|
Post by omer135 on Jul 23, 2008 12:28:56 GMT -5
I would like to know if I'm the only one who likes this more than the other Romero flicks. It seems that Everyone prefer Day and Dawn more. I can't understand why because this film is much better in every aspect. More interesting story, larger scale , higher budget, good acting, perfect zombie makeup, amazing gore . The only one that comes close is Day. For me this is the ultimate zombie movie.
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Jul 23, 2008 15:28:13 GMT -5
The reason most of us love Dawn so much is for the opposite of everything you listed. We love the fact that it's in a shopping mall. The small budget makes Romero think outside of the box. Dawn & Day have great acting as well. The makeup in Dawn is supposed to look hokey, comic book feel. Romero has yet to make anything close to Dawn.
Land is a good flick, just not my fav.
|
|
|
Post by blackknight273 on Jul 24, 2008 2:56:44 GMT -5
Land just was a letdown for me in a lot of ways. Romero got his budget and stars in this one, but he just seemed to piss it away and it just seems to be the weakest of all the Dead movies.
|
|
|
Post by rogueslayer on Jul 26, 2008 0:57:22 GMT -5
For me not really. Seem the movie was more about getting the Dead Recokning back and nothing more. Yeah just like Dawn, except it didn't help this film much. Higher budget does not equal good film. ;D You got me there. I like Day's better to be honest but, yeah Lands was ok better than Dawn's but, even you have to admit number 9 looked to fresh for a outbreak that has been happening for 3 years........ By the way Number 9 is that softball female zombie if you didn't know. Yeah the only problem being is that unlike Dawn and Day the scenes of gore were to short in Land.
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Jul 26, 2008 1:03:53 GMT -5
Did u watch the unrated director's cut?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Tongue on Jul 29, 2008 23:02:07 GMT -5
Great Zombies, nice special effects and Cholo was amazing but the movie just wasn't super good. Day still beats it, hands down.
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Jul 30, 2008 3:07:34 GMT -5
I would like to know if I'm the only one who likes this more than the other Romero flicks. It seems that Everyone prefer Day and Dawn more. I can't understand why because this film is much better in every aspect. More interesting story, larger scale , higher budget, good acting, perfect zombie makeup, amazing gore . The only one that comes close is Day. For me this is the ultimate zombie movie. Land of the Dead is a complete failure on every level. In effect, it's just a phoned-in rehash of the original script for Day. We had to wait 20 years, and this is what GAR gave us? I hope the old man kills himself for this.
|
|
|
Post by blackknight273 on Jul 30, 2008 3:20:28 GMT -5
I liked parts of it, and Ive posted the big reasons I didnt like it. It wasnt as bad as Diary which Im beginning to think is unredeemable
|
|
|
Post by rogueslayer on Jul 31, 2008 0:05:41 GMT -5
I would like to know if I'm the only one who likes this more than the other Romero flicks. It seems that Everyone prefer Day and Dawn more. I can't understand why because this film is much better in every aspect. More interesting story, larger scale , higher budget, good acting, perfect zombie makeup, amazing gore . The only one that comes close is Day. For me this is the ultimate zombie movie. Land of the Dead is a complete failure on every level. In effect, it's just a phoned-in rehash of the original script for Day. We had to wait 20 years, and this is what GAR gave us? I hope the old man kills himself for this. To be honest man I liked the idea but, it was just exuctued BADLY! One problem I had was the lack of zombies.....seriously Land of the Dead? More like Land of the Empty Spaces...... There were more zombies in Dawn and Day. The ending was also gash!
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Jul 31, 2008 0:18:05 GMT -5
Or:
Land of Gambling & Prostitutes
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Jul 31, 2008 22:56:40 GMT -5
I've noticed that alot of the younger guys and gals are really into this one, and dig the whole concept of "The Road Warrior with Zombies" thing.
It's just not for me.
If I'm going to see new zombie flicks and books and stories...I'm much more of a "First Night" man.
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Aug 10, 2008 7:51:41 GMT -5
This was far from the best of the series, in my opinion. It's above Diary, which is the weakest of the Dead Films. I still enjoyed Land quite a bit & watch it often.
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Aug 10, 2008 14:06:23 GMT -5
Here's a reprint of a review I made for Land when it first came out....
Sorry if it seems a little harsh, but it IS a reprint, Tony. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Demon-Sixx on Aug 16, 2008 8:44:02 GMT -5
It's a good movie but dawn is far superior. the thing i love about romeros work is that it was'nt as polished as most the films being pumped from the hollywood machine. special effects are great, but a lower budget makes for more creative thinking. Carpenter proved this with Halloween. He made one of the most influencial horror flicks of all time on a budget of $300,000. Hardly any blood or special effects were used. It's all to do with the way he Shot the film, long tracking shots etc. Romero has the great skill of fast editing and multiple angle shots.
Land was ok though...7/10
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Tongue on Aug 16, 2008 8:50:14 GMT -5
It's a good movie but dawn is far superior. the thing i love about romeros work is that it was'nt as polished as most the films being pumped from the hollywood machine. special effects are great, but a lower budget makes for more creative thinking. Carpenter proved this with Halloween. He made one of the most influencial horror flicks of all time on a budget of $300,000. Hardly any blood or special effects were used. It's all to do with the way he Shot the film, long tracking shots etc. Romero has the great skill of fast editing and multiple angle shots. Land was ok though...7/10 [glow=red,2,300]I think the film was saved by the connections it had to previous films.[/glow]
|
|