How did this suck so hard?

File: lotd.jpg (52KB, 565x242px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 565x242px

nope

The zombie arch was great, but the humans were all terribly uninteresting.

His originals are generally praised because of the themes - e.g. consumerism in Dawn of the Dead. By the time he was making Land of the Dead these themes had been done to death: the whole idea of fleeing to Canada to get away from greedy hyper-capitalist elites living in their big gilded tower in the US. It was just a bit tired by the time this film came out.

As for the action/lack of character development, your guess is as good as mine. Maybe he just got a hard on for all the fancy action effects he could do once he was given a big budget.

>>86183719
>His originals are generally praised because of the themes
No, they're really entertaining and well put together films. Land is ok but lacking in several key aspects, most of all the characters themselves, which were the driving force behind the first 3 films. Only Dennis Hopper and Leguizamo pull off decent performances, the rest are too bland to like or hate.

>>86183911
I didn't mean to say they were only good because of the themes, I just meant they were noted at the time. When he tries to put political/social commentary into his newer ones it generally doesn't land, or it's been done before in less ham-fisted ways.

I agree with most of OP's points re: what was wrong with Land of the Dead, but like him, I'm pretty stumped when it comes to what exactly went wrong. Diary of the Dead was also pretty awful because of bland as fuck characters (though I really liked the opening of that film with the news report being filmed).

>>86184169
>doesn't land
iswydt

But I think Land gets unfairly shit on. It's far weaker than any of the original trilogy, for sure, but we shouldn't forget when it was done. It was still better than most horror movies that came out around that time.

Its a masterpiece compared to Survival of the Dead.

>>86182775

ho boy, if you thought that was bad, just wait til you watch the next one

>>86182775

i could have watched batman begins but chose this instead

i choose poorly

File: drunk_tiki.gif (975KB, 300x229px) Image search: [Google]

975KB, 300x229px

>>86183719
Romero never implied consumerism or made any social commentary with Night of the Living Dead, it was only afterwards, when someone told him about that connection, that he started to inject it into his movies. Only he did it to "make them better" and not really to say anything. This is why the crossed shots of zombies and manniquens appear in Dawn, over and over, because he was hammering it home to make it look intended, like he really was that smart all along. Romero was a talented film maker, rest his soul, but he wasnt nearly as clever as some make him out to be. Just look at Diary of the Dead if you're still unsure.

It was better than Day, I don't care what those hack frauds say

Night was a success for being a new monster. Dawn was a success for the consumerism message.
Day was a success because of the limitations.

His other zombie films are bad. Creepshow is decent. Martin is worth a view for its strangeness. The Crazies too. I haven't seen his other films.

>>86185734
>Romero never implied consumerism or made any social commentary with Night of the Living Dead
Well, nobody ever said Night was about consumerism at all, but there's an obvious subtext of social commentary simply by having a black guy in a lead role, without him playing "a black man" but just a man. And there's obviously some "old society being eaten up by a new one" theme underlying, if only because it was there in the novel the movie was loosely based on (I Am Legend).
Of course, the social commentary became more prominent in the next movie, if only because Romero had more control over the projects from the get go. Don't forget Night was filmed little by little and they were kinda making it up as they went.
If you don't think he could be a more subtle and clever filmmaker, just watch Martin.