Customer Reviews

NOT THE BEST ZOMBIE MOVIE EVER, BUT IT'S GOOD 8.5 OUT OF 10
Zombie films have always had a rich history. What most people don't know is that the true origin of zombie films began not in 1968 with Night of the Living Dead, but in 1937 with Revolt of the Zombies. There are reasons however why people don't know this, and it is because Revolt of the Zombies was a terribly boring and convoluted movie. When George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead hit in 1968, it was groundbreaking and a true horror masterpiece, and a few zombie movies spawned from it in the '70s. But, in 1978, zombie horror truly hit its stride with the sublime Dawn of the Dead by George A. Romero. The film changed the face of horror films forever, and spawned a series of George A. Romero spinoffs (Return of the Living Dead 1, 2, and 3, Day of the Dead 1 & 2), some good ripoffs (Evil Dead 1 & 2, Zombi 2, and Cannibal Apocalypse) and some not-well-received movies. Zombie films went into a deep coma sometime during the late '80s and remained there for several years. Then, in 2002, the Resident Evil film put zombie horror back on the map and returned with a triumphant bang, which over the years has seen two other Resident Evil films, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, House of the Dead 1 & 2, the Dawn of the Dead remake and many more. Land of the Dead came around sometime in the summer of 2005, it's most certainly not Romero's best work, but as a zombie horror fan I loved it. It was gory, it was more story-focused, and it was action-packed.
WHAT IT'S ABOUT: It's a post-apocalyptic world, there are zombies everywhere. The only place to live is a s***hole called Fiddler's Green... well at least for poor people it's a s***hole. The rich are greedy and rule over it along with the military. For everyone else it's nothing but a place of gambling, cheating, and prostitutes. The story is focused on a survivor named Riley, his friend Charlie, and a few other survivors. The story also wraps itself around the zombies because the zombies in this film are rather smart, and can communicate with each other, work together, and form a rather terrifying army of the dead. So when the dead learn to get smarter and use weapons they slowly travel to Fiddler's Green to feed on the living.
STORY: It's nice to see that zombie films are actually trying to make use of story that actually makes sense. No surprise considering when Resident Evil came out it put all zombie films to shame when it came to story, even to this day. The story is not without its share of problems mostly over the fact it gives no explanation as to how exactly did the zombies come to be. Am I still supposed to assume they came from Hell?
GORE: This film really shines in the gore department. Limbs being ripped off, internal organs being ripped out, eyes being ripped out, arterial spray, people being torn in half, my personal favorite when a zombie grabs the upper lip of a victim and then rips the skin off of his face, and so much more.
MUSIC: Sets the eerie mood, but more could have been done with it. It definitely can't compare to the music of Resident Evil.
SCARE: If you don't watch horror films often, you might get scared. I didn't, almost nothing scares me these days, especially considering the fact I watch almost nothing but R-rated films.
ENTERTAINMENT: If you're someone like me or my Amazon friend J-Train, and you can almost never hate a zombie movie, you'll love this one. It provides plenty of gory fun and it actually has a story that feels like it means something.
OVERALL: You must watch this if you love zombie films, it's not the best one ever, but it will keep you interested. If you like George A. Romero, chances are you will like this film.
THE GOOD: Good gory fun, a story that means something.
THE BAD: Story has problems, music has problems, and it is not the best work of George A. Romero.

Is The Franchise Dead?
Okay, so this is a must see because it is part of George Romero's zombie saga, however I didn't really like this one too much. The special effects were great, however the story itself wasn't all the way there. I enjoyed the part of the story where the rich have isolated themselves and the poor have taken to the city streets, but the part of the story that I really did not like was the zombies forming their own army to take on the humans. I thought that the main zombie was horrible. Terrible acting and he looked silly. The way the zombies gather and follow him to the city and then they walk underwater through a river??? What was that all about? The plot about the weaponized vehicle being stolen and held for ransom, I just thought it was stretching things a bit. Of course it has some great moments too, like the whole fireworks thing was very cool. But ultimately this movie ended and I felt like it wasn't up to par with the other "Dead" movies. I give it 3 stars and probably won't ever watch it again. It's simply not a classic.

Maybe I was too excited...
Let me tell you a little bit about creatures called zombies. They're dead humans reanimated, they only think about eating brains and human flesh, and when they're not thinking about that.... well... they're never NOT thinking about that. That's what makes zombies so great. They're mindless shuffling relentless flesh eating machines. So when they start communicating in grunts and primitive gestures and formulating a plot to take over one of the last human cities you kinda throw the whole allure of the zombie out the window. Now you have a movie about a group of stupid cannibles attacking a town. Or basically vampires (zombie's undead cousins) without fancy abilities. The acting sucks, surprisingly, even though the cast consisted of quality actors. It sounded like a good idea in theory but it ended up falling WAY short.