George A. Romero's recent films seem to have been rather divisive amongst fans. Actually, we could say that his zombie films have been divisive since 1985, because I have read a lot of negative comments about Day of the Dead—that might be attributed to its limited theatrical run, however. It never quite had the mainstream success that Dawn of the Dead received, despite being an equally good film.
Land of the Dead picked up where Day left off, developing the 'intelligent zombie' concept explored through Bub further. The divisiveness of Day of the Dead, then, is probably one of the main causes for Land of the Dead being equally divisive. The same theme is explored more prominently—and, being a fan of Day, I like that direction, making Land a worthy addition to the Romero canon for me.
Diary of the Dead regresses somewhat, not following the direction of Land of the Dead. Instead, it explores a similar point in the zombie invasion to the one that can be seen in Night of the Living Dead, before the zombies had become prominent enough to outnumber the living. That is why I found it surprising to see so many haters of Day and Land also disliking this film—it leaves the direction they disliked behind, and arguably contains more social commentary than any other Romero film. I cannot see what there is to dislike about this film, a few minor moments of melodrama aside (less than Night of the Living Dead, in response to that criticism!), and I would rank it as one of his better efforts.
If you haven't seen it, the premise is that a group of film students try to document their experiences at the beginning of this zombie outbreak, with the intention of uploading it to the internet to help any potential viewers whom will find inevitably themselves confronted by zombies. By seeing how others deal with them through the documentary, they will know how to handle the similar situations. In that sense, it almost seems altruistic.
However, I don't think Romero is completely sympathetic; throughout the film, Jason—the director with the idea of documenting everything—continually puts his documentary above the safety of his friends, making more of an effort to film everything around him than to help people by taking out zombies. What Romero is targeting with his criticism is DIY news reporting, and the notion that people would—through instinct—rather stop and watch people in distress than help them.
This film is far more in vain of Night of the Living Dead than the rest of the series in that the relationship between the characters is just as important as the zombie threat. That isn't to say that character relationships are not important in the other three—they are, but the zombie threat is given more prominence in most of them (Day of the Dead being a possible exception, putting them on an equal standing, a factor that works in its favour). The antagonism caused by Jason's insistence on filming rather than helping is a recurring theme, and it is clearly the most central tenet of Romero's social critique.
You may want to call me a rabid fan boy at this point, but I think this is an excellent film; entertaining, intelligent and relevant to modern culture, Romero proves that he is still the greatest director in the zombie genre. There are minor flaws here, but they do little to detract from the quality of the film. It might not be as good as Dawn of the Dead, but this is a very worthy addition to Romero's canon.
8.5/10.
Land of the Dead picked up where Day left off, developing the 'intelligent zombie' concept explored through Bub further. The divisiveness of Day of the Dead, then, is probably one of the main causes for Land of the Dead being equally divisive. The same theme is explored more prominently—and, being a fan of Day, I like that direction, making Land a worthy addition to the Romero canon for me.
Diary of the Dead regresses somewhat, not following the direction of Land of the Dead. Instead, it explores a similar point in the zombie invasion to the one that can be seen in Night of the Living Dead, before the zombies had become prominent enough to outnumber the living. That is why I found it surprising to see so many haters of Day and Land also disliking this film—it leaves the direction they disliked behind, and arguably contains more social commentary than any other Romero film. I cannot see what there is to dislike about this film, a few minor moments of melodrama aside (less than Night of the Living Dead, in response to that criticism!), and I would rank it as one of his better efforts.
If you haven't seen it, the premise is that a group of film students try to document their experiences at the beginning of this zombie outbreak, with the intention of uploading it to the internet to help any potential viewers whom will find inevitably themselves confronted by zombies. By seeing how others deal with them through the documentary, they will know how to handle the similar situations. In that sense, it almost seems altruistic.
However, I don't think Romero is completely sympathetic; throughout the film, Jason—the director with the idea of documenting everything—continually puts his documentary above the safety of his friends, making more of an effort to film everything around him than to help people by taking out zombies. What Romero is targeting with his criticism is DIY news reporting, and the notion that people would—through instinct—rather stop and watch people in distress than help them.
This film is far more in vain of Night of the Living Dead than the rest of the series in that the relationship between the characters is just as important as the zombie threat. That isn't to say that character relationships are not important in the other three—they are, but the zombie threat is given more prominence in most of them (Day of the Dead being a possible exception, putting them on an equal standing, a factor that works in its favour). The antagonism caused by Jason's insistence on filming rather than helping is a recurring theme, and it is clearly the most central tenet of Romero's social critique.
You may want to call me a rabid fan boy at this point, but I think this is an excellent film; entertaining, intelligent and relevant to modern culture, Romero proves that he is still the greatest director in the zombie genre. There are minor flaws here, but they do little to detract from the quality of the film. It might not be as good as Dawn of the Dead, but this is a very worthy addition to Romero's canon.
8.5/10.