Land of the Dead

This is the first review I've written for IMDb. I must try hard not to fall into the AAAARGH!!! jaws of Report This. I'm 80 years old, have been attentively following national affairs since about 1938 (I was a fat kid from an abusive home, so hid and read a lot). So, the thing I admire the most about Land of the Dead is its being a splendid parable of life in 21st Century America (my Rastafarian daughter would say life in Babylon). It certainly captures its political and moral properties. Judging from a comment that Mr. Romero makes in one of the Bonus Features, this was intentional. Yay, Romero!

The movie's photography and special effects are super-fine. The actors are all quite competent, though … and this also is splendid … the only really charismatic performance comes from Eugene A. Clark, as Big Daddy the zombie leader. I was rooting for him all the way. Close to charismatic was Asia Argento, whom I first dismissed as an Obligatory Sex Interest with gymnastic abilities, but respected more and more as the film progressed. Overall, I almost never watch movies twice, but I'll sure watch this one again.

Let me start by saying I'm a big fan of George Romero's previous films, especially the dead series. I thought he really hit his stride with Day of the Dead making a slick, structurally sophisticated continuation of his original idea. Not many people can pull off a sequel and I thought he did it twice with Dawn and Day. I also think he had something quite interesting to say with each of those films, layering thematic commentary under the story without distracting from main story elements or themes. His films were always about the shortcomings of man and the inability to work together in the face of danger. His films were always about the people, not the zombies.

But now he has tried so hard to make a political statement that he has hammered into his own genre at the expense of the film. It was interesting in Day when the scientist discovers that a zombie can regain some latent memory and begin to function in a more human way. I was very powerful when that zombie musters up just enough motor skill and latent memory to shoot the villain. It feels like a stretch to say that the zombies, or even the one zombie, in Land could make a conversion of understanding that leads an all out revolt. On an intellectual level, I understand it, but it just didn't work for me. This seems to me like a bigger deviation from the Romero concept then some of the things complained about in the many Romero inspired films recently.

The world described in the previews and press material doesn't seem fully realized. There is a huge divide between the rich and the poor. Why? How did it get that way. It doesn't seem like that would function well under the circumstances of the world as it is, especially in a small society. Why don't we find out anything about how this place works? How does Denis Hopper maintain his power? It is presented as a concept without any real thought. In the original film "The Island of Lost Souls" Doctor Moreau controls his population of beasts with fear. He cracks the whip, recites the law, and talks about the house of pain, which the audience knows to be the doctor's laboratory, but the beasts know it as a building where screams are heard. This is a stunningly well designed political metaphor. In Land of the Dead, I couldn't help thinking that the underlying political message was driving the story and that questionable things were written into the story for the wrong reasons. Money is a major plot device. Denis Hopper tries to escape the city with two large bags of money. What good is money outside the city? I was wondering, what good is money inside the city? Money only works if people believe in the underlying value of it. Most countries in the real world can't keep a stable currency. There is an aerial shot of the city during the day showing the streets deserted. Why are the streets deserted? Where are all the people? Later we see the same shot only the streets are now filled with Zombies. The characters keep talking about going to Canada as a safe haven. Why? Why is Canada safer than the United States. I was left to believe that this was more political commentary. Why are the Zombies trying to get to the city? They seem to be driven by some underlying, dare I say it, political motivation.

The film as a whole seemed less like a story of characters in a horrific world established in the earlier films, and more like a series of one dimensional vignettes based on thin political ideology – Rich verses poor, violence in America, mismanagement of government in post 9-11 society, negotiating with terrorists, yeah we get it. Not so subtle.

Simon Baker leads in this film as a mercenary who wants to head up North. Maybe the undead do not like the cold. He find himself trapped between various warring factions, including a ruthless CEO (Dennis Hopper) who offers safety to the wealthy while allowing the unwashed masses to fend for themselves, a fellow mercenary (John Leguizamo) who will sacrifice anyone to advance his own agenda, and hordes of zombies who are starting to take steps up the evolutionary ladder. They actually used a gun in this film. First time I've seen a zombie do more than eat. They even went in the water. Apes don't do that! Lots of blood, but there was less action than I've seen and more talking.

I love John Leguizamo, and that made it worth my time. Seeing Asia Argento (xXx) wasn't bad either.

Zombie films are a dime a dozen and even the ones that are lacking are enough of an entertainment. Romero's Land of the dead comes across as generic. Despite being steeped in darkness, it lacks the taut pacing and nerve-jangling suspense of 28 Days Later, and doesn't have the tongue-in-cheek approach evident in Shaun of the Dead. It's got great makeup, though. Credit Gregory Nicotero (who replaces Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead's Tom Savini) for making the zombies more frightening than campy. Ultimately, however, copious gore and rotting flesh can only do so much for a movie, and the lack of ambition in Romero's storyline is where Land of the Dead fails. The movie will appeal to those with a penchant for zombie flicks, but is unlikely to reach further - not even to the broader "general horror" market. It's not startling or frightening enough. However, this is a zombie film and that in itself makes it worth a glance.

George A. Romero returns to the zombie flick twenty years after his last dip into the genre with 'Land Of The Dead (2005)', a post-apocalyptic tale of human survivors in an undead-infested land. The picture deals with the class system, seeing its major setting - a walled city with a shopping mall at its centre - ruled by a rich board of directors who use the promise of a better life inside the tower to manipulate those who aren't fortunate enough to ignore the chaos outside. Continuing the 'smart zombie' theme of 'Day Of The Dead (1985)', the flick features a focal ghoul who becomes more intelligent and cunning as the narrative unfolds. The picture features plenty of neck-biting, blood-spurting, head-crushing carnage and it moves at a pretty quick pace, too. Its plot is pretty thin and its characters are all, essentially, stereotypes, but it's a fun experience throughout. It isn't as good as Romero's previous zombie stuff, partially because its subtext isn't as strong. Still, it's an enjoyable action-horror piece nevertheless. 7/10