Land of the Dead

[KaosDevice]

The slow zombies is a reaction to the critism the remake of Dawn got for having the fast zombies, but the Zombie in Land are supposed to be incredibly strong to make up for the speed and very viscious compared to those in the orginal Dawn. Plus of course they are getting smart

Well the strength thing would make sense, not having a pain threashold and all and a complete disregard for their muscles. And I did pick up on the 'they're getting smarter' vibe from the TV spots. I'm really looking forward to catching it this weekend.

 

[barsoomcore]

How old were you when you saw them?

In my twenties.

I'm a wimp, what do you want?

What you describe is my reaction to the original Blob when I was about eight years old.

Yeah The Blob freaked the CRAP out of me. I mean, I couldn't sleep for TWO DAYS after watching that when I was a wee little tyke.

Slow zombies don't do anything for me at all.

They would, if you were more patient.



But yeah, it's all about the dread rather than the panic, for me. Interesting to note that in Alien the thing CAN (obviously) move fast, but you almost never see it doing so. There's the scramble of the chest-burster once it's free, the flash of the claw on Ripley's hand, but otherwise it barely moves at all on screen.

Gets you the best of both worlds, I guess. Maybe that's a key to that movie's particular power.

I also think things that are quicker and stronger than you are scarier than things that aren't. Jaws scared the crap out of me as a kid. But Attack of the Slow Moving Jellyfish Swarm certainly wouldn't have.

Again, Jaws kind of gives both worlds, doesn't it? You don't SEE the shark moving fast, really ever. That is, Spielberg isn't giving you, "Look at how kewl this is" thrills, he's giving you, "where is it where is it where is it" thrills. I think the more recent zombie movies went for the kewl thrills and they didn't have much impact on me as a result. Because as kewl thrills go, they were pretty lame.

 

[Templeton580]

*

 

[Cthulhudrew]

For me, zombie movies are scary in the same way that Alien was scary -- they provide a personification of the uncaring maw of Death, against which there is no reasoning, no appeal, no negotiation. This is why slow zombies are scarier than fast zombies -- the point of zombies is that even though you're smarter, quicker and stronger than they, you will still lose because they will never stop coming. It's the unfairness of it that's horrifying -- the notion that the world doesn't care if you're BETTER. You will still fail, because there isn't any way to win.

This is it in a nutshell- they are really an analogy of death. It is inevitable, it comes to us all, and there is no way to stop it. Even more, in zombies you get the personification of the fact that it is indiscriminate- there is nothing personal about the way zombies come after you. Other horror movies are so much more about revenge or retribution- whether for actual slights or simply justice against a callous lifestyle/attitude- there is always a motive, an agenda behind the deaths.

Zombies don't kill because they've got something against you, or even because they hate the living. They kill because that's what they do- doesn't matter who you are, what you look like, how rich/ugly/nice/sweet/slutty you are- as long as you're living, they'll try to kill you. It's primal, it's natural, and it's inevitable.

That, to me, is why zombies are the ultimate- and ultimately scariest- horror movie creatures.

 

[Captain Howdy]

It's not so much the zombies. It's the hopelessness...

Quoted for truth.

I totally understand and agree with what you said. I am a big fan of horror movies, and although I think the scariest type is a good ol fashioned ghost story, I know exactly the feeling you are talking about when your say hopelessness.
I get the feeling whenever I think of the opening of Dawn of the Dead, in the news station. Or when I think of the music from the beginning of that movie. The crappy synth heartbeat noise, you know the one!
I also got that same feeling when I watched a special feature on the NEW Dawn of the Dead special edition dvd. The special feature is pretty much the gun store owner (I think his name is Jim?) taping a video diary of his life after the zombies 'took over'. If you haven't seen it yet, go watch it.
Sure I like the jump-out-and-get-you type of scary movie, like Ju On (as you mentioned), but the most terrifying horror movies, imo, are the ones that make you feel pretty much dead inside... But at the same time, they are still fun movies. Dawn of the Dead (the original) is always a great example of what I'm talking about. A completely hopeless and terrible situation, but with humor thrown in... Probably to keep everyone from leaving the theater and killing themselves lol!

Anyway, I've ranted for too long when what Barsoomcore said is pretty much what I am saying. I can't wait for Land of the Dead, I am going to see it tomorrow night. It's gonna be great. Go see all the other Romero movies, and be enlightened.

... Oh yeah one more thing. See The Exorcist, too.

EDIT: The gun store owner is named Andy, not Jim. Thanks for reminding me KaosDevice.

 

[KaosDevice]

I also got that same feeling when I watched a special feature on the NEW Dawn of the Dead special edition dvd. The special feature is pretty much the gun store owner (I think his name is Jim?) taping a video diary of his life after the zombies 'took over'. If you haven't seen it yet, go watch it....

I have to agree. The filmette with Andy the gun store owner was suprisingly affecting. I really enjoyed it, considering you know what Andy's fate is towards the end. The news cast with Richard Biggs was kind of bittersweet too but mostly because AFAIK it was one of, if not the last, performance of his life.

+++++
Breaking News...well sorta,
scifi.com has a review of LOTD up, they give it an A-, and a good review.

 

[Iron_Chef]

I just saw Land of the Dead and did not like it very much. I am a huge Romero Dead fan but this movie is just not up to snuff. The Dawn of the Dead remake was better and that was terrible by comparison to the Romero Dead films (including the Night remake from '90 directed by Tom Savini). Yes, Land has tons of extreme gore (mostly the fake CG kind), lots of jump out of your seat scares and great zombie make-up, but it ends up as just a bad retread of Ghosts of Mars, one of the worst movies John Crapenter ever made. I was frequently bored in between the zombie carnage.

All the characters in Land of the Dead suck. They are stupid, behave illogically, and are annoying. There's no one to root for like Night, Dawn or Day. Filling up the cast with name actors was a terrible mistake. I don't want to see Dennis Hopper or John Leguizamo or Asia Argento in a Romero zombie film. Hell, I don't want to see them in anything. The "hero" (Simon Baker) is painfully bland and and utterly forgettable. The "Big Daddy" zombie is just like the idiotic leader of the Ghosts of Mars, growling and screaming and who cares? It's dumb. They should have brought "Bub" (Howard Sherman) back from Day of the Dead if they were going to have a smart zombie leading a "zombie revolution." Tom Savini reprises his role as the evil biker "Blades" from Dawn (1978) but is only onscreen for maybe 30 seconds (it's a nice cameo, but I'd much rather have had him be "Big Daddy" zombie than the giant retard/gas jockey they ended up casting). There is a lot of bad dialogue. Star Wars bad. Like the hero saying "I'm looking for a place with no fences." N fences? How the hell you gonna survive with no fences to keep out the zombies? Or telling his people not to shoot the (moving away) zombies because "They're just looking for a place to go, just like us." Groan!

The soundtrack is just loud and I can't remember a single piece of music from it, unlike the other Romero Dead films. Bring back Goblin!

The timeline doesn't make any sense vs. the rest of the Dead films; too much high technology! None of which would have been invented if the zombie plague had started in 1968 with the original Night of the Living Dead.

Land of the Dead is just too big in scope with too many (useless) characters, it has none of the claustrophobic terror and urgency of its predecessors. The social commentary is forced and obnoxious. I just don't understand how the city could have been secured and how all those hundreds or thousands of people inside could have stayed alive on a diet of little else but Pepsi and Spam...

I'll probably end up watching it on DVD if there's an unrated version (hopefully with a better ending!), but it's just nowhere near the level of Romero's other dead films. Hey! You got your Road Warrior in my zombie movie! Just like those old Reese's peanut butter cup commercials, Land of the Dead is more of a lame post apocalyptic Mad Max action movie than a proper horror movie. I'm going to place some blame on Universal and studio interference, but nearly everything hinges on the rotten video game like script which is Romero's fault. Land is still far better than garbage like the Resident Evil series, but no classic. Doubtless it will please gorehounds and unsophisticated lunkheads who enjoy seeing machineguns and explosions...

And the zombies don't run, which is the way it should be. Part of the fun of watching the original Dead films is putting yourself into the film and saying "What would I do if zombies came?" -- I can picture myself in all the other Dead films but not this one.

Running zombies = no chance to live and no fun trying. Slow zombies = a slim hope to survive and fun trying!

Anyway, go see Land of the Dead, if only to support Romero and zombie movies in general. Just don't expect any miracles onscreen.

 

[Templeton580]

*

 

[Captain Howdy]

I both agree and disagree with you...

I just saw Land of the Dead and did not like it very much. I am a huge Romero Dead fan but this movie is just not up to snuff. The Dawn of the Dead remake was better and that was terrible by comparison to the Romero Dead films (including the Night remake from '90 directed by Tom Savini). Yes, Land has tons of extreme gore (mostly the fake CG kind), lots of jump out of your seat scares and great zombie make-up, but it ends up as just a bad retread of Ghosts of Mars, one of the worst movies John Crapenter ever made. I was frequently bored in between the zombie carnage.

I didn't really find myslef bored at any point during the movie, nor was I bored with any of the other Romero movies. The remake of Dawn of the Dead was pretty boring in some parts, so Land of the dead made me happy in that respect.

All the characters in Land of the Dead suck. They are stupid, behave illogically, and are annoying. There's no one to root for like Night, Dawn or Day. Filling up the cast with name actors was a terrible mistake. I don't want to see Dennis Hopper or John Leguizamo or Asia Argento in a Romero zombie film. Hell, I don't want to see them in anything. The "hero" (Simon Baker) is painfully bland and and utterly forgettable. The "Big Daddy" zombie is just like the idiotic leader of the Ghosts of Mars, growling and screaming and who cares? It's dumb. They should have brought "Bub" (Howard Sherman) back from Day of the Dead if they were going to have a smart zombie leading a "zombie revolution." Tom Savini reprises his role as the evil biker "Blades" from Dawn (1978) but is only onscreen for maybe 30 seconds (it's a nice cameo, but I'd much rather have had him be "Big Daddy" zombie than the giant retard/gas jockey they ended up casting). There is a lot of bad dialogue. Star Wars bad. Like the hero saying "I'm looking for a place with no fences." N fences? How the hell you gonna survive with no fences to keep out the zombies? Or telling his people not to shoot the (moving away) zombies because "They're just looking for a place to go, just like us." Groan!

I would have to disagree with you about the main cast of 'good guys'. Although the older movies had memorable actors/characters (like Ken Foree's Peter) I thought that the cast in general sucked. That was really the only thing I never liked about the old movies, for the most part, the actors were pretty laughable. I think Land of the Dead was an improvement. I really liked a few of the characters, rather than just one or two.
I do have to agree with you that either Bud or Blades would have been way better as a lead zombie than 'big daddy'. Every time he came on the screen I just sighed. BTW, Bud was in the movie, but it's only for a second. If you see the movie again, look closely during the scene at the messed up faire.

The soundtrack is just loud and I can't remember a single piece of music from it, unlike the other Romero Dead films. Bring back Goblin!

I couldn't disagree more. The only reason Goblin fit with Dawn of the Dead was because of the time period that the film was set in. Put that music with Land of the Dead, and it would be insanely goofy and stupid. I thought the soundtrack to Land of the Dead was decent. There was little to no heavy metal, and there was a song by Mozart. You gotta love that.

The timeline doesn't make any sense vs. the rest of the Dead films; too much high technology! None of which would have been invented if the zombie plague had started in 1968 with the original Night of the Living Dead.

Interesting point. I never thought about that, and it seems that nobody who worked on the movie thought of that either. Lol.

Land of the Dead is just too big in scope with too many (useless) characters, it has none of the claustrophobic terror and urgency of its predecessors. The social commentary is forced and obnoxious. I just don't understand how the city could have been secured and how all those hundreds or thousands of people inside could have stayed alive on a diet of little else but Pepsi and Spam...

I agree with you there. The movie really lacked that 'feeling' that was talked about earlier in this thread. Although, given the setting, I wasn't exptecting it to be there.
As far as what the people lived on, I got the impression that Kaufman (Dennis Hopper) payed for all that. He supplied them with drugs, entertainment, and hookers; so I assumed a little food and drink would be included in the package.

I'll probably end up watching it on DVD if there's an unrated version (hopefully with a better ending!), but it's just nowhere near the level of Romero's other dead films. Hey! You got your Road Warrior in my zombie movie! Just like those old Reese's peanut butter cup commercials, Land of the Dead is more of a lame post apocalyptic Mad Max action movie than a proper horror movie. I'm going to place some blame on Universal and studio interference, but nearly everything hinges on the rotten video game like script which is Romero's fault. Land is still far better than garbage like the Resident Evil series, but no classic. Doubtless it will please gorehounds and unsophisticated lunkheads who enjoy seeing machineguns and explosions...

And the zombies don't run, which is the way it should be. Part of the fun of watching the original Dead films is putting yourself into the film and saying "What would I do if zombies came?" -- I can picture myself in all the other Dead films but not this one.

Running zombies = no chance to live and no fun trying. Slow zombies = a slim hope to survive and fun trying!

Anyway, go see Land of the Dead, if only to support Romero and zombie movies in general. Just don't expect any miracles onscreen.

Yep, slow zombies will always be the best, and I'm glad Romero stuck to his guns with Land of the Dead.

At any rate, if you haven't already done so, stop reading posts and go see the damn movie! It's good! My favorite is still the old Dawn of the Dead, but Land of the Dead won't dissapoint. I expected quite a bit from the movie with Romero's name on it, and I am (for the most part) quite satisfied.

 

[Templeton580]

*