The living dead have taken over the world, and the last humans live in a walled city to protect themselves as they come to grips with the situation.The living dead have taken over the world, and the last humans live in a walled city to protect themselves as they come to grips with the situation.The living dead have taken over the world, and the last humans live in a walled city to protect themselves as they come to grips with the situation.
- Awards
- 2 wins & 17 nominations
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaPartly based on the original, much longer script for Day of the Dead (1985).
- GoofsAt the start, when the Skyflowers stop and they are leaving the supermarket, 3 zombies are shot by the guy in the truck. The third zombie falls before being shot.
- Crazy creditsThe old mid-1930s Universal Pictures logo begins the film.
- Alternate versionsAvailable in an uncut and unrated version on dvd, restoring both gore and dialogue cut from the theatrical version.
- ConnectionsEdited into Cent une tueries de zombies (2012)
Featured review
The undead have taken over the world. What traces of humanity remain have taken to backing themselves into protected cities and getting supplies by venturing out in heavily armoured groups to raid smaller towns. One such city is formerly Pittsburgh, where the rivers provide natural protection and those who organised themselves into leaders have created a world of near normality while the rest live in the streets with less material and more risk. One of the raiders (Riley) is sure that he has seen evidence of learning among the undead but events within the city itself cause him more concern as his former second-in-command decides to take violent revenge for being betrayed by city boss Kaufman.
How you receive this film is more about you than the film itself (which I suppose is true of most things in a way everything has a market somewhere). Those that will love it will be those looking for gore as their horror because the film delivers this in spades. The camera lingers on flesh eating, mutilation and some very painful sequences that had me looking away. However the problem for me was that it was just gore not horror, not scares and not anything that made me feel uncomfortable in my own house. A minor criticism perhaps but let me assure you that me and zombie movies do not mix well and not only do I get scared during the films but also for days afterwards by the idea of it all.
Surprisingly then I was able to watch Land of the Dead with a detached air and it never convinced me of the world I was being shown. Part of this is budget but that's not all of it as I never bought the characters or main story either. The story in particular narked me because it did dominate the main horror (the mass of undead) and spent too much time on the detail of the human interactions and betrayal. In itself this is not a killer and indeed recently I saw The Mist do a very good job of making human monsters just as scary as the rubber ones but here Romero doesn't make as much of his social commentary as he could have done OK so we have the haves and have-nots but beyond that we don't get much in the way of intelligence.
The cast reflect the low budget but are good enough for the level that this is working on. Baker is a bit bland but OK, while Leguizamo at least adds a bit of energy to his character. Hopper takes on a fairly easy role of just being a "Mr Big" character that even done in P Diddy/Daddy music videos in the past. Argento is sexy but little else while Joy is pretty good in his support character. Clark is better than a zombie character will get him credit for and makes his stuff quiet interesting and engaging. In regards getting the best "urgh" impact from his gore budget, Romero does well but I was surprised that he didn't do more as a writer or as director to do better with the characters or the tension/danger within the story; like I said, I was surprised by how much of an observer this film allowed me to be.
Worth a look for gore fans and those seeking out some old school zombies in the middle of these modern "28 Days Later" type ones but really this film is a bit of a disappointment in just how average it is. The gore is great but it produces repulsion, not scares and Romero cannot create a sense of genuine horror or fear as he tries to deal with a narrative that takes more than it gives.
How you receive this film is more about you than the film itself (which I suppose is true of most things in a way everything has a market somewhere). Those that will love it will be those looking for gore as their horror because the film delivers this in spades. The camera lingers on flesh eating, mutilation and some very painful sequences that had me looking away. However the problem for me was that it was just gore not horror, not scares and not anything that made me feel uncomfortable in my own house. A minor criticism perhaps but let me assure you that me and zombie movies do not mix well and not only do I get scared during the films but also for days afterwards by the idea of it all.
Surprisingly then I was able to watch Land of the Dead with a detached air and it never convinced me of the world I was being shown. Part of this is budget but that's not all of it as I never bought the characters or main story either. The story in particular narked me because it did dominate the main horror (the mass of undead) and spent too much time on the detail of the human interactions and betrayal. In itself this is not a killer and indeed recently I saw The Mist do a very good job of making human monsters just as scary as the rubber ones but here Romero doesn't make as much of his social commentary as he could have done OK so we have the haves and have-nots but beyond that we don't get much in the way of intelligence.
The cast reflect the low budget but are good enough for the level that this is working on. Baker is a bit bland but OK, while Leguizamo at least adds a bit of energy to his character. Hopper takes on a fairly easy role of just being a "Mr Big" character that even done in P Diddy/Daddy music videos in the past. Argento is sexy but little else while Joy is pretty good in his support character. Clark is better than a zombie character will get him credit for and makes his stuff quiet interesting and engaging. In regards getting the best "urgh" impact from his gore budget, Romero does well but I was surprised that he didn't do more as a writer or as director to do better with the characters or the tension/danger within the story; like I said, I was surprised by how much of an observer this film allowed me to be.
Worth a look for gore fans and those seeking out some old school zombies in the middle of these modern "28 Days Later" type ones but really this film is a bit of a disappointment in just how average it is. The gore is great but it produces repulsion, not scares and Romero cannot create a sense of genuine horror or fear as he tries to deal with a narrative that takes more than it gives.
- bob the moo
- Jul 12, 2008
- Permalink
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Languages
- Also known as
- Dead Reckoning
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $15,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $20,700,082
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $10,221,705
- Jun 26, 2005
- Gross worldwide
- $47,074,133
- Runtime1 hour 33 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content