Land of the Dead

User Score
4.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 190 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 73 out of 190
  2. Negative: 83 out of 190

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream 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

User Reviews

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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!
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. JesseM.
    Oct 22, 2005
    10
    One of the best movies of the year. Excellent.
  8. CP
    Jun 22, 2005
    10
    Cool!!
  9. 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?
  10. JoeJ.
    Jun 24, 2005
    10
    Romero is the man! Finally - a real zombie movie.
  11. 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.
  12. rjh
    Jul 11, 2005
    9
    Real cool movie, unrealistically bloody tho.
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. carminec.
    Oct 19, 2005
    10
    A great zombie movie!
  17. 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
  18. MikeC.
    Jun 24, 2005
    10
    The master does it again. Welcome back, George it's great to see you again.
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. [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.
  22. 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!
  23. 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
  24. Tony
    Jun 26, 2005
    10
    Great action zombie-blast with enough blood and gore to keep you happy!
  25. 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...
  26. ScottM.
    Jun 29, 2005
    10
    Best zombie movie ever!
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. DanelG.
    Jul 8, 2005
    10
    Superb allegory, great storytelling, inventive filmmaking.
  30. JustinD.
    Aug 18, 2006
    10
    This is the best zombie flick i've ever seen.
  31. JayD.
    Aug 18, 2006
    9
    One of the best horror movie i've ever seen since 28 days later.
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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.
  35. DebiM.
    Jun 24, 2005
    10
    Well worth the wait -- even if it was 20 years! Nobody knows zombies like Romero.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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.