08:52 PM

IMDB:

Dawn of the Dead
Gross $40,000,000 (Worldwide)

Whatever this means. Is this over the last 20 Plus Years? Is it adjusted for Inflation (Doubt it)?

Day of the Dead is just as ambiguous:

Gross $5,804,262 (USA) (23 October (http://imdb.com/BusinessThisDay?day=23&month=October) 1985 (http://imdb.com/Sections/Years/1985/))

Night of the Living Dead (Who owns the rights to this?)

$20,000,000 (Worldwide) ( January 2000)

Darth Erroneous

07-11-2005, 09:01 PM

Nice job, Outland Pictures. I wonder what that would be with inflation? I can't believe that Night grossed that much. Of course, it was a completely new genre back in that day. I would like to see what impact LOTD would've had in 68.

Bad Zombie Night

07-11-2005, 09:33 PM

IMDB:

Dawn of the Dead
Gross $40,000,000 (Worldwide))
I've never seen this figure before, but it must of been adjusted for inflation.

Day of the Dead is just as ambiguous:

Gross $5,804,262 (USA) (23 October (http://imdb.com/BusinessThisDay?day=23&month=October) 1985 (http://imdb.com/Sections/Years/1985/))

That was in 1985 dollars, but that figure is correct... GAR said the movie didn't get the proper distribution, and that's why it didn't do nearly as well as Dawn.

Night of the Living Dead (Who owns the rights to this?)

$20,000,000 (Worldwide) ( January 2000

I don't know how anyone could calculate this amount, but the film was a low budget release, and it didn't get the respect it deserved until a few years later... Nobody owns the rights to it OP, it's in public domain.

jackskellington

07-11-2005, 10:35 PM

Good point OP. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/ThumbsupYellow.gif
...(where does it say that Zombies can't turn a door knob?)...

I seem to remember the first zombie on the porch in NOTLD 90 turning the doorknob when Ben and Barbara were in the living room.

corgi37

07-11-2005, 11:30 PM

As much as i liked Dawn04, i thought it really stupid that people only return from a zombie bite. I mean, how did the worlds first zombie become a zombie?

Also, interesting to note, in James Gunn's script (it was later "touched up" a couple of times) the zombies were doing what they did during life.

IE: Mail men zombies still tried to post the mail. And, there was a mob of zombie dogs that got poor old Chips.

Good to see LOTD just about to scratch $20mill. Long way to go from Creepshow to the others though.

My post a couple of pages back about "returning" was based on what Romero had said during the commentarys on Day, Dawn and other magazine articles (old Fangoria's i think). He never really put any thought into the "rules". Others did. I love the way he is so blase about it all. On the SHAUN commentary, Pegg & Wright make a comment about how GAR watched a screening of SHAUN they arranged for him. He loved it. They asked him about the references to his movies, in particular "We're coming to get you Barbara" and GAR was like "Wha?"

He had no idea. What a cool hippie.

guerrilla

07-12-2005, 12:43 AM

As much as i liked Dawn04, i thought it really stupid that people only return from a zombie bite. I mean, how did the worlds first zombie become a zombie?

you answered your own questions with you first sentence. the first zombie must have come from a virus/bacteria/infection/etc. which is why it needs a bite to transfer from one person to another. of course i don't know that its a virus, but thats the most logical assumption.

Bad Zombie Night

07-12-2005, 02:48 AM

As much as i liked Dawn04, i thought it really stupid that people only return from a zombie bite. I mean, how did the worlds first zombie become a zombie?
Just like with any other virus... There is always a patient zero, and the virus takes off from there... Who was the first AIDS patient?

Also, interesting to note, in James Gunn's script (it was later "touched up" a couple of times) the zombies were doing what they did during life.
IE: Mail men zombies still tried to post the mail. And, there was a mob of zombie dogs that got poor old Chips.

That's nothing new Corgi... Movies have ignored portions of the script or the book, because it doesn't translate well on the screen, the budget can't afford it, or the director or producer just happened to change their mind.

Good to see LOTD just about to scratch $20mill. Long way to go from Creepshow to the others though.

You consider that to be good?
Good luck then making the sequel. :mrgreen:

ZombiexLove

07-12-2005, 01:53 PM

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this article, because I didn't want to scroll almost 200 pages of this forum thread.
Anyway, retrocrush.com is an awesome site that always has something to say about the latest/greatest/not so greatest zombie flicks. In the middle of the main page, there's a review and also a spoof review by a zombie.
Cheers,
Liz

SGT. DEATH

07-12-2005, 02:51 PM

It will be interesting to see what this film makes around the rest of the world.

Bad Zombie Night

07-12-2005, 03:21 PM

Anyway, retrocrush.com is an awesome site that always has something to say about the latest/greatest/not so greatest zombie flicks.
I didn't find a lot of Zombie movie reviews, but I found a ton of horror pics, and other stuff... Not bad. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/ThumbsupYellow.gif
I especially liked the babe gallery pics.

devourthesun

07-12-2005, 08:51 PM

http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/ohthehorror/Reviews/Landofthedeadreview.html (%0Ahttp://www.angelfire.com/zine2/ohthehorror/Reviews/Landofthedeadreview.html%0A)

Thats what i think about LOTD

corgi37

07-12-2005, 08:52 PM

Well, with the attitude you guys have, there will be no sequel.

Then, next year, or the year after, you will all whinge and whine, asking why no zombie movies are being made and why wont some one give GAR some money to make another.

Mark my words, you will. Well, many of the newbies wont, as they will vanish, but the rest of you will.

Thats my rant for the day, you ungrateful bastards.

Bad Zombie Night

07-12-2005, 09:58 PM

http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/ohthehorror/Reviews/Landofthedeadreview.html (http://%0ahttp://www.angelfire.com/zine2/ohthehorror/Reviews/Landofthedeadreview.html%0A)

Thats what i think about LOTD
dts... Are you sure that link is correct? I keep getting an invalid syntax error message when I try to open it. :-(

Bad Zombie Night

07-12-2005, 10:01 PM

Well, with the attitude you guys have, there will be no sequel.

Hey, don't blame a small band of Zombie movie aficionados for GAR's blunder. :naughty:

eardrumbuz

07-12-2005, 11:46 PM

the lotd review link just has a couple of extra symbols you have to cut out of the url. here it is though:
http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/ohthehorror/Reviews/Landofthedeadreview.html

nice to see a positive review! it's weird, when i found this forum i really didn't expect there to be such overwhelming negative criticism of lotd. i have my complaints about it, but i still really liked it and will buy the dvd.

one comment on the "evolution" of romero's zombies. the above review mentions the crowbar and gun holding in dawn, and most people when commenting on big daddy's "intelligence" refer back to bub, but don't forget the very first zombie in the very first scene in notld picks up a rock to break barbara's car window.

and one comment on the time factor associated with turning into a zombie after a bite. doesn't it make sense to everyone that there's much less of a scientific explanation than a creative filmmaking one? isn't it pretty much whatever works best with the pace of the movie? i mean, what would be the point of having cholo sit in the tunnel or garage for 3 days? i guess it's kinda fun to think about the bite being worse from his zombie than roger's was from his, but let's not get carried away over technicalities to the point where they ruin your moviegoing experience. it's kinda like what alice cooper once said about jaws 2... "i go to a movie to be entertained. i think a shark eating a helicopter is great!" ...well, that was the gist of what he said.

on second viewing i thought the dialog was better than i initially did, but i'll still wish there was a bit more character development (as there was in the first 3). i still don't go for the "tv ending". it's way too upbeat. it could've held onto some of that, but we still could've gotten more in the way of zombie attacks on main characters. if you do the math, something like 87% of the characters in night, 50% in dawn, 70% in day, and only cholo (what's that? like 14%) in land fall victim to the zombies. you'd have to count kaufman's flunkies and the skateboard kid to bring it up to about 40% of the 10 or 11 characters, but that's stretching it a bit, cuz there's really only like 7 main characters in land. i consider the crew of dead reckoning, slack and kaufman to be the main characters, but you could argue that kaufman's suits had more lines than, say, pretty boy and what's-his-name (mouse?).

tarman

07-13-2005, 12:26 AM

zombiekilling101

07-13-2005, 02:32 AM

man i love this thread, i have over 100 posts in teh damn thing alone!

hopefully im going to see land again fro the 3rd time tomarrow, before its out of theaters.

you know who kicks ass, brewbaker, too bad he wasnt in it that much, he kinda looks like bruce campbell.

Dagnammit

07-13-2005, 06:00 AM

jackskellington

07-13-2005, 06:38 AM

Well, with the attitude you guys have, there will be no sequel.

To tell you the truth, if this is the kind of movie that GAR makes now then I for one don't want a sequel. Do you want a sequel to movies that you don't like?

Thats my rant for the day, you ungrateful bastards.

Nobody here is "ungrateful" so to speak. I believe that we would all thank Romero for the effort but maybe he should just pass the torch. Are you "grateful" to Ewe Boll for House of the Dead?

Dagnammit

07-13-2005, 06:42 AM

I'm pretty confident that Land of the Dead will make a shitload in the UK. Zombies are still "hot" over here following the recent spate of highly successful homegrown undead flicks; particularly Shaun of the Dead which was a massive mainstream hit domestically. Shaun, Dawn of the Dead ('04) and 28 Days Later all took the top spot in the UK charts when they were released, making more cash per head of population than they did in the US (Shaun and 28 Days even held onto their No. 1 position for a few weeks). Moreover, September is a better time of year to release a zombie film - there are fewer overblown blockbusters to contend with and with the dark, rain-slicked nights of the British autumn drawing closer people are perhaps more in the mood for something a little bleaker.

preacher

07-13-2005, 11:24 AM

well rob zombies "the devils rejects" at 89 percent at rotten tomatoes compared to LOTDs 72 percent

itll make about a million in the uk, cant see it making much more

Airborne

07-13-2005, 11:39 AM

on second viewing i thought the dialog was better than i initially did, but i'll still wish there was a bit more character development (as there was in the first 3). i still don't go for the "tv ending". it's way too upbeat. it could've held onto some of that, but we still could've gotten more in the way of zombie attacks on main characters.

Yeah, the ending got me too. I thought Big D and Reilly were gonna "high five" one another (if closer) , or go "Peace Bro" when they stole a glance at one another. I didn't get that at all. Sympathy for the Zombies?? Not me.

VXTip556

07-13-2005, 11:58 AM

Oh yea i had no zombie sympathy ove here im like yelling "BLOW HIS HEAD OFF" and then he lets'um go, i'm like excuse me they just killed 100's of living people and tookover your city and your just fine with that. But i still liked and wanna see it again

Brody

07-13-2005, 12:49 PM

Well, with the attitude you guys have, there will be no sequel.

Attitude? We're just pissed off that it sucked and was such a let-down. And it was. Was it cool seeing zombies? Yes. Did it suck? Yeah, it did.

why wont some one give GAR some money to make another.

That's the last thing we want. Romero should never be alowed to direct another film again after this schlock. He can write all he want's but leave the directing to someone with talent.

you ungrateful bastards.

Hey; a zombie film is a zombie film; usually (sans House of the Dead or RE) but can't we at least expect some standards? George dropped the ball. He should be ashamed.

Let's hope these DEAD films due show up next year and after:

http://www.allthingszombie.com/movies.php (http://www.allthingszombie.com/movies.php) (http://www.allthingszombie.com/movies/28weeks.php)

zombiekilling101

07-13-2005, 01:26 PM

well, corgi hit it on the head there.

Like i said, they should have had more brewbaker.

land rocked:clap:

Bad Zombie Night

07-13-2005, 03:18 PM

Thats my rant for the day, you ungrateful bastards.
Well, I suppose we're to pat ol' George on the back, and commend him on a job well done?
Not me... I prefer to engage in this activity called "thinking"... And by that, I like to formulate my own thoughts, and opinions... Thank goodness there are some people left in the world who still practice freedom of speech, and are not afraid to voice their opinions.

goesaround

07-13-2005, 03:45 PM

Well I am dissappointed. Very disappointed. BUT I would love to see George make a sequel with an independent and make it his way. It looks like he's not going to be a Hollywood director for WHATEVER reason. But the fact remains NOBODY has made zombie movies on the multi-level(Whether you catch the political metaphors or not) that he has and without Romero there would be NO flesheating return from the dead Zombie movies. I think beside the studio problems I think George is bored with the zombie as menace. We however are not but he is and so here we are. I love George Romero for who he is and what he has given to me But either he makes a sequel with the brilliance and devotion of his 3 earlier pictures(And I do include Day right up there) or he makes for HIS own enjoyment 'Diamond Dead' and we look for new talents like the budding zombie movie 'Locked Away' on another thread.

preacher

07-13-2005, 05:19 PM

i dont agree with the studio meddling as an excuse

it wouldnt make sense for universal to tell Gar what to do and interfere with the making of the film then turn around and promote the film on the asis of his reputation as the creator of the genre

im afraid like with the star wars films, the originals were made when the director was young, hungry and bursting with energy.

then 20 years later times have changed, theyre given everything they need to complete the film to exactly their specifications, whic sometimes works out for the worse

sometimes its good that they have to fight for something, its good that time or money constraints prohibit them from doing something because then they have to use their imagination to come up with something else.

from my experience the things that you initially think are brilliant arent as good as the stuff that develops from adapting a failed idea

if theyre allowed to do everything they wanted then theres no spontaneity, no life or energy to the pic

Shredmonkey

07-13-2005, 05:53 PM

The most amusing part of all this is the fact that Day of The Dead got a simillar drubbing by the fans back in the day. Not on the interweb of course, but through fandom. It will amuse me no end to see people hailing this as a classic in a few years yet always pointing out it's not quite as good as Dawn78 :)

devourthesun

07-13-2005, 06:00 PM

(Thanks for fixing the link) And I think fans just enjoy bitching about everything. and I know i forgot about the night zombie with the rock. Its been a long ass time since i've watched thta movie.

Slumlord

07-13-2005, 06:34 PM

That's the last thing we want. Romero should never be alowed to direct another film again after this schlock. He can write all he want's but leave the directing to someone with talent.

Well, Zombie is making another movie after his initial turd. If he can get another chance at a sequel than anyone should. RUN RABBIT!! RUN RABBIT RUN!!! :loon:

Land was okay but then again I didn't go into the theater thinking "This is gonna kick ass because George Romero made it." If it's in the theater and has zombies, I'll watch it. So when it came time for that goofball ending I just shrugged it off as silly and didn't whine about "Oh George, why oh why have you forsaken thee!!" but instead said, like everyone else, that they should have wasted every zombie in sight.

Hell, there was one point where I even felt that Dead Reckoning was way too powerful and kinda threw everything off balance. But, time, technology and tons of zombies... something like that would be bound to show up.

Brody

07-13-2005, 06:41 PM

Sigh

Or maybe it's because it sucks. Let's go over this again and stop acceting that it was good enough to be okay.

1. It sucked.

2. Romero cannot make a film

3. Romero's claim to fame is being responsible for the biggest Cult Classic in Horror history; does this make him a great filmmaker? No. The film is a let-down; it looks as if some hack directed it

4. The plot is absurd

5. The film was boring

6. It sucked

7. It had like 20 Zombies in it; this is the LAND OF THE DEAD?

8. The Dead Recononing was a stupid plot device and a Tango and Cahs kind of vehicle. Rocket Launchers? GPS? Come on...............

Just accept it. Its not the Studio, It's George A Romero. Sorry guys. I know I'm in the minority and am not trying to go against the grain; it just was not a good film. Period.

I mean DOTD 04 and SHAUN and 28 Days Later were better films than this piece of crap. This should have been MAGNUS OPUS of ZOMBIE FILMS and is the weakest film in the series.

The Return of the Living Dead is better than this.

It's been pointed out a hundred times; the set's used are weak. the charcter's are weak, the story is weak.

It sucked.

Will I own this? Of course. I own ZOMBIE for cryin out loud and that is horrible; deliciously horrible in a zombie way.

The perfect Zombie film has:

1. The opening sequence of Dawn of the Dead 04 in Scale of the Outbreak.

The film should have this illusion thourhgout. The end of the world. Chaos. Wasteleand of the Dead type stuff. DAWN 04 made you feel like Anna really was in trouble driving along through the city.

2. The VASTNESS of 28 Days Later

28 Days Later really feels emptry in a good way. You feel that London really is deserted.

3. The Creepiness and Despair of NIGHT of the Living Dead

NOTLD nailed the creep factor and gave us the reality that the farmhouse was a desolate and bad place to be.

Character's. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.... Has any Zombie film nailed the charcters yet? How about SHAUN? Maybe even a few in DOTD 04? I dont know. I dont think any film has nailed this element yet. I mean, do we really care about Roger in DOTD? :x

It sucked! :puke: :clap:

goesaround

07-13-2005, 08:46 PM

What are you tripping? Roger was a good guy who I sure cared about. Him coming back and for a second looking at his predicament and then we dont see his total dropping of humanity. I felt that bullet. No I cared and I know a lot of people feel the way I did. Land of the Dead for whatever reason was a strikout at bat but Babe Ruth struck out. I really believe George will make the sequel great, it has the elements that he does best Claustrophobia in a lost world. With the criticism biting at his heels he will care again, criticism is one thing but to kick him like some people are doing is pathetic.

Brody

07-13-2005, 10:13 PM

I dig it. I never got Roger; too cocky unrealistic to me. I liked Peter and Stephen though. I though Gaylen Ross was kind of skanky though...

:doh:

mojo

07-13-2005, 10:42 PM

I agree with Outland. I think the original "Dawn" was the only movie where i could have cared less about the characters. I think i cared more for the zombies being hidden by their loved ones and hoping to not get shot by the police in the beginning of the film than i have for the main characters. I dunno maybe it was the fact that the movie had a 70's vibe and was done with a sense of humor and cheesy effects (bright red "blood", dried oatmeal on face for "peeling flesh", etc.) that made me care less about the characters and their feelings.

...of course Romero's latest flop, where he put compassion into his zombies and tried to make the audience care for "Big Daddy" was WAYYY worse than caring for the characters in "Dawn". Holy hell that movie was :poo:

Bad Zombie Night

07-13-2005, 10:48 PM

4. The plot is absurd

5. The film was boring

6. It sucked

LMFAO!!! http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/LMAO.gif

I know Land was disappointing... It's analogous to an A+ student bring home a report card with a C- on it, and his mom is waving her finger saying, "Now I know you can do much better than this." :naughty:

7. It had like 20 Zombies in it; this is the LAND OF THE DEAD?

LOL! :lol:

GPS?
Well, at least we know that the satellites are still working up there.

MADMAN

07-13-2005, 11:28 PM

Character's. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.... Has any Zombie film nailed the charcters yet? How about SHAUN? Maybe even a few in DOTD 04? I dont know. I dont think any film has nailed this element yet. I mean, do we really care about Roger in DOTD? :x

It sucked! :puke: :clap:

Hey maybe you'll like the characters in mine. That is if my editor ever finishes with it and I find a composer.

And Land wasn't that bad. I mean, did you at least have fun wathcing it?

Brody

07-14-2005, 12:31 AM

Well I am the Zombie junkie like all of you; so yeah

on a primitive zombie level I dug it. But damn if the GRADE ANALOGY isn't spot on (A + bringing home the C -)

I can watch Fulchi's ZOMBIE or Thr Return of the LIving Dead (which I love) and Shaun (which I am watching now) and be entertained.

I'm just bitter.

I have along way togo to becoming a skilled filmmaker but my dream is to make I AM LEGEND before Hollywood screws it up; maybe if the Stars are aligned and Fate is kind and Miracles do come true I'll make the mother of all dead films (technically Vampires I know).

tarman

07-14-2005, 02:55 AM

i dunno...the last man on earth is already the ultimate film version of i am legend...you better make it amazing or you'll hear some damn harsh criticism! :evil:

The most amusing part of all this is the fact that Day of The Dead got a simillar drubbing by the fans back in the day. Not on the interweb of course, but through fandom. It will amuse me no end to see people hailing this as a classic in a few years yet always pointing out it's not quite as good as Dawn78

bingo! i bet if this was 1985, we'd be saying "ugh how can he have a smart zombie like bub in the movie? zombies can't be smart!" and how return of the living dead is a much better movie (which i think is true :) but i'll keep it ironic for arguments sake!).

all differences aside, whether you love this movie or hate it, it is a zombie movie! i would like to think that us zombie fans could appreciate this movie the same way we can appreciate watching movies ranging from dawn of the dead all the way to garden of the dead. throw in zombie lake and get me some pizza. it's all good! when we start picking away at every little detail, that's when it takes the fun out of it :-(

zombiekilling101

07-14-2005, 03:13 AM

nice tarman, as a zombie film .. its one of my favorites.. not the favorite but top 10 easilly. as a horror film.. i still think its great.

yeah the more we bust on little mistakes. .the less we actually will like it.

preacher

07-14-2005, 03:13 AM

land of the dead toys...

http://img303.imageshack.us/img303/6682/lotdtoys2jq.jpg

jackskellington

07-14-2005, 06:47 AM

...without Romero there would be NO flesheating return from the dead Zombie movies.

Come on now. Do you really think that no one would have ever thought to have corpses returning from the grave and devouring people for a horror movie premise if GAR had never done NOTLD? I'm not even certain that he started the whole "flesheater" idea but I am very certain that it would have been done without him sooner or later.

jackskellington

07-14-2005, 06:53 AM

:...i bet if this was 1985, we'd be saying "ugh how can he have a smart zombie like bub in the movie?(

I was only 15 in 1985 when I saw Day, but I have never thought anything bad about Bub. Bub was alot more like a dog that doesn't mind being caged up because he knows that he'll get food, shelter and protection and therefore he is grateful to his owner whom he would kill for. Big Daddy was just stupid and cheesy.

Sadogoat

07-14-2005, 07:21 AM

The problems I had with Big Daddy were:

a) He roared a little too often.

b) He was 'selectively' smart. On the one hand, he couldn't figure out why there's no car at his gas station when the bell rings; or why his pneumatic hammer suddenly stops working when the plug is pulled - but on the other hand, he does remember to go back and get that bowling ball thing to blow up Kaufman - which is arguably quite sophiscated for a zombie. How convenient.

DocZomby

07-14-2005, 11:08 AM

...of course Romero's latest flop, where he put compassion into his zombies and tried to make the audience care for "Big Daddy" was WAYYY worse than caring for the characters in "Dawn". Holy hell that movie was :poo:
I'm confused, are you saying that Dawn was crap or Land? I do think that Land sucked. I also don't think that the critique is "nitpicking on every teensy thing" it has to do with the general pacing of the film. It's playing the same song he played 20 years ago

I think Romero did a kick ass job of making certain zombies sympathetic in Dawn. The moment where Fran is staring through the glass at the sitting baseball zombie was a great moment. In Land I didn't get that kind of feel at any time.

Regarding issues with "smart" big daddy vs. "smart" Bub, lets remember that Bub was conditioned to respond, "And now it's time for your reward!" Whereas Big daddy just got smart by walking out to fill the invisible car. Not to mention the fact that Big Daddy didn't just take new info in and remember it, he disseminated info to the other zombies as well.

No nitpicking, the movie was just a dud. It was worse that Day based on one final thing: at least Day featured the "we're being punished by the creator" monolouge. Land just gave us 93 minutes of old material.

Bad Zombie Night

07-14-2005, 11:47 AM

b) He was 'selectively' smart. On the one hand, he couldn't figure out why there's no car at his gas station when the bell rings; or why his pneumatic hammer suddenly stops working when the plug is pulled - but on the other hand, he does remember to go back and get that bowling ball thing to blow up Kaufman - which is arguably quite sophiscated for a zombie. How convenient.
Yeah, that's true... I guess he evolved right before your very eyes.

Bad Zombie Night

07-14-2005, 11:55 AM

Whereas Big daddy just got smart by walking out to fill the invisible car.
I guess we can conclude then, that working at a gas station is a thriving learning environment.

Not to mention the fact that Big Daddy didn't just take new info in and remember it, he disseminated info to the other zombies as well.

All for except a few scenes here and there, you wonder where these Zombie workshops were taking place. :roll:

R-Complex

07-14-2005, 01:34 PM

Regarding issues with "smart" big daddy vs. "smart" Bub, lets remember that Bub was conditioned to respond, "And now it's time for your reward!" Whereas Big daddy just got smart by walking out to fill the invisible car. Not to mention the fact that Big Daddy didn't just take new info in and remember it, he disseminated info to the other zombies as well.
Without getting into the details or reviewing the film (I've waxed oh so eloquently elsewhere on why I loved this latest incarnation of Romero's zombies even though it was nowhere near the level of genius as Night' or Dawn', but was far superior to Day'). I certainly don't have a problem with people's negative or positive opinions on the film, but I do have a nitpick with those who have consistently made the claim that Land' was weakened by intelligent zombies, particularly in comparison to Bub from Day'. This is not entirely true though; Bub was the product of some Skinner-like conditioning, but much of it was spontaneous and not initiated by Dr. Logan. Though there's the insinuation that Bub had been exposed to the phone before, there was no hint that he'd spoken "Aunt Alicia" prior to this- everyone seemed equally shocked at the response. Bub's saluting Rhodes (I assume he recognized his unifrom) also seemed an unmotivated repsonse. Also, Bub clearly never had a gun before but he not only cocked the weapon he aggressively pointed it at Rhodes with no prior prompting or exposure. Bub clearly made the decision on his own, determining that Rhodes was the bad guy and Logan, and himself, were threatened by him. Bub also never attacked anyone; he, like Big Daddy, seemed to be able to control their cannibalistic lust. The only difference between Bub and Big Daddy's intelligence seems to be B.D.'s ability to pass his knowledge on to other zombies. That was the defining moment and theme of Land': learning from one's mistakes and experiences and building on them.
Lastly, I saw Bub and B.D.'s "evolution" of intelligence more along the lines of recovered memories or dredging up once long lost behaviors and thoughts. That is, memories are what make us human and the dead never truly lost their cognitive past but merely buried it under atavistic layers of uncontrollable cannibalism and single-minded determination to consume. I never got the impression that memories were forever lost; Bub and B.D. are not creating behaviors from whole cloth, they're simply reviving what was always there.

Brody

07-14-2005, 03:09 PM

Probally the most surprising element for me in this thread is reading that not only do some people here NOT like Day of the Dead but that LAND is possibly a better film than DAY?

Wow. That's a real shocker for me. :x

Day is such an under appreciated film and I have never known why. I thought LAND was so bad that even mentioning it in the same breath as NIGHT, DAWN or DAY is a hard thing to swallow.

:loon:

goesaround

07-14-2005, 03:09 PM

I think Romero did a kick ass job of making certain zombies sympathetic in Dawn. The moment where Fran is staring through the glass at the sitting baseball zombie was a great moment. In Land I didn't get that kind of feel at any time.

No nitpicking, the movie was just a dud. It was worse that Day based on one final thing: at least Day featured the "we're being punished by the creator" monolouge. Land just gave us 93 minutes of old material.[/QUOTE]

You are right. You felt sad in Dawn because the pathos of being regular people caught for ever into a nightmare zombie twilight was heart tugging. At least as long as there was plexi-glass between them. Another instance of this was in Dawn 90 when Barbara points the gun at woman and doll zombie and screams but has to shoot when the zombie turns bitey. These 'Land' zombies didn't make it. Only in the woods and in the liquor store was the old Romero with us. But without Romero adding the Spiritual element gnawing at our gut the political element becomes 'lifeless' propaganda. I'll tell you what I would trade that one long totured howl in "one big tooommmbbbssttoonne" in Day of the Dead which was miles above Land of The Dead, with all the growls by Big Daddy!

Brody

07-14-2005, 03:18 PM

Didn't you just post this?

eardrumbuz

07-14-2005, 04:37 PM

zombiekilling101

07-14-2005, 05:15 PM

when i said the lotd characters lacked development for us to care about them the way we do the characters in the other romero films, i didn't mean "care" in the way that you care about a loved one. it just means that we didn't know them well enough to have any feelings about them (good or bad) if they became zombie food. i didn't like flyboy. he was an idiot most of the time. i couldn't wait for ben to finally shoot cooper. and have i ever anticipated anything as much as rhodes' demise? i think not.

thats true, i for one love the movie.. but the only characters that were really attachable were Charlie and Riley.. just a couple of good ole boys.

and for some reason.. i loved brubaker! too bad he didnt cap more zombies

devourthesun

07-14-2005, 06:04 PM

Heres my thoughts on several issues

Day vs Land- I like them both.

Bub vs Big Daddy- I like em both, BD is to me, a natural evolution

Land is the Greatest VS Land is the Worst- It was decent. It fits the series. Its a ****ing movie about walking corpses!

Sometimes this forum is worse than some of the star wars ones i've glanced at

Bad Zombie Night

07-14-2005, 06:15 PM

Land is the Greatest VS Land is the Worst- It was decent.
Hmmmm.... I'm not sure what you mean by this. :think:

devourthesun

07-14-2005, 08:50 PM

I meant in the argument of "Land is Crap" vs "Land Is the Greatest" I thought it was a decenet flick. Just go to my site and read my review.

*God i love plugging that site!)

eardrumbuz

07-15-2005, 12:51 AM

i didn't have any particular attachment to riley. only on the level that he was the obvious positive force/leader, so when he had to struggle to get back into dead reckoning there was some tension attached to that moment. but all the tension that was built up there was quickly lost when the legless zombie drops in on 'expendable guy'. that was one of the more disappointing moments for me, cuz i could've easily seen it played out to much more effect like this:

legless zombie drops in on charlie. charlie wrestles to keep the gnashing teeth away. his gun is pinned between him and the zombie and he doesn't want to move his hand to the trigger for fear that letting up on his grip will give the zombie a chance to bite. pillsbury grabs the zombie's arm and tries to pull him off, but he pulls the arm off with no body. then the zombie swings to one side, bites 'expendable guy', camera cuts to outside dead reckoning, and we hear a gunshot. back to shot from lotd where riley opens the door...

cholo, charlie, and kaufman were the best developed characters in the movie. they're the ones i was most emotionally tied to. and while i wanted to follow riley and slack's stories and find out what would happen to them, i don't think we got quite enough of them on screen (especially slack. she became more of an accessory after the jail scene).

jackskellington

07-15-2005, 07:54 AM

Bub was the product of some Skinner-like conditioning, but much of it was spontaneous and not initiated by Dr. Logan.

I thought pretty much everything he did was initiated by Logan. The razor and the telephone and the book were all introduced to him by Logan. Granted he wasn't "taught" what to do with the items, but I thought Logan "initiated" the whole thing just by giving him the items with the promise of a reward to come if he used them correctly.

Bub's saluting Rhodes (I assume he recognized his unifrom) also seemed an unmotivated repsonse.

Logan stated that Bub was evidently in the military in his former life and that would have been the motivation for the salute.

Also, Bub clearly never had a gun before but he not only cocked the weapon he aggressively pointed it at Rhodes with no prior prompting or exposure.

His military experience would have shown his knowledge of firearms.

Bub clearly made the decision on his own, determining that Rhodes was the bad guy and Logan, and himself, were threatened by him.

I thought he pointed it and pulled the trigger because Rhodes wouldn't return his salute which was an insult rather than a threat.

Bub also never attacked anyone; he, like Big Daddy, seemed to be able to control their cannibalistic lust.

Bub was chained to the wall up until the end so we'll never know if he would've attacked or even been able to "teach" the other zombies like BD did. Although, when Sarah first went to see Logan when we were introduced to Bub, it looked like Bub was attempting to grab her until the chain stopped him. Granted, after he shot Rhodes he didn't take part in eating him so apparently he did have some self control.

Bastard Turtle

07-15-2005, 09:12 AM

Well...um...I was just thinking something, for some reason or another...

When Cholo goes after Kaufman at the end, Kaufman shoots him twice, but neither time is in the head. But then Cholo slumps, on the floor, apparently not in good shape. I'm of the opinion that he was still very alive at this point, just well on his way to zombification, or death as it were. Kaufman's bullets killed him, he got back up...

But most people are of the idea that he was dead and walking already...just wonderign what everyone thought.

R-Complex

07-15-2005, 11:00 AM

Jackskellington wrote:
I thought pretty much everything he did was initiated by Logan....Granted he wasn't "taught" what to do with the items, but I thought Logan "initiated" the whole thing just by giving him the items with the promise of a reward to come if he used them correctly.
That's my point: Logan did introduce the props to "inspire" Bub but Bub ran with them from there. He was dredging up memories that were innate. I understand that Big Daddy didn't have the benefit of an instigator, but the leap from non-cognition to cognitive abilities was a matter of subtle degree that didn't seperate the two zombie protagonists by much.

Logan stated that Bub was evidently in the military in his former life and that would have been the motivation for the salute.
Yep. I didn't mean that Bub's newfound consciousness sprang into being out of nowhere- just the opposite in fact: he's a product of what he was when he was alive. The dead are just us with the unfortunate handicap of craving flesh and decomposing. And stumbling a lot.....and lacking most social graces....and biting things a lot.

Military experience would have shown his knowledge of firearms
Are we disagreeing? I don't believe so........ By "unmotivated response" I mean that Logan didn't specifically behaviorize Bub into conducting the action. Bub wasn't a trained dog that would respond only with positive or negative reinforcements, he actually reacted on his own accord based on the vestiges of memory from his former life. Logan may have nudged certain mental processes into action, But Bub ran with them. It's also interesting to note that Eugene Clark has stated that he thought B.G. was ex-military, thus explaining his patting the gun strap with authority and picking up the basics of a gun rather quickly.

I thought he pointed it and pulled the trigger because Rhodes wouldn't return his salute which was an insult rather than a threat.
I see it as both a threat and an insult. I guess the threat was better implicated immediately after when Bub is visibly terrified by Rhode's threat. Bub's emotional reaction was not something Logan taught him but was a new reaction. Also, other zombies in Day' react with a bit more emotion than in the previous films: Beef Treats comes to mind when he and the female zombie become rather pensive and a bit reflective after Logan turns the lights out as punishment. Perhaps I'm reading way too much into this scene, but that's what forums were invented for-right? :)

Bub was chained to the wall up until the end so we'll never know if he would've attacked or even been able to "teach" the other zombies like BD did. Although, when Sarah first went to see Logan when we were introduced to Bub, it looked like Bub was attempting to grab her until the chain stopped him. Granted, after he shot Rhodes he didn't take part in eating him so apparently he did have some self control.
True. Again, I'm probably reading far too much into this but I always interpreted Bub's intentions when popping up behind Sarah as more of a "who's this?" type of curiousity. He was a puppy who just saw a stranger enter his home and now wants to know who it is. Bub never appears excited or aggressive in this scene but seems more inquisitive in my opinion. In fact both Sarah and Dr. Fisher remark on how calm Bub is particularly around Logan and even when Rhodes and his men first come into the room when Logan is "testing" Bub. He never seems to lose his cool and go all zombie on anyone until he mourns the loss of Logan.
Good post Jackskellington!

devourthesun

07-15-2005, 02:24 PM

I totally agree with you on some of your points.

The Day zombies were alot more emotional, and i thought it was kinda funny that when logan reprimands the two zombies who wont eat their beef treats, they seem like little children who are confused and upset that they seemed to have screwed up some how.

I always saw bubs use of the gun as 2 things, 1 remembered from his "Possible" millitary training, and from seeing rhodes **** and aim the gun at him.

Bub was a charachter that had emotional weight behind him, and i think one of the best scenes in that movie is when Bub is chasing rhodes through the compound and Rhodes is screaming his lungs out

with regard to Cholo's death, I sorta asumed he wasnt quite dead yet, when he was limping through the garage he was dying yes, but not dead yet. when kaufman shoots him, then he dies, and goes into John Leguzombie mode.

The only thing i didnt really like about Big Daddy's "Revenge" on Kaufman, is that he didnt ever actully have any real contact with Kaufman, Bub at least had Rhode insult him then threaten to kill him, BD just saw his buddies get F-ed up. The scene was cool, but it just didnt ring quite true.

And did anyone else notice the scenes where they slipped alittle Day music in with the regular soundtrack?

zombiekilling101

07-15-2005, 02:31 PM

with regard to Cholo's death, I sorta asumed he wasnt quite dead yet, when he was limping through the garage he was dying yes, but not dead yet. when kaufman shoots him, then he dies, and goes into John Leguzombie mode.

?

hmm. i never thought about it that way.. and that seems better, seeing that he fell down after being shot in the body.

zombiekilling101

07-15-2005, 02:32 PM

Iwith regard to Cholo's death, I sorta asumed he wasnt quite dead yet, when he was limping through the garage he was dying yes, but not dead yet. when kaufman shoots him, then he dies, and goes into John Leguzombie mode.

?

hmmm, i never thought of it that way.. it seems more plausable that way. seeing that he got shot a couple times then fell. thanks devour

goesaround

07-15-2005, 02:48 PM

zombiekilling101

07-15-2005, 02:52 PM

My take on Cholo was he already was a zombie but was only bringing Kaufman in closer with him slumping pretending to be finished. Yes Day was so much better then Land. Someone here said Bub was was not canibalistic. But one of the beautiful philosophical unanswered questions was..would Bub have attacked Logan when the 'treats' ran out? So was bub nice because Logan was nice or was Bub nice because the treats were nice?

well the treats ran out when logan was killed.. and he didnt eat him. so mabye hes cool with humans that dont try to kill him.

i was pissed that Big Daddy didnt eat, he hated the humans so much why not take a bite? and he never killed anyone besides kaufman, what was up with that.. oh and his zombie freind

DocZomby

07-15-2005, 03:49 PM

Big Daddy seemed much more interested in vengence than a buffet. He was working for his people. Bub was a much better "smart" zombie. Bub really never lost his "joi de morte" if you will.

I think that Day and Land were both bad but for different reasons. I'm shocked that Romero was only able to get 93 minutes of material considering the amount of backstory alluded to. The resistance, the "garbage" all could have fleshed out the film in a way that would have been great. Instead we had to be dragged though an exeedingly boring time crunch and automatic gunfire that offered no tension. Day was bad due primarily a lack of character development and poor directing(no intensity layers). The only long term difference for me is that I can't see myself actually buying Land and I already own Day.

jackskellington

07-15-2005, 05:58 PM

goesaround

07-15-2005, 06:08 PM

Pain

07-15-2005, 06:08 PM

You know, alot of people on ATZ have regarded Day at the bottom of their list of favorite Romero movies, but now that Land has pretty much bottomed out, I think Day is gonna finally get the respect it deserves.

Not seen Land yet :x but Day was never at the bottom of my list. They all have their merits but which one i prefer is entirely dependant on my mood at any given time. Saying that though, from what i have read (and i've tried to avoid any real plot detail) i think Land is gonna have a tough time joining the Unholy trilogy on my favourites list :x

R-Complex

07-15-2005, 07:05 PM

... now that Land has pretty much bottomed out, I think Day is gonna finally get the respect it deserves.
I think Day' has had it's fans from the beginning but has certainly attracted a broader appeal as time has passed. I saw Day' in the theater and hated it! I mean absolutely loathed it and afterwards boycotted all things Romero as only a 15 year old fan boy can boycott. As the years have gone by, and after multiple viewings, I still think it's the weakest of Romero's zombie films (but not Romero's overall worst film), but I appreciate it in its own way and actually enjoy watching it as a piece of entertainment (and those Savini effects are surpassed only by Bottin's work on Carpenter's the Thing). Maybe Land' will worm its way into people's maggoty hearts further down the road.... Perhaps not.

R-Complex

07-15-2005, 07:07 PM

Perception is an amazing thing. I loved the characters in day. It was just brilliant. A bit too truncated but brilliant. I think the commentary by the director of 'Killing Zoe' on the DVD explains from a succsessful director the great camera shots and the way the acting pulls you way in right from the getgo what a good film that it was. You may not like it but a number of modern hip filmakers like Avery and Tarintino sure did. I wish Land was half the movie that Day is.
I agree on the perception issue: I am one of the few zombie fans that loved Land'; I'm also one of the few horror geeks that absolutely loathed House of 1,0000 Corpses. An utter waste of electricity to project that drivel onto the big screen! But some loved it and look forward to 'Rejects. The wide range of tastes in the horror genre is what attracts me to message boards to read people's varied opinions. I doubt there's be as wide a range of views on a Star Trek board or LotRs chat rooms. I think Day' boasts some of the most amazing technical effects, some abyssmal acting and writing ("All you've given us is a mouthfull of Greek salad!" is one of the all time worst lines ever, yet it achieves a campy charm in hindsight), and Romero's most hamfisted antiwar sentiments yet. But I do have to say that opening matte shot puts most cg effects to shame!
I agree that Avary's commentary was great (I hope he doesn't ruin Silent Hill!), and am fascinated by his assertion that the film's characters are gay, but I really don't think Avary or Tarrentino's opinions are that relevant in determining whether a film is good or not. I love Tarrentino's work but I really wouldn't care if he loved or hated Dawn'. Same goes for Avary, who may be young and hip, but with only three director's gigs completed thus far (two for tv), I hardly view as a master of his craft.

Bad Zombie Night

07-15-2005, 07:11 PM

You know, alot of people on ATZ have regarded Day at the bottom of their list of favorite Romero movies, but now that Land has pretty much bottomed out, I think Day is gonna finally get the respect it deserves.
I agree with you js.
After I saw Land for the first time, I wasn't satisfied with it, but I needed time to let it settle with me... I had no doubt that Dawn, and Night were far better films, but I wasn't certain how it measured up to Day... My first impression was that Land was slightly better than Day, but now that I had time to reflect upon it, I'd rather watch Day than Land.

goesaround

07-15-2005, 07:40 PM

I agree on the perception issue: I am one of the few zombie fans that loved Land'; I'm also one of the few horror geeks that absolutely loathed House of 1,0000 Corpses. An utter waste of electricity to project that drivel onto the big screen! . I think Day' boasts some of the most amazing technical effects, some abyssmal acting and writing ("All you've given us is a mouthfull of Greek salad!" is one of the all time worst lines ever, yet it achieves a campy charm in hindsight), and Romero's most hamfisted antiwar sentiments yet. But I do have to say that opening matte shot puts most cg effects to shame!
I agree that Avary's commentary was great (I hope he doesn't ruin Silent Hill!), and am fascinated by his assertion that the film's characters are gay, but I really don't think Avary or Tarrentino's opinions are that relevant in determining whether a film is good or not. I love Tarrentino's work but I really wouldn't care if he loved or hated Dawn'. Same goes for Avary, who may be young and hip, but with only three director's gigs completed thus far (two for tv), I hardly view as a master of his craft.

I Love that line..'a mouth full of greek salad' Love it. I do think it matters about Tarintino and Avery in relation to argument that 'Day was a poorly made movie'. I was reacting to that by saying if two respected and Avery is, and certainly Tarentino is, perhaps too much, it says that Romero is respected among modern film makers. It dosent mean you have to like or dislike the film it just shows guys who make film do not agree with that posters assesment. Anyway why people think tha acting was terrible in Day is beyond me. I thought it was truly perfect. But I do agree 1000 corpses is a meaningless look at some guys misguided Id! Yuck I would'nt subject myself to that past 2 minutes..but thankfully it's a free country. What I want to know is why Savini really was not involved with 'Land' and I dont mead the little scrap walk on where he acts like Hulk Hogan which was just thrown to the fans. I said it and I'll say it again. His genuine enthusiasm is noticably missing from the film. I wonder why.

Brody

07-15-2005, 09:21 PM

R-Complex and Goesaround

Really solid posts from both of you :clap:

eardrumbuz

07-15-2005, 10:08 PM

...Day was never at the bottom of my list. They all have their merits but which one i prefer is entirely dependant on my mood at any given time... :x

yes. in many ways, day is my fave of them all. but, depending on what i'm exactly in the mood for, there are things about night and dawn that put them above the others. i think day has the best opening scene of almost any movie, period. and the climax is incredible. r-complex is right, best special effects aside from the thing. the ending just pops up too abruptly. no denounment.

looking to the future, i'd have to say that when i'm in the mood for more action and less dialog i'll be putting on the land dvd!

regarding the recent posts about big daddy, i had more problems with him (and the other lead zombies) initially than i do now. it was a little trying seeing the same few zombies so many times front and center. i would've liked some more variation in that dept., and bd's roaring was a bit over the top at first. i now agree with big zombie night that it takes some time to settle in after seeing it. after rewatching it and the more i think about it now, i don't mind those things so much. actually, i think the roaring works just fine. it's how he was able to express himself. still would've liked more prominently featured zombies. the thing i dislike now about bd is how the kaufman scene ends. i mean, he doesn't know anything about kaufman. if he chanced upon him, fine. the scene at the car was great. but if bd wasn't going to chomp on kaufman (and i think maybe he or another zombie should have), then once he walked away that should've been the end of his part in that scene. cholo could have achieved the same outcome, or it could've just happened from some accidental or coincidental spark.

i wasn't that thrilled when savini came on screen either. i would've rather seen a little build up to his shot than the quick 'in yer face' that we got. and i also wonder why he was so otherwise uninvolved.

Sadogoat

07-16-2005, 07:02 AM

From what I can recall, Savini didn't have much involvement due to problems with getting a work permit. Originally, I believe, he was supposed to be playing Cholo - but circumstances prevented it.

corgi37

07-16-2005, 10:23 AM

Yeah, Canadians kicked up a stink. I thought he was to play Cholo too, but i have read since that is was Fox

Zombie-A-GoGo

07-16-2005, 10:46 AM

Thank God he didn't play Cholo. Savini is really just not a very good actor. I've always said he should have just stuck to the FX...what he was good at. I recall when I was much younger, hearing him talk about FX in interviews and such...it was "what he always wanted to do with his life." Then suddenly (like, maybe just before 'From Dusk til Dawn') in interviews it was acting that was "what he always wanted to do with his life." Whatever.

Leguizamo is a FAR superior actor compared with Savini.

tarman

07-16-2005, 10:55 AM

leguzamo was awesome as cholo. no one else could have pulled that character off as well. although, savini was no slump as sex machine in from dusk til dawn!

jackskellington

07-16-2005, 11:06 AM

Leguizamo is a FAR superior actor compared with Savini.

Ever seen "The Pest" with Leguizamo? That might change your mind.

Bad Zombie Night

07-16-2005, 12:43 PM

Originally, I believe, he was supposed to be playing Cholo - but circumstances prevented it.
Funny how he went from a supporting role, down to a lowly Zombie that got a couple of screen takes that totaled five seconds.

Darth Erroneous

07-16-2005, 12:53 PM

Well we all know now that LOTD was terrible. But I think this movie could of been better if they had the following:

1-Ninjas
2-Robots
3-Flame-thrower
4-Fat kid from Goonies (zombie or actual character)
5-Cheetoes

1. Ok, yeah. Let's have Ninjas because that's what Romero is known for.
2. Let's throw some robots in too! I'm sure Rob Zombie can create an Astro Creep robot for it.
3. Let's turn a mob of zombies trying to eat people into a flaming mob of zombies trying to eat people.
4. It's difficult to have fat people in this future world, there isn't much food and people run a lot. He would have no place.
5. Cheetoes. How do you know that they weren't in the movie.

Bad Zombie Night

07-16-2005, 01:39 PM

For those of you keeping track...

As of 7/14/05 (Day 21) Land of the Dead has made $19,669,110

That's 3 weeks completed, and now we're starting our 4th.

Land should have no problem breaking $20M, unless their theater count doesn't drop drastically (1,098 presently)

Land has also jumped into the #8 All-Time Zombie Movie at the box office.

Zombie Box Office Top 10

Dawn of the Dead 2004..........$59,020,957
Death Becomes Her................$58,422,650
Pet Sematary........................$57,469,467
Resident Evil: Apocalypse........$51,201,453
28 Days Later.......................$45,064,915
Resident Evil.........................$40,119,709
Creepshow...........................$21,028,755
Land of the Dead.................$19,669,110
The Serpent and the Rainbow..$19,595,031
Pet Sematary II.....................$17,092,453

SGT. DEATH

07-16-2005, 03:07 PM

got Dreamwatch magizine to day with a 3 pagepiece on Land with interviews with George A him self and actors from the movie,also giving a SEPT 9TH UK release date.So I guess we will have a bit longer to wait after all.

zombiekilling101

07-16-2005, 03:16 PM

Yeah, Canadians kicked up a stink. I thought he was to play Cholo too, but i have read since that is was Fox

uh.. i cant picture him as cholo.. he would have to improvise the accent:lol:

im glad its still making money. Im gona try to see it again before it leaves my theaters.. it already left 1 of the local ones.. bastards

Ilovezombies!

07-16-2005, 10:12 PM

Has anyone found out if he has gotten the "go head" to make another movie or not or will they wait to make that choice until they see the total with dvd sales?

preacher

07-17-2005, 12:59 AM

why not push it back to halloween?

i mean if theyre going to keep it till september, then whats one more month?

Slumlord

07-17-2005, 01:19 AM

Slas[-[er

07-17-2005, 02:04 AM

..Holly SH!t thiS movie sucks...in the world of suck films Look whose talking 3 and Spice world were tops on list,,,but thx TO LOTD theres a new sherriff in town...this mabye worst cornball film i've ever seen...typical corn ball scene in LOTD goes as follows:

..with mabye only a 2 second window of opportunity really in the whole night for Big Daddy to nab Kauffman (Kauffman, Swinging from his elevator to the garage), Big D gets his man....showing impecable timing and good fortune in all the mass confusion and apocolpytic mayhem the egg plant somehow correctly targets Kauffman out of the crowd, "the man behind the mask" so to speak, and promptly makes a B-Line for him before he makes the exit, what CORNBALL swill/

..George how do you not know this Sh!t is CORNYY!@!!SUXX!@!

-

zombiekilling101

07-17-2005, 02:07 AM

Ark

07-17-2005, 02:15 AM

That's his first and only post? Let's have JV ban his ass, we don't want you here.

tarman

07-17-2005, 02:15 AM

i'm really tired of this senseless bashing of land. i know alot of people don't like this movie, but still! :cry:

what do you think of bub tracking down rhodes towards the end of day during all of the confusion and zombie mayhem? i hate to bring up points i've made before, but where's your sense of dramatic irony! :drinking:

and did you just call big daddy an egg plant??? that ain't right.

zombiekilling101

07-17-2005, 02:24 AM

i dont want him banned.. but at least earn some respect before posting something that is bound to piss off alot of people.. other people dont like the movie.. but we have civil debates with them now.. its good like that.. not coming on and blatantly trying to piss off people.. you moron.

its a movie people, remember alot of people like spiderman, but its alittle conveniant that a super hero his born with a supervillain to fight him.. right right. ok

Ark

07-17-2005, 02:27 AM

Fine, perhaps instant banning isn't the best action to take. But I am quite pissed about this, because this guy is the embodyment of every n00b steryotype in existance.

zombiekilling101

07-17-2005, 02:30 AM

Fine, perhaps instant banning isn't the best action to take. But I am quite pissed about this, because this guy is the embodyment of every n00b steryotype in existance.

yes sad, but very true. oh well

back to subject though.

A scene that was really well done to me, was when Charlie and Riley were walking into the city, and the whole thing was abandoned. that was cool, wish we could have seen more of the outside world.. crawling with zombies.

Ark

07-17-2005, 02:38 AM

I think the opening scene did a good job with that, considering the area was pretty well covered with them.

One thing I was wondering about: remember the scene in Dawn04 where the guy is one the roof looking out over the swarm of zombies gathered outside? Why isn't there a titanic number of zombies all around the perimeter of the island? Woldn't every zombie in the city and surrounding area be drawn to them?

Slas[-[er

07-17-2005, 02:39 AM

i suppose i did not give much regard for the board community here with my post made in haste... i apologize... i am just so very dissapointed i am...

zombiekilling101

07-17-2005, 02:45 AM

i suppose i did not give much regard for the board community here with my post made in haste... i apologize... i am just so very dissapointed i am...

hey cool man, least you not a dick about it.

So you really think that this is a crap fest all around?

Ark

07-17-2005, 02:52 AM

i suppose i did not give much regard for the board community here with my post made in haste... i apologize... i am just so very dissapointed i am...

Your apology is accepted. Just think before you post. And remember:

Friends Don't Let Friends Post Drunk!

Slas[-[er

07-17-2005, 03:00 AM

...after multiple viewings...im sure ill find some good in this film...however i don't fault Romero at all, it's not his fault...the type of brilliance and magic he possessed in his early years is just not sustainable, it just fades away...most geniuses do their best work in their early years...

you could say this parallels many great directors working today, who did their best work 10-20 years ago ..Burton hasn't made a good film in 10 years IMHO...Einstein did his best work in his early years with his theory of relativiity an everything..

Ark

07-17-2005, 03:03 AM

I'm sure if I scrutenized it hard enough, I could find some faults, but I really don't concern myself. The movie was entertaining and fun, and that's all I truely care about.

devourthesun

07-17-2005, 04:07 AM

zombiekilling101

07-17-2005, 04:54 AM

Sounds interesting

jackskellington

07-17-2005, 12:51 PM

i suppose i did not give much regard for the board community here with my post made in haste... i apologize... i am just so very dissapointed i am...

There's no need for an apology. These forums are here specifically for you to post your opinion and you did so without insulting any other members so you did absolutely nothing wrong. Funny how you can post stuff like that about HOTD and no one will say anything but for some reason you can't post stuff like that about GAR without being attacked. Don't get me wrong, I hated HOTD and I love GAR, (Though I was let down by Land), but we all have as much right to bash his movies as anyone else's.

jackskellington

07-17-2005, 12:54 PM

what do you think of bub tracking down rhodes towards the end of day during all of the confusion and zombie mayhem?

Bub had encountered Rhodes before and was insulted and threatened by him. Big Daddy had never even seen Kaufman before so it was kinda stupid how he just somehow knew that was the evil mastermind behind all of the zombies problems.

Darth Erroneous

07-17-2005, 12:57 PM

Well, Kaufman did make direct eye contact with BG and spoke (yelled) directly at him. Maybe it was the equivelant to a rodeo clown distracting a bull.

Bad Zombie Night

07-17-2005, 01:10 PM

Bub had encountered Rhodes before and was insulted and threatened by him. Big Daddy had never even seen Kaufman before so it was kinda stupid how he just somehow knew that was the evil mastermind behind all of the zombies problems.
Yep! Just another quirky inconsistency found in Land of the Dead. :doh:

What's Big Daddy's motivation for pursuing Kaufman? http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/Dunno.gif

Darth Erroneous

07-17-2005, 01:17 PM

What's Big Daddy's motivation for pursuing Kaufman? http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/Dunno.gif
[/list]

Maybe Big Daddy perceived Kaufman as being important from his stature and clothing. Big Daddy was wearing some funky threads and Kaufman had on a pretty slick suit. I think what would've help clear that up is if maybe somewhere along the way of getting to Fidler's Green, Big Daddy should have come across some leaflets or propaganda that Had Kaufman's face strewn all over it. Or maybe Big Daddy seeing Kaufman's face over-and-over so that when he did recognize him he would become angry.

jackskellington

07-17-2005, 01:29 PM

Nope. It was the typical "downtrodden, misunderstood mediocre dead-end job having worker" taking out the "Bush like fat-cat" plain and simple. Just the same old tired, worn out social statement Romero has done in all of his flicks. I didn't mind it in the others because it had a horror movie blended in, but with Land, the self-righteous preaching overshadowed any element of a horror movie that there may have been.

Bad Zombie Night

07-17-2005, 01:39 PM

Maybe Big Daddy perceived Kaufman as being important from his stature and clothing.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/Signs/signs053.gif

I know Bub recogzined Rhodes as a soldier, but everyone in the Fidler's Green was nicely, and many of the men were wearing suits.

I think what would've help clear that up is if maybe somewhere along the way of getting to Fidler's Green, Big Daddy should have come across some leaflets or propaganda that Had Kaufman's face strewn all over it. Or maybe Big Daddy seeing Kaufman's face over-and-over so that when he did recognize him he would become angry.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/Signs/signs053.gif

Yep, I'll said it again.
What leaflets, and propaganda? BD and his fellow compatriots were living on the other side of the river... Why would Kaufman leaflet that area for? Even if he did see his face on something, why would he even care? Kaufman didn't do anything to him.

Darth Erroneous

07-17-2005, 02:01 PM

[img]

Yep, I'll said it again.
What leaflets, and propaganda? BD and his fellow compatriots were living on the other side of the river... Why would Kaufman leaflet that area for? Even if he did see his face on something, why would he even care? Kaufman didn't do anything to him.

You're right, BZN. Kaufman didn't do anything to him...directly. Kaufman was responsible for sending his multi-million dollar vehicle into the city where the people who worked for Kaufman slaughtered the zombies that Big Daddy cared for. Big Daddy knew that Dead Reckoning and the people with it came from FG. Now if Big Daddy was to associate Kaufman with FG and Dead Reckoning, then that would account for his aggression.

And no, there were not any leaflets or propaganda. I just theorized that maybe if Kaufman was to try to bring people into FG and the surrounding city he would have to attract them by means other than modern communications. He would have to try to recruit from an outside source for his army and scavenging.

Bad Zombie Night

07-17-2005, 02:13 PM

You're right, BZN. Kaufman didn't do anything to him...directly. Kaufman was responsible for sending his multi-million dollar vehicle into the city where the people who worked for Kaufman slaughtered the zombies that Big Daddy cared for. Big Daddy knew that Dead Reckoning and the people with it came from FG. Now if Big Daddy was to associate Kaufman with FG and Dead Reckoning, then that would account for his aggression.

And no, there were not any leaflets or propaganda. I just theorized that maybe if Kaufman was to try to bring people into FG and the surrounding city he would have to attract them by means other than modern communications. He would have to try to recruit from an outside source for his army and scavenging.

I know these are supposed to intelligent Zombies, but this socio/political, out for revenge thing, is little hard for anyone to swallow... Kaufman did have something to do with all of this, but there is no way BD could know any of this, unless he got a regular subscription to the newspaper, delivered to his gas station daily.

Darth Erroneous

07-17-2005, 02:22 PM

I know these are supposed to intelligent Zombies, but this socio/political, out for revenge thing, is little hard for anyone to swallow... Kaufman did have something to do with all of this, but there is no way BD could know any of this, unless he got a regular subscription to the newspaper, delivered to his gas station daily.

Maybe it was zombie newspaper? Why not, they play instruments and such! :lol: Seriously, though. I'm not really sure how to explain the whole thing between BD and Kaufman. Maybe we're not supposed to read too much into the movie.

Bad Zombie Night

07-17-2005, 02:36 PM

I just happen to agree with js.

It's just another one of the flaws in the movie that has no reasonable explanation... If it were one of the crew from Dead Reckoning, or one of the other raiders, then I could see the point... When they were on one of their raiding runs, BD could have noticed them, and then possibly, he could have remembered them at a later time.

tarman

07-17-2005, 05:17 PM

i don't really watch zombie movies for reasonable explanations. the whole dead quadrilogy really doesn't have any sort of explanation as to what happend to cause all of this. there are some theories, but there is never any sort of clear cut answer.

i think deep down i would have preferred big daddy to kill kaufman in a more zombie-ish way, but still, oh the drama! you know big daddy and kaufman had to have a showdown sooner or later.

preacher

07-17-2005, 05:20 PM

maybe when he was alive big daddy hated rich white people or had once rented waterworld and harboured a grudge

Pain

07-17-2005, 07:04 PM

or had once rented waterworld and harboured a grudge

Lmfao! That made my day! :lol:

guerrilla

07-17-2005, 07:07 PM

maybe when he was alive big daddy hated rich white people or had once rented waterworld and harboured a grudge

well the "waterworld theory" is certainly plausible. what a crapfest that was.

Bad Zombie Night

07-17-2005, 07:29 PM

what a crapfest that was.

Which one are you referring to? Waterworld, or Land? :mrgreen:

Slas[-[er

07-17-2005, 07:47 PM

Big Daddy had never even seen Kaufman before so it was kinda stupid how he just somehow knew that was the evil mastermind behind all of the zombies problems.

..zombie problems, lmfao..BIG Daddys got zombie problems (with Kauffman)... he's growling and swiping at people like he's pissed off..stop chasing after us and biting at our noggin and we'll stop shootin at ur asses and discuss equality issues...he's pissed off at us!!??..excuse me if i value my brain ... i find this "big daddys pissed off" concept hilarious!

Slas[-[er

07-17-2005, 07:55 PM

.. unless he got a regular subscription to the newspaper, delivered to his gas station daily.

BWhahah!! i fell out of my chair on that one! ..Big D purusing the headlines while smokin a pipe and slipping into his favourite slippers

Bad Zombie Night

07-17-2005, 07:59 PM

..zombie problems, lmfao..BIG Daddys got zombie problems (with Kauffman)... he's growling and swiping at people like he's pissed off..stop chasing after us and biting at our noggin and we'll stop shootin at ur asses and discuss equality issues...he's pissed off at us!!??..excuse me if i value my brain ... i find this "big daddys pissed off" concept hilarious!
LMFAO!!! Good point... What possible issues could Big Daddy have? I'd say the people at the Fidler's Green had loads of problems, especially when Zombies came busting through their doors, and were playing tug-o-war with their intestines.

Slas[-[er

07-17-2005, 08:13 PM

LMFAO!!! Good point... What possibly issues could Big Daddy have? I'd say the people at the Fidler's Green had loads of problems, when Zombies came busting down their doors, and were playing tug-o-war with their intestines.

Hhaha!!!!@!...."that aint no vegetarian congregation busting down the door...run!!"

..always f the line up

corgi37

07-17-2005, 10:13 PM

Why are you lads so bloody picky? Every minor thing in Land is bagged. And, overblown.

Yet, no one mentions the most obvious blooper in history.

I mean, forget about Logan not reviving.

Why didnt Woolley revive?

Slas[-[er

07-17-2005, 11:02 PM

To the guy who liked Land and Hated Houe of a 1000 asshats, Your not alone!

Now, Since pretty much all i've seen on this thread is people bashing the crap out of land, Im going to do something that i never thought i would do, nor did i ever want to do. Since everyone has this insane devotion to Dawn *hey, I bought the $50 4 disc set so dont bash me yet* Im going to give it an Unbiased review. Im going to pick everyones favorite movie apart. And it will be posted at my site. And for the love of god, dont start ranting and raving about how anything i point out thats a negative thing in the movie is part of its "Charm" Im aware of that! Im just going to show you the point of veiw of someone who isnt a die hard zombie fan.

I will let you all know when its up

..that's a great idea dts....but ur review nor the WORLD's if it spoke would change my declaration....DOTD 78 is a Masterpeice...i don't care what anyone says...because i know i'm right and they are wrong (if they disagreed)..and vice versa with LOTD, that movie is a total fiasco and i don't care who disagrees with me, cuz i know they're wrong and i'm right!

zombiekilling101

07-18-2005, 12:06 AM

[QUOTE='Slas[-[er'what anyone says...because i know i'm right and they are wrong (if they disagreed)..![/QUOTE]

thats an open minded spirit.

I love dawn, it is my favorite zombie film of all time, but I see its flaws, as well as everyone else on the board. Yet we respected others opinions.
Example:

To Darth and outland pictures.... LAND ROCKS!:)

Slas[-[er

07-18-2005, 12:21 AM

..never wrote that i didn't respect other's opinons...i'm certain however of my mine

zombiekilling101

07-18-2005, 12:26 AM

..never wrote that i didn't respect other's opinons...i'm certain however of my mine

so if i said Dawn wasnt a masterpiece, Id be wrong?

Slas[-[er

07-18-2005, 12:35 AM

...doesn't matter because i know it is

zombiekilling101

07-18-2005, 12:39 AM

...doesn't matter because i know it is

Thats cool that you stand by your beliefs. I do to. I think Land is a well done film, stuck to the guidlines of his movies, kept the story going, added some new stuff, im sure some director down the line will take some ideas from this, just as they did from all his other dead movies.

Slas[-[er

07-18-2005, 12:49 AM

DOTD 78 is a masterpeice..and i state this not as opinon but as fact...it is GAR's Symphony No. 9.....a flawless masterpeice however is another question...

Rookie

07-18-2005, 01:24 AM

DOTD 78 is a masterpeice..and i state this not as opinon but as fact...it is GAR's Symphony No. 9.....a flawless masterpeice however is another question...

No its not, a its a boring two and a half hour long zombie docu drama that spends way to much time watching them sit on there ass at the mall.... If I want a documentry I will watch national geographic channel...

I'm Right, and your wrong.

see isnt that easy?

R-Complex

07-18-2005, 01:44 AM

Yet, no one mentions the most obvious blooper in history.
I mean, forget about Logan not reviving.
Why didnt Woolley revive?
......But do we know Wooley didn't revive? Perhaps he was shambling around soon after his demise. I always wondered what happened to Miguel's sister/girlfriend/wife that he chomped down on. Did she die of her wounds and join the ranks of the undead or did she go down in a hail of bullets? Important questions...... :scare:
Now the real question gnawing away at me does not concern Logan's failure to resurrect nor Wooley's stubborn insistence on staying dead, but it is the question of just why zombies find trampolines so amusing......
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/Sugriva/Wheeeeeee.jpg

R-Complex

07-18-2005, 02:25 AM

BWhahah!! i fell out of my chair on that one! ..Big D purusing the headlines while smokin a pipe and slipping into his favourite slippers
Actually, he prefers a snifter of brandy and the latest issue of the National Review.
I realize many have a problem with B.D. pursuing Kaufman (my wife also pointed it out after the second time I'd seen Land'), but I assumed the following: commensurate with B.D. regaining memories and intelligence, he also remembered Kaufman and his oppressive economic stranglehold on the area. I assumed that Kaufman had a well established fiscal empire built up long before the dead took over the earth and he was a hated neo-con capitalist back before the end of the world; he simply continued his exploitive methods and extended his greed into other laissez-faire pursuits as drugs, prostitution and gambling after the zombie uprising.
It was established in the opening scene that B.D. had been communicating with his fellow zombie proles for some time as well as demonstrating his hatred of the living (presumably due to his knowledge that they were foreign occupiers that had slaughtered many zombies in the past). After Dead Reckoning's assault, B.G. led his foetid army forth to the (only) glowing dwelling in the distance: Fiddler's Green, a metaphorical Trump Tower that "protected" the capitalist king secure in his castle. So B.G.'s growing body of consciousness conjured up the memory of Kaufman as a plutocratic oppressor, and Fiddler's Green was a glowing beacon that sparked yet another layer of memory in B.D., luring him to engage in the Long March across the moat like liberators swinging hand over hand across some Tatu River.
Now I accept that there are varied opinions on all films and my rationalization of this plot hole may be weak, but I wonder why people insist on finding flaws in films they despise yet fail to apply the same criticism to cherished films. I accept Dawn' as a flawed masterpiece, and I truly did not like the remake, but I accept both as having plot holes, tepid writing, varied performances, etc.- but artistic expression is a human endeavour and every attempt will be flawed. That's one of the fascinating things about storytelling: one person's Grande Illusion (IMHO one of the best films to date) is another's Ishtar, and vice-versa. So keep the criticisms coming! I love to disagree as much, if not more, than agreeing with other viewpoints; my gripe is with those who seem intent on casting stones with no real constructive or insightful impetus behind them.
But that's just my tuppence, and I certainly may be wrong. :clap:

preacher

07-18-2005, 03:37 AM

*looks up "commensurate" in a dictionary*

EricDaNerd

07-18-2005, 09:22 AM

Bub had encountered Rhodes before and was insulted and threatened by him. Big Daddy had never even seen Kaufman before so it was kinda stupid how he just somehow knew that was the evil mastermind behind all of the zombies problems.

I thought he went toward him initally because he started shooting him and shouting "You have no right..."etc...I only saw the movie once so I may have missed something.

rom1

07-18-2005, 09:30 AM

I saw "Land of the Dead" last night and I have to say that I was very disappointed.Several reviewers regarded this one as a "gory" zombie film.There was not the least drop of blood.Where were the beaheadings and other dismemberments that were announced in reviews?Everything was suggested.The only beaheading I saw was implied.Through "Land Of the Dead", George Romero never managed to recreate the atmosphere of "Dawn Of the Dead"(1978).The gore was abundant and most of time pretty graphic."Land Of the Dead" is a complete failure.

Bad Zombie Night

07-18-2005, 10:24 AM

There's already an official Land thread. :doh:

Cyber Bishop

07-18-2005, 11:57 AM

http://www.allthingszombie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4010

Try the search feature or just look on the page since the official thread has not moved off of page 1 since before the movie came out.

daemonfondler

07-18-2005, 12:29 PM

R-Complex

07-18-2005, 01:40 PM

Could it have been as simple as:

-B.D took off after Dead Reckoning and came across the city, and saw the only thing that was lit up like a candle (the tower) and decided to head after it, not really knowing that Kaufman was in it, just that it was this great light (their old attrackion to fireworks perhaps?)

-then when B.D came across Kaufman, Kaufman yelled at him then shot him several times, and basically pissed B.D off enough for B.D to pursue Kaufman.
:clap:
Sure, choose the simple logical answer over my convoluted interpretation!
It's interesting that in the screenplay B.D. grabs Kaufman's driver, sniffs him, then shoves him aside since he's not recognized as the enemy. Again, the sense of smell enters the picture......
But I've rambled about this elsewhere. (http://www.allthingszombie.com/forums/showthread.php?p=81772#post81772)

daemonfondler

07-18-2005, 02:38 PM

:)

one other thing, after reading the Autumn series by DJ Moody,

***SPOILER ALERT(minor)-FOR AUTUMN BOOK SERIES ***

The Autumn series handled the dead existing for a period of time after death, and that after several months the dead would be eatin from the inside out by insects, so survivors would just have to wait untill the dead were finished off by decomposition. (main point was to bunker down, and wait) some minor movement would occure after that, however, their bodies would be so frail that they were no longer a threat

*** end spoiler ***

this would still work for the original Romero movies, since the outbreak was still fresh. in Land of the dead, it doesn't really make sence the the dead would exist for that much longer, should there not have been a point where the old dead decomposed and the new dead were takin care of by a quick bullet to the head? would there be a need to go further in the dead stories? don't get me wrong I hope he would continue forever, but does it loose something by keeping the dead going after years and years? (me just pickin at details again... :) )

Slas[-[er

07-18-2005, 02:38 PM

Actually, he prefers a snifter of brandy and the latest issue of the National Review.
I realize many have a problem with B.D. pursuing Kaufman (my wife also pointed it out after the second time I'd seen Land'), but I assumed the following: commensurate with B.D. regaining memories and intelligence, he also remembered Kaufman and his oppressive economic stranglehold on the area. I assumed that Kaufman had a well established fiscal empire built up long before the dead took over the earth and he was a hated neo-con capitalist back before the end of the world; he simply continued his exploitive methods and extended his greed into other laissez-faire pursuits as drugs, prostitution and gambling after the zombie uprising.
It was established in the opening scene that B.D. had been communicating with his fellow zombie proles for some time as well as demonstrating his hatred of the living (presumably due to his knowledge that they were foreign occupiers that had slaughtered many zombies in the past). After Dead Reckoning's assault, B.G. led his foetid army forth to the (only) glowing dwelling in the distance: Fiddler's Green, a metaphorical Trump Tower that "protected" the capitalist king secure in his castle. So B.G.'s growing body of consciousness conjured up the memory of Kaufman as a plutocratic oppressor, and Fiddler's Green was a glowing beacon that sparked yet another layer of memory in B.D., luring him to engage in the Long March across the moat like liberators swinging hand over hand across some Tatu River.
Now I accept that there are varied opinions on all films and my rationalization of this plot hole may be weak, but I wonder why people insist on finding flaws in films they despise yet fail to apply the same criticism to cherished films. I accept Dawn' as a flawed masterpiece, and I truly did not like the remake, but I accept both as having plot holes, tepid writing, varied performances, etc.- but artistic expression is a human endeavour and every attempt will be flawed. That's one of the fascinating things about storytelling: one person's Grande Illusion (IMHO one of the best films to date) is another's Ishtar, and vice-versa. So keep the criticisms coming! I love to disagree as much, if not more, than agreeing with other viewpoints; my gripe is with those who seem intent on casting stones with no real constructive or insightful impetus behind them.
But that's just my tuppence, and I certainly may be wrong. :clap:

...some excellent points there RC....personally i find this whole discussion about plot, character development, zombies modus-operandi and socio-economic undertones kind of ridiculous and unproductive...when i belive films of this hollywood model are not applicable for such discussions of artistic merit

..now, i don't want to initiate a philosphers debate about definition of art or make personal grand pronouncements about what qualifies as valid art..i guess one could argue that everything is art and there is only good art and bad art...than it's bad art

..i think the direction many come from when rating this film, with 8 or 9 scores, is from a much simpler review format...which i agree with, rate this film on the scale of entertainment/fun factor...if that's the scale..i could see the validity of a 7.5/8 out of 10...Gar does take his fans on a stream-lined rollercoaster ride...

Slas[-[er

07-18-2005, 02:52 PM

No its not, a its a boring two and a half hour long zombie docu drama that spends way to much time watching them sit on there ass at the mall.... If I want a documentry I will watch national geographic channel...

I'm Right, and your wrong.

see isnt that easy?

..."sit on their ass at the mall"..ur judging DOTD as not a masterpeice becuase it is not an action film..what a ridiculous mutant u are....by the way ur wrong im right <<WINNER

Darth Erroneous

07-18-2005, 02:55 PM

...some excellent points there RC....personally i find this whole discussion about plot, character development, zombies modus-operandi and socio-economic undertones kind of ridiculous and unproductive...when i belive films of this hollywood model are not applicable for such discussions of artistic merit

Then what are we supposed to talk about? How hot the women are? Which character would win in a one-on-one fight? If Big Foot could defeat Dead Reckoning? I remember taking a film class many years ago in high school and we would discuss things such as plot, character development, etc. Elements like this are the makeup of the film. To not discuss every possible element of the film would be a disservice to the film and those associated with it.

Slas[-[er

07-18-2005, 03:14 PM

...yah i suppose ignoring those film elements would kind of disclude every availible possible topic discussion...lmfao, i am glad this film came out too, not having LOTD to bash would have made for a boring summer

Darth Erroneous

07-18-2005, 03:27 PM

not having LOTD to bash would have made for a boring summer

True, true. :lol: It's always good to have a film that has a high "love/hate" followship!

Mindtraveller

07-18-2005, 03:33 PM

Slas[-[er

07-18-2005, 04:18 PM

"If you're rooting for the monster, who the hell are you supposed to be afraid of?"

"..quite possibly the lousiest ending to any horror movie in history."

..that's it in a nutshell right there, good review

eardrumbuz

07-18-2005, 04:21 PM

Dead Remains

07-18-2005, 05:06 PM

I thought about writing a review now that I've had enough time to let the movie sink in my mind, but then I realized that I'd be just almost repeating what has been said by Alex Sandell.

Here's a review that pretty much sums up how I feel about the film:

http://www.juicycerebellum.com/200520.htm

I feel your pain! ....and I completely agree with you. Romero had gone too soft, the movie was too short, I definitely didn't care if any of the characters lived or died, not scary. Not scary... hell, hardly even suspenseful and Worst horror ending all the way (yeah i got a prostitute, i don't need sky flowers, lets go to canada and let the cute zombies live....i mean not live happily ever after....WTF?!?)
It's like the Romero trilogy and LOTD must stay separate because LOTD just simply isn't as good as the others.
Don't get me wrong, I still liked the movie, better than a lot of other zombie movies out there and I am looking foward to watching the uncut version.

R-Complex

07-18-2005, 05:40 PM

Which character would win in a one-on-one fight? If Big Foot could defeat Dead Reckoning?
Bigfoot or the Yeti? 'Cause I could see the Yeti kickin' some major ass here.... And that's not even mentioning Sasquatch or the Wendigo.
:)

jackskellington

07-18-2005, 05:49 PM

Don't get me wrong, I still liked the movie, better than a lot of other zombie movies out there and I am looking foward to watching the uncut version.

Even an uncut version cannot save this movie. Stick a fork in it...It's done.

Zombie-A-GoGo

07-18-2005, 05:52 PM

Slumlord

07-18-2005, 05:59 PM

It's interesting that in the screenplay B.D. grabs Kaufman's driver, sniffs him, then shoves him aside since he's not recognized as the enemy.

The Big D sniffs Kauffman's driver? When? I don't recall that at all. I just remember the driver running away before Big Daddy even gets remotely close to Kauffman. :think:

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.

I guess they thought fireworks was too generic a term and not distinctive enough. Instead of 'big exploding firework thingy in the sky that distracts zombies' we get 'skyflower' even though it sounds... well... gay.

jackskellington

07-18-2005, 06:02 PM

The Big D sniffs Kauffman's driver? When? I don't recall that at all. I just remember the driver running away before Big Daddy even gets remotely close to Kauffman. :think:

R-Complex was referring to the screenplay, not the finished movie.

Originally Posted by R-Complex
It's interesting that in the screenplay B.D. grabs Kaufman's driver, sniffs him, then shoves him aside since he's not recognized as the enemy.

R-Complex

07-18-2005, 06:18 PM

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.
I believe Romero has mentioned (of course I don't remember where I read this) that the fireworks are called 'skyflowers" as a reference to Pittsburgh's popular fireworks displays on their "light-up nights". I interpreted it as an inside joke and nod to his love of Pittsburgh. I suppose just calling them fireworks would have been sufficient though!
I was more distracted by the references to "stenches". I prefer ghouls, walking dead, or zombies. I guess the colloquialism for the dead was Romero's way of minimilizing their presence as the living took the threat for granted and reduced them to derogatory slang.

eardrumbuz

07-18-2005, 07:43 PM

i thought "skyflowers" was a bit weird. corny weird. i would've just used the word "flower" like "send up a flower" to make it as if they were using a nickname/abbreviation kinda thing. i liked the use of the word "stenches" and i think they also threw in "walkers" right?

Darth Erroneous

07-18-2005, 07:56 PM

Bigfoot or the Yeti? 'Cause I could see the Yeti kickin' some major ass here.... And that's not even mentioning Sasquatch or the Wendigo.
:)

Uh...I was refering to the monster truck. Sorry for the confusion.

Bad Zombie Night

07-18-2005, 08:19 PM

tarman

07-18-2005, 09:02 PM

eardrumbuz

07-18-2005, 10:06 PM

say what you want about the ending, but it was the only suitable ending for this movie. if riley blew away all of the zombies, it would totally undo everything the movie was trying to say. lame or not, give peace a chance! :puke:

that may be true, but we could've done with some better written dialog there. when the guy aims to shoot the zombies, riley could've just said "no, that won't be necessary" or "i don't think that's necessary"...ya know, without gettin all mushy for zombie love 'n all :)

Rookie

07-18-2005, 10:14 PM

I believe Romero has mentioned (of course I don't remember where I read this) that the fireworks are called 'skyflowers" as a reference to Pittsburgh's popular fireworks displays on their "light-up nights". I interpreted it as an inside joke and nod to his love of Pittsburgh. I suppose just calling them fireworks would have been sufficient though!
I was more distracted by the references to "stenches". I prefer ghouls, walking dead, or zombies. I guess the colloquialism for the dead was Romero's way of minimilizing their presence as the living took the threat for granted and reduced them to derogatory slang.

Romero has never used the word Zombies, I think it was said one time in Dawn, thats it for the entire triligy..

Most of the time they are just refered to as "they"

Bad Zombie Night

07-18-2005, 10:36 PM

I believe Romero has mentioned (of course I don't remember where I read this) that the fireworks are called 'skyflowers" as a reference to Pittsburgh's popular fireworks displays on their "light-up nights". I interpreted it as an inside joke and nod to his love of Pittsburgh. I suppose just calling them fireworks would have been sufficient though!
I was more distracted by the references to "stenches". I prefer ghouls, walking dead, or zombies. I guess the colloquialism for the dead was Romero's way of minimilizing their presence as the living took the threat for granted and reduced them to derogatory slang.
Romero has never used the word Zombies, I think it was said one time in Dawn, thats it for the entire triligy..

Most of the time they are just refered to as "they"

Hmmm... Let's see.
Night

Things
Ghouls
Flesh Eating Ghouls

Dawn

Zombies
Creatures
They
Things

Day

Dumb Fuks
They
Specimens

That's all I can remember off hand... Anyone wish to add something?

R-Complex

07-18-2005, 10:42 PM

Uh...I was refering to the monster truck. Sorry for the confusion.
No confusion..... :lol:
I was simply being a smartass!

Slas[-[er

07-18-2005, 11:48 PM

say what you want about the ending, but it was the only suitable ending for this movie. if riley blew away all of the zombies, it would totally undo everything the movie was trying to say. lame or not, give peace a chance! :puke:

Give peace a chance!!Lmfao...Gimme a break...if ur so hot for zombies, Riley, why don't u go suck BiG Daddy off!

Slas[-[er

07-18-2005, 11:55 PM

Dumb Fuks

[/list]

Bwhaha!@! Rhodes is hilarious...i think that term is a fairly accurate one

Bad Zombie Night

07-19-2005, 01:13 AM

Dumb Fuks

Bwhaha!@! Rhodes is hilarious...i think that term is a fairly accurate one

Yeah, I think that's my favorite one... Actually the list for Day is a bit longer... Do you recall all the colorful names Steel shouted at them, while standing on top of that platform at the corral?

Slas[-[er

07-19-2005, 08:58 AM

Yeah, I think that's my favorite one... Actually the list for Day is a bit longer... Do you recall all the colorful names Steel shouted at them, while standing on top of that platform at the corral?

..there was a bunch, someone should pop in the dvd and catalogue Steeles finest...if i had to guess mabye:

"puss sucking dum fuks"

"Lame As$ez"

"cerebally challenged indivudals"

"zit faced A-holz"

"darn varmints"

..i could be off..btw Rhodes starring in 'Land of the Dumb Fuk's'..there's ur film Gar...

corgi37

07-19-2005, 08:59 AM

Mostly "Dumb ****s" i think. But i loved the bit about "Biggest piece of meat in the cave".

I use that line all the time.

Usually in church, at funerals and when helping old ladies across the street.

Bad Zombie Night

07-19-2005, 09:09 AM

But i loved the bit about "Biggest piece of meat in the cave".

LOL! That's one of the funniest lines in the film... It's certainly an attention grabber. :lol:

FatherJack

07-19-2005, 09:53 AM

I was more distracted by the references to "stenches". I prefer ghouls, walking dead, or zombies. I guess the colloquialism for the dead was Romero's way of minimilizing their presence as the living took the threat for granted and reduced them to derogatory slang.

Actually "stenches" would make sense as a slang term. I mean those guys probably are not smelling like roses. :puke:

When I went to go see WotW the theater screwed up the screens and LotD was playing at first I thought 'cool!' but, sadly I switched and went to go see WotW because I wanted to see LotD with my wife. Now LotD has left the local theaters. :doh:

Slas[-[er

07-19-2005, 02:46 PM

[QUOTE=Moonbutterfly7][url]
I think I'll cry if Bewitched and Herbie made more money than Land.QUOTE]
.. and it still managed to made back about two thirds of its budget on its first weekend!! Not only that; excellent press reviews and word of mouth are likely to keep it in the charts for another couple of weeks at least. By this time next week the movie will have almost certainly turned a sizeable profit, and in Universal's eyes that makes the film a success... and that could mean a sequel!

George A. Romero's Land of the Dead (2005)
Total US Gross: $19,954,230
(As of Jul. 19th, 2005)
..has Land of the dum FUks even made it's budget yet, wasn't their budget $20mill...$19 MIll WOW Holly S@!!!..i don't think the stud execs are impressed, i think they've been warned, future Gar products.. avoid it like the bad part of town after dark