The Huffington Post discovers Land of the Dead
I was stumbling around the internet tonight when I found this article recently posted on the Huffington Post. In it, blogger Alex Remington wonders out loud why Hollywood fails on a consistent basis to make movies as good as George Romero’s films. He then goes on to wax philosophic about Land of the Dead which made me wonder out loud if he managed to get the movie confused with Survival of the Dead.
Nope. Alex just recently saw the film and here’s what he has to say about it:
It certainly isn’t a perfect movie, but it’s barely an hour and a half long, which makes up for a lot of flaws. The plot has a couple more threads than it needs, as Baker’s pursuit of Leguizamo detracts from the more general question of how these humans live in a country in which they are completely surrounded by evolving zombies. Because they’re out on the road killing zombies wherever they see them, it’s different from the more claustrophobic thrills in Night of the Living Dead. It really is hard to consider this a horror movie; it’s an action movie by a horror director. But it’s a fun one.
I’ve only seen the movie once, but that was more than enough for me. By reading his almost giddy enthusiasm, I wonder if maybe I was being too harsh on it. When I think of Land of the Dead, the only image that comes to mind was the skateboarding idiot in a shack, listening to music on his headphones while the zombies circled him. Other than that, I remember it was night all the time, but that’s it. Maybe it was a case of failed expectations.
Do you think this movie is worth returning to?
Land of the Dead: Why Can’t More People Make Movies This Good for $15 Million? (huffingtonpost.com <- new window)
Land of the Dead is better a second viewing and infinity better than Diary of the Dead.
But overall, it’s still pretty bad. I mean they call fireworks ‘sky flowers’.