George A. Romero’s Land of the Dead Movie Review:


It has been twelve long years since George A Romero has directed a high profile Hollywood feature and twenty years since he has touched the “zombie” horror sub-genre.

The last high profile film Romero touched was the Stephen King adaptation “The Dark Half” in 1993.

Romero’s return to the sub-genre he is credited for creating has made “zombie” fans foam at their mouths. But has twenty long years been worth the wait for Romero’s return?

In his latest “zombie film”, a rag-tag group of mercenaries led by the heroic Riley (Simon Baker) and the very wild Cholo (John Leguizamo) storm into a ghost town looking for supplies. It seems that the world they live in has been overcome by an explosion of the zombie population and regular humans have to scrounge to survive.

This is Riley’s last run before he takes off into his retirement sunset but standing in his way is not only Cholo but Riley’s corrupt boss Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), who wants nothing more than to protect his rather luxurious and lavish lifestyle locked away from the horrors of the outside world.

How can Riley leave all this corruption behind? Are the zombies getting smarter?

I have to admit I was a devoted fan of zombie movies. I absolutely loved the original 1968 “Night of the Living Dead” which was Romero’s debut feature film. When I saw the film back in the 1980s it sent shivers down my spine. But as more zombie movies came and went I felt that horrific elements really started to diminish especially after 1983’s “Day of the Dead”. Don’t get me wrong there have been a lot of interesting takes on the sub-genre since but nothing that really was Romero’s vision.

The return of zombies in pure horror form probably ignited with the critically-acclaimed and first rate horror film, “28 Days Later”. It was the first time in a very long time that I felt new life in the zombie sub-genre. Well then there was “Shaun of the Dead” and it was solidified.

Because I liked “28 Days Later” and “Shaun of the Dead” so much, “Land of the Dead” sort of leaves a foul taste in my mouth. The film seems to be trying so much to regain some of the former glory of its creator more than it is there to entertain.

Then there is the whole concept of zombies learning and being able to fight back. I won’t even get into that concept and how preposterous it actually is. I understand re-animating dead flesh, but letting it evolve?

The reason zombie films work is because the horror is being consumed by an ever growing horde with no end in site. So when “Land of the Dead” creates a world of living dead and that learning concept the whole horror value is shot out the window.

I also am starting to notice that zombie films are better when they are independent and not studio funded. They seem to lose some of grit and tension when you have studio backing. I am also starting to feel the same way about John Carpenter’s films and remakes in recent years.

My other letdown of “Land of the Dead” is the fact that it’s so short and has no huge finale. It just limps to an eventual conclusion.

I have liked seeing Simon Baker of TV’s “The Guardian” making the transition to the silver screen. He does seem to be becoming a competent leading man. He seemed to be starting his crossover with “The Ring Two” earlier this year. I also liked the performance of Robert Joy as Baker’s sidekick. They worked really well together. Asia Argento as Baker’s love interest is sassy, sexy and competent but not really that interesting.

The character performances of both Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo are nothing that the actors haven’t done before in countless other films. Both need better films.

Over all “Land of the Dead” is a disappointment.

So Says the Soothsayer.



Dean Kish

Giving the genre back to the man who created it was a great idea. This is easily the most entertaining and inventive zombie movie in years (if you don't count Shaun of the Dead, whose creators have cameos here, so they must have done something right).

After a Night ('68), Dawn ('79) and Day ('85), the undead rule the world, while the living cower in the remnants of a fortified city. The rich live in oblivious splendour in a glitzy tower managed by Kaufman (Hopper). A small group of fighters prowl for supplies, led by Riley (Baker), who works with Cholo (Leguizamo) to maintain a semblance of safety. But the zombies are running out of food as well (they eat the living), and they're learning, or rather, remembering where to find fresh meat.

As with his previous films, Romero draws striking parallels with the modern world without ever getting obvious about it. This is extremely clever social satire buried in a rip-roaring action movie that isn't afraid to get squirm-inducingly gruesome. It's also unafraid to mix things up a bit--the living aren't necessarily the good guys this time. And Romero creates this environment in a fully realised, extremely stylish way.

The cast is strong as well. Baker holds it together in the handsome hero role, while everyone else gets to be quirky and/or scary. But what makes this so enjoyable is Romero's powers of invention; this is definitely a new generation of zombie movie. It's great to see that Romero hasn't succumbed to trendy filmmaking pitfalls. He concentrates on characters and plot coherence, even at the expense of big set pieces (there are some) and overwrought effects.

While there are scary sequences, he's more interested in provoking his audience with originality and wit. His playful riffs on the first vs third world and the West vs the Axis of Evil are eerily astute--they send almost as many chills down your spine as the next massively violent action sequence. Yes, the scariest thing about this film is the way it so accurately describes the real world we live in.

Rich Cline

After the night, dawn and day have passed, the Dead now out number the living. The surviving humans have collected together in the only city left, with the Fiddler’s Green building at its centre. Riley (Baker) heads up the team that has go out to the suburbs to procure supplies but he starts to notice that the dead are starting to change from the mindless zombies they have been killing. Now they are starting to show some intelligence and are looking for their food source by heading to the city.

When it comes to legendary figures in the horror genre one man stands head and toe above everyone else but can George A. Romero’s return bring life to the undead?

There have been many pretenders to the throne but there is only one king with it comes to the Zombie movie. Back in 1968 George A. Romero set the standard and invented the rules with ‘Night of the Living Dead’. He followed this up with ‘Dawn of the Dead’ in 1978 and ‘Day of the Dead’ in 1985 and his ‘Dead Trilogy’ became the standard bearer for the genre and every other Zombie film would be compared to them. Twenty years later, the master returns to the genre he invented.

‘Land of the Dead’ reveals that the undead now outnumber the living. This means that the breathing now have to exist in a highly fortified cities. As with original Dead trilogy, Romero tries to input a social under story that reflects the world today and this one looks at the differences between the rich and the poor. While this might point might not be made as strongly at it was in the original three, especially in the excellent ‘Dawn of the Dead’, there is still a message here.

As horror tries to move away from the blood and guts gore and go towards to the psychological scare that has become associated with the new Asian wave of cinema but this is a George A. Romero movie. The blood flows by the bucket load as Zombies eat their way through the living and they respond by blowing their heads off. This is gore at is bloody best and no one does it like Romero. Unfortunately the rest of the film is a little too formulaic.

There are more action sequences in this movie than in the rest of the ‘Dead’ movies, making you feel that Romero has bowed to Hollywood pressure to deliver a film that will play more to a teenage audience than his established core fan base. This affects the impact of the story, making it just a device to link the action sequences together.

With a cast that does just enough to keep you engaged but never completed invested in their exploits, ‘Land of the Dead’ is more about entertainment than the advancement of the genre Romero invented. The film is a thoroughly enjoyable gore fest however and it is still better than most of the other pretenders to the king of the zombie genre.

Jamie Kelwick

Site Contents Copyright© The Z Review, unless used with permission.This site has no intention to infringe on the rights of the film owners of George A. Romero’s Land of the Dead and intellectual copyright holders of the movies mentioned herein & hold copyright over the movie, characters, merchandise & storyline.