Good, entertaining, far from classic... ***Possible minor spoilers for Dawn Of The Dead remake as well*** As a huge fan of the original trilogy, I had been greatly anticipating Land, which more than anything is probably the biggest reason I see it as disappointing in the end. Land is solid, but can't hold a candle to any of the original 3, and I'm not sure it ever could have, 20 years is a long time, and the first 3 are just too damn classic. I can't help but think that concessions and self-censorship were in play by Romero to get this to be more mainstream studio box office friendly.
Some of my major problems with it were that it was too short. It feels entirely too rushed. The path to the finale is set in the first 10 minutes, there's not nearly enough downtime before the grand zombie march on the city. Opening with the rich living seemingly normally and then slowly revealing the external gruesome reality would have been far more effective. Another issue of disagreement I have is with the casting of Simon Baker and Asia Argento as the lead protagonists which may have been out of Romero's hands but they come off as contrived Hollywood action heroes as opposed to the more realistic, past gritty, unassuming, ordinary type Romero heroes, which only the likes of Charlie seems to represent, while Cholo is probably the best developed and conceived of the entire cast.
The security of the city's perimeter and inner regions is unclear and at the end is a farce. It had some decent buildup with the electrified fence and all the army guys and the underground tram, but then is made a joke of. I understand the zombies have to get in, but breaking through that initial cheap wooden board with a meat cleaver, throwing themselves against an ordinary, flimsy chain link fence, and somehow totally circumventing the electrified fence and overrunning what should have been considerable firepower was weak. Its a wonder they weren't totally overrun much earlier in their existence with such incompetence. Not to mention worst of all how they walk across a damn river. Lacking both the intelligence and coordination to swim, they are shown falling in, mysteriously rising, and then all of a sudden wading out. That must have been a very shallow river with very little distance to cross. How that was ever considered secure is ridiculous. Other inconsistencies such as the value of money and why the underprivileged condense in squalor when there appears to be a near-empty whole rest of the city featuring high rises have been mentioned numerously.
I also fail to buy into the ending, where the super socially conscious and the audience is to believe, clairvoyant, Big Daddy, leads the horde to devour mostly the rich (while its the lower class that does all the killing), with I suppose the hope of having the less fortunate take control who will be kinder to them? And when moving amongst the zombies, they would actually not eat them as long as they were not attacked? Or was the intention of the assault simply as a matter of general vengeance, leave us alone? They come in, overturn the power structure, and then just leave. It seems to me the urge to devour flesh, rich or poor should have taken far more priority for at least the majority of the zombies no matter what their "leader" happened to be moaning. Some of those former residents of Fiddler's Green were the power-mongers families, left to die at the fences by the 'underpriviledged', who conveniently squirrel themselves away without bothering to help them. Staying faithful to series history and remaining logical are forsaken for the sake of social commentary, making for a very unfulfilling and illogical ending.
I thought the Dawn remake was a great modern reworking of the original, the best of the modern crop of zombie movies, and when it comes to some high tech gore and especially a fortified bus-type vehicle it had Land beat by over a year. Its also superior to Land because it conveys greater desperation and more of a stacked odds scenario with its unprecedented hordes which Land lacked. High production values and flash worked for the remake whereas it seems out of place for a Romero zombie movie, especially as a follow-up to Day which was very bleak and claustrophobic. The original Dawn looked a lot more expensive than it really was, and the high octane feel along with its late 70s origin worked for it. Perhaps Land had too much money in this heavily big studio backed modern era than was good for it. Dawn's opening worldwide chaos montage is one of its greatest strengths and helps set the tone for the rest of the movie, whereas Land's comes off very pale by comparison. The fireworks as a distraction mechanism and the old-time Universal logo sequence are nice little touches, but Land needed a lot more creative and thoughtful effort, as well as staying more consistent with its predecessors to really make it something special, which is what it should have been.
I really question that this is the best Romero could do after all this time. Maybe it all would have been better and more satisfying if it'd happened a lot sooner, possibly predating the whole contemporary resurgence of the sub-genre. I believe timing and creative freedom were likely factors of Land's shortcomings. There's certain magic and greatness that just can't be recaptured sometimes. Or maybe this is the best he could do, with nowhere to go but down after his previous efforts. For non-Romero enthusiasts I suppose its sufficiently entertaining, which it is, I voted it as a 6, but expectations of old-time fans, at least myself, were for greatness, and rightfully so considering its roots, but it just can't touch the originals.