Ohjaus:
George A. RomeroKäsikirjoitus:
George A. RomeroKuvaus:
Miroslaw BaszakNäyttelijät:
Simon Baker, John Leguizamo, Dennis Hopper, Asia Argento, Robert Joy, Eugene Clark, Jennifer Baxter, Boyd Banks, Shawn Roberts, Sasha Roiz (lisää)Suoratoistopalvelut (3)
Juonikuvaukset(1)
Uudessa tarinassa Romero luo riipaisevan kuvan nykymaailmasta, jossa elävät kuolleet ovat vallanneet maan ja tavalliset elävät ihmiset yrittävät elää normaalia elämää linnoitetun kaupunkinsa suojissa. Uutta yhteiskuntaa johtaa kourallinen häikäilemättömiä tilaisuuden hyväksikäyttäjiä, jotka asuvat pilvenpiirtäjän huipulla, kaukana kaduilla käytävästä elinkamppailusta. Kaupungin muurien ulkopuolella kootaan kuolleiden armeijaa. Sisäpuolella taas anarkia nostaa päätään. Kun selviytyminen alkaa näyttää todella tukalalta, apuun kutsutaan joukko kovaksi keitettyjä palkkasotureita, joiden tehtävänä on pelastaa kaupunki kuolleiden armeijan kynsistä. (Buena Vista Int. Fin.)
(lisää)Arvostelut (4)
Darker, more narratively interesting, and much more brutal than Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead. It is less dynamic and compact, though, but that may not necessarily bother the viewer, especially if they are a fan of George Romero. I can’t say which film is better, but I preferred Snyder's. The characters were better developed and the visual style was even more refined. Romero relies more on cool brutality and a strong dose of darkness and shadows. The idea of the city, Green, and the zombie revolution is original, the music is solid, and Asia Argento also has a more than positive impact on the film. In the final reckoning, therefore, quite satisfied.
()
As a DVD horror B-movie, Land of the Dead is a decent zombie flick, showing us that George A. Romero is still capable of powerfully subverting the feature-film concept. But in comparison with the first two installments in the franchise or Snyder’s modern Dawn of the Dead, it is merely average. The motif of criticizing consumer society is simply repeated and not adapted to the present (which young Snyder did superbly), the film doesn’t contain a single truly memorable scene, the main protagonist seems to have parachuted in from a family drama about a good father, the “cool one-liners” are just dumb, and the lumberingly slow zombies inspire little respect. Other than its pacing, the only thing that keeps this movie afloat is its decent post-apocalyptically dark atmosphere.
()
Land of the Dead is a pretty good zombie flick. The story and the atmosphere are better than good in fact, and the old-fashioned slow-moving zombies are much more effective than their current fast version from Dawn of the Dead (even if Dawn is a better film). The scene with the zombies slowly shuffling out from the river is amazing. It’s also a fairly harsh and bloody film, a delight for fans. 70%
()
Even a fleeting glance at George A. Romero's filmography suggests that he was a notorious B-movie director in the style of John Carpenter. However, Romero was more versatile and capable, at least from my perspective, of making a surprisingly decent piece of work that stirred up the horror genre. Romero was fascinated by the theme of zombies throughout his life, but they never seemed interesting to me, and for a long time I thought that a film about their world couldn't captivate me - until Zack Snyder came along and convinced me otherwise. He had much more drive and managed to give dynamism to the world of zombies, and his Dawn of the Dead is the only zombie film that I have ever given four stars. Even in his last foray into the world of the living dead, Romero couldn't surpass his limits, and the screenplay simply belongs to the category of dumb B-movies, where all the characters choose the dumbest path to achieve their goals and the situations are resolved in a "deus ex machina" style. I don't deny Romero's craftsmanship - after all, he had been in the industry for quite a long time, but a thrilling and clever spectacle is something completely different. Moreover, if there is something I truly dislike, it's when a film pretends to be something it's not. Romero tried to smuggle in social motifs and rebellion against the capitalist social order into his film, but regardless of the dysfunctionality of his world, he does it in a terribly superficial and actually ridiculous way. Overall impression: 40%.
()