Land of the Dead (2005)

Land of the Dead

2005

Starring: Simon Baker, John Leguizamo, Dennis Hopper, Asia Argento, Robert Joy

Directed By: George A. Romero

It's really hard for me to review this film. As a fan of George Romero's work, I can try and be unbiased as possible, but if it were another Romero film review, it would be much harder. Land of the Dead is the fourth installment in the Romero zombie saga with the first film being Night of the Living Dead (1968), then followed by Dawn of the Dead (1978), and then capped off with Day of the Dead (1985). Seeing as this is the fourth film and I have yet to review the others, I'll do my best to try and fill everyone in.

In Night of the Living Dead, the dead begin to walk the earth. In Dawn of the Dead, the dead have increased in numbers and force a group of survivors into a shopping mall. Day of the Dead, although mediocre in comparison to the previous two, shows government testing on zombies and their intelligence. With Land of the Dead, the zombies have basically taken over the earth and forced most people into large cities surrounded by giant walls.

Every Romero film is socialistic in nature and those overtones show through just as much now as they did in 1968 with Night of the Living Dead. With the wealthy held up in skyscrapers and basically running the cities, the poor and socially inept people are forced to live in the streets and off of basically table scraps to survive. With zombies at every other step outside of these cities, wouldn't it be smart for everyone to be classified in the same social category to survive and restore humanity? That would be the logical step, but like Romero's films and real life, humans are greedy and selfish and that isn't the case.

Land of the Dead centers around a group of mercenaries for hire who go outside of the cities, battle zombies, and bring supplies back to the rich folk. Mercs Riley (Simon Baker) and Cholo (John Leguizamo) work for Kaufman (Dennis Hopper) and head up the mercenaries that look for supplies. They drive a big tank/truck around that Riley designed, which helps them roll through groups of zombies with ease. When Riley decides it's time to retire and move to Canada (which apparently has very few zombies) and Cholo realizes that Kaufman is a completely selfish douche, they part ways and start planning their own goals out. Riley comes to the conclusion that Canada needs to be the place to retire and Cholo decides to steal the tank and try and sell it back to Kaufman. So, before Riley can leave, Kaufman enlists him to retrieve his tank because he's the only one who knows how to really get it back.

Now, the plot is rather simple, especially for a Romero flick, but the film is probably the goriest of the four zombie films he's done. In fact, in Romero's world, things have become so bad that zombies are actually a part of life now. They have begun to show intelligence and begin to flock toward the large city. The troupe of zombies is led by a large, black zombie who totes a machine gun around. Now, if you've seen a Romero film, the black guy is usually one of the non-zombie characters. Here, he's the lead zombie. This doesn't bother me as much as the intelligence shown by the zombies. They begin to think (which would seem impossible due to decomposing brains) freely instead of going on animalistic instincts. The black zombie even begins to learn how the machine gun works and he uses it against the humans. He even leads other zombies, while communicating through a series of grunts and growls, to take on the humans and fight back.

What is the underlying meaning here? Opression. For so long the zombies have been killed off and are now being used as novelty acts within these large cities. Romero shows more of the zombie side of things this time around and gives us a humanistic view of the walking dead. That sounds strange, but it's true. Romero's films have always housed some sort of social commentary, and Land of the Dead is no different. In fact, if you look at the way the rich and poor are divided within a city surrounded by zombies, you'll see the metaphor of today's society.

My only real problems with this film are small, but important to make a good film, and they are all things that Romero has done in the past but doesn't seem to pull together here. For instance, the character development is really weak except for Cholo and the lead black zombie. Everyone else you really don't care about, but why focus on a zombie when there are human characters to focus on. I'm not saying not to focus on the lead zombie and his new-found intelligence, but instead share it with the main character Riley or Kaufman.

The script is probably the weakest of all of Romero's films, as is the editing and directing. This doesn't make it bad, but the film felt like it was either rushed or that not enough care was put into it like the previous three films. Sure Day of the Dead was probably the worst of the four, but it at least had decent character development, which is absent from Land of the Dead. The editing seemed to choppy in parts and too much like horror films that are being turned out left and right today. With a tighter overall cut, it would have at least felt like a Romero film instead of a Romero tribute film.

Did I like Land of the Dead? Sure I did. The gore and makeup fx were awesome and the acting was good for such a weak story and script. The movie definately had it's moments that you know you're watching a Romero film, but overall it didn't feel like good 'ol George was there with us the whole time. The movie had some really cool concepts, but ultimately, I didn't like the new zombie intelligence factored in because it took away from what a zombie film is about: human resistance and struggle. Some things just seemed like they were placed in just for a "cool" factor and some things really worked well within the film.

Overall, Land of the Dead isn't a bad film, in fact it's a pretty decent movie. It's just that after watching the previous three Dead movies, Land kind of lacks what made the others great. At times it feels too forced and other times it feels too loose. This is a good movie that lacks the greatness of the other three. I really liked it and I liked a lot of the concepts within, but to me it's not the better of the four. It's good for what it is and it's a good way to sort of show the progression from Night of the Living Dead, but it's not the direction I would have imagined Romero taking it.

I recommend watching Land of the Dead, but only after watching the previous three zombie films to see where the history lies.

Rating: