Land of the Dead -- Review

But every now and then, I wonder
If the gate was put up to keep crime out or to keep our ass in

Cee-Lo of the Goodie MOB, Cell Therapy

Eat the Rich: there's only one thing that they're good for
Eat the Rich: take one bite now - come back for more

Aerosmith, Eat The Rich

If 28 Days Later and the 2003 Dawn of the Dead remake taught us anything (apart from being pretty damn good flicks; the former moreso than the latter), it's that zombie movie purists hate the running undead like Mel Gibson hates soap scum on shower doors (what did you think I was gonna say?). Ironic then that the genre's master, George A. Romero (the A stands for Awhile, as in "it's been"), has chosen to populate his long-awaited fourth Dead film with zombies similarly evolved; for while not fleet of foot, these uglies possess a crafty wit the likes of which were only hinted at in Romero's previous entry in the series, 1985's Day of the Dead.

These fuckers can shoot guns, for chrissakes! They make smart decisions. They've obviously evolved a lot more than, say, the computer AI on Madden. Hell, I'm fairly confident some of them could manage a Fortune 5oo company (well, I mean) or run the New York Knicks.

And I for one am glad. Because as far as originality of plot is concerned, the majority of zombie movies ranks as low as that of your average porn film. Sure, both are fun to watch; but it's pretty much always the same thing: reanimated corpses eating the living, and people fucking (and sometimes, with high-speed Internet and a credit card, vice-versa).

So kudos to Georgie Boy for breathing new life into a genre sorely in need of it (pun acknowledged). He could have told yet another tale of humans fighting for survival amidst the backdrop of a zombie holocaust (and if the recent boom in zombie-themed films and comics is any indication, there's a never-ending glut of such stories), but chose instead, wisely, to take his story -- the apocalyptic world which he pioneered -- towards its logical and natural progression.

He also deserves credit for again infusing his world with social commentary -- which this time out is post-9/11 America and the Bush administration's war on terror (big surprise) -- even though it's at times as subtle as a machete to the skull. Nevertheless, once again it is slyly suggested by Romero that it isn't the zombies who are the film's real villains, but ourselves. As the film's protagonist, Riley, says after ordering a companion not to fire on a teeming march of the undead, "They're just lookin' for a place to go".

Yes, and they're also looking for fresh humans to eviscerate, but let the zombies have their moment of pathos, will you?

The film's main villains are Cholo (played by John Leguizamo) and Kaufman (Dennis Hopper). One wants to become rich, the other richer. Predictably, a power struggle ensues. Cholo threatens to attack the city unless Kaufman pays him 5 million dollars. Kaufman of course refuses, because he doesn't "bargain with terrorists". I think Walt Disney said that. Riley -- Simon Baker, who I don't think will escape the curse of Romero leads whose careers in filmdom invariably never take flight. I'm looking forward to seeing him at Comic-Con 2029 -- is recruited by Kaufman to track down Cholo and retrieve the fully-armored assault vehicle, Dead Reckoning, which the latter stole.

Assisting Riley will be Charlie (Robert Joy), a mildly retarded burn victim who is nevertheless a hawkeye with a rifle; Slack (Asia "nepotism" Argento), a prostitute whom Riley and Charlie rescue; and three soldiers chosen by Kaufman, the most entertaining of who, Pillsbury, has the film's best line.

Along the way they discuss the existential paradox of freedom in a repressed society, roast S'mores, give each other purple nurples, reclaim the Arc of the Covenant from the Nazis, light one another's farts on fire, and try to stop Cholo from firebombing the city.

Oh, and they kill the living impaired; although, thankfully, the zombies are pretty much an afterthought. Seriously, the film probably would have been as effective had Romero replaced the walking dead with those purple Smurfs who bit each other on the ass and said "G'NAT!" (true heads recognize).

All in all, Land of the Dead is a very worthy edition to Romero's oeuvre. It's just too bad that it came on the heels of better zombie films such as 28 Days Later, Shaun of the Dead, and Garfield: The Movie.

Still, I'd recommend it to any zombie movie enthusiasts, or anyone interested in seeing John Leguizamo and (particularly) Dennis Hopper act better than they have in roughly 3000 years.

Rating: 3/4 *_*

Bonus Review: I caught (stop snickering) Brokeback Mountain yesterday on DVD. It is without a doubt one of the most beautifully directed and most powerfully lingering films I have ever seen.

And it didn't turn me gay(er).

Rating: 4/4*_*