Quote:
Originally posted by Zero
I think those who were disappointed in Land of the Dead, while entitled to their opinion, are completely missing the point. What makes Romero's dead trilogy (Quadrilogy?) so important is that each film just absolutely ripped the guts out of American culture at that moment - NOLD hits the whole racial hatred / race riots right on the head; Dawn captures teh whole 70s affluence and malaise while Day bashes the hell out of Reagan-era "EVIL EMPIRE" nonsense. Land of the Dead so absolutely captures the screwed up nature of our "post-9/11" America its terrifying.
In fact, I think the fact that Romero works diligently to keep us from being "scared" of the zombies is part of the political critique at work in this film. The zombies are "just trying to find their way" as we all are. If you make them too horrific and violent, although they are certainly that, then Romero falls into the exact cultural logic he is critiquing - might makes right; the "other" is evil and should be destroyed.
So, for me, Romero's film is just about perfect by not giving us the easy shocks, gore, and thrills we're expecting. More power to Romeros for continuing to make intelligent films in a genre not exactly known for its intellectual pedigree.
Damnit!
ZERO
|
Night,Dawn and Day had intelligent social commentary but it was incorporated into a good films.
When you're making a movie the number one priority should be to make it good not to rip the guts out of American culture. If there's a good film with social commentary behind it then great I saw a good movie and learned something(that I probably already know) but if there's a movie with intelligent social commentary that sucks then big deal, you never sacrifice the quality of the film just to make a message because if the movie sucks then nobody is going to care about the message anyway all they're going to remember is that it sucked.