Land of The Dead - The Long Wait • Non-Gaming • Film • Eurogamer.net

drumbaby 6 Jul 2005 11:58:42 2,688 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 17 years ago

A very close personal friend of mine has obtained a cam-view version of this film (obviously, with all 3 Romero zombeh films in his DVD collection he fully intends to buy the DVD, after having seen the film at the cinema) and has seen the first 15 minutes.

It apparently is amazing (apart from the crap image quality) with great acting/ characterisation, brilliant zombies, and a real sense of unease pervading every shot...or so I'm told.

My friend doesn't know whether to watch it all now, in total crap-o-vision, or watch the whole thing properly at the flicks...But why oh why do us Limey tossers have to wait until 9th September to see it at the cinema, when the yanks had it on the 24th June?

And it's not even a Sony flick!

Derblington 6 Jul 2005 12:05:36 35,161 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 17 years ago

From the story I've heard about this it just sounds shit.

DevilsKebab 6 Jul 2005 12:15:58 774 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 19 years ago

Well, if you can make it, August the 26th there will be a showing of it in Odeon West End, Leicester Square as part of the Frightfest horror film festival and there is also a very good chance George Romero will be there too.

Tomo 6 Jul 2005 12:41:35 19,566 posts
Seen 6 hours ago
Registered 18 years ago

It is supposed to be really excellent. I was pretty surprised when I heard this, considering the track record of most renewed franchises. Good ol' George tho, still got it clearly.

drumbaby 6 Jul 2005 12:45:37 2,688 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 17 years ago

Derblington wrote:
From the story I've heard about this it just sounds shit.

Far from it...apparently.

MetalDog 6 Jul 2005 12:51:10 24,076 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

I love zombies. This is going to rock.

Whizzo 6 Jul 2005 13:00:57 44,810 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

The Odeon I was in on Monday had Land Of The Dead posters all over the place, really odd if we're not getting it until then. What a pain in the arse.

Me wants zombies now!

Just checked the IMDB and most of Europe gets it next month as well! Gits.

Edited by Whizzo at 13:01:50 06-07-2005

Nimmy 6 Jul 2005 13:15:57 220 posts
Seen 9 years ago
Registered 18 years ago

Derblington wrote:
From the story I've heard about this it just sounds shit.

Could I possibly have your home address, so I can come round and kill you, (and possibly eat you )

This is George A Romero FFS!!!!!!

smoothpete 6 Jul 2005 13:20:45 37,743 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 17 years ago

I pimp this book all the time but hey ho

Whizzo 6 Jul 2005 13:23:34 44,810 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

Excellent book, I couldn't wait for the UK print run either so imported the US one!

Looks like a good sense of humour runs in the Brooks family, now if only Max would help Mel out with his more recent films...

I was going to buy the lastest Walking Dead from Amazon but I baulked at them charging more than 4 quid P&P as there wasn't anything else I wanted.

smoothpete 6 Jul 2005 13:29:17 37,743 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 17 years ago

0_o Max and Mel are related? How so? Quite obvious now I think about it

Whizzo 6 Jul 2005 13:34:50 44,810 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

Max is Mel's son.

drumbaby 6 Jul 2005 14:23:50 2,688 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 17 years ago

smoothpete wrote:
I pimp this book all the time but hey ho

Yup, got it, read it....Excellent!

markypants 6 Jul 2005 14:30:22 2,860 posts
Seen 15 hours ago
Registered 18 years ago

Nimmy wrote:

Derblington wrote:
From the story I've heard about this it just sounds shit.

Could I possibly have your home address, so I can come round and kill you, (and possibly eat you )

This is George A Romero FFS!!!!!!

+1+Big-fuck-off-chainsaw!!

George A Romero is the reason why I got into TV & Film making... The fact that I make kids TV shows is a bit worrying... But hey ho.

M

(PS - Film is great about time somebody gave him the budget to make a new Zombie flick. It's got more sub text than any of the modern Zombie flicks, gory as f**k as well. Nobody does it better than GAR.

smokedog 6 Jul 2005 16:24:49 87 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 17 years ago

I've seen this and its is crap! Very poor story and wooden characters. Dawn of the Dead (remake) blows it out if of the water.

sickpuppysoftware 6 Jul 2005 16:37:30 1,486 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 19 years ago

smokedog wrote:
wooden characters

You do realise that zombies are supposed to walk like that ;o)

cov 6 Jul 2005 16:39:19 2,524 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 18 years ago

reviews linky

Kay 6 Jul 2005 16:41:57 21,321 posts
Seen 12 hours ago
Registered 18 years ago

Just like with War of the Worlds, some think it's brilliant while others think it's crap. I'll definitely be watching it, I loved the DOTD remake.

drumbaby 6 Jul 2005 16:51:15 2,688 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 17 years ago

Post deleted

drumbaby 6 Jul 2005 16:51:34 2,688 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 17 years ago

smokedog wrote:
I've seen this and its is crap! Very poor story and wooden characters. Dawn of the Dead (remake) blows it out if of the water.

No...no....and NO!! (IMHO)

DOTD 2004 was okay (though why they called it DOTD is beyond me...it's nothing to do with it other than the mall setting), but it was more like '28 Days Later' than a bona fide zombie film. They were dead people, but for some reason they came back even faster and more agile than they had been when they were alive.

I could never really get over that stumbling block...Guess I'm just an old stick in the mud. But if their brains were so undamaged by death as to let them run the 100m in under 10 secs, how come they weren't all talking to each other?

It was a great action film, and I enjoyed it as such...but it wasn't at all disturbing/ scary, apart from a few "BOOO!" type jump scares.

Deleted user 29 September 2005 23:22:33

Just got back from this, and thought it was bloody excellent. Exactly how I wanted it to be, and thought the majority of characters were fine. The zombies were fantastically done. My mate told me as the credits started to roll that Simon Pegg had a cameo in it, and right then his name scrolled up the screen with Edgar Wrights - they played the two zombies in the club that people were having photos taken with; well played to those guys

I really liked Hopper's character too; no matter how shitty a role he gets he always seems to pull it off in an interesting way.

phAge 29 Sep 2005 23:30:20 25,487 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 18 years ago

Land of the Dead = mega-meh. Not scary, OTT gory (and not even in a funny way), so-so effects, crap acting and a weak storyline. The new dawn of the Dead was way better, IMO.

Also, Dead Reckoning is lame beyond belief.

(Ain't it great when you get to recycle your old posts?)

Freek 29 Sep 2005 23:36:18 7,682 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 18 years ago

drumbaby wrote:

smokedog wrote:
I've seen this and its is crap! Very poor story and wooden characters. Dawn of the Dead (remake) blows it out if of the water.

No...no....and NO!! (IMHO)

DOTD 2004 was okay (though why they called it DOTD is beyond me...it's nothing to do with it other than the mall setting), but it was more like '28 Days Later' than a bona fide zombie film. They were dead people, but for some reason they came back even faster and more agile than they had been when they were alive.

I could never really get over that stumbling block...Guess I'm just an old stick in the mud. But if their brains were so undamaged by death as to let them run the 100m in under 10 secs, how come they weren't all talking to each other?

It was a great action film, and I enjoyed it as such...but it wasn't at all disturbing/ scary, apart from a few "BOOO!" type jump scares.

Any brain surgon could porbably lecture long and hard about how motor functions and language are handeled differently by the brain.
Besides, Day of the Dead already established that zombies retain the abilities they had when they were alive, just require proper motivation to acces them. And there's no greater motivation for a zombie then human flesh. They are predators so running doesn't seem at all out of character for them. They're not faster or more agile, they just run and jump, they don't behave human but they do carry human abileties. Humans with a total disregard for thier own safety would most likely look similar to what DoD 2004 showed the zombies to be.

Land of the Dead takes it even further with the zombies forming an army under the leadership of one zombie.

Non of it is ofcourse logical, but we are talking about zombie movies here. It is believable though within the setting of the movies.
I woulden't say it was more or less scary then the original DoD either, it was never that kind of horror, gory yes, scary not so much.

Edited by Freek at 23:42:48 29-09-2005

Teeth 29 Sep 2005 23:46:47 7,987 posts
Seen 10 years ago
Registered 18 years ago

Warning! There is a spoiler in the post above!

Freek 29 Sep 2005 23:51:11 7,682 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 18 years ago

Teeth wrote:
Warning! There is a spoiler in the post above!

That's not a spoiler, it's in all the reviews, pormotions and trailers.

Teeth 30 Sep 2005 00:06:30 7,987 posts
Seen 10 years ago
Registered 18 years ago

Oh, OK then. Sorry. I'd seen a trailer that didn't give me any idea that was the case. On with the show, then!

Derblington 30 Sep 2005 00:40:25 35,161 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 17 years ago

I didn't know either. It might be an idea to stick a warning up just in case.

Deleted user 30 September 2005 10:26:38

phAge wrote:
Land of the Dead = mega-meh. Not scary, OTT gory (and not even in a funny way), so-so effects, crap acting and a weak storyline. The new dawn of the Dead was way better, IMO.

Also, Dead Reckoning is lame beyond belief.

(Ain't it great when you get to recycle your old posts?)

Personally I found it to be in keeping with the rest of the ...Dead films, but with a bit of spit and polish. I never got the impression they were meant to be that scary, just slightly disturbing. I wasn't expecting a miracle of modern movie-making, and I didn't get one. I got a good, solid something to watch for a couple of hours, which made me jump and chuckle in equal measure. Even minky liked it, and she hates all that cheesy monster movie crap.

Edited by mouse at 10:30:23 30-09-2005

lagairt 30 Sep 2005 10:45:34 452 posts
Registered 16 years ago

Loved the previous films - what this is I cannot tell. Its not great thats for sure - I can believe its by the same genius.

drumbaby 30 Sep 2005 10:53:50 2,688 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 17 years ago

Freek wrote:
They're not faster or more agile, they just run and jump, they don't behave human but they do carry human abileties. Humans with a total disregard for thier own safety would most likely look similar to what DoD 2004 showed the zombies to be.Edited by Freek at 23:42:48 29-09-2005

They jump down from ceilings in the multi story carpark. They have a physical 'togetherness' that is at least equal to what they had when alive. Dead brain. Dead muscles. No adrenalin running through their dead circulatory systems. It all works in 28 Days Later because the monsters are alive.

The Zombie Survival Guide paperback has a great chapter on zombie physiology....basically saying that the virus which causes the condition protects the brain's basic motor function (basic) first and foremost, and then an overall chemical reaction forms an organic preservative that slows the rate of decompositon of the host body....But without allowing it to retain early speed/ agility.

There's even a chapter which describes the effect of cold on zombies. No circulation means no way to warm the 'machine' that is their body. They freeze in sub zero conditions and become 'harmless' 'til thaw. message: move to the Arctic in a zombie apocalypse!

I can see why they did it. It makes for 'better' action. It makes for frenetic and intense chase scenes. It also saves trying to justify a scenario where slow moving zombies can take over a world where mankind has access to all sorts of WMDs...And without having to go the favoured route of Romero, where he obsesses on mankind's inability to cooperate even in the face of extinction. Snyder had no interest in that.

In fact, Romero has already established he's the master of satire through the zombie film...So why try and top that? I think 28 Days Later was more his target genre, but with the DotD name to draw in the fans. Personally I'd have preffered it if Snyder had based the film in another location, and called it something else.

What it boils down to for me is that DotD 2004 totally ignored Romero's zombie lore, and I don't personally like the end result. Yet I loved the running monsters in 28 Days Later....they were FAR scarier than Snyder's actual zombies, imho, because they were so obviously ALIVE, and yet unreachable as human beings. And because Romero's zombies actually seem 'dead', slower or not they're far scarier to me than Snyder's marauding uber zombies...who seem more 'messed up' than dead.