|
| Subject: Wow, no surprise here *spoilers* | Date: Sat 23-Jul-2005, 16:02:14 | |  |
Land was better than Dawn '04 to you. Huh, imagine that...
Plot
Winner: Land of the Dead
Reason: While to any non-fan, both plots are utterly ridiculous, Land's makes the greatest sense. People are just trying to survive, and their undead counterparts start waking up to make things difficult for them. In Dawn, however, the plot is not only unoriginal, it really breaks down when they leave the mall, as it made absolutely no sense to leave.
Land's plot is Cholo trying to move up and Riley trying to move out... that's it. Dawn's plot is actual rising of the dead. We get to see the surprise on the faces of those who see the living dead for the first time. The plot is survival. Simply survival. Land's plot was 3 years old... and STILL the humans didn't know to shoot them once in the head. No, instead they unloaded whole clips into the chests of zombies. Why did they leave the mall? Safety. Anyone in their right minds would have seen that the mall wouldn't be safe forever. Their escape was rushed when the dead infiltrated. Makes sense to me; the utter disregard for ammunition and safety in Land, however, did not. Maybe on the extended DVD version theyu'll show that everyone in the movie was now addicted to crack, thus their penchant for destruction of the self.
Character
Winner: Land of the Dead
Reason: Through and through, Romero did better casting than Snyder, and managed to coax the best out of these actors. Acting was sometimes weak in Dawn04, while it was always excellent in Land, with each person performing at their best. Don't give me any lip about Argento either, it is difficult for someone from Italy to speak with a Northeastern accent, even for an accomplished actress.
Riley was a moody Goth twit; Charlie was OK, but wasn't memorable, and comedic relief in horror movies makes me want to kill small fuzzy animals; Kaufman was cookie-cutter bad guy; Cholo was supposed to be losing his mind, I guess, but I'll be damned if I could see where and how; Slack... yes, I AM going to comment on her accent: I thought she was retarded and so did my girlfriend, both times we saw it together. When my mother saw it with me she said "Does she have Down's Syndrome?" Yes, Pillsbury was good; the matador guy, can't remember his name, should've survived longer; and Big Daddy should've been played by an actor who could've done the EMO-zombie thing a little better.
Dawn, however, did no better. The lead woman reminds me of my ex; faux-Bruce Campbell ruined the tense mood; I kept thinking "Pulp Fiction" when Ving was onscreen; CJ and Co. reminded me of a night hanging out with friends, minus the whiny sellout kid; Bruce's girlfriend looks like ANOTHER ex--hate her; and the rest aren't any better. I wanted to see Andy live, but shit, didn't get that.Both movies had shitty characters.
Action
Winner: Tie
Reason: Both movies appeal to the intended audience in the action department. In Dawn04, the impossible shots and unbelievable feats keep the teenagers amused. While in Land, the action is much more down-to-earth and muted, it appeals to the older viewers who love the series.
I tend to think Land has the lead in action, but the action is contrived and forced. Blazing away at 1000-rounds a minute is action, yes, but it's the kind of action that makes fans, those who know about 1-shot-one-kill, cringe. In Dawn, somehow on the first day, they knew to shoot them in the head, one time, to kill them. THe only blaze of gunfire came from the President's bodyguards mowing down reporters... something that would be any time. So here I think Land wins out, though it's not a good thing.
SFX
Winner: Land
Reason: Nicotero has his shit together, and his zombies were very believeable. Though many complain that they should have been more decomposed than the zombies in Day, they are forgetting that this movie takes place in Pittsburgh. The cold temperatures most likely preserved the corpses better. Plus we all know Pittsburghians would outlast everyone else on Earth . Overall, the effects in Dawn04 were alright, but nothing as spectacularly gut-wrenching as the bellybutton scene in Land.
Note that EVERY zombie in this movie is wearing a jacket, a sweater, or other full body covering. Why would that be, you think? Could it be that they were striving to lessen the zombie effects? Don't have to makeup arms and legs if they're covered, do you? The zombies looked like really, really, REALLY drunk people with jaundice and leprosy. Big Daddy was like a human in his looks and mannerisms. The one zombie I can think of in Dawn was the torn up guy who tried to get at Mekhi Phifer through the door. Remember what he was wearing? The wife-beater? What about the running Asian with 1 arm? Or the muscle-bound guy inthe crowd who threw the tank? Or the fat lady? Or Lita? Or the baby? Etc... Land is a newer movie and should have much better SFX--watch XMen 1 and 2 back to back to see what difference a year or two makes--but it didn't. Zombies which were supposed to be far older looked like they had died yesterday. Yes, there were the two emaciated zombies, but out of the huge numbers, only 2 were wasted away to such an extent?
My own personal winner is Dawn '04. The movie makes sense, the plot makes sense, the zombies run, yes, but they don't emote at me. The survival aspect plays heavier there than it does in Land, where the people have survived, but have seemingly forgotten the reasons why. Maybe the DVD will make more sense, but if there really only is 6 minutes, it won't.
|
|
Homepage of the Dead
Wow, no surprise here *spoilers*
