Land of the Dead - An interesting, yet slightly flawed mix

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!)

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that