The ZombieTastic Review of:
Land of the Dead
Land of the Dead
Director: George A. Romero (ever heard of him?)
Year of Release: 2005
Country of Origin: USA
Type of Zombie Film: Post-Apocalyptic Siege with a Big Truck That
Should Have Been a Transformer
Also Known as: As I far as I know this film doesn't have any alternate
titles, which doesn't make sense. Seeing as how the film continues
the logical progression of Romero's previous zombie movies, this one probably should
also have been called Afternoon of the Dead, or, perhaps, Suppertime of the Dead.
Part of a series?: Yes.
The Scoring
Plot: The time: "Today" (even though it's the future). The place: apparently Pittsburgh, PA,
although I think it's supposed to be your generic, average, anytown, USA (except that it
features a moat, an electrified fence, and a high-rise building named Fiddler's Green that is
controlled and inhabited exclusively by evil, suit-wearing capitalists). The situation:
zombies are on the outside trying to get in and humans are on the inside trying to get out
(except that there are already some zombies inside and some humans outside). The crux:
zombies are evolving, and there's not a damn thing that anybody can do about it (aside
from, of course, shooting them in the head). So, to sum up: the plot is sorta all that stuff that
I just wrote.
Score: 4
Year of Release: 2005
Country of Origin: USA
Type of Zombie Film: Post-Apocalyptic Siege with a Big Truck That
Should Have Been a Transformer
Also Known as: As I far as I know this film doesn't have any alternate
titles, which doesn't make sense. Seeing as how the film continues
the logical progression of Romero's previous zombie movies, this one probably should
also have been called Afternoon of the Dead, or, perhaps, Suppertime of the Dead.
Part of a series?: Yes.
The Scoring
Plot: The time: "Today" (even though it's the future). The place: apparently Pittsburgh, PA,
although I think it's supposed to be your generic, average, anytown, USA (except that it
features a moat, an electrified fence, and a high-rise building named Fiddler's Green that is
controlled and inhabited exclusively by evil, suit-wearing capitalists). The situation:
zombies are on the outside trying to get in and humans are on the inside trying to get out
(except that there are already some zombies inside and some humans outside). The crux:
zombies are evolving, and there's not a damn thing that anybody can do about it (aside
from, of course, shooting them in the head). So, to sum up: the plot is sorta all that stuff that
I just wrote.
Score: 4
| A city suffering through the aftermath of a zombie invasion, or Baltimore? You tell me. |
Exposition: As much as I hate to admit it, there's more exposition in Land of the Dead than
there needs to be. Some of it is unobtrusive and well-done, as for example in the opening
"flashback" sequence; starting with the text "Some time ago", the sequence efficiently and
effectively gets the audience up to speed on the setting and situation of the film whilst
simultaneously setting up the notion of zombies developing reason. This must, however,
be contrasted with exposition scenes that seem to exist solely to give the audience
knowledge that they will need to understand a plot point later in the film, like for example the
one in which some military dudes detail the fortifications of the city they're guarding--
fortifications which must be understood if you're going to make sense of the zombie assault
that occurs during the latter part of the film. While this scene was happening, the first thing
that sprung to my mind was, "Gee, it's clear that this will feature prominently in the film later
on, I'd better pay extra attention." Actually, the first thing that sprung to mind was worry over
whether or not my recent fart was, in actuality, a shart. But that 'paying attention' thing was
definitely a close second. Either way: having such thoughts during a film is never a good
thing.
Score: 2
Plausibility: I find the general scenario presented in Land of the Dead to be relatively
plausible. After all, if zombies overran society, it would only be logical for humans to hole
up in fortified cities and allow their day-to-day affairs to be managed by Dennis Hopper.
Who else would you want running the show in a situation where hell is full and the dead are
walking the Earth? Peter Fonda? I don't think so.
That being said, I'm having a hard time swallowing (vague, non-funny, related-to-the-fact-
that-zombies-eat-people semi-pun intended) the conception of zombies evolving. I
suppose it's not so much the plausibility of this notion that I have a problem with as it is the
metaphysical implications of it. The hallmark of the notion of a "zombie", whether one uses
that word to refer to:
is that a zombie is "mindless", such that it has no direct control over its actions, and is
furthermore incapable of acting due to anything other than instinctual motivations and/or
orders or motivations imposed from without. What then can we make of a zombie that can
(a) think rationally and (b) act with intention, even in a limited capacity? Is it even a zombie
at that point? As my buddy the Magic 8-Ball might put it: Don't count on it.
This is all getting very abstract. Perhaps at this juncture, it would be best if I invoked a
theory created by the esteemed logician Brook Von Chadwick. In her (not yet published)
paper "Zombies Explained", Von Chadwick posits that perhaps zombies only want to eat
people because they simply see humans as food--nothing more, nothing less. As she puts
it: "You know how in some movies/shows/cartoons they'll have a scene where someone is
talking to someone else, and all of a sudden that someone else morphs into a talking
piece of cake, or some other delicious treat? [...] maybe zombies have a disease where
they can only see people as talking chunks of food, and that's why they want to eat us."** An
intriguing theory, indeed. So perhaps we can replace the philosophically unwieldy notion of
zombies evolving with one of zombies that have heretofore only been able to see humans
as food slowly developing the ability to see them for what they are: smelly, dirty bipedal
primates who probably don't taste very good at all. That makes a lot of sense. Ultimately,
perhaps we should just stop blathering uncontrollably and simply say that Land of the
Dead is semi-plausible at best. That sounds like a plan.
**Editor's Note: for an illustration of this "people imagining other people morphing into food"
phenomenon, see Seinfeld episode number 157, 'The Butter Shave', wherein Newman
imagines Kramer turning into a turkey.
Score: 3
there needs to be. Some of it is unobtrusive and well-done, as for example in the opening
"flashback" sequence; starting with the text "Some time ago", the sequence efficiently and
effectively gets the audience up to speed on the setting and situation of the film whilst
simultaneously setting up the notion of zombies developing reason. This must, however,
be contrasted with exposition scenes that seem to exist solely to give the audience
knowledge that they will need to understand a plot point later in the film, like for example the
one in which some military dudes detail the fortifications of the city they're guarding--
fortifications which must be understood if you're going to make sense of the zombie assault
that occurs during the latter part of the film. While this scene was happening, the first thing
that sprung to my mind was, "Gee, it's clear that this will feature prominently in the film later
on, I'd better pay extra attention." Actually, the first thing that sprung to mind was worry over
whether or not my recent fart was, in actuality, a shart. But that 'paying attention' thing was
definitely a close second. Either way: having such thoughts during a film is never a good
thing.
Score: 2
Plausibility: I find the general scenario presented in Land of the Dead to be relatively
plausible. After all, if zombies overran society, it would only be logical for humans to hole
up in fortified cities and allow their day-to-day affairs to be managed by Dennis Hopper.
Who else would you want running the show in a situation where hell is full and the dead are
walking the Earth? Peter Fonda? I don't think so.
That being said, I'm having a hard time swallowing (vague, non-funny, related-to-the-fact-
that-zombies-eat-people semi-pun intended) the conception of zombies evolving. I
suppose it's not so much the plausibility of this notion that I have a problem with as it is the
metaphysical implications of it. The hallmark of the notion of a "zombie", whether one uses
that word to refer to:
- a corpse returned from the grave to feast upon the flesh of the living (a la Night of
the Living Dead), or - a living person whose actions are being controlled by another person (a la White
Zombie), or - a living person whose actions are being controlled by some thing like a plague or a
virus (a la 28 Days Later), or - a person returned from the grave to wreak havoc on the living due to a curse or
some supernatural phenomena (a la Tombs of the Blind Dead), or even - a philosophical zombie (i.e., beings that share our "neurophysiological makeups
without [our] qualitative conscious experiences"),
is that a zombie is "mindless", such that it has no direct control over its actions, and is
furthermore incapable of acting due to anything other than instinctual motivations and/or
orders or motivations imposed from without. What then can we make of a zombie that can
(a) think rationally and (b) act with intention, even in a limited capacity? Is it even a zombie
at that point? As my buddy the Magic 8-Ball might put it: Don't count on it.
This is all getting very abstract. Perhaps at this juncture, it would be best if I invoked a
theory created by the esteemed logician Brook Von Chadwick. In her (not yet published)
paper "Zombies Explained", Von Chadwick posits that perhaps zombies only want to eat
people because they simply see humans as food--nothing more, nothing less. As she puts
it: "You know how in some movies/shows/cartoons they'll have a scene where someone is
talking to someone else, and all of a sudden that someone else morphs into a talking
piece of cake, or some other delicious treat? [...] maybe zombies have a disease where
they can only see people as talking chunks of food, and that's why they want to eat us."** An
intriguing theory, indeed. So perhaps we can replace the philosophically unwieldy notion of
zombies evolving with one of zombies that have heretofore only been able to see humans
as food slowly developing the ability to see them for what they are: smelly, dirty bipedal
primates who probably don't taste very good at all. That makes a lot of sense. Ultimately,
perhaps we should just stop blathering uncontrollably and simply say that Land of the
Dead is semi-plausible at best. That sounds like a plan.
**Editor's Note: for an illustration of this "people imagining other people morphing into food"
phenomenon, see Seinfeld episode number 157, 'The Butter Shave', wherein Newman
imagines Kramer turning into a turkey.
Score: 3
| This is either a zombie horde or angry shoppers queuing outside of Macy's on the day after Thanksgiving. Either way, that fence ain't gonna hold. |
Production Value: Relative to other zombie movies, the production value of Land of the
Dead is through the effing roof. It's the gold standard of zombie cinema, although to be
more appropriate we should probably use the phrase 'brain standard' instead of 'gold
standard', seeing as how zombies like brains more than they like gold. You see, if zombies
actually evolved the way they do in Land of the Dead, then they would probably organize and
develop some sort of monetary system, and my guess is that this system would be
brain-based. Wait, what? Never mind, all you need to know is that the props, the sets, and
the vehicles in Land of the Dead are invariably of high quality, the cinematography is
excellent, and unlike virtually every zombie movie ever made, the film features actors who
can, you know, act.
Score: 5
Special Effects: The special effects in Land of the Dead are mainly confined to explosions.
There certainly are a lot of them, although none of are particularly noteworthy. The only
other thing that might be termed a special effect involves a zombie attacking people after
having its head partially detached from its neck. How can I accurately describe the quality of
this special effect? Perhaps like this: it's lamer than the lameological theory presented by
Sir Lamington at the International Symposium of Lameness Studies. If that's not lame, I
don't know what is.
Score: 2
Dead is through the effing roof. It's the gold standard of zombie cinema, although to be
more appropriate we should probably use the phrase 'brain standard' instead of 'gold
standard', seeing as how zombies like brains more than they like gold. You see, if zombies
actually evolved the way they do in Land of the Dead, then they would probably organize and
develop some sort of monetary system, and my guess is that this system would be
brain-based. Wait, what? Never mind, all you need to know is that the props, the sets, and
the vehicles in Land of the Dead are invariably of high quality, the cinematography is
excellent, and unlike virtually every zombie movie ever made, the film features actors who
can, you know, act.
Score: 5
Special Effects: The special effects in Land of the Dead are mainly confined to explosions.
There certainly are a lot of them, although none of are particularly noteworthy. The only
other thing that might be termed a special effect involves a zombie attacking people after
having its head partially detached from its neck. How can I accurately describe the quality of
this special effect? Perhaps like this: it's lamer than the lameological theory presented by
Sir Lamington at the International Symposium of Lameness Studies. If that's not lame, I
don't know what is.
Score: 2
| This same thing happened to me when I tried to sneak into Lindsay Lohan's dressing room. |
Makeup: Fortunately, the sub par special effects don't spill over into this category--the
makeup work in Land of the Dead is uniformly excellent, and there's a wide array of zombie
decomposition on display. It's like a buffet of decay. That being said, special attention was
clearly paid to the zombie's teeth, as there's nary a zombie in this film that doesn't sport a
gross set of chompers. So, apparently, bad teeth = zombie infection. As such, I have to
ask: is Land of the Dead insinuating that most British people are zombies? That would
certainly explain their love of steak and kidney pie, wouldn't it?
Score: 4
makeup work in Land of the Dead is uniformly excellent, and there's a wide array of zombie
decomposition on display. It's like a buffet of decay. That being said, special attention was
clearly paid to the zombie's teeth, as there's nary a zombie in this film that doesn't sport a
gross set of chompers. So, apparently, bad teeth = zombie infection. As such, I have to
ask: is Land of the Dead insinuating that most British people are zombies? That would
certainly explain their love of steak and kidney pie, wouldn't it?
Score: 4
| Is this a zombie or The Cryptkeeper's long lost sister? |
Scariness: To be blunt: Land of the Dead is the least scary Romero movie yet, and that
includes Creepshow, a movie that featured master of horror Leslie Nielsen. It's more of an
action/adventure movie with zombies than it is a horror movie, similar to the way that Army
of Darkness compares to the first two Evil Dead films. Part of me wonders, though, if this
was the point--in a world where zombie hordes have become an accepted fact of life,
maybe they're not so much scary as they are a nuisance. In other words, when zombies
are a routine part of your life, they're like carpenter ants: annoying and bothersome. And,
when zombies are a rarity in your life, they're like Adam Ant: horrifying and disturbing.
Makes sense to me.
Score: 1
Goriness: Arr, if gore be what you're after matey, there be few places better for you to look
than Land of the Dead. I have no idea why I've suddenly started talking like a pirate. Maybe
it's because I'm having a hard time figuring out a creative way to say that there's a rather
large amount of gore in Land of the Dead, although most of it is centered on gooey, bloody
gunshots to zombie heads. To be blunt, this film features more head shots than a Glamour
Shots portfolio (and almost as much blood). Additionally, there's ear munching, there's
finger chewing, there's face chomping, there's intestine slurping--there's all that and more.
And while each of those things are effective, they're all trumped on the gore-o-meter by the
one shot in which a dude gets his face peeled right off. At the risk of sounding like a creep
or a pervert (or both, a "creepvert", if you will), this face-peeling shot is AWESOME. So, even
though the gore in Land of the Dead isn't relentless, there's a fair amount of it, and its
combination with the face-peeling scene means that I've got to give a high score in this
category.
Score: 4
includes Creepshow, a movie that featured master of horror Leslie Nielsen. It's more of an
action/adventure movie with zombies than it is a horror movie, similar to the way that Army
of Darkness compares to the first two Evil Dead films. Part of me wonders, though, if this
was the point--in a world where zombie hordes have become an accepted fact of life,
maybe they're not so much scary as they are a nuisance. In other words, when zombies
are a routine part of your life, they're like carpenter ants: annoying and bothersome. And,
when zombies are a rarity in your life, they're like Adam Ant: horrifying and disturbing.
Makes sense to me.
Score: 1
Goriness: Arr, if gore be what you're after matey, there be few places better for you to look
than Land of the Dead. I have no idea why I've suddenly started talking like a pirate. Maybe
it's because I'm having a hard time figuring out a creative way to say that there's a rather
large amount of gore in Land of the Dead, although most of it is centered on gooey, bloody
gunshots to zombie heads. To be blunt, this film features more head shots than a Glamour
Shots portfolio (and almost as much blood). Additionally, there's ear munching, there's
finger chewing, there's face chomping, there's intestine slurping--there's all that and more.
And while each of those things are effective, they're all trumped on the gore-o-meter by the
one shot in which a dude gets his face peeled right off. At the risk of sounding like a creep
or a pervert (or both, a "creepvert", if you will), this face-peeling shot is AWESOME. So, even
though the gore in Land of the Dead isn't relentless, there's a fair amount of it, and its
combination with the face-peeling scene means that I've got to give a high score in this
category.
Score: 4
| Have you tried the forearm? It's DELICIOUS. |
Final Scene: I must admit that I'm confused by Land of the Dead's final scene. After saving
the humans in Pittsburgh from zombie-inflicted extinction, the character of Riley and his
merry band of misfits ride off into the sunset (sunrise?) to begin a new life. However, they
only do this after acknowledging, and letting go their own way, a group of zombies who are
"evolving." Why would Riley et al let the zombies live? Seemingly, the only way for the living
dead to continue on in their living deadness is by eating the living living (aka, "the living
non-undead"), so why not eliminate them, even if they are evolving? They're still a direct
material threat to your survival, right? I don't think it's possible to say that they, as zombies,
have "evolved" beyond the need to eat humans, because there's nothing in the film to
indicate that they're able to rise above their biological drives--if anything, they're even more
of a threat than a normal "hungry" zombie, because they actually kill for reasons besides
hunger, e.g. revenge. Even if you don't look at this situation from a personal
self-preservation point of view, shouldn't the zombies at least be eliminated so that they
don't injure other living non-undead type-people? Or am I way off on this? Is my
anti-zombie prejudice showing through? I hope not--the last thing I need is the Z.C.L.U.
(the Zombie Civil Liberties Union) to get on my case.
Score: 2
Comedy: In keeping with Romero's other living dead films, there are a number of sublime
comedic moments in Land of the Dead, from the opening shot of a sign that says "EATS",
to the living dead brass band still trying to ply their trade despite being dead and/or lacking
lips, to Dennis Hopper hilariously chewing the scenery whenever he's onscreen. In
addition to all of this, there is also a scene wherein a zombie bumbles around an empty
parking lot with a push lawnmower. I don't know why, but I found this scene to be
laugh-out-loud funny. Maybe I should get out of the house more often.
Score: 3
the humans in Pittsburgh from zombie-inflicted extinction, the character of Riley and his
merry band of misfits ride off into the sunset (sunrise?) to begin a new life. However, they
only do this after acknowledging, and letting go their own way, a group of zombies who are
"evolving." Why would Riley et al let the zombies live? Seemingly, the only way for the living
dead to continue on in their living deadness is by eating the living living (aka, "the living
non-undead"), so why not eliminate them, even if they are evolving? They're still a direct
material threat to your survival, right? I don't think it's possible to say that they, as zombies,
have "evolved" beyond the need to eat humans, because there's nothing in the film to
indicate that they're able to rise above their biological drives--if anything, they're even more
of a threat than a normal "hungry" zombie, because they actually kill for reasons besides
hunger, e.g. revenge. Even if you don't look at this situation from a personal
self-preservation point of view, shouldn't the zombies at least be eliminated so that they
don't injure other living non-undead type-people? Or am I way off on this? Is my
anti-zombie prejudice showing through? I hope not--the last thing I need is the Z.C.L.U.
(the Zombie Civil Liberties Union) to get on my case.
Score: 2
Comedy: In keeping with Romero's other living dead films, there are a number of sublime
comedic moments in Land of the Dead, from the opening shot of a sign that says "EATS",
to the living dead brass band still trying to ply their trade despite being dead and/or lacking
lips, to Dennis Hopper hilariously chewing the scenery whenever he's onscreen. In
addition to all of this, there is also a scene wherein a zombie bumbles around an empty
parking lot with a push lawnmower. I don't know why, but I found this scene to be
laugh-out-loud funny. Maybe I should get out of the house more often.
Score: 3
| Trust me--this is HILARIOUS. |
Originality: Zombies evolving and developing their mental faculties isn't original enough for
you? Well then, how about this: much of the action in Land of the Dead is centered around
"Dead Reckoning", which is, as far as I know, the first-ever fully functioning all-purpose
zombie assault wagon ever to be captured on film. While said zombie assault wagon is
cool, I really wish it had been called something other than "Dead Reckoning." It should
have had a name that more adequately captured its coolness and it's bad assedness, like
for example Zombie Destructicator 5000. Of course, if it had been called Zombie
Destructicator 5000, Dead Reckoning wouldn't have been parlaying its name into a
delicious pun. It's a catch 22, but with zombies. Still, that's a sacrifice I think we all should
be willing to make. Anyways, just for the record, I would like to state that I wish Dead
Reckoning had been a Transformer--this movie would have been infinitely more interesting
if it had been, because the only thing more fun than zombies fighting humans is zombies
fighting robots.
All of that being said, Land of the Dead does seem to borrow (in my estimation at least)
elements from numerous other zombie movies. Instances of this include:
Of course, these might all just have been coincidences. More importantly, now that I've
typed this all out, I'm kind of depressed that I was able to make all of those zombie movie
connections in the first place. Let me reiterate an earlier point: maybe I should get out of
the house more often.
Score: 3
you? Well then, how about this: much of the action in Land of the Dead is centered around
"Dead Reckoning", which is, as far as I know, the first-ever fully functioning all-purpose
zombie assault wagon ever to be captured on film. While said zombie assault wagon is
cool, I really wish it had been called something other than "Dead Reckoning." It should
have had a name that more adequately captured its coolness and it's bad assedness, like
for example Zombie Destructicator 5000. Of course, if it had been called Zombie
Destructicator 5000, Dead Reckoning wouldn't have been parlaying its name into a
delicious pun. It's a catch 22, but with zombies. Still, that's a sacrifice I think we all should
be willing to make. Anyways, just for the record, I would like to state that I wish Dead
Reckoning had been a Transformer--this movie would have been infinitely more interesting
if it had been, because the only thing more fun than zombies fighting humans is zombies
fighting robots.
All of that being said, Land of the Dead does seem to borrow (in my estimation at least)
elements from numerous other zombie movies. Instances of this include:
- the whole "humans-organizing-and-hunting-zombies-after-said-zombies-have-
overrun-the-world" element of the film, which is not unlike the basic set up of The
Dead Next Door; - the scene in which the zombies cross the river bordering Pittsburgh and then slowly
emerge, which is very similar to the German "zombies" emerging from the ocean in
Shock Waves; - the zombie assault on the high rise towers at the film's end, which is reminiscent of
Shivers; - and, dare I say it...this isn't the first zombie movie to feature a lawnmower--
Nightmare City, anyone?
Of course, these might all just have been coincidences. More importantly, now that I've
typed this all out, I'm kind of depressed that I was able to make all of those zombie movie
connections in the first place. Let me reiterate an earlier point: maybe I should get out of
the house more often.
Score: 3
| Dead Reckoning, aka Zombie Destructicator 5000, seen here not doing any transforming, which is kind of lame when you think about it. |
Rewatchability: Land of the Dead bears repeat viewings for the simple fact that it's a
well-made zombie movie. Additionally, depending on how much effort you want to put into
things, Land of the Dead is worth watching multiple times because, as our semiotic friends
might say, it can be read in a variety of ways. In other words, it works quite well on a
metaphorical level--you know, it's all symbolic and stuff. Upon its release, a lot of people
viewed Land of the Dead as a metaphor for the Global War on Terror. I think that reading is
valid, and not just because the film features lines such as "We don't negotiate with
terrorists", but also because Romero admits on the DVD's extras that Dennis Hopper's
character essentially represents Donald Rumsfeld, and the rest of the Fiddler's Green
board of directors is analogous to the Bush Administration. Ultimately though, in my view,
the film is a more apt metaphor for Capitalism than for anything else, as within the film,
zombies clearly represent the proletariat. As we meet them early in the film, they're being
exploited economically (i.e., their territory is being raided and robbed by humans, aka the
bourgeoisie); however, eventually the zombies "evolve", i.e. they "gain class
consciousness", and they then organize, rebel, and destroy their human (capitalist)
oppressors. As Kim Paffenroth puts it in his study of the films of George Romero, Gospel
of the Living Dead, the zombies in Land of the Dead "are also a potent and uncomfortable
indictment of the United States, for all the disenfranchised and exploited on which we base
our affluent and wasteful lifestyle." Ultimately, the point of all of this is clear: Marx would
have had a field day with this movie, and not just because he would be fascinated by the
moving images on the screen.
Score: 4
Datedness: I guess Land of the Dead might eventually seem dated if that book World War Z
comes to pass. Otherwise, as the film is set in the now (or, as it puts it, "Today"), it's not
tied to a specific era, so it's at least spared in that regard. However, I'm sure in 10 years the
haircuts will look silly--that's just how these things go.
I guess I have do have one complaint for this category: Land of the Dead isn't dated in the
sense that you definitely know that it wasn't made in the 1930's--because if it was, Dead
Reckoning probably would have been a zeppelin instead of a truck. I say "complaint"
because as I'm fond of pointing out, nothing improves a zombie movie like the presence of
a dirigible.
Score: 4
Soundtrack: You know, I don't really remember any music in Land of the Dead. Weird.
Score: 1
Breast Factor/Nudity: Sadly, Land of the Dead features more shots of brass instruments
than it does of boobies. I'm not even kidding. On the one hand, you have an approximately
1.2-second glimpse of a topless dancer in one of the camps surrounding Fiddler's Green.
On the other hand, you have multiple seconds' worth of screen time featuring a tuba, a
trombone, and a trumpet. That's just sad.
Score: 1
well-made zombie movie. Additionally, depending on how much effort you want to put into
things, Land of the Dead is worth watching multiple times because, as our semiotic friends
might say, it can be read in a variety of ways. In other words, it works quite well on a
metaphorical level--you know, it's all symbolic and stuff. Upon its release, a lot of people
viewed Land of the Dead as a metaphor for the Global War on Terror. I think that reading is
valid, and not just because the film features lines such as "We don't negotiate with
terrorists", but also because Romero admits on the DVD's extras that Dennis Hopper's
character essentially represents Donald Rumsfeld, and the rest of the Fiddler's Green
board of directors is analogous to the Bush Administration. Ultimately though, in my view,
the film is a more apt metaphor for Capitalism than for anything else, as within the film,
zombies clearly represent the proletariat. As we meet them early in the film, they're being
exploited economically (i.e., their territory is being raided and robbed by humans, aka the
bourgeoisie); however, eventually the zombies "evolve", i.e. they "gain class
consciousness", and they then organize, rebel, and destroy their human (capitalist)
oppressors. As Kim Paffenroth puts it in his study of the films of George Romero, Gospel
of the Living Dead, the zombies in Land of the Dead "are also a potent and uncomfortable
indictment of the United States, for all the disenfranchised and exploited on which we base
our affluent and wasteful lifestyle." Ultimately, the point of all of this is clear: Marx would
have had a field day with this movie, and not just because he would be fascinated by the
moving images on the screen.
Score: 4
Datedness: I guess Land of the Dead might eventually seem dated if that book World War Z
comes to pass. Otherwise, as the film is set in the now (or, as it puts it, "Today"), it's not
tied to a specific era, so it's at least spared in that regard. However, I'm sure in 10 years the
haircuts will look silly--that's just how these things go.
I guess I have do have one complaint for this category: Land of the Dead isn't dated in the
sense that you definitely know that it wasn't made in the 1930's--because if it was, Dead
Reckoning probably would have been a zeppelin instead of a truck. I say "complaint"
because as I'm fond of pointing out, nothing improves a zombie movie like the presence of
a dirigible.
Score: 4
Soundtrack: You know, I don't really remember any music in Land of the Dead. Weird.
Score: 1
Breast Factor/Nudity: Sadly, Land of the Dead features more shots of brass instruments
than it does of boobies. I'm not even kidding. On the one hand, you have an approximately
1.2-second glimpse of a topless dancer in one of the camps surrounding Fiddler's Green.
On the other hand, you have multiple seconds' worth of screen time featuring a tuba, a
trombone, and a trumpet. That's just sad.
Score: 1
| I saw these dudes at the Meadowlands in '87. Awesome, awesome show. |
Lead Actor: Simon Baker as Riley. While Mr. Baker's work in the lead role is
commendable, I have to lower the score here, because this dude always bums me out.
Why? Because: no matter how good he is in a movie, every time I see him, all I think about
is his character in L.A. Confidential who gets busted for pot and then murdered in a hotel
room. Depressing!
Score: 3
Sidekick(s)/Love Interest: In what might be a first for a zombie movie, Land of the Dead's
(depression-inducing) lead actor has both a sidekick and a love interest, with Robert Joy as
Charlie and Asia Argento as Slack. Alright, to be fair, Asia Argento isn't explicitly a love
interest in the film, but it's pretty clear that she will be--the way the relationship between
Slack and Riley develops, if there's ever a direct sequel to this movie (Land of the Even
More Dead, perhaps?), these two will clearly be knocking boots. That's right, I said it.
Anyway, as you might have noticed, Slack is played by Asia Argento, daughter of none other
than Dario Argento, a.k.a., "he who produced Dawn of the Dead and directed Tenebre."
This fact brings to mind important questions: did any other European horror directors with
cult followings have hot daughters? If so, are any of them interested in hanging out?
Score: 4
Overall Cast: The overall cast of Land of the Dead reminds me of donut holes, in the sense
that while they're not as good as actual donuts, they still tend to get the job done in the flavor
department. BEST ANALOGY EVER. Anyways, one thing I will say about the overall cast is
that I'm confused about the fact that George Romero hired someone who looks a lot like
Dawn of the Dead makeup maestro Tom Savini to play a role, only to then have Tom Savini
himself show up as a zombie. What gives?
Score: 3
commendable, I have to lower the score here, because this dude always bums me out.
Why? Because: no matter how good he is in a movie, every time I see him, all I think about
is his character in L.A. Confidential who gets busted for pot and then murdered in a hotel
room. Depressing!
Score: 3
Sidekick(s)/Love Interest: In what might be a first for a zombie movie, Land of the Dead's
(depression-inducing) lead actor has both a sidekick and a love interest, with Robert Joy as
Charlie and Asia Argento as Slack. Alright, to be fair, Asia Argento isn't explicitly a love
interest in the film, but it's pretty clear that she will be--the way the relationship between
Slack and Riley develops, if there's ever a direct sequel to this movie (Land of the Even
More Dead, perhaps?), these two will clearly be knocking boots. That's right, I said it.
Anyway, as you might have noticed, Slack is played by Asia Argento, daughter of none other
than Dario Argento, a.k.a., "he who produced Dawn of the Dead and directed Tenebre."
This fact brings to mind important questions: did any other European horror directors with
cult followings have hot daughters? If so, are any of them interested in hanging out?
Score: 4
Overall Cast: The overall cast of Land of the Dead reminds me of donut holes, in the sense
that while they're not as good as actual donuts, they still tend to get the job done in the flavor
department. BEST ANALOGY EVER. Anyways, one thing I will say about the overall cast is
that I'm confused about the fact that George Romero hired someone who looks a lot like
Dawn of the Dead makeup maestro Tom Savini to play a role, only to then have Tom Savini
himself show up as a zombie. What gives?
Score: 3
| Will the real Tom Savini please stand up? Oh wait, they're both standing--never mind. |
Token Scientist: Day of the Dead was anomalous in the sense that it was the only
Romero-zombie movie to heavily feature scientists. Everything is back to normal in Land of
the Dead, where there's nary a scientist in sight. Although, during the film we learn that
Riley designed Dead Reckoning, and that's a super-advanced vehicle, so that kind of
makes him a scientist, doesn't it? Are those guys on American Chopper scientists? I have
no idea. Somebody get Thomas Kuhn on the line.
Score: 1
Token Fat Guy: The first contender for Land of the Dead's Token Fat Guy crown is a little
person who is referred to by everyone as "Little Fat Man". I don't know--he didn't seem very
fat to me. Fortunately, we don't have to worry about giving the title to someone who might
not necessarily deserve it, thanks to the presence of the ass-kicking, buffet-crushing
character of Pillsbury. Unlike most fat guys in zombie movies, not only is Pillsbury not a
liability to those around him due to his skill with guns and/or bashing people over the head,
but he also makes it all the way to the end of the movie without becoming zombie food (in
an amount that would produce enough leftovers for like 8 other zombie movies). Congrats,
Pillsbury: you're an inspiration to all the Token Fat Guys out there, and not just the ones in
zombie movies.
Score: 4
Romero-zombie movie to heavily feature scientists. Everything is back to normal in Land of
the Dead, where there's nary a scientist in sight. Although, during the film we learn that
Riley designed Dead Reckoning, and that's a super-advanced vehicle, so that kind of
makes him a scientist, doesn't it? Are those guys on American Chopper scientists? I have
no idea. Somebody get Thomas Kuhn on the line.
Score: 1
Token Fat Guy: The first contender for Land of the Dead's Token Fat Guy crown is a little
person who is referred to by everyone as "Little Fat Man". I don't know--he didn't seem very
fat to me. Fortunately, we don't have to worry about giving the title to someone who might
not necessarily deserve it, thanks to the presence of the ass-kicking, buffet-crushing
character of Pillsbury. Unlike most fat guys in zombie movies, not only is Pillsbury not a
liability to those around him due to his skill with guns and/or bashing people over the head,
but he also makes it all the way to the end of the movie without becoming zombie food (in
an amount that would produce enough leftovers for like 8 other zombie movies). Congrats,
Pillsbury: you're an inspiration to all the Token Fat Guys out there, and not just the ones in
zombie movies.
Score: 4
| This dude is serious and seriously fat. That's a winning combination, right there. |
Best Line: Personally, I'm partial to the line "I'm putting a curling iron through her head,"
which is uttered during the film's opening montage sequence. I don't know why--there's
just something elegant about the image that the line evokes. I mean, anyone can stop a
zombie with a gun, but it takes a special person to neutralize the undead with a hair care
appliance, you know? You don't? It's possible that I'm saying this because I forgot to take
my pills today. Accordingly, I guess I'll choose a line from Land of the Dead that isn't quite
so creepy. With that in mind, the only real contenders for the best line crown come from
Dennis Hopper's Kaufman character, and I can't choose between his factually correct "In a
world where the dead are returning to life the word 'trouble' loses much of its meaning" and
his emotionally correct "Zombies, man...they freak me out," as it seems to me that both
lines rule--they work together like the two halves of the McDLT: one side is hot, the other
side is cold, and it's only when they're put together that you realize their (delicious)
awesomeness. So, let's just call it a tie and move on.
Score: 5
Intangibles: First and foremost, Land of the Dead is, of course, a George Romero movie,
so in addition to being a well-made zombie movie, it's bigger than itself, as it carries the
weight of his earlier zombie movies, all of which are masterpieces of the genre.
Additionally, Land of the Dead features Dennis Hopper, who always brings a little
something extra to the table. This had me wondering--what do you think would happen if
the modern Dennis Hopper met the Easy Rider Dennis Hopper and told him that he (the
future version of himself) was starring in a zombie movie? Actually, they'd probably just
drop acid together, steal a motorcycle, and go to Mexico. I guess that's not so interesting
after all.
Aside from these considerations, there are lots of things that Land of the Dead gets right
that other zombie movies seem to routinely stumble over: the film wastes no time showing
us zombies, there's an even placement of zombie attacks throughout the movie, and there
are numerous subtle touches that underscore the action in the film, like for example how
the characters in the film, used as they are to combating the living dead, are very
methodical and calculating when dealing with the undead, and not 'hysterical' as someone
who was encountering a zombie for the first time would be. I guess what I'm saying is that
unlike a lot of zombie movies, it seems like the makers of Land of the Dead actually put a
little effort into things. As a much maligned fan of zombie films, I, for one, appreciate that.
Score: 4
Zombie Believability: Hmmmm...this category has the potential to plunge us back into the
boring philosophical uncertainty that we encountered in the 'Plausibility' category. What a
bunch of bullshit. Still, we must boldly move forward, right? Right--let's just make sure to
tread lightly. Okay, so, in a physical sense, the zombies in Land of the Dead are some of
the most believable zombies ever captured on film, due to the facts that (a) they're
well-performed and (b) well made-up.
Behaviorally, though, I'm not so sure that the zombies in Land of the Dead are believable,
due to that whole evolution thing. I mean, could a zombie figure out how to use a
jackhammer as a weapon? It could probably do so accidentally, but intentionally? I guess
what I'm asking here is: what makes a zombie a zombie? Its behavior? Its intentions? Its
credit rating? Its USSN (Undead Social Security Number)? I have no clue at this point.
Score: 3
which is uttered during the film's opening montage sequence. I don't know why--there's
just something elegant about the image that the line evokes. I mean, anyone can stop a
zombie with a gun, but it takes a special person to neutralize the undead with a hair care
appliance, you know? You don't? It's possible that I'm saying this because I forgot to take
my pills today. Accordingly, I guess I'll choose a line from Land of the Dead that isn't quite
so creepy. With that in mind, the only real contenders for the best line crown come from
Dennis Hopper's Kaufman character, and I can't choose between his factually correct "In a
world where the dead are returning to life the word 'trouble' loses much of its meaning" and
his emotionally correct "Zombies, man...they freak me out," as it seems to me that both
lines rule--they work together like the two halves of the McDLT: one side is hot, the other
side is cold, and it's only when they're put together that you realize their (delicious)
awesomeness. So, let's just call it a tie and move on.
Score: 5
Intangibles: First and foremost, Land of the Dead is, of course, a George Romero movie,
so in addition to being a well-made zombie movie, it's bigger than itself, as it carries the
weight of his earlier zombie movies, all of which are masterpieces of the genre.
Additionally, Land of the Dead features Dennis Hopper, who always brings a little
something extra to the table. This had me wondering--what do you think would happen if
the modern Dennis Hopper met the Easy Rider Dennis Hopper and told him that he (the
future version of himself) was starring in a zombie movie? Actually, they'd probably just
drop acid together, steal a motorcycle, and go to Mexico. I guess that's not so interesting
after all.
Aside from these considerations, there are lots of things that Land of the Dead gets right
that other zombie movies seem to routinely stumble over: the film wastes no time showing
us zombies, there's an even placement of zombie attacks throughout the movie, and there
are numerous subtle touches that underscore the action in the film, like for example how
the characters in the film, used as they are to combating the living dead, are very
methodical and calculating when dealing with the undead, and not 'hysterical' as someone
who was encountering a zombie for the first time would be. I guess what I'm saying is that
unlike a lot of zombie movies, it seems like the makers of Land of the Dead actually put a
little effort into things. As a much maligned fan of zombie films, I, for one, appreciate that.
Score: 4
Zombie Believability: Hmmmm...this category has the potential to plunge us back into the
boring philosophical uncertainty that we encountered in the 'Plausibility' category. What a
bunch of bullshit. Still, we must boldly move forward, right? Right--let's just make sure to
tread lightly. Okay, so, in a physical sense, the zombies in Land of the Dead are some of
the most believable zombies ever captured on film, due to the facts that (a) they're
well-performed and (b) well made-up.
Behaviorally, though, I'm not so sure that the zombies in Land of the Dead are believable,
due to that whole evolution thing. I mean, could a zombie figure out how to use a
jackhammer as a weapon? It could probably do so accidentally, but intentionally? I guess
what I'm asking here is: what makes a zombie a zombie? Its behavior? Its intentions? Its
credit rating? Its USSN (Undead Social Security Number)? I have no clue at this point.
Score: 3
| Behold: the creepiest swim class EVER. |
Zombie Attack Scenes: Land of the Dead features an absolutely embarrassing amount of
zombie attack scenes, and I mean that in a good way. I haven't done the math (because,
I'm like, busy), but I'm pretty sure that this movie has 370 zombie attack scenes for every 1
attack scene that occurs in the average zombie movie. I guess that's what a little thing
called a 'budget' can do. Again, I didn't do the actual math, so that ratio might be a tad high.
The point, though, is that this movie features a shitload of zombie attacks, including the
opening equipment run, the scene wherein the guy who commits suicide subsequently
reanimates as a zombie and attacks people (it's the ultimate super double-secret zombie
covert sneak attack, and such a maneuver, if it's not already, should henceforth be known
as the Trojan Horse of the Living Dead), a zombie "cock fight" (which isn't as erotic as it
sounds), the siege of the outskirts of Pittsburgh, the siege of Pittsburgh itself, and the
taking of Fiddler's Green, to name just a few. As if all of those attack scenes weren't
enough, this movie also features a midget assault scene. Awesome!
Score: 5
Zombie "Orgy" Scenes: Seeing as how Land of the Dead features a large amount of
zombie attack scenes, it only makes sense that many of these would lead to zombie "orgy"
scenes. These include: the initial siege of Pittsburgh's outskirts, the utter destruction of a
skateboard riding zombie-hunter, and the gruesome aftermath of the actual siege of
Pittsburgh. To be frank, this movie has more orgies than Caligula. In a metaphorical
sense, of course.
Score: 5
zombie attack scenes, and I mean that in a good way. I haven't done the math (because,
I'm like, busy), but I'm pretty sure that this movie has 370 zombie attack scenes for every 1
attack scene that occurs in the average zombie movie. I guess that's what a little thing
called a 'budget' can do. Again, I didn't do the actual math, so that ratio might be a tad high.
The point, though, is that this movie features a shitload of zombie attacks, including the
opening equipment run, the scene wherein the guy who commits suicide subsequently
reanimates as a zombie and attacks people (it's the ultimate super double-secret zombie
covert sneak attack, and such a maneuver, if it's not already, should henceforth be known
as the Trojan Horse of the Living Dead), a zombie "cock fight" (which isn't as erotic as it
sounds), the siege of the outskirts of Pittsburgh, the siege of Pittsburgh itself, and the
taking of Fiddler's Green, to name just a few. As if all of those attack scenes weren't
enough, this movie also features a midget assault scene. Awesome!
Score: 5
Zombie "Orgy" Scenes: Seeing as how Land of the Dead features a large amount of
zombie attack scenes, it only makes sense that many of these would lead to zombie "orgy"
scenes. These include: the initial siege of Pittsburgh's outskirts, the utter destruction of a
skateboard riding zombie-hunter, and the gruesome aftermath of the actual siege of
Pittsburgh. To be frank, this movie has more orgies than Caligula. In a metaphorical
sense, of course.
Score: 5
| I haven't seen an orgy this gruesome since I went to that party at Jeremy Piven's house. |
Anti-Zombie Weaponry: While there are a lot of guns, a crossbow, and an electrified fence
used to neutralize zombies in Land of the Dead, the only real anti-zombie weapon worth
talking about is Dead Reckoning, mainly because it proves the old saying that while a gun
can take out a zombie, it's a lot more fun to use a missile.
That being said, it's interesting to note that Land of the Dead features a weapon that is
employed not to destroy zombies, but merely to distract them; namely, fireworks. Often in
the film when there's a horde of the living dead nearby, the human characters will launch
fireworks into the sky, because this incapacitates the zombies (it's a humane way to deal
with zombies, I guess), as they're apparently distracted by pretty lights. Based on this, I
suppose we can surmise that the undead have a lot in common with babies and old
people. And also, that fireworks are to zombies as rubber bullets are to people staging a
riot. These are both really good things to know.
Score: 4
Zombification Explanation: In keeping with George Romero's other zombie movies, an
explanation for why the dead are returning to life is never proffered in Land of the Dead.
Ultimately, it's a moot point anyways, as the more pressing question in this film, hinted at
earlier, is: how come Asia Argento never takes her top off?
Score: 3
Zombie Uniqueness: It's hard to tell where to start in this category, as Land of the Dead is a
smorgasbord of zombie uniqueness, (if that makes any sense)(which it doesn't) seeing as
how the zombies in this movie reason, communicate with each other via short barks (kind
of like prairie dogs), apparently feel anguish, use tools and weapons, and destroy their
enemies via organization and sheer numbers (also kind of like prairie dogs--weird).
What's also unique about the zombies, in a general sense, in Land of the Dead are the
reactions of humans towards them. As mentioned previously, for the characters in the
movie, zombies aren't so much scary as they are simply an unpleasant fact of life that must
be accepted and dealt with, similar to how you or I just accept that birds will crap on our
cars and/or that Fallout Boy will continue to release records. As such, characters in Land of
the Dead have a few nicknames that they use to refer to zombies, including "Walkers" and
"Stenches." This got me thinking: if I lived in a world overrun by zombies, what would I call
said undead citizens? I've narrowed it down to two names: "Walking Organ Bags" and
"Those Things That Smell Worse Than Expired Mayonnaise." I think they both pretty much
capture the essence of the zombie experience. More importantly, I think it's safe to say that I
probably wouldn't be very popular in a post-zombie invaded world, because my ideas kind
of, what's the word? Oh yeah: suck. My ideas suck. Let's just move on.
Score: 4
used to neutralize zombies in Land of the Dead, the only real anti-zombie weapon worth
talking about is Dead Reckoning, mainly because it proves the old saying that while a gun
can take out a zombie, it's a lot more fun to use a missile.
That being said, it's interesting to note that Land of the Dead features a weapon that is
employed not to destroy zombies, but merely to distract them; namely, fireworks. Often in
the film when there's a horde of the living dead nearby, the human characters will launch
fireworks into the sky, because this incapacitates the zombies (it's a humane way to deal
with zombies, I guess), as they're apparently distracted by pretty lights. Based on this, I
suppose we can surmise that the undead have a lot in common with babies and old
people. And also, that fireworks are to zombies as rubber bullets are to people staging a
riot. These are both really good things to know.
Score: 4
Zombification Explanation: In keeping with George Romero's other zombie movies, an
explanation for why the dead are returning to life is never proffered in Land of the Dead.
Ultimately, it's a moot point anyways, as the more pressing question in this film, hinted at
earlier, is: how come Asia Argento never takes her top off?
Score: 3
Zombie Uniqueness: It's hard to tell where to start in this category, as Land of the Dead is a
smorgasbord of zombie uniqueness, (if that makes any sense)(which it doesn't) seeing as
how the zombies in this movie reason, communicate with each other via short barks (kind
of like prairie dogs), apparently feel anguish, use tools and weapons, and destroy their
enemies via organization and sheer numbers (also kind of like prairie dogs--weird).
What's also unique about the zombies, in a general sense, in Land of the Dead are the
reactions of humans towards them. As mentioned previously, for the characters in the
movie, zombies aren't so much scary as they are simply an unpleasant fact of life that must
be accepted and dealt with, similar to how you or I just accept that birds will crap on our
cars and/or that Fallout Boy will continue to release records. As such, characters in Land of
the Dead have a few nicknames that they use to refer to zombies, including "Walkers" and
"Stenches." This got me thinking: if I lived in a world overrun by zombies, what would I call
said undead citizens? I've narrowed it down to two names: "Walking Organ Bags" and
"Those Things That Smell Worse Than Expired Mayonnaise." I think they both pretty much
capture the essence of the zombie experience. More importantly, I think it's safe to say that I
probably wouldn't be very popular in a post-zombie invaded world, because my ideas kind
of, what's the word? Oh yeah: suck. My ideas suck. Let's just move on.
Score: 4
| Zombie target practice: a victimless crime. Alright--one victim. |
Zombie Consistency: The zombies in Land of the Dead are somewhat inconsistent, but
that's apparently by design, i.e., some of them are your good old-fashioned flesh-hungry
undead, while others use reason and tools. It's kind of like the difference between normal
chimps and those chimps that came back super smart after NASA sent them into space.
You know what I'm saying.
Score: 3
Signature Zombie: Land of the Dead's signature zombie is played by Eugene Clark;
referred to in the credits as 'Big Daddy', I prefer to think of him as 'super ass-kicking gas
station man', but that's just me. Anyways, as the leader of the zombie uprising, Big Daddy
basically picks up where Day of the Dead's Bub left off, but not literally--where Bub preferred
to dispatch humans with handguns, Big Daddy apparently would rather do so with gasoline
and a rolling ball of flame. To each their own. Anyways, Eugene Clark does an excellent
job with what is probably the most prominent role a zombie character has ever had in a film.
Sure, while The Return of the Living Dead's Tar Man is famous for saying "brains", and the
execrable Dr. Freudstein from the also execrable The House by the Cemetery is famous for
being so lame, neither of those zombies had to carry their movies dramatically--however,
that's what's asked of the Big Daddy character in Land of the Dead. Quite simply, if he
doesn't work, the audience doesn't have any sympathy for the zombie point of view, and the
film falls apart. That's a lot of pressure for Eugene Clark, but as I said, he does an excellent
job with the role. This shouldn't come as a surprise though, as one look at the man's
resume shows that he's got some acting skills. Honestly, if you can find another actor who
could pull off roles in Robocop: Prime Directives, Joe Torre: Curveballs Along the Way,
Gladiator Cop, and Tekwar, I'll give you a dollar.
Score: 4
that's apparently by design, i.e., some of them are your good old-fashioned flesh-hungry
undead, while others use reason and tools. It's kind of like the difference between normal
chimps and those chimps that came back super smart after NASA sent them into space.
You know what I'm saying.
Score: 3
Signature Zombie: Land of the Dead's signature zombie is played by Eugene Clark;
referred to in the credits as 'Big Daddy', I prefer to think of him as 'super ass-kicking gas
station man', but that's just me. Anyways, as the leader of the zombie uprising, Big Daddy
basically picks up where Day of the Dead's Bub left off, but not literally--where Bub preferred
to dispatch humans with handguns, Big Daddy apparently would rather do so with gasoline
and a rolling ball of flame. To each their own. Anyways, Eugene Clark does an excellent
job with what is probably the most prominent role a zombie character has ever had in a film.
Sure, while The Return of the Living Dead's Tar Man is famous for saying "brains", and the
execrable Dr. Freudstein from the also execrable The House by the Cemetery is famous for
being so lame, neither of those zombies had to carry their movies dramatically--however,
that's what's asked of the Big Daddy character in Land of the Dead. Quite simply, if he
doesn't work, the audience doesn't have any sympathy for the zombie point of view, and the
film falls apart. That's a lot of pressure for Eugene Clark, but as I said, he does an excellent
job with the role. This shouldn't come as a surprise though, as one look at the man's
resume shows that he's got some acting skills. Honestly, if you can find another actor who
could pull off roles in Robocop: Prime Directives, Joe Torre: Curveballs Along the Way,
Gladiator Cop, and Tekwar, I'll give you a dollar.
Score: 4
| Dude, why so angry? Sure you're a zombie, but at least you're a signature zombie. |
Total Points: 98
Verdict: What have we learned from Land of the Dead? First: when you're in the hands of
skilled, competent makers of zombie cinema, it's fun to sit back and enjoy the ride.
Second: zombies seem to be comprised of components that are equal parts British, infant,
old people, and prairie dogs. That's a good thing to know--I'm glad someone's finally
figured this ratio out.
Third: while the idea of zombies evolving is interesting, it's also really, really confusing, in a
"What would happen if I traveled back in time and killed myself right as I was born?" kind of
way (or, to use a more germane example, "What would happen if Dennis Hopper traveled
back in time and dropped acid with himself?). Still, the film gets points for boldly exploring
a notion that no other zombie movies are willing to touch, and interestingly, I think that it
lends credence to the notion that Richard Greene raised in his essay "The Badness of
Undeath" that "we have no alternative but to reject the claim that it is bad (in the objective
sense) to be Undead" (see the essay for more details on this).
Fourth: while Land of the Dead is a high-quality zombie flick, it falls just a bit short of being
zombietastic. I'm not sure why this is--maybe it's the lack of scares, or the surplus of John
Leguizamo. Maybe it's both. Either way, it just seems to be missing that little something
that would make it an essential zombie movie. Remember earlier when I declared my
donut analogy to be the best analogy ever? I was wrong--this is the best analogy ever: in
the world of zombie cinema, Land of the Dead is akin to eating a six-pack of White Castle
sliders for dinner--it's an enjoyable experience, and you get filled up, but when all is said
and done, you wish you had a full hamburger instead. Also, you feel a little queasy and
you're out a few bucks. Yeah. Think about it.
Next Time: FleshEater
Verdict: What have we learned from Land of the Dead? First: when you're in the hands of
skilled, competent makers of zombie cinema, it's fun to sit back and enjoy the ride.
Second: zombies seem to be comprised of components that are equal parts British, infant,
old people, and prairie dogs. That's a good thing to know--I'm glad someone's finally
figured this ratio out.
Third: while the idea of zombies evolving is interesting, it's also really, really confusing, in a
"What would happen if I traveled back in time and killed myself right as I was born?" kind of
way (or, to use a more germane example, "What would happen if Dennis Hopper traveled
back in time and dropped acid with himself?). Still, the film gets points for boldly exploring
a notion that no other zombie movies are willing to touch, and interestingly, I think that it
lends credence to the notion that Richard Greene raised in his essay "The Badness of
Undeath" that "we have no alternative but to reject the claim that it is bad (in the objective
sense) to be Undead" (see the essay for more details on this).
Fourth: while Land of the Dead is a high-quality zombie flick, it falls just a bit short of being
zombietastic. I'm not sure why this is--maybe it's the lack of scares, or the surplus of John
Leguizamo. Maybe it's both. Either way, it just seems to be missing that little something
that would make it an essential zombie movie. Remember earlier when I declared my
donut analogy to be the best analogy ever? I was wrong--this is the best analogy ever: in
the world of zombie cinema, Land of the Dead is akin to eating a six-pack of White Castle
sliders for dinner--it's an enjoyable experience, and you get filled up, but when all is said
and done, you wish you had a full hamburger instead. Also, you feel a little queasy and
you're out a few bucks. Yeah. Think about it.
Next Time: FleshEater
| All text on this page is copyright 2007 ZombieTastic.com, and may not be reused without written consent from the author. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
