Universal Pictures | Release Date: June 24, 2005
4.7
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 177 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
73
Mixed:
27
Negative:
77
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
5
chuck76Sep 27, 2005
[***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[***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? Collapse
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
DenonL.Nov 21, 2005
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
ShaneA.Oct 23, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
CycoOct 18, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
TheQuietGamerJun 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 reallyI'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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
BroyaxDec 28, 2016
L'histoire ou plutôt le reste zombifié d'histoire est quelque peu décousu, téléphoné et sans grande originalité dans le genre post-apocalyptique mais Land of the Dead sait heureusement à la fois garder le rythme et garder le cap surL'histoire ou plutôt le reste zombifié d'histoire est quelque peu décousu, téléphoné et sans grande originalité dans le genre post-apocalyptique mais Land of the Dead sait heureusement à la fois garder le rythme et garder le cap sur l'essentiel : exploser les têtes, démembrer les morts vivants et filmer les vivants se faire bouffer par les morts.

Tant pis si on doit supporter le bellâtre Simon Baker qui nous joue le crétin de samaritain de service, tant pis si Dennis Hooper vieillard vieillissant a l'air sur le point de trépasser à chaque réplique, Asia Argento est là pour faire passer la pillule qu'on se dépêche de gober comme un crapaud au vol de la mouche dans un grand splatch sanguinolent.

La mise en scène est fort correcte et en même temps s'avère toujours aussi dilettante ; elle permet au moins d'apprécier tout ce gore à disposition comme un gros paquet de pop-corn sans se poser de questions... même à propos de ce zomb' qui pense !
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews