LAND OF THE DEAD DVD Review Does Romero’s film live up to his name? In a post-apocalyptic world, a group of people barricade themselves in a walled city to keep the living dead out. That’s basically the premise of George A. Romero’s Land of the Dead, but the master of the zombie genre has done something to separate his film from the slew of zombie-infested features that have taken over cinemas for the last few years. In Romero’s film, the creatures have guns. The walled city is protected by electric gates that have kept the undead out for an undetermined amount of time – and of course, the walls protect the last known high rise run by the smug Kaufmann (Dennis Hopper) who now thinks he owns the world. When one of his grunts, Cholo, played by the ever-impressive John Leguizamo, betrays him, Kauffman is forced to hire a team of misfits to locate the grunt amidst the land of the dead. There isn’t much to the story from there; the flesh-eating creatures run amuck and after years of walking the earth aimlessly through the franchise’s history (Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead) it seems they’ve learned a few things; how to communicate, how to use weapons such as automatic guns and axes, and they’ve even learned to swim. You can’t help but roll your eyes at some of the things Romero gets away with, but you can’t blame him (even when you realize the main zombie is named “Big Daddy”). After films like 28 Days Later, Resident Evil and even Shaun of the Dead, Romero stays on top by making his film different; more blood, more zombie decapitations, more blood, more flesh eating, more blood, and more guns. Did I mention more blood? It won’t be a favorite to those who shy from gore, but for people who love watching zombies get popped in the face, it’s a fun film that offers very few scares, but … lots of blood. There isn’t much more to expect. Watching Dennis Hopper picking his nose while exclaiming that zombies freak him out is worth the price of the rental alone (it’s the only time the word “zombie” is spoken in the film). And, for those die hard Dead fans, the film does pay homage to the style and originality of the first films – most noticeably in the opening sequences. It seems, however, that all recent zombie films have an underlying message; 28 Days Later started off as man vs. monster, but by the end, it was man vs. man. Resident Evil: man vs. technology. And Romero’s fans know that his films always contain a message at its core. Land’s message is hidden beneath all the blood and gore, but it’s easy to see that our beloved zombies represent the vast throngs of poverty-stricken people in the world, and Dennis Hopper, in his high rise, represents the small percentage of the very rich. Are the rich innately more important? Shouldn’t more effort be spent on those of us who don’t live in high rises, since the non-rich make up the majority, aren’t they more important? To see the social commentary in his films may take away from the fun of watching flesh-eaters, but it’s worth the mention. The film offers nothing more than brainless fun (no pun intended) and all horror buffs will enjoy it and wait patiently for yet another installment of the Dead franchise… World of the Dead perhaps? With superior being a bright full moon, this movie rates: © Savournin, 2005       Does Romero’s film live up to his name? EditReg