Koyaanisqatsi

[gbeenie]

As a "message" movie, it's about as effective as Land of the Dead.

The political satire of Land of the Dead works perfectly

It most certainly does not. The film's "social commentary" is leaden, ham-fisted and adolescent, and the film's plot shows Romero's COMPLETE lack of any understanding whatsoever about how economics works (in case any of you were wondering how a guy who's made as many brilliant films as George Romero ended up flat broke in his dotage). As a zombie movie, however, I think it's aces.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

I thought that Land of the Dead perfectly used a zombie film plotline to show how the world really is.

[gbeenie]

I thought that Land of the Dead perfectly used a zombie film plotline to show how the world really is.

Except that that view comes across as the perspective of an aging ex-hippie, and doesn't coincide with observable reality.

Indeed, my Number 1 problem with Land is that it's The Greatest Zombie Movie of 1987. By that, I mean that every bit of its visual style and cultural iconography comes straight out of the Observer's Book of Standard Eighties Movie Tropes. Let's have a look at some of its elements:

Cackling Evil Rich Guy (complete with sneering contempt for the huddled masses that "made him rich" -- pure hippie horseshit), a stock villain of 80's film. Can you point out even one difference between Dennis Hopper's character in this movie and Kevin McCarthy's character from UHF? The only difference I can see is that McCarthy's character is clearly intended as a caricature, while Hopper's is meant to be taken seriously (all but impossible to do, by the way).

Cholo, the Picked-On Minority Guy, another staple of the 80's. Putting aside the fact that he's the exact same goddamn fucking character as Salazar in Day of the Dead, it's obvious that Cholo's purpose (as well as Salazar's; they're the same character, remember?) is to express Romero's feeling put-upon about being Hispanic. That's all well and good for him, but has anyone ever really given so much as a minute's thought to George Romero's ethnicity? I know I haven't; if it weren't for these rather poorly-drawn characters, it wouldn't have even occurred to me that he was Hispanic. Also, it's troubling how both characters end up collaborating with the zombies; is Romero implying that Hispanic people are somehow inherently more likely to consort with the enemy? If I were Hispanic, I would find such a suggestion pretty insulting.

The Dead Reckoning. This ridiculous piece of hardware could have rolled straight off the set of Damnation Alley (I know, that's a 70's film, but you get the point). Apart from its awful, silly, Like, Totally 80's design, such a military machine is tactically stupid stupid stupid. When you're dealing with an enemy whose sole strength comes in numbers, the last thing you want to do is give them a large, cumbersome target to converge on. You're much better off with smaller, faster vehicles capable of making surgical strikes than you are with this rolling blunderbuss.

Speaking of stupid stupid stupid, now we get to the meat of my problem. The economic and operational structure of The City is very possibly the dumbest goddamn thing I've ever seen. First, after the Zombie Holocaust, paper money doesn't mean a solitary fucking thing. The entire purpose of currency is to facilitate long-distance commerce; in a closed system, it's pointless. Everything would work on the barter system (watch CBS' Jericho for a FAR more realistic idea of what a post-apocalyptic economy looks like). People who had money beforehand would not automatically be "the rich people" afterward; in a survival situation, it is those who possess the tools of survival that would be wealthy. The folks who went into the surrounding towns to scavenge needed supplies? Those are your new wealthy. The laws of supply and demand don't suddenly evaporate because we're talking about food and medicine instead of iPod Nanos; if anything, limited supplies make the truth of such laws even more apparent. Romero, unfortunately, still clings to hysterical, disproven Lefty ideas of "haves and "have-nots", while the REAL economic divide in a capitalist economy is between producers and non-producers. And speaking of that, it's not just the wealthy who are handled in the most cliched manner possible. It's supposedly been years since the zombies overran the Earth, and all the people who aren't the Evil Rich Guys (I'm overlooking the cartoonish, ludicrous economics of that for the moment) can do is stand around, shiver, and occasionally cough up their lungs? Where's their drive to do anything other than be miserable? In that respect, poor people are treated even worse in Land than rich ones. I suspect that those who find Romero's vision of poverty compelling have, most likely, never had to wonder where their next meal was coming from; having had to wonder just that very thing in my life, I can tell you that it's not fun, it's not glamorous, and a reasonable person will do whatever they need to to get themselves out of that situation. Which is a problem with how The City is run:  There's no manufacturing in The City; there's no agriculture; as near as I can tell, there's not even a decent ammo-loading facility (a necessity if you want to survive the Zombie Holocaust). I'm sure it's Romero's intent to show that the poor are being "kept down" by the rich; the problem is, not only does that idea (a standard saw of the Left) have no basis in fact, but it's an insult to the millions of people who have lifted themselves out of poverty by working hard and making better financial decisions for themselves.

Alas, the above is just one of Romero's failed attempts to make Land of the Dead "relevant," by trying to draw parallels between life in the City and life in modern America. It's also one of the ways in which the film comes across as a product of the 80's (that depiction of poverty, in addition to being wildly inaccurate, is EXTREMELY old hat). Another is in its attempts to be politically relevant. When Kaufman delivers the line about "not negotiating with terrorists," it's supposed to be be some kind of really insightful slam on George W. Bush; unfortunately, the line is so generic, it could just as easily been a riff on something Ronald Reagan might have said, something which yet again puts the movie in the Way-Back Machine to 1987.

Then there's the look of the film itself. Apart from John Leguizamo and cameos by Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright, is there anyone in this film who couldn't have been there in 1987? There's a Sally Kellerman cameo, for crying out loud! What could be more 80's than that? Asia Argento even looks like an 80's "punk" idea of a prostitute.

And, of course, the stupid money shower, a bit that could have come at the end of Trading Places. Romero makes his sneering hatred of money apparent throughout the film (and people wonder why this guy had trouble scaring up the $15 million to make Land? I can see the investors presentation now: "Well, the movie has zombies in it, but what it's really about is how money is evil, and how all people who have money are self-absorbed, racist, mustache-twirling one-dimensional stereotypical pricks. So, how much can I put you down for?"), but the scene where Cholo and Kaufman (BTW, I just noticed that Romero's Evil Rich Guy has a Jewish name; wonder what that means?) explode, causing the cash hoard that Kaufman was carrying to shower down is supposed to be poignant and sobering; what it IS is laugh-out-loud ridiculous.

So there you have it: The Greatest Zombie Movie of 1987. Too bad it was made in 2005. As a zombie film, Land is great fun, and I enjoy it a lot. As sociopolitical allegory, it's a rotting, stinking corpse of a failure.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

I don't think you understand the movie at all. I know you've put a lot of effort into writing this whole diatribe, but it comes off as being overlong for what is ultimately summarized as saying "it sucks, eh?" I can describe my opinions on a film without going on endlessly describing my misinterpretations of it. Your idea of the film being anti-money is ludicrous. Your final statements make it very apparent that you do not live in the real world - why are you implying that Romero is somehow anti-Semitic because a character name "sounds Jewish"?!? What the fuck is that about?

I loved the film. I thought it was very up-to-date, it works just as well as a message film as it does a zombie film, the characters were very well-conceived, and the film on a whole is a return to form for Romero and a great change of pace from shit like Zack Snyder's as-braindead-as-its-zombie-characters remake of Dawn of the Dead.

(BTW: What Sally Kellerman cameo?)

[Pak-Man]

I don't think you understand the movie at all. I know you've put a lot of effort into writing this whole diatribe, but it comes off as being overlong for what is ultimately summarized as saying "it sucks, eh?"

And what you're saying is ultimately summarized as saying, "Well it does NOT!" :^)

Once again, Issac, you're 10 barrels of thesis statements without a supporting paragraph in sight. I'm hearing you saying that there was brilliant social commentary in Romero's movies. I loved 'em all, but never saw where there was much satire. I hear that there was satire in them all the time (From you, a LOT) but, lover of satire that I am, I've never caught it, which tells me it's either not there or it's not working. What I'd LIKE to hear is some supporting statements telling me why you think there was great commentary in there, and what that commentary is, and why you thought it was good. Maybe you can open my eyes to this brilliant satire that you see and I don't. What frustrates me (And a lot of people around here, I think) isn't that you're opinionated (We ALL are! :^)) but rather that a unique opinion is thrown out there with nothing to back it up. It's not what you think, it's that you don't say why you think it.

It's kind of like if I threw out a post that said, "I figured it all out! Gigli is absolutely the most BRILLIANT movie ever!" and then never said anything more about it. :^)

[Variety of Cells]

It's kind of like if I threw out a post that said, "I figured it all out! Gigli is absolutely the most BRILLIANT movie ever!" and then never said anything more about it. :^)

Not that you'd have a chance to say anything more about it, due to the lighting that would have shrunk your brain to the size of a pea after uttering those blasphemous words.