Land of the Dead (2005) (Unrated Director's Cut)

[miguel77w]

Wanted to hear some opinions about Land Of The Dead on blu ray. How was PQ and AQ. How was the movie in general never seen it. I am thinking of buying.

[ccfixx]

Originally Posted by miguel77w

I am think of buying.

Then, you should rent it and watch it first.

CC

[miguel77w]

I still want to hear some opinions from people in the forum.

[InfectedStranger]

I thought the PQ was decent, the SQ was amazing, the supplements were mediocre, but the movie itself was decent. Comes recommended to all zombie fans.

[hostelmovies]

MOVIE 4.0
PQ 4.5
SQ 5.0

Really Good.

I just got my Diary of the Dead Blu
Movie 4.0
PQ 5.0
SQ 5.0

Amazing transfer.

[Mr. J]

If you're a fan of "Of the Dead" Series then you should def pick it up!
IMO:
Movie: 4
PQ: 4.5
SQ: 5

[katjakassin]

Originally Posted by jayvo2009

If you're a fan of "Of the Dead" Series then you should def pick it up!
IMO:
Movie: 4
PQ: 4.5
SQ: 5

Though I know far too many people that hold this same opinion, I just don't agree.

Day of the Dead was a big let down to the "Dead series", even though Savini's fx work was very solid. But Land, in my opinion, was nothing but a slap in the face to what Romero did in the past and further shows that he should let this genre go and work on other avenues of film making.

And I must apologize for this next comment as nothing I will have said here will have helped the thread creator out with his original question, but how the hell does Land get a Blu release and Night doesn't?

Isn't Night public domain (I could be wrong) and Image did put out a very nice "Millennium edition" and even they are now releasing Blu-ray's, yet this wasn't thought of.

I don't know, maybe I am weired, but I think that Night should come out before Caligula or The Story of O.

[Mr. J]

Originally Posted by katjakassin

Though I know far too many people that hold this same opinion, I just don't agree.

Day of the Dead was a big let down to the "Dead series", even though Savini's fx work was very solid. But Land, in my opinion, was nothing but a slap in the face to what Romero did in the past and further shows that he should let this genre go and work on other avenues of film making.

And I must apologize for this next comment as nothing I will have said here will have helped the thread creator out with his original question, but how the hell does Land get a Blu release and Night doesn't?

Isn't Night public domain (I could be wrong) and Image did put out a very nice "Millennium edition" and even they are now releasing Blu-ray's, yet this wasn't thought of.

I don't know, maybe I am weired, but I think that Night should come out before Caligula or The Story of O.

I can see where you're coming from!

[Anthony P]

But Land, in my opinion, was nothing but a slap in the face to what Romero did in the past and further shows that he should let this genre go and work on other avenues of film making.

I dissagree, Land was better then the remake of Day. And I consider the remake of day much more of a slap, there where fast running zombies, some people turned into zombies by a simple bite in minutes and you only became a zomby if you where bitten by one. I found it was much more in line with 28 days later (where they where not zombies - undead - but people with a mutated form of rage)

[Anthony P]

And I must apologize for this next comment as nothing I will have said here will have helped the thread creator out with his original question, but how the hell does Land get a Blu release and Night doesn't?

Isn't Night public domain (I could be wrong) and Image did put out a very nice "Millennium edition" and even they are now releasing Blu-ray's, yet this wasn't thought of.

I think that is the issue, as public domain no one can realy make money from it. What I mean is lets say anchor bay (I think they where the ones that had the rights and the film) take the film, pay millions to restore it and make a new digital master and then release it on BD, couldn't legally any other studio take that BD (or get their hands on the digital master) and release their own BD of the movie?

[Rhoq]

Originally Posted by katjakassin

Though I know far too many people that hold this same opinion, I just don't agree.

Day of the Dead was a big let down to the "Dead series", even though Savini's fx work was very solid. But Land, in my opinion, was nothing but a slap in the face to what Romero did in the past and further shows that he should let this genre go and work on other avenues of film making.

And I must apologize for this next comment as nothing I will have said here will have helped the thread creator out with his original question, but how the hell does Land get a Blu release and Night doesn't?

Isn't Night public domain (I could be wrong) and Image did put out a very nice "Millennium edition" and even they are now releasing Blu-ray's, yet this wasn't thought of.

I don't know, maybe I am weired, but I think that Night should come out before Caligula or The Story of O.

I would rank the Romero films in this order:

1. Dawn Of The Dead
2. Night Of The Living Dead *tied with* Diary Of The Dead
3. Day Of The Dead
4. Land Of The Dead

Still, "Land" is not a bad film.

[jd213]

I just watched Land of the Dead last night. It looked pretty good overall but there was a bit of pulsing in some dark shots (happens with some low bitrate VC-1 encodes, it looks like Universal just recycled their HD DVD encode for this unlike their other Blu releases), although most people probably won't notice this. I use a Sony VPL-VW60 projector with a 100" screen so it's fairly easy for me to spot, but it's not a major issue.

[GeonosisX]

Originally Posted by miguel77w

Wanted to hear some opinions about Land Of The Dead on blu ray. How was PQ and AQ. How was the movie in general never seen it. I am thinking of buying.

Hope this helps:

Beyond Media Online Review

[opterasis]

Originally Posted by katjakassin

And I must apologize for this next comment as nothing I will have said here will have helped the thread creator out with his original question, but how the hell does Land get a Blu release and Night doesn't?

Isn't Night public domain (I could be wrong) and Image did put out a very nice "Millennium edition" and even they are now releasing Blu-ray's, yet this wasn't thought of.

I know UK has it on bluray, and I could be wrong, but I remember reading a while back that eventually Weinstein Co is going to be releasing a port of their version on bluray eventually. Considering the horrible versions that have come out, I'd like to see that one most of all, followed by the Millenium edition.

[katjakassin]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I dissagree, Land was better then the remake of Day. And I consider the remake of day much more of a slap, there where fast running zombies, some people turned into zombies by a simple bite in minutes and you only became a zomby if you where bitten by one. I found it was much more in line with 28 days later (where they where not zombies - undead - but people with a mutated form of rage)

I agree, but I am only talking in terms of the dead films that Romero has actually filmed himself.

I thought that it was horrible that Dawn could get remade when George couldn't get work at all. Although, I can understand that every time George has been handed a bigger budget, he has failed in terms of both box office and critical accomplishments.

What I mean is in terms of what he already filmed. George has filmed what most believe to be two of the top ten or twenty horror films of all time in both Night and Dawn. Hell, some will argue that either one of those could be said to be the best.

Now when Land comes out, I just saw it as nothing more than an excuse to make another zombie film. I didn't feel that it had the same feel as his other three in the series and the political undertones throughout the film seemed a little forced to me.

I could list more than a few zombie films that are nothing but a slap in the face to what George laid out in Night. But I am only talking about what he has filmed. And when a man decides to make film for a living. Make two out and out classics, one of which help change and shape independent film making. And then continue to make said style of films, only to have nothing new to say and further perpetuate the notion that he is only a one trick pony, that to me is a slap in the face. And, I should point out that I live in and love Pittsburgh PA. And as a young film maker, all most people associate us here in Pittsburgh with is George's zombie films. I hold him to a higher level because of what he has done in the past, even if his none zombie films have been, for the most part, lacking.

So when I, and others in the region are trying to make things happen, most people associate our region with one thing. And if he continues to make sub-par films, this to me hurts more than just his over all legacy. Which, in the end, unless he makes some sort of Casablanca/Tokyo Storyesque film (No matter what genre it may be) will be that of a one trick pony who never made it out of the horror genre and ultimately left a lot of his talent on the table on a lot to be desired. Even if, he had a hard road to climb via financing.

[katjakassin]

Originally Posted by Rhoq

I would rank the Romero films in this order:

1. Dawn Of The Dead
2. Night Of The Living Dead *tied with* Diary Of The Dead
3. Day Of The Dead
4. Land Of The Dead

Still, "Land" is not a bad film.

Honestly, I do think that Land is a bad film. I could also say that Day is a bad film too. Infact, if it were not for the excellent fx work in Day, I would label it a bad film (Even if it is my favorite of the series because I was so scared of the fx work when I was younger).

Land had some very horrible acting and the story was really weak. It also had some inside Pittsburgh jokes that really weren't needed and whole usage of "Dead reckoning" when that was to be the original title.

If anyone else who had not had films like Night and Dawn under his/her belt had made this film, it would still not be a film that I would suggest to anyone.

Land had one good scene, and that was the tongue scene that brought back memories of how older films used gore and lighting in a way that made you think.

Other than that, Land seemed to me to be nothing more than a film that a competent film school student with a few million dollars and ties to name actors (Who ended up not living up to their names) could have made.

It's just not my thing. And to be honest, I felt sad to see a man go from the holy grail of horror movies, to fun films that had a lot going for it (Like Martin and one of my all-time favorites in Creepshow) to a film like this.

[jd213]

I'm from Pittsburgh as well. I was kinda pissed that Romero didn't film in the area for Land or Diary, although I understand that Canada is cheaper.

You would think he could at least get his geography a little better though, Uniontown isn't just over the hill from downtown Pittsburgh like it was shown in Land

[jd213]

Originally Posted by katjakassin

It also had some inside Pittsburgh jokes that really weren't needed

Hmm, I'm having trouble remembering any Pittsburgher in-jokes in Land... Could you refresh my memory, please?

[katjakassin]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I think that is the issue, as public domain no one can realy make money from it. What I mean is lets say anchor bay (I think they where the ones that had the rights and the film) take the film, pay millions to restore it and make a new digital master and then release it on BD, couldn't legally any other studio take that BD (or get their hands on the digital master) and release their own BD of the movie?

That is a great point.

The only thing is, and I would like for someone to clarify this, is that if you make your own print, doesn't that become yours?

And the reason that I said what I said earlier is because Image has already made an awesome (In my opinion) edition of Night. For the way this film was made, and how much they already cleaned it up, I would have to think that it wouldn't be too hard to port this to a high-def transfer. Now, I could be way wrong on this, but it just seems too easy in my mind. But, usually in my experiences, when something seems to be too easy, it usually isn't.

I just look at it like this. There are certain films in every genre that need to be released to spark interest. To many of us, people in the know for how things work or how nice things have looked in the past. We might look at a film like Night and say, it would be great to have on Blu-ray, but it might not be a night and day difference. So in the end, there are other films that really need this treatment and could benefit from it.

But, having working in retail for most of my life outside of high school (I graduated in 2001) and having worked directly with movies, I have noticed that most people flock to titles that are tried and true. And this is one of those titles, that if they slap a Blu-ray tag on it, people are going to buy it because of what it is.

Look at Anchor Bay. What were their first releases. Dawn of the Dead, Evil Dead 2, Halloween (Amongst others). They know that these titles will sell. And they know, as do we, that each of those three titles are going to be rereleased as special editions in one way, shape or form. And then they will sell as well.

And where I am going with Image and their releases is that no one will ever beable to make me believe that The Story of O or Caligula will ever outsell the original Night of the Living Dead. Hell, I would question if they can even out sell the 90's Night of the Living Dead.

To me, Night of the Living Dead is a title that you can firmly put one foot down and make a statement with. Maybe I am just a lame-o. Maybe I am not thinking clearly. But this sort of title is just one of those no brainers to me.

I could even get on Criterion as well. I like a few of their choices for their first batch of Blu-rays. Bottle Rocket and Chungking Express are pretty solid (Especially Express). The Third Man, excellent. But I could name a few others that, to me, would make so much more sense to make a statement with when you are stepping into the Blu-ray arena (So to say).

[katjakassin]

Originally Posted by jd213

Hmm, I'm having trouble remembering any Pittsburgher in-jokes in Land... Could you refresh my memory, please?

What I meant by that was the Uniontown thing and the obvious use of Pittsburgh for the fictional city in Land (I think it was fictional). Things that, if one isn't from where we are, they wouldn't pick up on.