'Land of the Dead' (2005)

Damn, I've gone through these films a lot quicker than I was meaning to. What was meant to be a film every week has somehow become five films in eleven days; I wish I was as good at finishing books... You've probably already gathered this but it's been great getting back into these movies (yes, even 'Survival of the Dead'), some of which I haven't watched in a few years. Only a couple more to go and I'm going to have to think about what series I make my way through next; I'm thinking 'Hellraiser' but that's a topic for another day...

Right now though, we're taking a big leap forward and it's now three years since the dead first walked. Let's see if there are any of the living left...

With the living dead having now taken over much of the world, the few survivors left have retreated to a fortified city, where the rich live in penthouse apartments while the poor suffer on the streets below. Governed by the corrupt Kaufman, the city comes under threat when the impoverished population begin to demand a change in leadership and it becomes obvious that the army of zombies outside the city walls is beginning to adapt to its surroundings.

'Land of the Dead' was the first of the 'new' zombie films from Romero and I remember being really excited to see what he had for us. It took me a while to get round to watching it but I did (ended up renting the DVD in the end) and sat through it with that natural high you get when there's a new film, in your favourite series, and you're prepared to forgive an awful lot because you've been given something new. You know what I mean, we've all been there. With that in mind then, I thought a re-watch would be particularly useful here, just to see if it was the film I remember. It was... and it wasn't, all at the same time. Again, you know what I mean.

Before I get into the film itself, if you're planning on giving these movies a (re)watch it's worth bearing in mind that while 'Land' was the first of the films, the 'soft reboot' approach to the last two films sees at least a couple of actors make recurring appearances in different roles, a little confusing if you're trying to work out how it all fits together. Shawn Roberts is Mike in 'Land', and gets bitten, but is also Tony Ravello in 'Diary'. Alan Van Sprang is Brubaker here but is also 'Sarge' in 'Diary' and 'Survival', two characters whom I'm 95% certain are not the same person. Get your head round Romero's apparent willingness to re-use actors, and leave us to figure it out for ourselves, and you'll be fine ;o)

But onto the movie itself...

Before the film even starts, I'm asking myself how come money is still a thing in a world that has crumbled under a relentless zombie onslaught. Kaufman says that he paid for the city to be protected, and is making money from it's illegal activities, but I just don't buy the concept of money holding that much sway in this new world; let alone the notion that the rich can maintain their privileged position by flashing the cash a little and getting the poor to risk their lives picking up luxury goods from zombie infested towns outside the protected zone. Once you start asking these questions, it soon becomes clear that the whole film is on shaky foundations. I can get what Romero is saying about the rich (and that the zombie attack, at the end, might be a bit of wishful thinking on his part) but it's relying on stuff that I just don't think would be there after the living dead have torn civilisation down. But yeah, I can see what he's saying and I kind of agree with it.

But that's not to say that 'Land of the Dead' is a bad film. Bits of it? Well, maybe but we're finally getting to see the results of the idea that Romero planted back in the original films, zombies really aren't that stupid. We've already seen zombies using tools ('Night of the Living Dead') while in 'Dawn of the Dead', it's confirmed that zombies do retain some memories and are able to act on these. 'Land of the Dead' takes these two themes to their logical conclusion, zombie towns where the residents are able to live out an echo of their previous lives, even to the point of getting romantically involved. (seriously). It's as creepy as hell, of course, but is also a great way of charting 'zombie evolution' over the course of this film and it's predecessors... especially when the town, and its residents, are shot up by the invading humans.

And that's when I really started enjoying 'Land of the Dead', not when the slightly garbled social commentary came into play but when the movie suddenly became about zombies trying to get their revenge on humans for destroying their way of life. I'm not sure if that's what Romero intended (I'd like to think that it was) but it's really cool to see everything suddenly flipped and the film have a zombie for a hero. The human faction doesn't really have a likeable character that you can get behind but the zombies...? Big Daddy is just a regular zombie trying to get on in life but forced to take up the mantle of leader, of the rebellion, when the humans kill his friend and burn his town down. Accident or not, it's brilliantly done and I ended up rooting for the zombies throughout the whole film. I'm not too worried about Riley, and his friends, but I really hope that Big Daddy and the other zombies found a new home, I really do.

'Land of the Dead' wasn't the movie that I originally thought it was but it actually ended up being a lot more enjoyable when I looked it as... A revenge story? A fight against tyranny? Both, I reckon. That's the way I'm going to watch it in future and I reckon you should too; it's a lot more fun that way. ;o)