IMDb > Land of the Dead (2005) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Land of the Dead
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Land of the Dead More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 67:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 667 reviews in total 

96 out of 128 people found the following review useful:

Where's my car?

1/10
Author: soulassassin2000 from Lund, Sweden
25 August 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Most other comments seems to be infected by a classic case of -Let's read a plethora of theories and commentaries into this as an after-construction-kinda deal. It's easy to sum this movie up in one sentence: A violent story about a group of people in search for their missing car.

This has been praised as a stand against class-society and apparently it should contain a vast amount on social commentary. Where? Name one action movie who hasn't got a rich villain and a poor hero or some misfit trying to set things right based on his unbreakable social pathos.

And some of the huge plot holes:

Well the monatery system in this movie can't be explained. Why does currency still work in a world where there a so few people, and plenty of goods to go around for everybody.

The gated community is just a silly, awfully depicted place, instead of dealing with the situation they sit around drinking champagne and buying designer clothes. (Is this the huge social comment?!?)

Why build a stupid land train when you can loot every tank regiment on Earth?

Conclusion:

After the three first (Night, Dawn and Day) Land... seems to be a world of it's own. It seems to be so far away from anything else, depicted in the first three, it could be a pilot for a TV-series.

Many may complain about the one dimensioned actors but, be fair, how would ANY actor act in such a humourless, wafer thin story like this. The direction seems more to be inspired by army boot camp than any sort film-making. It follows the same concept over and over and over again: "Run-Shoot-Swear-Run-Shoot-Swear" And by God do not under any circumstances show any emotion except anger.

I was almost breastfed with zombie movies and for almost 20 years it's been a great inspirational source. It pains me to see this movie and I hate to admit that not even me, one of the greatest fans on the genre, can protect Romero from this failure.

Mr. Romero, get back to the drawing board, and better luck next time.

I still have hope!

Was the above review useful to you?

155 out of 248 people found the following review useful:

GAR's Masterpiece - Truly.

8/10
Author: obiemookie from Toronto, Ontario, Canada
14 June 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Just got back from the "industry screening" of Land, with GAR in attendance (5 rows ahead of me).

Not to give out any spoilers, because I won't...but this film rocked. Does it have a different feel than Night, Dawn, and Day? Of course it does...why? Because of the fact that it's 2005, and movie making has changed over the course of the years. And also, this wasn't an independent film in the same way the other three were.

BUT, what they got away with, gore-wise, was absolutely incredible. My buddy and I were laughing with glee through the entire flick at all of the violence. Let me put all doubts to rest: This IS a George A Romero zombie film. This is NOT a rip-off...it's the real deal. Head shots, decapitations, zombie biting people with the typical fleshy ripping...intestines...the works. I was SHOCKED at the amount of gore they managed to get into the film. I spoke with the Production Manager after wards, and he assured me that the gore in the film is NOTHING compared to what's going to be on the DVD. Oh, and on the way out, I got to shake GAR's hand and tell him that this is an incredible film. Honestly, it's this generation's "Dawn". (And yes, that means it's more fast paced etc etc, which some purists might be ticked off about). And when I say this is this generation's "Dawn", I mean THIS is the zombie movie people will remember years from now. It totally blows the other recently released zombie flicks (including the Dawn remake) out of the water.

The acting was excellent all around...and I mean all around. There were no bad performances. Even Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo, who both were put down on the message board for being in the film, were amazing. Hell, even the zombies kicked ass.

Anyway, that's all I'll say. You guys will either love it or hate it. I loved it.

Final word: Watch for the priest zombie. You'll know what I mean when you see it...hilarious. And watch for the arm scene...a hand upheld in a foggy mist...you'll understand when you see that too. Also, watch for the hilarious departure of two of Dennis Hopper's assistants...his personal assistant and his butler. LOL funny.

Was the above review useful to you?

170 out of 291 people found the following review useful:

George returns with something a little different and scores!

8/10
Author: traviskramer from Kansas City
22 June 2005

I was able to catch an advance screening with friends last night, and maybe it was just the mood we were in, but we had a blast. It took me a few minutes to get the direction George was going with this one, but once I did, it cranked on almost every cylinder.

The first thing to note is this is not a serious, somber, scare you out of your pants zombie movie. What it actually plays out as instead is a social commentary on class, politics, and stereo types, while having a good time doing it. Think more Evil Dead meets Mad Max meets Night of the Living Dead, and you'll get a clearer picture of the movie George has made here.

Yes, it is very violent, and yes, there are plenty of "feedings." Highly recommended for those whose take zombie movies as seriously as they should.

Was the above review useful to you?

86 out of 126 people found the following review useful:

Not bad, but not great

7/10
Author: joestank15 from United States
1 July 2005

Land of the Dead - The 4th part of George A. Romero's zombie quadrillogy. It's been decades since the dead began to walk the Earth, and now they practically own it (except for Canada for some reason). There is one last little mega-city that is surrounded by electric fences, armed patrols and barbed wire on one side, and nothing but water on all other four sides, because the dead supposedly don't like water. Despite the fact that the surrounding lands are rife with zombies, this metropolis is incredibly corrupt. All thanks to evil bureaucrat Kaufman (Dennis Hooper, who I had a ball watching) who makes all but a select few rich folks (who have never seen or fought a real zombie) live in slums. There you can get your picture taken with zombies, or watch zombie fights (they fight over animals and the occasional human). There are a few mercenaries paid to make runs in a giant tank truck for precious commodities in the outside world.

Now I like George and could thank him endlessly for starting the zombie franchise, but he has always favored gore just a little more over character development, and has always liked his zombies just a LOT more than his humans. Heck in this movie, the zombies are practically the good-guys! They're just like you and me, except they rip people's arms in two (and I do mean length-wise) and tear belly button rings out of people. They are actually pretty intelligent and moderately fast at walking. By far the biggest threats in Romero's movies (most notably "Big Daddy" (Eugene Clark). For the most part though, it works, and it's good gory fun. Except the character development thingy. While I don't begrudge Romero for having fun with his zombies, I wasn't too sympathetic to Riley (Simon Baker) or Slack (Asia Argento). Riley, like Romero it seems, is just tired of character development as he has Riley say "I'm fed up with back-stories". But Riley dear boy, that's how the audience grows to care about you. Slack almost kills several of her fellow team-mates and does not grow at all, but that's the script's fault. Both of these characters, however are played well for what the actors are given.

Surprisingly the secondary characters are far more endearing. Cholo (John Leguizamo) was not only believable as a merc, but I was quite sympathetic to him as he realized that he was a pon. "Pilsbury" (Pedro Miguel Arce) and Charlie (Robert Joy) are endearing and funny.

So the effects are good. The story is iffy. The acting is good. The character development is iffy. The ending is really lame. This gets an overall B

Was the above review useful to you?

128 out of 215 people found the following review useful:

George returns with another zombie masterpiece

8/10
Author: dessartblackcat from United States
23 June 2005

George Romero returns to the genre he had perfected with his "dead" trilogy (Night of, Dawn of, and Day of), with a fourth installment, LAND OF THE DEAD. Fans of the first three films will no doubt be lining up in droves to see this film regardless of what the critics say. Regardless, die hard zombie fans and critics alike should be pleasantly surprised. The sneak peak I saw had fans hooting and hollering and received a standing ovation at the end of the film. The film, while not perfect, is still a achievement in bringing a once dead genre back to life. And who better to do it than the master himself, George A ROmero. Land of the Dead, most closely resembles the dark comedy of Day of the Dead than the other two films, and manages to blend the classic elements of Dawn of the Dead with the modern expectations of films like 28 days Later. Romero fans will love it, and modern horror seekers should hopefully be exposed to a great time. Great special effects, plenty of gore, and great performances all around especially from John Legiozomo, Dennis Hopper, and Asia Argento. Do yourself a favor, and GO SEE THIS MOVIE on the big screen!

Was the above review useful to you?

58 out of 85 people found the following review useful:

Complete Disappointment!

2/10
Author: Blkpetal from United States
29 June 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie was terrible! The storyline - can't use the word plot as that would give it too much credit - was tedious! Some say it was a great perspective on class? Are you kidding me!!! From the HORRIBLE acting to the complete and utter Lack of dialog, characters changed motives, desires and allegiances so quickly without any second thoughts. Plus, a lot of scenes just plain didn't make Any Sense!

*SPOILER* I realize that the two troops were sent up to keep an eye on our main characters but why in the world did the big guy suddenly knock out that woman?!?! What was with that? The gratuitous female-on-female scene? What purpose did that serve? Only the one zombie guy seemed to be learning anything and leading the troops yet was able to avoid huge blasts from explosives while zombies around him exploded? These characters have such amazing aim at such strange points but then they can't kill this One Zombie? And everyone in the van just blindly follows Choro but then immediately switches alliances? And what was with the girl who was ready to nuke the entire city but then, when asked to fire on a bunch of zombies and half-eaten civilians all of a sudden she has a heart? Plus, even after Choro turned into a zombie he was able to carry out his revenge? Not only was he able to remember to kill that CEO guy but also he was able to find him that easily? And what was with the horribly, cheesy ending where they just want a place to live?!? Uh, hello, have we forgotten that THEY ARE DEAD!!!! Kinda the Premise of the movie!!!

Oh I just was SO disappointed - and I gotta say, I didn't have high expectations or anything, I just couldn't believe how bad it really was. My boyfriend and I looked at each other after the movie and were so angry - he had been particularly excited about this one and I thought the idea that the zombies would possibly be learning something well that was neat. OH SO SAD when a Great series like this jumps the shark!

Was the above review useful to you?

93 out of 157 people found the following review useful:

Land of the Dead - not too bad.

8/10
Author: jimmymanbone from WV
24 June 2005

I went in to this movie expecting the worst and couldn't have been more wrong. Romero did a good job keeping to what he does best- zombie and social commentary. The special effects and gore were really good and "Dead Reckoning" doesn't look as much like a DAWN OF THE DEAD (remake) parking shuttle, as it does in the trailers. I did feel that they introduced "Big Daddy" way to early in the film and overused him. I would have enjoyed the movie more if he was just another zombie. Cameo's by Simon Pegg, Tom Savini, and Edgar Wright were barely noticeable. I would have liked to see more "daytime" scenes but I don't think that is what Romero had in mind. Overall, it was a fun movie that had a few sudden scares and some good humor.

Was the above review useful to you?

94 out of 164 people found the following review useful:

A true George Romero movie

8/10
Author: vampry-1 from Atlanta, GA
22 June 2005

I saw this film at a preview screening here. I thought it was great fun and a return to what Romero does well - zombies. It does not pretend to be anything but what it is and that's why I think it's better than one of the earlier reviewers on this site did. I thought the characters were well drawn - I'd especially like to see Charlie's back story - and the set-up for a possible sequel (and a possible show-down between Riley and the Big Daddy zombie) intriguing. Dennis Hopper was a fairly clichéd villain but I always like seeing him on screen. The movie may be seen by some to have way too few shocks (I only jumped and clutched my companion a couple of times but then I may be jaded) and too many "merely amusing" moments. The audience I saw it with all seemed to enjoy it, applauding at the end.

Was the above review useful to you?

168 out of 315 people found the following review useful:

Great zombie movie!

9/10
Author: i-am-waiting from United States
19 June 2005

I've just arrived from CineVegas at The Palms where Romero got a vanguard award. I've never seen a zombie movie, so I thought I'd check this one out. Anyway I'm a bit tired, but all I can say is WOW. This film rocked! The gore was awesome. There was some cringe-worthy stuff, one instance I remember is there's this chick with a belly button ring who gets attacked,and yeah... imagine what happens next. Also, this film was FUNNY! The audience just gobbled up all the violence and gore. As the previous poster mention Dennis Hopper was just excellent and the way he handled getting rid of one of his assistants was the funniest part in the movie. All in all, this movie exceeded my expectations and was money well spent.

Was the above review useful to you?

31 out of 44 people found the following review useful:

Do not pay to see this movie, let somebody else rent it, it isn't worth it

3/10
Author: Nevermore from Belgium
11 August 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This review contains some spoilers, but don't be afraid to read it if you're planning to see the movie, it won't change much, if anything, except perhaps your will to see it.

I find it quite difficult to grasp how so many people could still give this movie such a high score. I think it somehow must have something to do with people hyping the movie since it's the successor to Dawn Of The Dead (DOTD) or something, but seriously, they're all wrong, and I'll tell you why.

I too went in to see more of the (in my opinion pretty good) Dawn Of The Dead, and was expecting a bit less of course, since sequels are always worse than the first one. Point proved once more.

A few comparisons perhaps to show you what I mean: In DOTD, the zombies were... well, zombies. In Land Of The Dead (LOTD) the zombies have somehow "evolved" to have some kind of intelligence, with 1 commander-zombie who somehow manages to lead them all with a few grunts, giving the others orders. This is what destroyed the movie from the very beginning. I mean come on, "they're trying to act like us." (one of the first lines in the movie) and then you see a zombie couple walking hand in hand, a band of zombies trying to play something, and the list goes on. That's not what we're here for, you know? It doesn't feel like you're watching a zombie movie, it feels like you're watching Revenge Of The Mentally Challenged, and it isn't working.

I don't want to see a zombie with enough intelligence to fire a gun (seriously) or who knows that he can make a car explode by soaking it in gasoline first and rolling a burning keg of gas (which appeared out of nowhere) towards it, and I doubt anybody else was waiting for that either.

The scares are all extremely predictable by the way.

One of the aspects that made DOTD good to great, was the awesome job the crew did with the masks of the zombies. This is not the case in LOTD, you only get about 3 mass zombie scenes, the other scenes containing zombies are always close-ups of the same 5 zombies that hang around the commander-zombie, and only 1 of them (the girl with the slashed mouth) looks like how a zombie should look, the others just appear to have had a reversed face lift.

There is no depth to any of the characters. In DOTD, you had some outspoken personalities, here you have the stereotypical rebel-hero, the love-potential rebel female (which is a prostitute in this movie, nice twist on the whole Romeo and Juliet thing, I'll give them that), a retard that somehow is able to fire a gun with inhuman precision, and a few mercenaries (like the humongous fat Samoan guy) but who don't do *anything* at all in the movie except just standing there and trying to look cool.

When I thought the movie would finally kick off, the end credits rolled across the screen, and the whole theater was going "what the ****?", really. Everybody there was disappointed, everybody.

Just as you felt it had potential to burst into something great, it was over, and you realize you have just watched 90 minutes of pure time wasting. Nothing has been told, and nothing has happened during the movie.

Also, the tank-like car they use to raid surrounding villages is over the top and overused, and I didn't think it had anything cool about it, at all. They tried to revoke the busting-out feeling from DOTD with those fortified trucks I think, but again, it didn't work.

Everything was there though; the tower as a last stand (which takes only one 2 minute scene in the whole movie when it is invaded by the zombies), the expertise from DOTD should have created even more and better looking zombies, the concept was a great base to build off (the remaining humans walled in in a city with the undead controlling the rest of the world),...

But they didn't do anything with it and decided to just create a rip-off and milk the movie dry. And I don't blame anybody for that, but don't expect me to like it when you don't finish the job.

The final straw for me was the ending scene, when the zombies have taken over one of the *last* remaining human cities (remember, they control the rest of the world) and the main character with his finger on the button to shoot a few rockets in the mass of zombies, decides not to do it and just leave them to raid the city and it's inhabitants, since "they're just like us, they just want a place to call home", and then drives off launching fireworks with his truck.

I'm not kidding, I swear.

So there I was, both mouth and eyes wide open, trying to subdue the urge to let a well-meant "what the **** was that" slip from my lips while the end credits were rolling across the screen, having wasted a perfect evening while I could have been watching any other movie, which would have had a good chance of being better than this one.

If you read this and decide that perhaps you should see a different movie, I think that would be a wise decision.

If you have read this review, and you decide that you still have to go and see this movie, I promise you'll get what you deserve.

Have a good life.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 67:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history