User Score
4.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 170 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 89 out of 170
  2. Negative: 67 out of 170
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. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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?
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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???
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
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.