So
Romero skipped the 90's and went straight to the shitty naughties.
Yep, it's the worst decade ever (until the next decade, which is now
the worst decade ever (and if it's not the teens for you at the time
of reading, I'm sure whatever decade you're currently inhabiting is
currently the worst decade ever)), and now it's full of zombies and
rich people who live in a big tower.
I
should get the fact that I really like this concept out of the way
early - I really like this concept. The actual world building and
execution in general is sub-par in this film, but if I were to just
describe the world, it would sound pretty cool. It's basically '28
Weeks Later', except it's not London, and the rest of the world (I
assume) has been taken over. '28 Weeks Later' did it better.
The
rich people live in a tower while the lower classes live down below,
and have to scavenge for the rich people. The commentary didn't
really work. It was far more obvious than in previous films, and it
was too shallow. There was no real reason why a monitary system would
work in such a small society (and if it did, why it would be out of
the control of the heavy hitting guys with the tanks and guns and in
the control of the suits who don't appear to actually do anything
other than give orders). The society is so small that they would be
much more likely to have a bartering system.
I've
never been a huge fan of smart zombies either, though it's
interesting how Romero's sympathy seems to swing further over to the
undead's side as we make our way further through his movies. There were still plenty of fun scenes (the bit where the zombie pulls a belly button ring out of a girl and then spits it out was a highlight) but the characters were bland and forgettable and the plot was about as predictable as it could get.
Land of the Dead: 33.6