User Score
4.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 176 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 70 out of 176
  2. Negative: 73 out of 176
Watch On

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. May 3, 2012
    2
    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.
  2. Nov 30, 2014
    0
    Its s***. I guess they ran out of ideas so they came up with thinking zombies. What a load of c***. Story is horrible, actors are horrible and the entire movie is one giant waste of time.
  3. Essej
    Apr 9, 2008
    10
    Anonymous said: "I'm sorry, but when did zombie movies have underlying political messages." I'm sorry, since Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead. So... since the beginning.
  4. Mar 30, 2015
    0
    Terrible terrible terrible movie, don't watch it. I know you are here because you love walking dead and you are looking for zombie movies to hold you over for the next season but DON"T WATCH THIS MOVE. Its stupid and not in a fun way.
  5. Mar 3, 2012
    1
    A brainless 95 minute poetry reading where a zombie movie should've been.
  6. Jun 8, 2014
    0
    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.
  7. chuck76
    Sep 27, 2005
    5
    [***SPOILERS***] Let me start by saying how much I love zombie movies and Romeros in particular, so I was desperate to see this when I heard it was being made. This story of a walled city and internal power struggle has obviously been brewing inside Romero since Day of the Dead and he now had the means to go ahead with it. The basic plot is fine but the catalysts for the events which move[***SPOILERS***] Let me start by saying how much I love zombie movies and Romeros in particular, so I was desperate to see this when I heard it was being made. This story of a walled city and internal power struggle has obviously been brewing inside Romero since Day of the Dead and he now had the means to go ahead with it. The basic plot is fine but the catalysts for the events which move the movie on are pretty weak and everythng seems rushed. The biggest most influential plot line which I really hate is the intelligence of the zombies and one zombie in particular, I've never liked the idea of the zombies becoming intelligent as I don't see how it makes the movies any more scary. Sure a few remembered skills like waving a hammer or rock but gathering zombies together into some sort of force is just stupid. They may as well have been a gang of thugs or hoodlums as apart from the flesh eating that's all they were. As I said the zombies are intelligent and boy are they, they've got more sense than some people I know (especially ones from Birkenhead), this on top of the fact that the living that seem to be incredibly dumb and put themselves at risk at any given opportunity. I'm sure Romero wanted to get across the idea that the zombies were the ones who were on the outside "free" whilst the living people were trapped inside a like animals in a cage. But so what havn't all the "dead" movies been the same, isn't that what would happen if a zombie invasion happened. As a whole this movie is just a mainstream zombie-a-thon for undemanding movie goers who want a few scares but Romero fans want more and definitely more depth and rounded characters. One small part in particular summed up the movie in a heart beat: Man enters room to pull lever, can't pull lever with one hand so puts down gun to get better grip, camera takes an extra look at discarded gun just too make sure we all saw it and are now ready for the inevitable jumpy / shocky / zombie moment in a few seconds. Why thanks George I really needed you to prompt me to get me ready for a little scare, pure Hollywood. Though not perfect 28 Days Later did a better job of convincing you that some sort of zombie appocalypse had taken place. And as much as I really hate to admit it I prefered the re-make of Dawn of the Dead, though completly dumb at least it wore it's heart on it's sleeve and had one of the best opening 20 minutes of any movie let alone zombie movies. There are some cool Romero touches I won't say what and ruin the only interesting parts of this movie but there is really nothing at all that stands out, ultimately there is nothing left for a serious (zombie) movie fan. Why George why? Expand
  8. hansc.
    Nov 24, 2005
    1
    This film sucks, very bad acting and dialog.
  9. DavidM.
    Dec 2, 2005
    2
    One of the worst movies I've ever seen. The only reason this movie got good reviews is because of Romero's reputation and the so called "satire" of democracy, completely overlooking the fact that the acting and plot were terrible. Just because you can find a few parallels between society and a plot does not make it good. If this was not a Romero film and wasn't expected to One of the worst movies I've ever seen. The only reason this movie got good reviews is because of Romero's reputation and the so called "satire" of democracy, completely overlooking the fact that the acting and plot were terrible. Just because you can find a few parallels between society and a plot does not make it good. If this was not a Romero film and wasn't expected to have an underlying social commentary, this would've been seen as a stupid, chear horror movie. None of the actors had a real personality, and the dialogue was complete s... As for the people saying that it didn't rely on cliched scare tactics, I don't think zombies sneaking up on people in the dark is exactly the pinnacle of originality for the genre. If you think this movie is a smart horror film, you're an unintelligent personwho can only repeat ideas from other people without having a thought of your own. It probably makes you feel better about yourself, allowing you to forget for a short time that your IQ doesn't break 100. Expand
  10. TonyF.
    Jan 18, 2006
    1
    An outstanding acheivement of directorial ineptitude. Romero is a dried-up hack. I'm embarassed for him.
  11. DenonL.
    Nov 21, 2005
    5
    Retarded. The zombies slowly stumbled forward, but they where still catching people that where running away. Needed to be fast pased, like the dawn of the dead remake or 28 days later. Romeros earlier movies where much better.
  12. Feb 1, 2013
    7
    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 overlordIn 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
    Expand
  13. May 3, 2013
    9
    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 aA 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
  14. AnonymousMC
    Jun 30, 2005
    9
    George A. is the man. This movie made my night when I saw it. I knew his blend of movie making and he continued greatly where he left off in Dawn of the dead. Go see this flick! Look, fireworks!
  15. AlexM.
    Jun 30, 2005
    8
    Got exactly what I expected. Finally, a zombie movie that i enjoyed. Scary? But does it need to be? I don't think so just gory. Acting?? Who cares..I wanted to see zombies. Plot? Am I really looking for one? The only zombie movies that exist are Romero's. All other attempts and remakes are trash.
  16. AlbertK.
    Jul 18, 2005
    10
    Very cool movie. Better than the old ones. This movie definetly kept me on my feet throughout and is a good portrayal of how foreign countries view America. I liked the action packed film with scenes of excessive comedy/sorrow. I would recommend this movie to anyone.
  17. JesseM.
    Oct 22, 2005
    10
    One of the best movies of the year. Excellent.
  18. CP
    Jun 22, 2005
    10
    Cool!!
  19. adrianc.
    Jun 24, 2005
    6
    Let me first say that you'll be hard pressed to find a bigger romero fan than myself,but,"Land" just wasnt up to snuff. The story had a big enough holes to drive the truck (that figures heavily into the plot) through! Why would people give a good god-damn about money! In a post apocalyptic world its just paper! Money issue not-withstanding I thought it was more of the same survival Let me first say that you'll be hard pressed to find a bigger romero fan than myself,but,"Land" just wasnt up to snuff. The story had a big enough holes to drive the truck (that figures heavily into the plot) through! Why would people give a good god-damn about money! In a post apocalyptic world its just paper! Money issue not-withstanding I thought it was more of the same survival horror stuff. Expand
  20. MarielleS
    Jun 24, 2005
    10
    Saw this at CineVegas.. and wow. Just frikkin WOW. Great acting, great gore, John Leguizamo, George Romero, Dennis Hopper, funny, satire.. come on people. What more could you want?
  21. JoeJ.
    Jun 24, 2005
    10
    Romero is the man! Finally - a real zombie movie.
  22. ChrisD.
    Jun 25, 2005
    5
    Someone will shoot me for saying this, but I don't get critics. They thought Resident Evil was bad, but they (most) praise Land of the Dead when it has similiar issues that they complained about with Resident Evil.
  23. ElliottM
    Jun 27, 2005
    4
    The commentary was blatant, the characters were shallow, and the ending was ambiguous to the point where it rendered the movie practically useless. Still, it was perfectly entertaining for an afternoon getaway. It just wasn't, you know, a good film. Not really at all - though there were some spectaculatr gore scenes which should please anyone that goes to see this kind of film. The commentary was blatant, the characters were shallow, and the ending was ambiguous to the point where it rendered the movie practically useless. Still, it was perfectly entertaining for an afternoon getaway. It just wasn't, you know, a good film. Not really at all - though there were some spectaculatr gore scenes which should please anyone that goes to see this kind of film. Still, these high marks from critics must be compliments of Romero's obvious, ultimately shallow commentary. Pretty disappointing. Expand
  24. David
    Jun 27, 2005
    5
    I'm a zombie fan, but this was remarkably weak. There were so many cuts to the "Smart-zombie" that I was getting uncomfortable in my seat. The movie played out like this. 1. Scene with characters 2. Cut to smart Zombie walking towrds city 3. smart Zombie Groans (which is hilarious). Repeat this to the point where the audience is getting uncomfortable. Just because Romero made the I'm a zombie fan, but this was remarkably weak. There were so many cuts to the "Smart-zombie" that I was getting uncomfortable in my seat. The movie played out like this. 1. Scene with characters 2. Cut to smart Zombie walking towrds city 3. smart Zombie Groans (which is hilarious). Repeat this to the point where the audience is getting uncomfortable. Just because Romero made the first Zombie movie doesn't mean he's the best at it. It's of a quality you'd expect to go straight to video or possibly the Sci-Fi Channel. Lots of stereotypical character types, cheap film stock, and stupid horror movie characters. This was not scary, and there were no feelings of despair or dread. Where are those guys that made the Dawn of the Dead remake 2 years back? Someone give them a budget! Make more, please! Expand
  25. Printninja
    Jun 27, 2005
    2
    I am amazed that a movie like Batman Begins got a lower rating then Land Of The Dead. This picture was a BOREFEST. I went in with such high expectations, too. I, for one, am tired of the whole rich vs poor, society is crumbling from within, message in horror/sci-fi movies. For those critics who feel this feat raised Land of the Dead above mediocre zombie fare, I have to disagree. This I am amazed that a movie like Batman Begins got a lower rating then Land Of The Dead. This picture was a BOREFEST. I went in with such high expectations, too. I, for one, am tired of the whole rich vs poor, society is crumbling from within, message in horror/sci-fi movies. For those critics who feel this feat raised Land of the Dead above mediocre zombie fare, I have to disagree. This movie, was easily the most boring horror flick I've ever seen. I think Return of the Sith held more suspense for me, and that's not saying much! NONE of the characters were worth caring about. Dennis Hopper wasn't nearly evil enough for the few implied killings he did. I mean, so what? John Leguizamo, while effective in almost any role he plays, was wasted in this movie. He was cleary running on empty with this script. The script, for that matter, borrowed from so many other movies... it was ghastly! Maybe it's me. Maybe I've just gotten too old to be scared by special effect guts being ripped apart & eaten, but then why did I enjoy last year's Dawn Of The Dead so much. One word: Suspense. Too bad George Romero forgot to put some in this latest outing. Expand
  26. Lars
    Jun 28, 2005
    10
    I am one of the most hardcore Romero fans, and i was doubting the movie when i heard zombies were "evolving", but i think Romero pulled it off rather nicely. It still pales in comparison to the original "Dawn"-not the unbelievably terrible one put out last year. Very good, and a worthy addition to the Dead trilogy.
  27. NotscottM.
    Jun 30, 2005
    5
    Disappointing. 90 minutes!? Where was the story? Who were these people? I didn't care about any of them. This movie should have been 30-45 minutes longer, just letting us experience the world. What the hell was the hurry?
  28. p33t
    Jul 1, 2005
    1
    Good idea with no follow through. i have to preface by saying im a HUGE fan of the zombie flick genre. and the premiss of this movie had promiss. but that was it. ever other aspect fell short if not missed completely. in a world gone wrong we have a cast of well dressed GQ-esque street people...not buying it. worst makeup, indoor outdoor sets.....GG BLOOD SPLATTER?!?!?! come on! im sorry, Good idea with no follow through. i have to preface by saying im a HUGE fan of the zombie flick genre. and the premiss of this movie had promiss. but that was it. ever other aspect fell short if not missed completely. in a world gone wrong we have a cast of well dressed GQ-esque street people...not buying it. worst makeup, indoor outdoor sets.....GG BLOOD SPLATTER?!?!?! come on! im sorry, the was NO substance to this movie. it wasnt even good in a bad way. it was like Disney meets NotLD. oh one thing WAS done right though...the zombies move slowly again. hence the score of 1. a movie to avoid if you want to hold on to the memory of the zombie movie genre. Expand
  29. rjh
    Jul 11, 2005
    9
    Real cool movie, unrealistically bloody tho.
  30. RubenD
    Jul 2, 2005
    10
    Masterfully done. Romero's closing installment of the "Dead" series truly was a fan pleaser. It may not have been the scariest horror film in the same fashion as most horror films flooding the horror genre today [by that i mean multiple cheap scares to an otherwise boring b-movie], however the well developed social satire expanded upon as a sequel makes the movie brilliant. Although Masterfully done. Romero's closing installment of the "Dead" series truly was a fan pleaser. It may not have been the scariest horror film in the same fashion as most horror films flooding the horror genre today [by that i mean multiple cheap scares to an otherwise boring b-movie], however the well developed social satire expanded upon as a sequel makes the movie brilliant. Although many find that the thinking problem solving dead may have been a bad decision i believe that is what makes the movie truly scary. The common belief in zombies is that they are slow and stupid and are generally only harmful in large numbers, but Romero turns this safegaurd in the human mind upside down giving the viewer nowhere to turn in his fear. However, I may just be crazy. Expand
  31. ErinD
    Aug 7, 2005
    6
    This movie looked fantastic. I loved the effects they used. Unfortunately, that was it. This movie wasnt bad, but, it wasnt good either. It was just mediocre. If i was rating this movie on gore, i would have given it at least and 8, but, it just had nothing else going for it. I left this movie feeling numb. I can not name one scene that i felt was gripping.
  32. BrandonM.
    Jun 20, 2006
    8
    The movie was interesting, the twist on the view of zombies was a little upsetting at first but then you realize... Why make it like every other zombie movie out there? Romero changed up the formula for a zombie movie a little bit and I think it worked in my opinion. I think the acting was just fine, hell; even the zombies were showing emotion. The movie continues to get a bad reputation The movie was interesting, the twist on the view of zombies was a little upsetting at first but then you realize... Why make it like every other zombie movie out there? Romero changed up the formula for a zombie movie a little bit and I think it worked in my opinion. I think the acting was just fine, hell; even the zombies were showing emotion. The movie continues to get a bad reputation from people who were expecting another "common" zombie movie. Actually making offensive comments if you enjoyed the movie, I don't know about you but that seems a little biased; and childish. All and all, I'd say the movie is one to enjoy; regardless what others might say or even what I say. Expand
  33. RD.
    Mar 3, 2007
    8
    Very good zombie. not so tense but very gory and smart. Cool move by Romero to show that Zombies can think too. big Daddy is great.
  34. ShaneA.
    Oct 23, 2008
    6
    One of Romero's worest films. I respect him as a director fully because he has the ability to make a horror movie with an actual meaning behind it but this was just an overrated flick. He had a lot of well known actors yet they just couldn't act. He had an exciting plot but it just wasn't exciting. This movie sounded good on paper but I think I'll stick to liking his One of Romero's worest films. I respect him as a director fully because he has the ability to make a horror movie with an actual meaning behind it but this was just an overrated flick. He had a lot of well known actors yet they just couldn't act. He had an exciting plot but it just wasn't exciting. This movie sounded good on paper but I think I'll stick to liking his earlier works. Expand
  35. Cyco
    Oct 18, 2005
    6
    I very much agree with chuck 76, movie had moments of genius tempered with a Hollywood type of gloss. I also agree that I think both 28 Days Later and the remake of Dawn of the Dead were in fact better movies, though nowhere as good as as Romero's previous efforts. Anyone who even compares this with the origional Night of the Living Dead or Dawn of the dead just does not understand I very much agree with chuck 76, movie had moments of genius tempered with a Hollywood type of gloss. I also agree that I think both 28 Days Later and the remake of Dawn of the Dead were in fact better movies, though nowhere as good as as Romero's previous efforts. Anyone who even compares this with the origional Night of the Living Dead or Dawn of the dead just does not understand the significance of those movies. Expand
  36. carminec.
    Oct 19, 2005
    10
    A great zombie movie!
  37. ZReddy
    Jun 22, 2005
    10
    Romero is truly the master of the art of zombie movies. In the 20 years since his last effort, Day of the Dead, he has been dormant- and it's easy to tell, he's been plotting and planning about how he's going to scare us, make us squirm, and most of all make us think. Because the zombie genre he created isn't just about horror- it's about humanity. The story Romero is truly the master of the art of zombie movies. In the 20 years since his last effort, Day of the Dead, he has been dormant- and it's easy to tell, he's been plotting and planning about how he's going to scare us, make us squirm, and most of all make us think. Because the zombie genre he created isn't just about horror- it's about humanity. The story follows a small group of people who have managed to carve a niche for themselves despite being surrounded by creatures whose only thought is to kill us and eat us. Well, perhaps it's not their only thought... The undead are learning to think, communicate, and act in a bizarrely human manner. It seems they are trying to reclaim their old lives- even at the cost of ours. The human survivors have their own issues though, living in a prison-like enclosure for their own safety, where only the priveleged few are accorded the best of the pleasures and vices remaining. Specially outfitted volunteer soldiers make tripsin a large, tank-like armored vehicle to the zombie-infested urban areas in order to procure the supplies needed for humanity to survive. Some of these soldiers are not happy with the order of things though. While one plans to retire and leave the settlement to ind peace, free of zombies and humans alike; the other wants his share of the pleasures of the bourgeoise- and will take action to see the playing field is levelled, even if it means the death of innocents. Admittedly, I saw this in a special preview screening. The audience was filled with romero fans and zombie heads. But the gasps, the screams, the cheers and applause, were genuine. This is a movie about social injustice, and ambition at the expense of compassion.It's about doing what's right in the face of adversity- even in the face of death itself. It's about creating a better future. And, oh yeah, it's about shooting those undead flesheaters in the head before they get you. It succeeds on every level. Expand
  38. MikeC.
    Jun 24, 2005
    10
    The master does it again. Welcome back, George it's great to see you again.
  39. Gpsippy
    Jun 24, 2005
    4
    Which film are these people watching? The gore was juicy and fun. The politics were shallow and slapping you in the head like an 11th grade Marxism thesis. The acting was laughable, especially coming from the Big Bubba zombie growling through dentures. The movie has little of the cinematic feel of past Romero efforts (Martin is 10x better), and most reminds me of Ghosts of Mars, in terms Which film are these people watching? The gore was juicy and fun. The politics were shallow and slapping you in the head like an 11th grade Marxism thesis. The acting was laughable, especially coming from the Big Bubba zombie growling through dentures. The movie has little of the cinematic feel of past Romero efforts (Martin is 10x better), and most reminds me of Ghosts of Mars, in terms of a past horror master going through the motions with a Sci-Fi channel budget. Expand
  40. JeffL.
    Jun 24, 2005
    6
    37 years after inventing the modern zombie flick (Night of the Living Dead), 26 years after perfecting it (Dawn of the Dead), and 20 years after last revisiting it (Day of the Dead), legendary horrormeister George A. Romero returns to the genre with a decent budget, a name cast (Dennis Hopper, Asia Argento, John Leguizamo), and a multiplex-friendly "R" rating. The result is a well-made 37 years after inventing the modern zombie flick (Night of the Living Dead), 26 years after perfecting it (Dawn of the Dead), and 20 years after last revisiting it (Day of the Dead), legendary horrormeister George A. Romero returns to the genre with a decent budget, a name cast (Dennis Hopper, Asia Argento, John Leguizamo), and a multiplex-friendly "R" rating. The result is a well-made and fairly entertaining series entry, but one that felt a bit disappointing in light of the small string of really terrific "Dead" imitators of the last few years, including 28 Days Later, the explosively funny Shaun of the Dead, and even the surprisingly exciting and scary Dawn of the Dead remake from last year. There are some interesting thematic developments here, as the zombies begin to evolve into something almost recognizably human; tools become primitive weapons for the undead, and there even appears to be some rudimentary communication between them as they start to work in concert. But the rich bad-guy character played by Hopper had me asking the same question posed by another Metacritic reviewer, Adrian C.: why would anyone "give a good god-damn about money" in the zombie-infested, post-apocalyptic world of Romero's living dead. With Hopper spouting lines like "we do not negotiate with terrorists," Romero seems to be rather heavy-handedly satirizing both capitalism and the Bush administration, as he once so brilliantly satirized consumerism in the original Dawn of the Dead. And while I'm as much in favor of tweaking the Republican pinheads in charge of our country as the next guy, dramatically it would have made more sense to make the motivator something more tangible, like weapons or food (or gasoline, a la The Road Warrior.) The film has some memorable set pieces and terrific gore-effects work, but for me this didn't quite live up to the highs of Romero's earlier Dead films, which were both scarier and more thought-provoking. Expand
  41. TonyB.
    Jun 24, 2005
    7
    I gotta say, I'm kinda disappointed. I'm a big fan, but this movie was only OK. The movie kinda happens...you never really care about the objectives of the plot all that much. No situation ever gets so tense that you sit on the edge of your seat...it's like if Land of the Dead was a video game, this movie was someone playing it on easy. As for money being important...it IS I gotta say, I'm kinda disappointed. I'm a big fan, but this movie was only OK. The movie kinda happens...you never really care about the objectives of the plot all that much. No situation ever gets so tense that you sit on the edge of your seat...it's like if Land of the Dead was a video game, this movie was someone playing it on easy. As for money being important...it IS important if the people with the goods say that it is. And that's what they did. Expand
  42. CraigD.
    Jun 24, 2005
    9
    It was good. I squirmed during this movie than I ever have with any other movie, and a couple of times I even jumped (slightly). The ending wasn't quite enough for me though ... it probably was just because it was so good that I didn't want it to end. Over all, I liked the new Dawn of the Dead slightly better
  43. [Anonymous]
    Jun 24, 2005
    10
    This is the master returning to show others how it's done. Not as good as Dawn but better then Night and Day.
  44. GrahamM.
    Jun 25, 2005
    9
    I loved it! This is the best zombie movie ever! the only problem is that it could have been longer, and it could have went into the story of some residents of the luxurious building living above the streets. Also, the Zombies, when they are alone in the town in the beginning of the film, remind me of the villagers in Resident Evil 4. This is Romero's masterpiece!
  45. RobertC.
    Jun 25, 2005
    10
    This film might not be your cup 'o tea (depending on how or why you view horror films), but George A. Romero's new "dead" film LAND OF THE DEAD is terrific. It is full of subtext about interstitial beings (both alive and dead) and contains an important message about the current US atmosphere of fear. It has, of course, the bloodshed expected from a Romero film. But the killings This film might not be your cup 'o tea (depending on how or why you view horror films), but George A. Romero's new "dead" film LAND OF THE DEAD is terrific. It is full of subtext about interstitial beings (both alive and dead) and contains an important message about the current US atmosphere of fear. It has, of course, the bloodshed expected from a Romero film. But the killings are not gratuitous as in two-thirds of today's films. Each one "hurts" as it happens to characters we have grown to know and care for. Again, characterization is a Romero staple. Romero is heavy-handed with the 9-11 imagery, but it is the subtle subtext of the haves, the have-nots, and those of the third world who have-even less that scratch at our shores based on the "bright and shiny" things that we dangle in front of them with a sarcastic and arrogant attitude. Of course, when they arrive at our shores to partake of "The Dream," they are disappointed, and we have no conscience and say, "You have no right to be here." Dennis Hopper's character is brazenly mimetic of our current president and his attitudes concerning security and what is right for the world. Even though the world of the living has been shrunk to a microcosmic city block, the same human foilables float like chum to destroy any hope that human beings will survive or whether they even should. However, the film is not nihilistic as detractors of postmodernist scripts like this would have you believe. There is a band of folks--they seemingly exemplify or represent the educated middle and lower classes of America, the holy trinity of the Marxist, the peasants, wokers, and students--who work very hard to stay moral and centered while the world devolves into chaos. It is with these folks that we identify. Moreover, in their own evolution, even Romero's zombies--here called "walkers" by the lower classes and "stenches" by the upper--show umbrage at the shiny lights and chrome beauty that businessman Hopper protects. It is the American Dream that he wishes to continue while the zombies opine that they are past caring about these things. There is a carefully planted seed of "live and let live" here along with a message to pay attention to what parts of one's culture one would introduce into another culture. Watch carefully how the zombies take to the weaponry that falls into their hands to understand Romero's point. It is a great film--not for kids--but overall a well-made film. It is free of the shaky "nausea-cam" that action films feel they must have today. Romero's direction of the actors and the action sequences is right on with a 1980's feel. I am nostalgic for the films of filmmakers that have the confidence in themselves and their actors to film a long sequence and not use choppy editing to disguise lazy or inept direction. I give LAND OF THE DEAD four bloody axes out of four. The film is playing at Hickory's Crown Cinemas. It stars Simon Baker, John Leguizamo, Dennis Hopper, and Asia Argento. It is Rated R by the MPAA for gore, toplessness, and Republicans. Expand
  46. Tony
    Jun 26, 2005
    10
    Great action zombie-blast with enough blood and gore to keep you happy!
  47. SamK.
    Jun 26, 2005
    10
    This finale saved his 'Dead' series from badness. Night was good, Dawn was also good, but Day just sent the series downhill. Very very good. Hopefully he'll have more of these coming...
  48. matt
    Jun 27, 2005
    2
    This movie sucked. i can't believe it got a rating of 74. it must be out of respect for romero. this is total b-movie crap, something you'd see on the sci-fi channel.
  49. JayL.
    Jun 27, 2005
    6
    This is a good movie, but only on the basis of Romero's social satire. It isn't very scary, and the speacial affects are decent at best. Eveything is pretty average; the only truly bad thing is that there are too many decapitaded heads! When will Hollywood learn that no matter HOW realistic a rolling head looks, people in the audience KNOW that it's just a paper mache???
  50. DD
    Jun 27, 2005
    3
    I'm a fanboy of this type of movie, but this was pretty poor. Smart zombie? Why is he groaning so much? Why am I laughing at him groaning? The cameos of actors that were in other zombie movies were not fun to watch, they were pathetic and pulled fans out of the narrative. All the basic character types are here, and it's topped with plenty of obvious death scenes. A kid wearing a I'm a fanboy of this type of movie, but this was pretty poor. Smart zombie? Why is he groaning so much? Why am I laughing at him groaning? The cameos of actors that were in other zombie movies were not fun to watch, they were pathetic and pulled fans out of the narrative. All the basic character types are here, and it's topped with plenty of obvious death scenes. A kid wearing a walkman in the middle of the night while on zombie patrol? A military force that can be overtaken in less than a minute? No realism. No fright. No elaboration on the futility of the situation. Romero throws in a "Live and Let Live" idea at the end of this that is so forced it's laughable. It just pops up at the end - no previous mention of it - no scenes to build up to it. It was like there were a few seeds of interest, and then they were lost. We never really see fiddler's greene. The little I saw looked like a mall. Ya-hoo. If this is the crux of the story, the lavish life taking place there should be pushed home. Expand
  51. Jaimak
    Jun 28, 2005
    3
    I'm a big zombie fan, and I was looking forward to this, after all it's a return to the genre by the man who started it all right? Well, it wound up being boring, poorly paced and not all that interesting. Let alone scary. I was really quite disappointed. Last year's remake of "Dawn of the Dead" rocked this movie's face.
  52. ScottM.
    Jun 29, 2005
    10
    Best zombie movie ever!
  53. tobiash.
    Jul 10, 2005
    10
    This movie is great. the zombie big daddy is very cool and dennis hopper is good. for me a great masterpiece.
  54. isaacxx
    Jul 19, 2005
    0
    Since the united states founding, more than 55 million immigrants from every continent have settled in the United States. In fact, with the exception of Native Americans, everyone living in this country is either an immigrant or the descendent of voluntary or involuntary immigrants. this romero movie is nothing but anti-mexican propaganda. from romeros point of view the solution to masive Since the united states founding, more than 55 million immigrants from every continent have settled in the United States. In fact, with the exception of Native Americans, everyone living in this country is either an immigrant or the descendent of voluntary or involuntary immigrants. this romero movie is nothing but anti-mexican propaganda. from romeros point of view the solution to masive imigration from the suth is this "just shoot them in the head." Expand
  55. Sprax
    Jul 6, 2005
    10
    Romero is the best! Its the best zombie movie I have seen so far. There are a lot of messages about life now in this movie. Pretty much that and everything else about it was good.
  56. MarcD.
    Jul 6, 2005
    6
    This is an utter waste of time. Not only was the character of Riley a total load of bull...Leguizamo's Cholo hardly got the opportunity to fully realise his own. To top it off...thinking undead just don't make good zombies.
  57. DanelG.
    Jul 8, 2005
    10
    Superb allegory, great storytelling, inventive filmmaking.
  58. JustinD.
    Aug 18, 2006
    10
    This is the best zombie flick i've ever seen.
  59. JayD.
    Aug 18, 2006
    9
    One of the best horror movie i've ever seen since 28 days later.
  60. JonathanS.
    Feb 14, 2008
    9
    Oh please "Anonymous", and anyone else out there so ignorantlycomplaining-- ever since 1968 with Romero's original, zombie movies OF COURSE have freaking political messages and commentary. Ever since Night of the Living Dead, political and social commentary and allegories have become a trademark of the better horror movies, and is certainly an expected tradition. Anyone who Oh please "Anonymous", and anyone else out there so ignorantlycomplaining-- ever since 1968 with Romero's original, zombie movies OF COURSE have freaking political messages and commentary. Ever since Night of the Living Dead, political and social commentary and allegories have become a trademark of the better horror movies, and is certainly an expected tradition. Anyone who doesn't honestly know that must have little to no knowledge of horror whatsoever. And did you even watch this movie? The zombies **SPOILER** freaking evolved to be able to use guns and run, not to mention communicate, so how did were they "the speed out a one legged Zebra" (which doesn't even make sense, learn to check your reviews). This film, while not a hallmark like Romero's original trilogy, proves that the zombie master can still make relevant and exciting zombie films, all while blowing rip-off filmmakers out of the water. No matter how many 28 Days Later and Romero remakes people out there make, there is still only going to be one master. Expand
  61. SamV.
    Nov 27, 2005
    7
    In his first movie, "Night of the Living Dead" (1968), Romero made an allusion to the imbecility of the war in Vietnam. In 1979, "Dawn of the Dead" showed the idiotic consumption society of the country. "Land of the Dead" now criticizes the diferences betwenn the social classes and the indifference that the human beigns show when dealing with the reality that surround them. But, above all In his first movie, "Night of the Living Dead" (1968), Romero made an allusion to the imbecility of the war in Vietnam. In 1979, "Dawn of the Dead" showed the idiotic consumption society of the country. "Land of the Dead" now criticizes the diferences betwenn the social classes and the indifference that the human beigns show when dealing with the reality that surround them. But, above all this, the end of the movie can disappoint, it's a little empty and the character of the zombie lidder isn't well explored. About the cast, only the interpretation of the actors Dennis Hopper as the powerful Kauffman and John Leguizamo as the mercenary Cholo (with his sarcastic latin accent) impress in this movie. "Land of the Dead" brought back that old and good inteligente horror from George A. Romero. But it's still far away from being the best movie about living deads! Expand
  62. m
    Dec 1, 2005
    10
    I'm glad it got good reviews i was reallt surprised that it got all good reviews its a horror movie. better than the boring day of the dead and definetly more action than day of the dead.
  63. DebiM.
    Jun 24, 2005
    10
    Well worth the wait -- even if it was 20 years! Nobody knows zombies like Romero.
  64. BitBurn
    Jun 24, 2005
    7
    (Actualy I give 7.5) Good entertainment, it's alright. I still preferred last year's Dawn of the dead. Nonetheless, you won't be disapointed.
  65. RoyM
    Jun 26, 2005
    5
    There's some serious eats going on, pretty gory to watch. Loved the visual of the crossing of the river.
  66. Jeff
    Jun 26, 2005
    6
    The trademark Romero social allegory is buried undreneath the sorry attempt to craft a fast-moving action film. Behind every clever kill and memorable moment is the glazed-eye gaze of current-generation schlock. It lacks the deliberate pacing of his previous work. Perhaps this is intentional and an social statement in itself and Land of the Dead really is a masterpiece of cult goodness, The trademark Romero social allegory is buried undreneath the sorry attempt to craft a fast-moving action film. Behind every clever kill and memorable moment is the glazed-eye gaze of current-generation schlock. It lacks the deliberate pacing of his previous work. Perhaps this is intentional and an social statement in itself and Land of the Dead really is a masterpiece of cult goodness, but if ticket prices near you are more than five bucks I'd skip it. Lastly, It really wasn't scary at all. Expand
  67. AlexE.
    Jun 26, 2005
    6
    Do not be fooled by the hyperbolic advertising campaign: this is not, in any sense, a "masterpiece". It has a truly horrible opening, weak character development, and a lackluster conclusion. However, it is a relatively solid piece of B-movie entertainment featuring a particularly delicious performance by Dennis Hopper. The makeup is well-done throughout, with some great gore effects Do not be fooled by the hyperbolic advertising campaign: this is not, in any sense, a "masterpiece". It has a truly horrible opening, weak character development, and a lackluster conclusion. However, it is a relatively solid piece of B-movie entertainment featuring a particularly delicious performance by Dennis Hopper. The makeup is well-done throughout, with some great gore effects sprinkled along the movie's run time. But the feeling I could not escape was that the movie (especially the ending) just felt so rushed. The movie seemed to end right before the start of the third act, and when the credits started rolling I literally felt cheated. I thought for sure that some inattentive projectionist had misplaced a reel of film somewhere. Despite some great gore and a few startling plot turns, the film overall just didn't do justice to either Romero's legacy or the extremely promising concept. It was an entertaining hour and a half, but it could've been a masterpiece. Expand
  68. JohnF.
    Jun 27, 2005
    1
    Not a very good zombie movie. Slow at points and to use the term "Masterpiece" to describe this movie is a crime.
  69. wongit
    Jun 28, 2005
    7
    Decent but not the most phenominal zombie film around, some new aspects make it intersting like giving zombies characterisitics. it was alright. good job.
  70. JayneS.
    Jun 28, 2005
    10
    Brilliant film. Romero is back. And as you read the "user reviews" you can tell audiences sometimes just aren't very smart. Sorry, but it's true because last year's "Dawn of the Dead" was about as good as "Psycho" (the Gus Van Sant version). Okay maybe a little better but not much.
  71. MarkB.
    Jul 11, 2005
    8
    God bless Danny Boyle, Zak Snyder and edgar Wright! thanks to these guys, who brought us, respectively, the gritty, intense zombie movie 28 Days Later, the slick but effective Dawn of the Dead remake/update and the riotously funny and surprisingly endearing extension/semispoof Shaun of the Dead, ghoulmeister George A. Romero finally got the funds and backing to do his fourth Living Dead God bless Danny Boyle, Zak Snyder and edgar Wright! thanks to these guys, who brought us, respectively, the gritty, intense zombie movie 28 Days Later, the slick but effective Dawn of the Dead remake/update and the riotously funny and surprisingly endearing extension/semispoof Shaun of the Dead, ghoulmeister George A. Romero finally got the funds and backing to do his fourth Living Dead opus. Obviously, 20 years since 1985's Day of the Dead is far too long a wait, but the evidence clearly shows that it was worth it. Anyone who wondered what Romero would do with his concept of the cannibalistic undead walking the earth feeding on still-breathing victims had he been given a decent budget (hell, ANY kind of budget) shouldn't be disappointed: Land may not have the effectively claustrophobic feel of Day, the epic scope of his original Dawn or the unforgettable originality of his 1968 back and white classic Night of the Living Dead (my all-time favorite horror movie), but Romero clearly shows here that he's still got the right stuff (and guts and brains and entrails). No mere sequel, Land of the Dead shows that Romero still has the ability to shock and awe--he gets off several genuine scares in ways that the makers of such generic schlock as Darkness and Boogeyman and about 90% of the other product out there can only dream of--but he continues to expand and build on his own foundation: the undead are getting smarter, less easily distracted and are building both an ability to use tools and weapons (not to mention tools AS weapons) and a genuine sense of moral outrage, while the everyday folks doing battle with them slowly discover that they've got more in common with their flesh-eating adversaries than they suspected or believed. The superluxury complex Fiddlers Green, which keeps both zombies and the middle and lower classes out, serves not only as both a terrific theater for action and horror but makes Land of the Dead the second summer film in two weeks (after Batman Begins) to explore the growing gap between rich and poor. I was initially worried that casting such familiar faces as Dennis Hopper (as Fiddlers Green's filthy rich and even more ethically filthy owner), Asia Argento, John Leguizamo and Robert Joy would rob the series of some of its grungy immediacy, but I was wrong: Joy in particular is very effective and engaging as a physically misshapen, mentally challenged zombie hunter. The "R" rating turns out to be a surprise plus because it spurs Romero to come up with less explicit but sometimes even more effective shock bits than he had in the unrated Dawn and Day. (I especially liked the spine-in-silhouette gag.) Not all of Romero's additions and flourishes work 100%; let's face it, a vengeance-seeking zombie makes less sense than, say, a vengeance-seeking shark in certain other horror sequels, and I can't entirely argue with Romero's detractors who have denounced the second and third films in the series (and will undoubtedly include this) as little more than blast-behead-and-burn zombie turkey shoots, and certainly Land offers as much of that kind of thing as ever. But there's a reason people love video games: they're fun, and Land of the Dead is great, gory fun of a very high order. Expand
  72. ChadS.
    Jul 18, 2005
    6
    The zombie movie as an art film can be glimpsed in the opening minutes of "Land of the Dead". Because of commercial obligations, you can't show the living dead do mundane things for too long a period of time, but the moment in which a zombie contemplates his former existence as a gas station attendant is infintely more interesting than watching him devour human flesh. But devouring The zombie movie as an art film can be glimpsed in the opening minutes of "Land of the Dead". Because of commercial obligations, you can't show the living dead do mundane things for too long a period of time, but the moment in which a zombie contemplates his former existence as a gas station attendant is infintely more interesting than watching him devour human flesh. But devouring human flesh has its pleasures, too. What "Land of the Dead" needed was actors that were cool enough to hang with Asia Argento. She should be in charge. And Dennis Hopper, to a certain extent, gives a performance that feels reigned in by a director who might've been better off giving The Man Who Was Frank Booth the freedom to let his freak-flag fly like Johnny Depp in, you know what two films of recent vintage I'm talking about. You don't cast Hopper to be subtle, do you? But when the zombies do their thing, you realize that there's nobody better than George A. Romero in capturing the poetry(?) of cannibalism. Expand
  73. ed
    Jul 21, 2005
    10
    Land Of The Dead was a scary, and a action pack movie. this was the best zombie movie i ever seen. I will give land of the dead a 10 OUT OF 10.
  74. Marco
    Jan 18, 2006
    1
    Without exaggerating, this was the absolute worst movie I've seen in years. An inane commentary on how we, the living, have oppressed the poor, misunderstood zombies. That's not a joke. [***Spoiler***] The movie is about how the living need to stop being so hateful and judgemental... towards ZOMBIES! The underprivelaged humans make a necessary alliance with the brain-eating Without exaggerating, this was the absolute worst movie I've seen in years. An inane commentary on how we, the living, have oppressed the poor, misunderstood zombies. That's not a joke. [***Spoiler***] The movie is about how the living need to stop being so hateful and judgemental... towards ZOMBIES! The underprivelaged humans make a necessary alliance with the brain-eating undead because the two have a common enemy, a much greater threat... CAPTALISM! I can't even make this stuff up! This is really Romero's movie: a treatise on fleah-eating bolshevism. Even as I type it I can barely even believe it. I gave it a "1" instead of a "0" only because it ended. Expand
  75. RandyM.
    Apr 23, 2007
    9
    An utterly breathtaking piece of film genius. Yes, it is indeed an awesome zombie flick, but you have to look beyond and see the political message that the director is trying to convey. Romero once again shows us why he's one of the greatest directors ever.
  76. KevinY.
    Nov 14, 2005
    8
    This is overal a good movie. Good story, good charactors (loved Charlie), and nice to see the zombies arn't the bad guys. It deserves a 7 or higher. Not my favorite zombie movie, but still a good one.
  77. Jun 23, 2011
    6
    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 takesI'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
  78. Aug 18, 2014
    10
    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
Metascore
71

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
    90
    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.