User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 121 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 86 out of 121
  2. Negative: 24 out of 121

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Mar 3, 2012
    A brainless 95 minute poetry reading where a zombie movie should've been.
  2. May 3, 2012
    If you're looking for fun **** this is your zombie movie. If you want decent film-making, stay away. This movie is garbage to anyone expecting anything remotely serious.
  3. Jun 23, 2011
    I'm just going to come out and say it this is my least favorite Zombie movie so far, it never really got the Zombies were never really threatening in this movie, they tried to make them more scary by getting them to think but it never really worked as I just ended up laughing at how retarded they acted when trying to be smart, and the idea of society after the apocalypse never really takes off, and it almost seems like it's stuck between trying to be futuristic yet also during the current time period, but that didn't work at all, but there is one good thing that this movie has, fantastic characters, I've never cared more about the survivors fates before this movie and that's saying something, and it's still fun to watch Zombies eat people, but it's a mixed and matched group of ideas that just creates something incredibly mediocre. Expand
  4. Feb 1, 2013
    In an ever-vigilante attempt to stay socially-relevant, George Romero creates a class struggle between the rich and the poor which is also personified in the battle between the living and the dead in LAND OF THE DEAD. Both human and zombie are only looking for the basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which have been stripped away from them by a tyrannical overlord that has seized control from his ivory tower, Fiddler's Green (perhaps in reference to SOYLENT GREEN, which seems to have heavily influenced the plot).

    Romero makes many poor decisions in LAND OF THE DEAD that fans are sure to disagree with, the first being the further humanization of the zombies. We saw in DAY OF THE DEAD that Romero's zombies had regained their basic motor skills. Here, they begin communicating, using tools, and strategizing, which is a huge stretch for creatures that are supposedly "dead,' and very difficult for audience members to accept. What is worse, Romero, whose films served as the pinnacle of special effects makeup throughout the 70's and 80's, has begun the downward slide into computerized imagery, particularly for the gore sequences. While it is less apparent in LAND OF THE DEAD, his subsequent films would be ruled by these cost-saving (but visually abhorrent) techniques. Only the practical makeup effects handled brilliantly by Greg Nicotero and Howard Berger call back to the greatness of the past three films.

    LAND OF THE DEAD presents us with no compelling characters to carry the story, just a group of mismatched rogues for whom we care nothing. The closest that we have to a hero is Simon Baker playing Riley Denbo, but all of his whining and sniveling gets him nowhere. Instead, it seems that we are meant to align ourselves with the zombies, who are the only characters that are portrayed in a sympathetic light, but this group only serves to annoy as well. The lead zombie, aptly named "Big Daddy," looks and acts nothing like the zombies we have come to expect in a Horror film, and even without the benefit of conditioning (as with Bub in DAY), he has rebuilt his intellect to near-human levels. This breaks continuity within the series, and would have worked better if overwhelming hordes of mindless zombies were left to overthrow Fiddler's Green.

    There seems to be an utter loss of direction in LAND OF THE DEAD that severely detracts from the film. The dead are left forgotten in the background as the living front their feeble uprising. Romero injects enough of his trademarked social commentary to credit the script with some intelligence, though LAND OF THE DEAD falls far behind NIGHT, DAWN, and DAY.

    -Carl Manes
    I Like Horror Movies
  5. May 3, 2013
    A solid zombie film and one of my personal favourites, even though most say this is probably Romero's worst. I loved the concept and I thought it was clever having a few storylines worked in together, as well as being one of the first film to really focus on some of the zombies themselves. Simon Baker leads a talented cast that all play their parts well, as well as Dennis Hopper doing a great job as the head honcho. Overall a great film and zombie fans should be impressed! Expand
  6. Aug 18, 2014
    holly **** When romero makes a comeback damn he makes it big time. yeah the characters can be boring but the great blood effects and the fact that zombies can think makes zombie fresh again. i wanna see another movie like this. please romero please
  7. Jun 8, 2014
    That´s the worst Zombie production I have ever seen. Brainless, boring script, cheap story. Please: WHO gives that production more than 1 point. I really don´t understand that.

Generally favorable reviews - based on 30 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 30
  2. Negative: 0 out of 30
  1. Reviewed by: Justin Chang
    George A. Romero shows 'em how it's done in Land of the Dead, resurrecting his legendary franchise with top-flight visuals, terrific genre smarts and tantalizing layers of implication.
  2. The latest installment could well be Romero's masterpiece. Taking full advantage of state-of-the-art makeup and visual effects, he has a more vivid canvas at his disposal, not to mention two decades worth of pent-up observations about American society.
  3. 63
    It's not startling or frightening enough.