Like it said in the thread title **spoilers**

For those who don' t know, Land of the Dead is the follow up to George A. Romero' s Dawn of the Dead. Or at least we assume so since the continuity between both movies match rather well. I haven' t read any interviews and can' t verify whether Land of the Dead is a true " sequel" or not. Regardless, given how awesome Dawn of the Dead was, LotD was a pretty poor follow up.

So what is the purpose of a zombie movie exactly? To educate? Perhaps, but given that zombies are fictional, one-sided characters educational purposes are hardly unlikely. Or maybe we' re supposed to learn a hobby, like zombie baking, or pottery. Maybe a trade skill like zombie plumbing... Or maybe, just maybe, zombies movies are visual entertainment made with the intention of scaring the ever brown crap out of you!

So why is Land of the Dead so lacking in this department?

If I had to pick one main complaint about LotD is that it' s not scary. It' s not even suspenseful. Zombie movies only work when the zombies present an overwhelming threat to a small, under-prepped, group of individuals. Case in point, Dawn of the Dead. In DotD you get a real feeling of the stars being lost and helpless. It adds that extra pinch of emotional drama that only increases the films immersion. Not in LotD. In LotD large groups of well equipped " hunters" ride out with semi-automatics, a massive tank called " Day of Wreckening" that can decimate foes without breaking a sweet, and the humans have developed a battle plan which involve <snip, won' t reveal this spoiler>.

Either way, the fear that zombies are supposed to invoke wasn' t there. They' re more like cows to the slaughter. There are few long drawn out zombie fights where you see someone fight tooth and nail for their life. Or where they have to use their brains/wits to survive. Also, nearly everyone in the film has perfect aim with their gun so most fights are over before they begin. In fact, the zombies aren' t even part of the main storyline. The main story revolves around a corrupt corporation dictating the lives of the remaining human population in this particular area. There' s a team of renegades fighting the corporation, but that idea is given all of 20 seconds of screen time to develop. When the leader double crosses Cholo (John Leguizamo) he steals Day of Wreckening and promises to use it against the city unless he gets 5 million dollars. Riley (Simon Baker) is then given the job of finding Cholo and returning DoW.

And, as an added side story, there' s a subplot where the zombies begin to " learn" and " think" . Not that any of it is really interesting, because the film itself is totally straight forward, no real twist or turns, no character development, and then you factor in the zombies pathetic showings and what you' re left with is a film that screams BLAH! To put this film in comic book terms, LotD is issue #47 of an ongoing series with a fill-in artist. However, it IS NOT a special issue you should rush out and buy. The zombies stumbling upon knowledge is cute, but doesn' t add much to the depth of the main storyline nor does anything to fulfill your zombie needs. The Cholo/Corporation/Riley three way is nice, but the political undertone is usually more of a turn off. And overall LotD falls short in just about every aspect. It wasn' t even as well directed as DotD.

I give this movie a C-

Watch at your own risk.

Now if you don' t mind, I' m falling asleep and heading to bed as of right now.

WOW lotusson that was a most excellent movie review, WAY WAY more informative and better than the IGN movie review which I also read and learned absolutely nothing from. Your review answered a few questions I had as well as enlightened me to some other things about the movie. From your description this movie sounds like disappointment city and I' ll be visiting that city tomorrow!

Is it true that there' s a zombie in the movie that serves as a leader figure to the other zombies? If so then that totally sucks!

By the way, which Dawn of the Dead were you speakingly favorably about? The original or the remake?

Is it true that there' s a zombie in the movie that serves as a leader figure to the other zombies? If so then that totally sucks!

**spoilers**



Yes. It' s decently done though. He basically goes around teaching the other zombies the stuff he learns on the fly. Granted I think the whole " zombie-sensei" thing could have been done much better, but I don' t think it' s the worst thing you' ll ever see.

By the way, which Dawn of the Dead were you speakingly favorably about? The original or the remake?

The remake.

**spoilers**


It sucks they switched from the running zombies in DotD back to the slower than molasses zombies in LotD.

Glad you were talking about the remake cause I watched the original after viewing the remake and thought the original was boring as hell. The remake was much better in mee opinion.

Just the thought of a zombie leader makes me cringe. Zombies aren' t supposed to be " organized" ;). I know ' Day of the Dead' also had a few " teach the zombie new tricks" scenes in the movie so I guess things could always be worst. Given that they have a leader, Are the zombies unionized in the movie? ;)

' SPOILER' **

I only sort of liked the movie and I think yer pretty much on the spot with that review. It lost its sence of fear and suspence. This seems like it shouldve been cut down and made as the beginning to a movie that could be good. Like since the zombies are learning why cant they eventually learn to be more proficient killers, I mean in the end, the zombies just learned to ignore the fireworks...that wouldve worked better as a near beginning thing allowing the zombies to become more lethal and thus adding fear and suspence.

I could tell Chickapoo may have been thinking the same, considering the previous weekend we saw both Batman Begins & Mr. and Mrs. Smith its hard to see a slower paced movie like this especially after the latter.

At least Shaun of the Dead had a zombie playing video games