Patrick Nackaert Looking for an average zombie movie? You'll be pleasantly surprised. The movie has a few interesting aspects. Acting is reasonably good - thanks to the talented cast. The scenery is authentic and realistic. The film is well-written, resulting in a decent number of story lines. Many scenes are inventive and nice to look at.Because the film takes place a long time after the zombie outbreak, the most annoying zombie movie mistake is avoided: people acting in the movie have never seen a zombie movie. Usually it takes half a film for the characters to realise there is an outbreak. Not of all that in this one.The story in two sentences: a businessman built a safe city after a zombie apocalypse. However, zombies become intelligent and this starts to threaten the city. One big minus: the uncountable number of inconsistencies. Why do you put loud headphones on when you're waiting for someone in Zombieland? Why do zombies play tuba? Why do people shoot in the air with limited bullets? Why don't you cut someone's leg/arm when it's infected? And I still don't get the walkie-talkie system where you don't have to choose who you're calling. On top of it all, a soldier going to the ground infested with zombies, when he could have stayed safely in his tower. That's where it got painfully hilarious.An above-average zombie movie - if you're not too much bothered by inconsistencies.

matatosky We begin the movie seeing zombies milling around aimlessly, suggesting that they have spent way too much time unable to do what they mostly love to do, which is feed. Apparently, the inactivity was so endless, the zombies began to retake their former lives and carry out certain aspects of it. Meanwhile, civilization is not completely lost. There is a haven that is called "Fiddler's Green" which is owned and operated by a business mogul named Kaufman, who has been able to continue his trade, even in the face of humanity's total annihilation and provides divided shelter to anyone that is left alive. He has assembled an army of mercenaries, military men and even police officers to ensure some type of order in his empire, and these same people are the ones trusted with the task of scouring for whatever resources they can find deep within enemy lines. Enter our leading men; Riley, Cholo and Charlie. Riley and Charlie representing the good nature that is still preserved in man and Cholo continuing the time honored tradition of greed and mistrust. Longer story short, Kaufman summons the fury of Cholo by treating him like a total peon, after Cholo had the notion that he would be able to join Fiddler's Green's finest living arrangements and become part of the respected elite but Kaufman declines his solicitation, proving that elitism and social class distinction is still alive and well. Cholo seeks comeuppance a different way, by stealing the Green's most powerful vehicle "Dead Reckoning" which is designed to repel a strong zombie attack and holds it for ransom, with the intention of cheating Kaufman out of both his money and car, just like Kaufman cheated Cholo out of a better life. Riley is summoned to retrieve both Cholo and Dead Reckoning by Kaufman, considering Riley designed Dead Reckoning and is closer to Cholo than anyone left in the Green. Riley takes Charlie and a lady who was rescued by both from being eaten by zombies and they go pursue Cholo. Kaufman has sent 3 soldiers with Riley, who are instructed to take Dead Reckoning back, but also dispose of Riley because like Cholo, he also reflects dissent in Kaufman's utopia. Riley succeeds in taking back Dead Reckoning, leaving Cholo to fend for himself and choose his own path, as he no longer wishes to be part of any team. All throughout this, the zombies had actually managed to kill off surrounding patrols and cross a river in order to get to Fiddler's, proving that they have indeed evolved and develop limited but effective cognitive skills. Fiddler's Green becomes under siege and Kaufman becomes a casualty, thanks to Cholo himself and Riley and his team finish off the remaining threat, and proceed to find less secluded but secure locations in Canada.The movie has strong points and goes a different direction by allowing zombies to actually communicate and rationalize. Personally, I loved it. Here are the only 2 points I didn't like about this film, though: The ending. The movie was awesome in its darker and hopeless tone, it gave you a feeling of actual doom. Even though that the zombies have become more aware, they are still relatively evil and naturally inclined to eliminate whatever is left human. So why let a rather large population of them roam around when you're looking for a safer place? The movies themselves have said it: As long as we're alive, they will never run out of food. As long as they're around, there ARE NO safer places. They are not animals. Animals have the capacity to show emotion, compassion and even love. Zombies, no matter how progressed they are, are by all means unable to develop these traits. Their survival instincts may improve but ultimately their purpose should not change as their bodies have wasted away whatever humanity they had left. Pretty questionable move on Romero in the end, but since the movie barely shows any real heart, Im guessing this was done to make up for that. The second point I disagreed with was the dialogue. In Night, Dawn and Day, it seemed to tie the movie together, to have characters show a sense of rationality or reasoning as to why this has happened, thus making us sympathize with them in their situation. Here in Land, it's nowhere to be found. The Riley character was pretty weak and it made you wonder how Bub, who could not speak as he was a zombie in Day, made you bawl your eyes out in his performance, and yet Simon Baker who has a leading role could not. Asia Argento is in this movie but her character is really not that important to the story. I will end this by saying that I love the movie. For what it is, it is pretty good, I mean it is still better than any zombie stuff made around the time it came out, most notably Resident Evil, which degenerated after the 2nd installment and definitely way better than Diary of the Dead, which came after it but it relied on the overused hand-held horror technique. Survival of the Dead was just a horror spoof of a horror classic. One thing this movie continues to emphasize: The ego and pride of man continue to be his worst enemy. You know humanity is in trouble when after 40 years of horror, the zombies have managed to come together for a purpose and end up overtaking the seemingly smarter humans. Nice one, Mr. Romero.

Python Hyena Land of the Dead (2005): Dir: George A. Romero / Cast: Simon Baker, Dennis Hopper, John Leguizamo, Asia Argento, Robert Joy: Sickening horror film symbolizing the downfall of society. The dead are alive but this time they are slowly learning to think for themselves therefore becoming more dangerous. Had they been able to think for themselves, then perhaps they would be involved in a film better than this one. We see victims eaten alive in gory detail by zombies as well as humans executing them. We never learn where these creatures come from and the problem is not so much solved as it is accepted. George Romero directed four of these films including the overrated black and white original Night of the Living Dead. He is skilled at delivering the lifestyles of zombies but fails in creative human characters. Simon Baker as the hero is totally flat. He apparently created a weapon called Dead Reckoning for which he now must retrieve. Dennis Hopper as the rich human tyrant is the best role. He rules the city not realizing that it will all come undone. John Leguizamo is interesting as he develops a scam against Hopper in answer to cheated services. Asia Argento is reduced to a prop. She is first rescued from potential zombie sacrifice. Robert Joy is also cast as one of the guys accompanying Baker for a little zombie safari hunt. Designed as a graphic rush for pointless carnage. Score: 4 / 10

DamianThorn While George Romero has become famous for his Living Dead series and the way it transformed the horror genre, he's also become famous for something else. The argument over whether or not he ever intended politics, let alone race politics to be part of his earlier films. At times he's insisted he didn't, at times he's somewhat coyly suggested he did. Either way, the politics in his earlier films were subdued and if any message could ultimately be taken from them it's that human beings must work together to survive. Personally I despise all the conjecture and "reading into" these or any movies at all but at times it's just impossible to avoid.Land of the Dead quickly became one of those political snafu's. Romero blamed the studio, the studio blamed Romero, ultimately who the hell knows what really happened. Either way it led Romero to swear off big studio backing for any future entries into the Living Dead series. So what's the big deal you wonder? Will it ruin the movie for you? Read on.The core of this film comes down to the rich taking advantage of the poor, that's not the problem. A sub plot is the desire of some of the poor to move up into the world of the rich and the desire of others to just get the hell away from the whole argument and live their lives in peace. That's not the problem either. The problem boils down to, believe it or not one annoying as hell and constantly used zombie. All the shots with this zombie who becomes the "leader" of an oddly intelligent bunch of fellow zombies were added in post production. The whole purpose was to add in an extra hint of race politics. If you watch the movie, you will instantly understand why this became a big deal. It adds an element of unbelievably cheesy stupidity to the film. It's just ridiculous.Romero has said that he was entirely opposed to the post production changes but was given an ultimatum, do it or the studio would scrap the movie. The studio has said there was never any such argument, it was all Romero's idea and when the movie wasn't as well received as he had hoped he looked for a scapegoat, it's ironic really because it's exactly the sort of tit for tat arguing that goes on in Romero's earlier movies when the zombie outbreak is beginning. To be honest the added scenes are so annoying that I've often considered re cutting the movie myself and for quite awhile there was a "fan" cut floating around that removed those scenes. Either way, ultimately the movie is what it is. Politics aside, silly added scenes aside it's really a very good movie with some really great acting. The writing is there, the story the direction and everything is all really top notch. Dennis Hopper plays your "greedy old rich bugger" quite well and John Leguizamo does a great job as does the rest of the cast. There's some really fantastic zombie gore to be had for all you gore hounds out there like me and that's thanks to Tom Savini. He really is a master of traditional special effects. On another note, die hard horror fans will love seeing Asia Argento in this movie as well.All in all, Romero has done better but this is really an enjoyable film and I think pretty much anyone should have a good time watching it. Provided your a horror fan, if your not then you really should get as far away from this movie as possible. You'll either throw up or have nightmares for the rest of your life...or both.