I love George A. Romero's Dead series and the only reason I see people not liking this movie as much is the total change in story. The plot: as the zombies evolve, they decide to go attack one of the only big societies left from mankind while Cholo DeMora tries to lead a rebellion. The main characters must stop the rebellion as the dead move closer. Kind of climatic but like I said it's not as much surviving. I love how there is some funny humor and the characters' backstory which is hinted for each character throughout the film.

Hollywood 'A' listers Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo ride George Romero's coat tails with mediocre results in the fourth installment of the Dead series. The plot seems like an afterthought after the first three. Here, an established colony faces life in a zombie infested world. They play the class warfare card throughout- positioning different characters in different social classes and portraying the zombies themselves as the ultimate "have nots" in the new society. So, George Romero and Company have definitely entered the post modern identity politics conflict. Man has become the prime villain again in this one with Dennis Hopper exploiting the masses for his own personal gain.Our zombies are evolving in this one as well, with some starting to show signs of cognitive thought. Interesting idea, but we didn't really have to go there to freshen this up.

After producing a highly successful trilogy and the most notorious zombie films, Romero launched his 4th film Land of the Dead, putting him in a pressure situation to pull off another classic. Even though it's respectable of Romero to make each film unique and sort of evolve through each stage of film-making, it seems he lost a bit of touch when creating Land of the Dead. The zombie's make-up, walking motions and the traditional ghoulish completeness was missing or not executed to Romero's standard. Furthermore, the special effects seemed to be too modern and had less attention to detail in death scenes. There is one really cool scene that sticks out when two zombies rip a hand apart but that's about all that's memorable.With all that being said, it's not to say Land of the Dead was completely lousy since his characters and storyline maintained my viewing interest. Dennis Hopper, Simon Baker, Asia Argento and John Luguizamo were all excellent, as well as the supporting cast members like Robert Joy and Joanne Boland. The most important thing when watching this movie is to expect a quality or traditional nature of Romero's previous three films, he always seems to throw some curve balls. If that's done as a viewer, perhaps some enjoyment can be found when checking out Land of the Dead.

First of all, let me say that I'm a big zombie movie fan. And, as a big zombie movie fan, I'm naturally a fan of the 'grandfather of modern zombie movies' George A Romero. For those of you who don't know, he gave us Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead - all largely regarded as classics in their own right/time.Now, nearly twenty years later (and among the influx of 'modern' post-nineties zombie films, he brings us in fourth instalment in the saga 'Land of the Dead.' This is set after the living dead have taken over the world and the last human survivors have held up in a large city with high walls and rivers on all sides to protect themselves from the undead threat.The way I see Land of the Dead - it's like a complicated jigsaw puzzle that's all there, yet somehow doesn't fit together properly. There are a lot of good bits in the film: the characters are good (yet under-developed), the setting is good (yet under-used), the story is good (yet doesn't really go in any one direction). The whole film, although an enjoyable entry in the series, just seems a little off, as if George just missed an opportunity to make Land of the Dead as truly great as its three predecessors.A lot of criticism falls on the zombies. People don't like the way they're 'evolved,' i.e. they've started thinking more than your average 'walker.' However, anyone who's seen Day of the Dead and remembers a zombie called 'Bub' will know that they've started to think about new ways to get their prey.Perhaps the biggest problem is that, despite George normally being quite thorough in his story-telling, has left large gaps which defy logic. The characters do some damn silly things which probably wouldn't happen in real life. This somehow degrades the whole feel of the film and reduces it to just another slasher film where stupid people do stupid things which result in them getting killed simply to add gore to a film.I didn't hate Land of the Dead. Far from it. I'm one of the people who sticks up for it on internet message boards. However, I will accept that it has its flaws and could have been fixed with a little tightening on some areas of the script and expanded on other areas which are genuinely interesting.The fact is that George A Romero needed a financially viable hit so that people would still give him money to make further films. Therefore, instead of sticking to a film that would simply be enjoyed by die-hard zombie enthusiasts (such as myself!), he made a film that was more appealing to the masses. This resulted in a film that was slightly more 'Resident Evil' than '... of the Dead.' Don't hate it, just do your best to accept that it's not perfect, but still a damn sight better than 90% of the numerous zombie B-movie cash-ins that are out there right now.(The truck/tank 'Dead Reckoning' is cool enough to warrant watching the film on its own - I want to drive it in the event of an undead uprising!) http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/