"Zombies, man. They creep me out."

"The Legendary Filmmaker Brings You His Ultimate Zombie Masterpiece," the tagline for Geoge A. Romero's latest boasts. A clever advertising technique this may have been, but it's also a definite overstatement. Land of the Dead is certainly better than the garbage Hollywood has become expert at churning out every year, but it fails to impress on a high level.

Rather than deliver cheap shocks and thrills, Romero makes a well-intentioned and partially succesful attempt to re-embelish the zombie genre. Apart from a few moments, none of them scary and all feeling forced, this movie does not attempt to frighten you at all. Instead it is essentially entertainment, taking the genre back to its roots and feeling all the better for it.

However, herein lies the problem. Romero's roots remain embedded in the past, a past which was defined by low-budgets. This time Romero had a lot more money to play with. Did he make use of it? Not really. The production values are wonderful, the makeup satisfactory, but this is so by-the-books that it borders on predictable. Romero could have come out with something totally out there, a complete revolution. It's a shame, because that would have really impressed me.


Thankfully Romero still has a few tricks up his sleeve. The social commentary is alive and kicking, with Hopper's character especially jabbing at modern values, as well as the power of corruption and the corruption of power. Performances are wonderful, with Simon Baker proving he should be getting some better roles, Asia Argento trying it a little smarter than xXx and coming off well, and the wonderful Dennis Hopper hamming but not over-hamming, striking the perfect balance between insane and recognisible.

Eugene Clark, praised in some corners for his performance as Big Daddy, the 'leader' of the zombie hordes, struck all the wrong notes for me. His inane screaming came off as more comical than frightening. The same applied to all the other zombies; apparently they're supposed to be our villains, but they are decidely un-scary and far too gimmicky (examples: woman with two mouths, guy with a trumpet, another with a tambourine - kinda worked as a creepy overtone in the first scene, but after that become tiresome).


More disappointment comes in the send-off for two big characters, Hopper's 'Kaufman' and John Leguizamo's 'Cholo'. Confusingly, Leguizamo's final scene comes at the same time and in the same place as Hopper's confrontation with Big Daddy, and what should have been a fun and satisfying finisher for both characters and a triumph for Big Daddy, ends up as one of the weirdest and least effective scenes of the film.

The actual ending, however, is very effective and tragic in its own way, proving a satisfactory conclusion and a good set-up for further sequels, which I hope will come. Because even if Land of the Dead is flawed in many ways, it's still better than most action/horror movies these days. Not as scary, maybe, but ultimately more memorable. While movies like The Ring 2 or The Grudge will drift from your mind in a matter of days, Land of the Dead is at least an honorable attempt at blending horror with good filmmaking.