Forums of Filth

I never doubted this movie, the first trailer I ever saw for it gave me chills, I am so excited to see it! Jake, why didnt you call? We could have had mochi and drinks and then scared ourselves till we peed! Hooray! I will see it this weekend for sure.... if only I could find someone with enough balls to see it with me....

saw the midnight showing last night.

some good parts, some bad. overall, it was a good zombie movie. george is smart.

steven_millan wrote:I saw both "Kill Bill:Volume 1" and "House Of The Dead" both on the same day,for after laying witness to tha atrocious Uwe Boll celluloid abolmination,I immediately snuck back into seeing "Kill Bill' for a second time,sicne the now infamous "House Of Blue Leaves" massacre sequence is a scene that definitely needs to be seen twice in one whole day.

I was in Florida visiting family when my cousin and I did the same double feature... after House of the Dead I kept telling her how sorry I was that she had to sit thru it... Kill Bill: Volume 1 totally made up for the piece of shit that was House of the Dead...

Oh and Land of the Dead was okay...

There were parts that I liked about it and parts that I didn't... there were more things that I didn't like about it though...

Dare I say the revisioning of Dawn of the Dead was better then this?

Go ahead... flame away, I can take it

Kimberly wrote:Oh and Land of the Dead was okay...


Dare I say the revisioning of Dawn of the Dead was better then this?

Go ahead... flame away, I can take it

I agree I wasn't too impressed with land either. I doubt you'll be the only one flamed for liking the DOTD remake better.

Saw it last night, waiting Remo's thoughts.. here's how I felt or "think" I felt. Perhaps it's denial.

I still don't know how I feel about it. The first act felt so pointless and the film didn't start to fit into place until the second half. There was something missing from this film, perhaps my expectations were to high. I'm not saying I "hated it" but I do feel it needs another viewing. I'm also safely guessing much was deleted from Romero's vision and there's gotta' be more gore to come via DVD.

When I left the theatre I went up to a complete stranger and asked how he felt about it. We both agreed, we felt it didn't settle in the way it's predecessors did. I didn't have that feeling the first time I saw the others and I've watched and studied all of them (including the various cuts of "Dawn" millions of times. Even with each viewing I was left feeling anxious and in disrepair with the previous three.

"Land", I hope it grows on me. Right now it's just something that really didn't grab my expectations. I truly want this to get me a second time around.


SPOILER BELOW




Was it me or did it have a "Escape from New York" type of thing going? Only not everyone was a criminal.

stypees back wrote:

Was it me or did it have a "Escape from New York" type of thing going? Only not everyone was a criminal.

I kind of felt that too - right down to the crashed airliner that was poking thru the building. I also felt that a lot was left on the cutting room floor as if the film was rushed to be ready for the June opening.

I was satisfied. It was more of an action movie than a horror film though. For an R-rated theatrical release, the gore level was impressive, can't wait for the unrated version. My one complaint is I wish the movie was a bit longer, this is something we waited years for and there could have been more surprises thrown in.

I agree,this is the shortest of them all . . .

Apparently a 60 day film shot in 40 days. No wonder its lean.

damn, that is short, I guess they rushed this thing to savor the zombie craze Shaun of the Dead and the Dawn of the Dead remake helped generate. That's still pretty impressive though, it looks like they put a lot of long hard work in some scenes.

Just got back from this, and I liked it alot. My only complaint is that I really long for the days of SFX before CGI.

darkstar wrote:right down to the crashed airliner that was poking thru the building.

Actually, that was a train.

hodgy wrote:My only complaint is that I really long for the days of SFX before CGI.

I was really disappointed by that. I saw that Dream of the Dead thing on IFC and Nicotero and Romero both said that they opted for more practical effects than CGI, but it looked like every head shot and blood spray was done with a computer.

[quote="Latte Thunder"]Actually, that was a train.

My apologies. I stand corrected. It still reminded me of Escape from NY a lot though.

Though my expectations were, well not really low, but let's say tempered, this movie still managed to disappoint me. Honestly, I can't think of anything about it that I really liked. I agree that the new DOTD was better, as was 28 Days Later and Shaun of the Dead. Hell, take out Hillbilly Jim and I probably even liked Undead better. I'm sure I'll probably buy the dvd when it comes out and watch it again and hopefully it'll grow on me. But for now it was like Stripes with zombies. And I too was reminded of EFNY.

As for me? I was thoroughly satisfied (despite the trepidations I felt building up to this one--hell, after twenty years, exactly what could we expect?).

LAND works as the beginning of a new series if one wishes to take it that way--but it also works as the fourth entry in Romero's DEAD cycle. Let's face it--DAY took a bizarre detour to Florida, after all. And it's entirely possible that what was left of the civilized world simply WAS out of range of the WWI surplus radio equipment the Florida characters had in their bunker.

But the intelligence of the zombies was fairly built up over the previous three films--from simple bludgeoning, to curious inspection of weaponry, to Bub actually learning how to shoot--I had no problem believing that a "Big Daddy" could evolve over time.

And Romero's mind is as sharp as ever--this may have used some of the ideas from his original, whittled-down DAY script, but this is not a film that could have been made ten... even five... years ago. Let's face it--this one is staged as Dubya's worst nightmare... funny how the biggest 'thorns' in the rich, well-protected white guy's side are black and Latino, eh? You look for the key black character in each of the DEAD films--whether Romero officially "intended" it that way or not--and this is the dead perfect (pun intended) payoff.

John Leguizamo's the show-stopper, but the cast does a fine job throughout (some found Hopper's performance lackluster, but I thought his demeanor and attitude were quite appropriate for his character--especially as he defends his actions in the name of "responsbility" that other people simply DON'T HAVE!).

Action, effects, gore? It's all there, and it'll be stronger in the unrated version which we'll have on DVD in time for Halloween.

Sure, it's different. But aren't they ALL? With a fourth official film in the series, Romero puts the DEAD cycle right up there with the ALIEN series. The flat-out scary first one. The follow-up where spectacular action goes hand-in-hand with the gory satire. The gloom-and-doom third entry that everybody hated (at least the FIRST time around). And the fourth film that brought in a new look and a new technique.

Now I'm the weirdo who thought ALIEN RESURRECTION was the best of the SEQUELS. (I don't even consider AvP part of the real series.) And while I'm not necessarily ready to bestow a similar honor on LAND OF THE DEAD, I will proudly proclaim its seat of legitimate honor as a fine part of the "real deal."

George A. Romero still makes the best zombie movies ever. And I am one happy fan today.

Remo D.

I watched it and rather liked it. While the worst of the 4 Dead films, its much better than the other zombie films that have come out in the past few years. With that being said, it does have its problems. One of them being the in your face social commentary, and the second being its short running time. Also while the FX were great, I had a few problems with the zombies. Big Daddy is no Bud, his range of emotion is nonexistent and always ends in a scream. The other zombies don't do to well either. The non-zombie acting was good (Dennis Hopper did better than I thought he would do), but a little happy at times. The ending was also a little to happy for me (same for the script), but this is the short version. Its made for the kids who buy the tickets, and thats cool. I'll wait for the DVD version to come out, so I can watch the real film.

As it stands now Land of the Dead is hands down the best Zombie film since Day of the Dead. And while I did like 28 Days Later, it doesn't come close to what LotD is even in its short state. For one thing, 28 Days Later has good acting and great zombies, but its filled with scenes and ideas taken from other films. Dawn of the Dead was a simple remake, with fake characters, and stupid ideas. Shaun of the Dead was cool the first time I watched it, but upon second viewing on DVD becomes an average film that also steals from other films and TV shows. And has one annoying lazy bones that destroys the emotional core of the film with bad comedy. Undead is crap, with a few good moments.

Another problem that I have with LotD is the combo of music and scare tactics, something that George A. Romero almost never uses, and I hope this shit gets cut for the DVD.

George A. Romero's Land of the Dead has small details, which makes the films world feel lived in. Thats what makes it better, its a world created with a vision behind it.

P.S. I take it back, the zombies don't look like rubber, u can put your weapon away now Shawn:)

Latte Thunder wrote:Actually, that was a train.

I was really disappointed by that. I saw that Dream of the Dead thing on IFC and Nicotero and Romero both said that they opted for more practical effects than CGI, but it looked like every head shot and blood spray was done with a computer.

Thats what was so great about the Dawn remake.. the effects and detail that went into every head shot.. beautifully done.

My fellow horror buff friend did not like Land, he said it was too cheesy. I don't think you can have a good horror movie without it though... I liked it a lot. Sometimes I want to be mindlessly entertained, and it did that for me quite well.

I liked the gore in this movie. I didn't think it delivered like DOTD did. I'm not really sold on "thinking" zombies. I say zombies should only think about one thing, eating the living. Don't worry about using a gun or a fuckin' jackhammer just chomp on flesh. I revisted "Night of the Living Dead" last night, I love it more then most modern horror. Can't wait for The Devils Rejects....

I think maybe the expectations were too high for some of you. I thought it was great. I didn't find the CG distracting. The only complaint I had was I really didn't like Asia Argento. Her acting and her character annoyed me more than anything. I think all the minor flaws were made up for with the entertainment value and cleverness. I am suprised to see all of the dissapointment. Maybe a few more viewings might make you appreciate it more...

Yea, I might not have had that high of expectations if they didn't market it as being the Star Wars of Zombie movies. Then again I only hear the commercial in the background, so maybe i'm mis-quoting.

I would give it a B.

Good movie but nothing that incredible.

Like seeing Savini back as the dead biker but didnt he get gutted in Dawn? It kinda looked more like when he was a vampire.

I am looking forward to seeing it again. but I think it is kind of a let down compared to the first 3. Oh well, better then nothing and who knows what the DVD will look like.

\m/

And anything with Asia Argento in it cant suck. She is so easy on the eyes.

alright...so i saw it...liked it...gonna see it again...didnt dig all the cg headshots...thought that was kinda weak...


but...am i the only one who when the "stenches" break into the buidling and start attacking all the rich people think of the motorhead song "eat the rich"???

Jakeuglyface wrote: The only complaint I had was I really didn't like Asia Argento. Her acting and her character annoyed me more than anything.

Yea...word. It bothered me even more that I couldn't decide if she was cute or not.. and I couldn't figure out who she reminded me of. The other chick reminded me of someone too... I hate that!

Kimberly wrote:Oh and Land of the Dead was okay...

There were parts that I liked about it and parts that I didn't... there were more things that I didn't like about it though...

Dare I say the revisioning of Dawn of the Dead was better then this?

Go ahead... flame away, I can take it

Don't worry Kim,for my brother Monte says the same exact thing(concerning both movies).