Terra dos Mortos

George A. Romero returns to the zombie flick twenty years after his last dip into the genre with 'Land Of The Dead (2005)', a post-apocalyptic tale of human survivors in an undead-infested land. The picture deals with the class system, seeing its major setting - a walled city with a shopping mall at its centre - ruled by a rich board of directors who use the promise of a better life inside the tower to manipulate those who aren't fortunate enough to ignore the chaos outside. Continuing the 'smart zombie' theme of 'Day Of The Dead (1985)', the flick features a focal ghoul who becomes more intelligent and cunning as the narrative unfolds. The picture features plenty of neck-biting, blood-spurting, head-crushing carnage and it moves at a pretty quick pace, too. Its plot is pretty thin and its characters are all, essentially, stereotypes, but it's a fun experience throughout. It isn't as good as Romero's previous zombie stuff, partially because its subtext isn't as strong. Still, it's an enjoyable action-horror piece nevertheless. 7/10

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

Zombie films are a dime a dozen and even the ones that are lacking are enough of an entertainment. Romero's Land of the dead comes across as generic. Despite being steeped in darkness, it lacks the taut pacing and nerve-jangling suspense of 28 Days Later, and doesn't have the tongue-in-cheek approach evident in Shaun of the Dead. It's got great makeup, though. Credit Gregory Nicotero (who replaces Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead's Tom Savini) for making the zombies more frightening than campy. Ultimately, however, copious gore and rotting flesh can only do so much for a movie, and the lack of ambition in Romero's storyline is where Land of the Dead fails. The movie will appeal to those with a penchant for zombie flicks, but is unlikely to reach further - not even to the broader "general horror" market. It's not startling or frightening enough. However, this is a zombie film and that in itself makes it worth a glance.

The undead have taken over the world. What traces of humanity remain have taken to backing themselves into protected cities and getting supplies by venturing out in heavily armoured groups to raid smaller towns. One such city is formerly Pittsburgh, where the rivers provide natural protection and those who organised themselves into leaders have created a world of near normality while the rest live in the streets with less material and more risk. One of the raiders (Riley) is sure that he has seen evidence of learning among the undead but events within the city itself cause him more concern as his former second-in-command decides to take violent revenge for being betrayed by city boss Kaufman.

How you receive this film is more about you than the film itself (which I suppose is true of most things in a way – everything has a market somewhere). Those that will love it will be those looking for gore as their horror because the film delivers this in spades. The camera lingers on flesh eating, mutilation and some very painful sequences that had me looking away. However the problem for me was that it was just gore – not horror, not scares and not anything that made me feel uncomfortable in my own house. A minor criticism perhaps but let me assure you that me and zombie movies do not mix well and not only do I get scared during the films but also for days afterwards by the idea of it all.

Surprisingly then I was able to watch Land of the Dead with a detached air and it never convinced me of the world I was being shown. Part of this is budget but that's not all of it as I never bought the characters or main story either. The story in particular narked me because it did dominate the main horror (the mass of undead) and spent too much time on the detail of the human interactions and betrayal. In itself this is not a killer and indeed recently I saw The Mist do a very good job of making human monsters just as scary as the rubber ones but here Romero doesn't make as much of his social commentary as he could have done – OK so we have the haves and have-nots but beyond that we don't get much in the way of intelligence.

The cast reflect the low budget but are good enough for the level that this is working on. Baker is a bit bland but OK, while Leguizamo at least adds a bit of energy to his character. Hopper takes on a fairly easy role of just being a "Mr Big" character that even done in P Diddy/Daddy music videos in the past. Argento is sexy but little else while Joy is pretty good in his support character. Clark is better than a zombie character will get him credit for and makes his stuff quiet interesting and engaging. In regards getting the best "urgh" impact from his gore budget, Romero does well but I was surprised that he didn't do more as a writer or as director to do better with the characters or the tension/danger within the story; like I said, I was surprised by how much of an observer this film allowed me to be.

Worth a look for gore fans and those seeking out some old school zombies in the middle of these modern "28 Days Later" type ones but really this film is a bit of a disappointment in just how average it is. The gore is great but it produces repulsion, not scares and Romero cannot create a sense of genuine horror or fear as he tries to deal with a narrative that takes more than it gives.

Let me start by saying I'm a big fan of George Romero's previous films, especially the dead series. I thought he really hit his stride with Day of the Dead making a slick, structurally sophisticated continuation of his original idea. Not many people can pull off a sequel and I thought he did it twice with Dawn and Day. I also think he had something quite interesting to say with each of those films, layering thematic commentary under the story without distracting from main story elements or themes. His films were always about the shortcomings of man and the inability to work together in the face of danger. His films were always about the people, not the zombies.

But now he has tried so hard to make a political statement that he has hammered into his own genre at the expense of the film. It was interesting in Day when the scientist discovers that a zombie can regain some latent memory and begin to function in a more human way. I was very powerful when that zombie musters up just enough motor skill and latent memory to shoot the villain. It feels like a stretch to say that the zombies, or even the one zombie, in Land could make a conversion of understanding that leads an all out revolt. On an intellectual level, I understand it, but it just didn't work for me. This seems to me like a bigger deviation from the Romero concept then some of the things complained about in the many Romero inspired films recently.

The world described in the previews and press material doesn't seem fully realized. There is a huge divide between the rich and the poor. Why? How did it get that way. It doesn't seem like that would function well under the circumstances of the world as it is, especially in a small society. Why don't we find out anything about how this place works? How does Denis Hopper maintain his power? It is presented as a concept without any real thought. In the original film "The Island of Lost Souls" Doctor Moreau controls his population of beasts with fear. He cracks the whip, recites the law, and talks about the house of pain, which the audience knows to be the doctor's laboratory, but the beasts know it as a building where screams are heard. This is a stunningly well designed political metaphor. In Land of the Dead, I couldn't help thinking that the underlying political message was driving the story and that questionable things were written into the story for the wrong reasons. Money is a major plot device. Denis Hopper tries to escape the city with two large bags of money. What good is money outside the city? I was wondering, what good is money inside the city? Money only works if people believe in the underlying value of it. Most countries in the real world can't keep a stable currency. There is an aerial shot of the city during the day showing the streets deserted. Why are the streets deserted? Where are all the people? Later we see the same shot only the streets are now filled with Zombies. The characters keep talking about going to Canada as a safe haven. Why? Why is Canada safer than the United States. I was left to believe that this was more political commentary. Why are the Zombies trying to get to the city? They seem to be driven by some underlying, dare I say it, political motivation.

The film as a whole seemed less like a story of characters in a horrific world established in the earlier films, and more like a series of one dimensional vignettes based on thin political ideology – Rich verses poor, violence in America, mismanagement of government in post 9-11 society, negotiating with terrorists, yeah we get it. Not so subtle.