My Blog

Happy Halloween everyone! Halloween is my second favorite time of the year, right behind Christmas, and I figure there’s no better way to get into the spirit than to talk about a horror movie. Today I’m going to be reviewing George Romero’s “Land of the Dead”, the fourth movie in the “Living Dead” tetralogy (unless you count “Shaun of the Dead”). George pretty much created the zombie genre way back in 1969 with “Night of the Living Dead”, and this movie is his first “Living Dead” film since “Day of the Dead” in 1985. I first saw the movie in theatres back in June (why June?!?), and since it just got released on DVD (ahh, that’s why June; for a Halloween DVD release) I figure this is a good time to talk about it. Does the return of the genre’s creator hold up to his past entries? Let’s find out.

The story takes place some time after the events in “Night of the Living Dead”, where the unburied bodies of the dead awoke with a hunger for flesh. The opening credit sequence spells out the situation for anyone not in the know. Anyone who dies becomes a zombie. If you’re bitten, you just die that much faster. Off topic, this addresses one of my beefs with the “Dawn of the Dead” remake (which was otherwise excellent). In that film, someone only became a zombie if they were bitten, which indicates that zombie-ism is some kind of disease. In George’s world, there is no explanation for the zombies. I think that’s much scarier.

Anyway, many years after “Night”, at least on chunk of humanity has come to terms of a sort with the undead horde. They live in the city of Pittsburgh, surrounded on two sides by bodies of water and protected by a massive electric fence on the third. The people live here in one of two classes, the very, very rich or the very, very poor. The rich live a life of luxury in a skyscraper called Fiddler’s Green, while the poor have to scrounge for themselves on the street. They get supplies by raiding surround towns and cities in heavily armed caravans led by a mobile fortress of a vehicle named the “Dead Reckoning” (which was the original, and in my opinion better title of the film until the studio changed it to fit in with the “of the Dead” naming scheme). Think of a cross between a semi-truck and a tank, and you’ve got the right picture. The movie begins on one of these runs, and introduces us to two of our main characters, Riley, and the un-PC-named Cholo. Both men are driven by a dream. Cholo wants to move into Fiddler’s Green, while Riley wants to leave Pittsburgh for Canada and “a world without fences” (which is better than living in a world with measures in place to keep you from becoming a zombie snacklette? I guess the zombies don’t like Canadian bacon. I know he just wants to live life on his own terms, but I’ve got to wonder how good life can be trying to keep yourself hidden from the walking dead). However, things take a turn for the worst when Cholo goes to talk to Kaufman, the leader of the community and richest cat in the Green. It seems there’s a very long waiting list to move into Fiddler’s Green, and the fact that Cholo is Kaufman’s errand boy doesn’t change that, even though he’s saved up enough money to afford it. What a surprise, the rich don’t want to share. Well, Cholo decides to steal the Dead Reckoning and hold Fiddler’s Green hostage unless Kaufman pays him a sum of money. Kaufman then tasks Riley, who was the designer of the Dead Reckoning, with stopping Cholo and recovering the vehicle.

Meanwhile, over in zombieville, things aren’t looking too good for the humans. It seems the zombies are learning. The most advanced zombie is an African-American gas station worker, called “Big Daddy” in the credits, previews, and everywhere but the actual movie. Big Daddy is the successor to Bub from “Day of the Dead”. Bub, for those who have never seen “Day”, was a zombie that had been “domesticated” by the scientists in that movie. He could shave, salute, fire a gun, and was safe to be around, as long as he had been fed. Big Daddy seems to remember parts of his life, such as pumping gas. He seems to take offence at the humans’ supply raids where zombies are mowed down with glee. He rallies the zombies to follow one of the raids back and attack Pittsburgh. How will things turn out for the humans? Watch the movie and find out, as I’ve probably already said too much.

The acting is a mixed bag, which is surprising as this is the first “Living Dead” movie to feature big name actors. I thought Simon Baker, as Riley, was pretty good as a leading man. This is the only thing I’ve seen him in though, so I’ve got nothing to judge him against. My partner here complained about Kaufman, played by Dennis Hopper. His main complaint was that “There wasn’t anything Dennis Hopper-ish for him to do.” That’s true, as Dennis’ role is to portray the evil rich and powerful. I think my friend’s complaint stemmed from the fact that he was expecting the kind of role Dennis Hopper portrayed in “Apocalypse Now” or “Super Mario Brothers” because, let’s face it, that kind of Dennis Hopper is more fun to watch. This role is more restrained though, and I think he gives a solid, but not outstanding performance. Likewise to Asia Argento, who plays a hooker Riley picks up along the way. She’s a semi-big name actress, and she isn’t given a whole lot to do in this film. She works though, and that’s the only real complaint I’ve got about her here. The best performance, without a doubt, is John Leguizamo as Cholo. I’ve got a theory that certain actors raise the quality of a picture just by being in it. John Leguizamo is one of those actors. From “Moulin Rouge” to “Super Mario Brothers”, he makes everything he’s in better, and sometimes he the only worthwhile thing in a movie (Spawn). Here, he plays Cholo as the kind of person you don’t really like, but feel for. He knows what he wants, and goes to ridiculous extremes to get it. It works.

The metaphors are heavy-handed sometimes. Some have really obvious parallels to our post-9/11 world, such as the government/rich (which are interchangeable in this film, and pretty much in real life too) controlling the masses via fear of some faceless entity (zombies/terrorists). Or Riley’s belief that life would be better in Canada, free from the control of the government. Others are surprising, as one of the groups we’re supposed to feel empathetic for is the zombies, believe it or not. For example, the humans use fireworks to distract the zombies while on their raids, which is a parallel to “the rocket’s red glare” of patriotism used to slip things like the “patriot act” by. Don’t believe me? Ask anyone who tried to buy a flag on Sept. 12, 2001, or who currently sports a yellow ribbon on his or her car in support of the Iraq war. And I think my personal favorite is the concept of the poor rising up to take control from the rich. It’s no coincidence that both Cholo and Big Daddy are blue-collar minorities. That’s some pretty good subtext there people, even if some of it is less sub than others.

That said, some of the metaphors get in the way of the storytelling, such as the greed some of the characters display. For example, Cholo demands money or he’ll blow up Fiddler’s Green, even though this act pretty much ensures he’s not going to be welcome in what is apparently the only place money is still valuable. Or Kaufman’s plan for leaving the Green if Riley isn’t successful in stopping Cholo. He’s going to take a bunch of money and run, leaving everyone else behind. What good is the money going to do him? In a zombie apocalypse, it’s not all about the benjamins. I’d be stocking up on guns, food, or women to trade for guns and food.

Still, I thought the movie was damn good. It’s third on my list of “Living Dead” films. It doesn’t have the satirical glee of “Dawn of the Dead”, and it’s not as creepy or ground-breaking as “Night of the Living Dead” (which seems pretty tame now, but definitely crossed some lines with its cannibalism, children killing parents, and a black truck driver challenging a white accountant for control). It’s the most action movie-esque of the Living Dead films, but that’s not saying much as these films have never been about action, but rather social commentary and flesh-eating. On that topic, “Land” doesn’t disappoint. Lots of gore, and with an unrated DVD that promises even more flesh rending, it’s closer to “Day” than either of the other films and definitely not for the squeamish. Despite its flaws, it’s still a Romero zombie movie, and it’s better than 99% of the other horror crap that gets pushed into theaters or direct to video. All in all, it seems like the perfect way to spend a Halloween night.