Land of the Dead (2005) Film Review: Romero's Big Yet Satisfactory Return To The Zombie Genre

George A. Romero is best known for creating the modern zombie with the "Dead" trilogy. After "Day of the Day" initially didn't receive a warm welcome in the box office or critically, Romero took a hiatus and it seemed that we might never get another film of his again. However, twenty years after Day came out, he would return to make his grand return to the genre he helped create during the most popular decade of the flesh-eating monsters. Many years after the outbreak, a community of survivors have been able to create a secure outpost in Pittsburgh. The majority of survivors live on the streets protected by an electric fence and soldiers, while a group of volunteers will travel outside the city to grab food and supplies. The community is overrun by Paul Kaufman, the owner of an apartment complex known as Fiddler's Green, where the rich are able to live in comfort and security without worry of the dangers outside. When Kaufman denies a place at Fiddler's Green for the hard-working mercenary, Cholo, the hot-headed punk takes over a weaponized vehicle known as Dead Reckoning and threatens to blow up the building unless he's paid five million dollars. Kaufman decides to hire Riley, Cholo's former partner, in order to stop Cholo with a group of his own. While all of this is occurring, the survivors are unaware that the zombies are becoming more intelligent, as a leader of the hoard known as Big Daddy, are making their way towards the city and Fiddler's Green, seeking vengeance for their slain people. There's a lot that's happening in the plot, especially for the short runtime. While all three stories work fine enough and do all merge together by the end, the issue is that the story with Riley being hired to take down Cholo is the most uninteresting story. Not only are the characters involved in that story not interesting or engaging, but it really makes them unlikeable as they are taking orders from the villain to stop a guy with real motivation to kill the corrupt ruler of the city. It could be by design to make everyone this moral grey status, but it backfires on the characters and it just makes the viewers root for the zombies. The narrative as a whole though is still entertaining and the third act practically pays off everything that has been established. The tone is still in nature to Romero's franchise with a sense of humour and references to previous work, though still takes itself serious. It's pretty good and is accessible to those who both want a serious horror flick or a fun horror movie, though I personally think that Romero's previous films had a more solid tone.

The characters of the previous "Dead" films were generally pretty good. Not only are there plenty of fun and badass characters who take charge, but a lot of them feel somewhat realistic, given the circumstance. Not every character is likeable or very developed, but they have their share of lines and debates with other, colourful characters. Although the fourth installment brings a few, new likeable faces, there's a lot of uninteresting or even unlikeable characters that outnumber the good characters. First, I'll address the good characters. First, there's John Leguizamo's Cholo, who is an anti-hero figure who did a lot of Kaufman's dirty work in the hopes to earn a place in Fiddler's Green, which he finds out he would never get. He's both a character you want to root for as he's taking the initiative to get rid of Kaufman, but at the same time, he doesn't really care for people much and tends to be a bit of a douchebag. Robert Joy's Charlie is Riley's partner who really should have been the main character of the film in the first place. He's got a facial defect, has a nervous personality, yet he's a talented marksman with his trademark of licking his finger and placing it on the sight of his old, hunting rifle. There's also Pillsbury, the giant Samoan guard who has some good lines. Lastly, there's Big Daddy, the leader of the zombie horde. While he has no dialogue, the physical acting by Eugene Clark is so great at giving him a personality and a bit of emotion, even though all the zombie does is grunt and yell. Sadly, that's all of the good characters in the film to point out. Riley is by far the most boring protagonist in the series. Not only does he have some weird moral compasses as he takes orders from Kaufman, yet is clearly worried about the people first, but he has no fun personality. He's a stick in the mud that not only doesn't know how to have fun, but doesn't learn anything throughout the film. Slack, played by Asia Argento, is another generic female warrior archetype who doesn't like being talked down to. Not only is she a huge step-down from Sarah in "Day of the Dead", but she just comes across as a bland love interest for Riley who comes across as a bit of a douchebag for her uncalled shooting at her allies. Dennis Hopper as Kaufman does have some charisma as the slimy villain who wants to control the people of the city, but the character himself is just not that engaging, both personality-wise or hammy performance-wise. There were much better villains in previous "Dead" films and while Kaufman is one that the audience wants to see killed, he's also just not that interesting. The side characters are just there either as forgettable background roles such as the crew of Dead Reckoning, or just another number in the body count like Manolete and Motown. There are more interesting side characters in the survivor settlement such as Mulligan, but they barely do anything in the main story and it begs the question why these characters aren't the protagonists as anyone would be more interesting than Riley.

Romero's directing skills should never be doubted upon as he clearly has the love for the art of filmmaking. What is most striking of his films is that he really likes for the viewer to soak in the setting and environment. While the fourth "Dead" film is pretty dark and grimy with an emphasis on shadows and night-time scenes, you get the sense of scale that Romero is known for with the creative production and set design. From Fiddler's Green's luxurious setting to the slums where zombies have become entertainment for the poor and broken survivors, the world is fully realized and it's a more unique take on what would happen many years after the zombie outbreak. It makes sense that someone would attempt to have some feudal government that relies on wealth and power during this time. The cinematography by Miroslaw Baszak is good enough with some creative shots from time-to-time. The score by Reinhold Heil and Johnny Klimek is average for the most part, but the various nods to the thematic score of "Day of the Dead" whenever Big Daddy is leading a charge or thinking of a plan is an excellent homage. The make-up and gore effects are really good with some very gross-out moments that stand out. The make-up and visual designs of the zombies however could have gone for a more decaying look, considering that it's supposed to be years since the last film. However, if there's one issue with Romero's ambition, it would be that he went overboard with the use of CGI. While the use of green-screen for the city shots are acceptable, the fact that every head-shot or blood splatter is digital really bugs me as well as die-hard fans. There's still plenty of on-camera gore that proves really grotesque and convincing enough, but it begs the question why Romero had every head-shot be comprised from a computer, considering that his previous films made them look very grisly and effective. Regardless of how he used CGI to its effect, Romero still demonstrates a sense of vision and passion in the horror industry that is sorely missed in today's standards.

"Land of the Dead" is not going to rival the first three films that Romero had made. From the storyline of Riley being hired by Kaufman to kill Cholo hampering the characters involved, the characters of Riley and Slack being just generic archetypes of the genre, Kaufman not being an engaging villain despite Hooper's performance, the overwhelming amount of side-characters that make you stop caring, and the use of CGI blood and zombie kills remains pretty distracting. However, the film is actually good in its own merits. The overarching narrative as a whole is pretty fun to watch as you anticipate the chaotic third-act when all parties get involved, the tone is still that classic Romero feel with the cheeky humour thrown in with the serious nature of the story and characters, the characters of Cholo, Charlie, Pillsbury, and Big Daddy are enjoyable in their own right and makes you want to root for them in general, the dark, dreary landscape that is home to a distinctly creative city with its own developed functions thanks to some great production design and some shots by Baszak, the score by Heil and Klimek does its job fine with the homage to "Day of the Dad" being its saving grace, the make-up and gore effects are as good as ever, and Romero's creative and passionate direction really drives the film more into an above-average watch. It might be regarded by many as the fourth best of the series, but considering its competition from the franchise (both good and bad), that doesn't discredit the quality or Romero's skills as a filmmaker, even if there were hiccups that could've been avoided.

Verdict: 7/10. Good enough, but not in the levels of great that the previous films have reached. Watch if you're a fan of zombie flicks and Romero's work, even if the main characters and CGI blood are pretty awful at times.