GREEN CINE Already a member? login
 Your cart
Help
Advanced Search
- Genres
+ Action
+ Adult
+ Adventure
+ Animation
+ Anime
+ Classics
+ Comedies
+ Comic Books
+ Crime
  Criterion Collection
+ Cult
+ Documentary
+ Drama
+ Erotica
+ Espionage
  Experimental/Avant-Garde
+ Fantasy
+ Film Noir
+ Foreign
+ Gay & Lesbian
  HD (High Def)
+ Horror
+ Independent
+ Kids
+ Martial Arts
+ Music
+ Musicals
  Pre-Code
+ Quest
+ Science Fiction
  Serials
+ Silent
+ Sports
+ Suspense/Thriller
  Sword & Sandal
+ Television
+ War
+ Westerns


Public Discussions

topics
GreenCine Movie Talk
In The Theaters
I just saw it and boy does it...
318

War of Worlds or Land of the Dead?
Topic by: Battie
Posted: June 27, 2005 - 12:13 AM PDT
Last Reply: July 8, 2005 - 8:41 AM PDT

page  1  2      prev | next
author topic: War of Worlds or Land of the Dead?
Battie
post #1  on June 27, 2005 - 12:13 AM PDT  
So...I found a tin can full of loose change and it's just enough to buy me a $6.50 movie ticket (the very last of my money in fact). So which one should I see? War of Worlds or Land of the Dead?

I love End of the World movies...and both qualify. War of Worlds promises better action graphics while Land of the Dead promises zombies. I can't make up my mind. :P

Help me out! >:D
Eoliano
post #2  on June 27, 2005 - 6:27 AM PDT  
WOTW
Battie
post #3  on June 27, 2005 - 6:49 AM PDT  
> On June 27, 2005 - 6:27 AM PDT Eoliano wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> WOTW
> ---------------------------------

And why's that?

(Actually, if I had more money...and The Angelika wasn't so far away...)
Battie
post #4  on June 27, 2005 - 6:51 AM PDT  
> On June 27, 2005 - 6:49 AM PDT Battie wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> (Actually, if I had more money...and The Angelika wasn't so far away...)
> ---------------------------------

I just checked out their website (been awhile since I visited) and matinee prices are $5.50! Wooot! There is something to love about Texas after all. >:P
Eoliano
post #5  on June 27, 2005 - 7:28 AM PDT  
> > WOTW

> And why's that?

Because that would be my choice between the two, and because you asked.
Cinenaut
post #6  on June 27, 2005 - 8:24 AM PDT  
I'll be seing both, since I happened upon two coin caches. Lucky me!

I enjoyed Land of the Dead, although the fast zombie aficionado I was with didn't like it at all.

Good points:
" Imaginative squirm and/or jump moments (de rigueur for any good zombie movie)
" Thinly veiled criticism of the current administration (depending on your political views, this may be a minus)
" Good, quirky characters (both human and zombie)

Not-so-good points:
" The political criticism can be a bit heavy handed at times.
" After creating an engaging cast of characters and building up to a big climax, the payoff is not huge -- but we're talking a 17 million dollar movie here, not a 170 million dollar movie.

Overall, a must-see for zombie fans. Post-apocalyptic world fans should find something to like as well. Not for the squeamish, natch.

Look for Shaun of the Dead guys Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright cameos as "photo booth zombies."


In a world where the dead are returning to life, the word "trouble" loses much of its meaning. -- Dennis Hopper, playing "Kaufman."
Battie
post #7  on June 27, 2005 - 6:40 PM PDT  
> On June 27, 2005 - 8:24 AM PDT Cinenaut wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> In a world where the dead are returning to life, the word "trouble" loses much of its meaning. -- Dennis Hopper, playing "Kaufman."
> ---------------------------------

Good quote. ^_^
Cinenaut
post #8  on June 29, 2005 - 9:58 AM PDT  
War of the Worlds is getting some fairly good reviews, but Salon.com's Stephanie Zacharek really ripped into it today, basically saying that Spielberg is mining 9/11 imagery for cheap thrills.
Xtian66
post #9  on June 29, 2005 - 2:45 PM PDT  
Land of the Dead turned a really boring and hot Sunday into a mildly thrilling and slightly mirthful afternoon. I dug the jazz band in the gazebo. The ending was a wash, however, but the getting there was mostly cool. I can't decide if the armored truck thing was supposed to be remniscent of "Damnation Alley," or if Romero was thumbing his nose at the armored shuttle busses in the remake of Dawn.
Not to get off the subject, but I wish there were more movies set in the winter, specificly zombi movies set in the freezing cold to take my mind off the sweltering outside this week. I am broke and am contemplating going to the second run place and seeing XXXII for two bucks. With a name like Ice Cube It is bound to cool one off, huh?.
Battie
post #10  on June 29, 2005 - 4:43 PM PDT  
> On June 29, 2005 - 2:45 PM PDT Xtian66 wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Land of the Dead turned a really boring and hot Sunday into a mildly thrilling and slightly mirthful afternoon. I dug the jazz band in the gazebo. The ending was a wash, however, but the getting there was mostly cool. I can't decide if the armored truck thing was supposed to be remniscent of "Damnation Alley," or if Romero was thumbing his nose at the armored shuttle busses in the remake of Dawn.
> Not to get off the subject, but I wish there were more movies set in the winter, specificly zombi movies set in the freezing cold to take my mind off the sweltering outside this week. I am broke and am contemplating going to the second run place and seeing XXXII for two bucks. With a name like Ice Cube It is bound to cool one off, huh?.
> ---------------------------------

Yeah, the getting there was really good. ^_^ The ending was just blah, but that's usually the case with horror movies, and even more so with zombie movies. I gotta say though...the gore in movies these days is out of control. I was kind of repulsed. Guess this is bad taste for a zombie fan but...Yeah. Horror movies, zombie movies, were good before gore got this bad, so what the hell, ya?

I forget who said that Romero might have been putting too much of his politics into it (and I, somewhat, agree), but at the same time, I appreciated the addition. Unless it's a movie that has something to do with politics these days, no "mainstream" films have that kind of content. Surprised those portions of the film weren't cut. ^_^

I thought Leguizamo was highly amusing in the first 20 minutes, lmao. Plus, towards the end, there was a scare I knew was coming, and had ample warning of...but still managed to jump so hard when it happened that I nearly dropped my water. {Luckily, the cap was on. >;)} Been a very long time since I've jumped like that.

Uhhh...I so wouldn't see that movie. I'm hoping you're joking. >_> You could go see War of the Worlds instead?
Battie
post #11  on June 29, 2005 - 5:50 PM PDT  
> On June 29, 2005 - 9:58 AM PDT Cinenaut wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> War of the Worlds is getting some fairly good reviews, but Salon.com's Stephanie Zacharek really ripped into it today, basically saying that Spielberg is mining 9/11 imagery for cheap thrills.
> ---------------------------------

Wooo, that's a tough one. Think she viewed it in an entirely different mindset than I did. (I saw both Land of the Dead and War of Worlds...I decided I didn't need much food anyway. Some milk and Ramen would be just fine..) She has a few points, but perhaps she was a bit too rabid about a film-maker that used pretty much the same tactics others have before him.

The pictures she spoke of...I didn't connect it in my mind to 9/11. Pictures have been posted on walls after many major tragedies and a really huge number of post-apocalyptic movies (28 Days Later is a prime example). The floating clothes...um, it was a good shot (the later one), and not necessarily inspired by 9/11. The first shot was logical (if parts of them become ashes, what happens to the clothes?), and the second could've just built on the first.

There was one or two shots I thought were highly over-the-top. And I found some 9/11-related comments both in bad taste and funny.

Anyway, the movie wasn't about 9/11 and really had little to nothing to do with it (beyond the comments). It was a lot better than I'd expected, though I still think Cruise sucks. The ending both made sense...and was much too pat. It was a really good movie, and I was glad I decided to forgo food. :P However, I'm getting sick of CGI. >_> It was well-used in the beginning of the movie, but kind of sucked towards the end. There were some good moments of horror (not the genre horror, but, "Omg, that's...") and the near-escapes were fun to watch. ^_^

Saw a LOT of trailers, including one for Bad News Bears (which I might see just for Billy Bob Thorton and his typical political incorrectness--thank god there are actually movies these days featuring kids that aren't censored and cleaned to a point of nausea) and King Kong (which I may also see, despite the beginnings of distaste for CGI and remakes). Adrien Brody and Jack Black in a serious role (kind of)? Yeah...might have to see it. >_>

I saw War of the Worlds right before Land of the Dead (WotW ended fifteen minutes before LotD started)...so I'm slightly inclined to say which one was better...But they're entirely different. I probably liked WotW more, because of all the destruction (again, I should've been born as the god of chaos, lmao), but at the same time, I found the acting and script in LotD more enjoyable. In fact, War of the Worlds was rather scarce on dialogue, and had it been anyone but Cruise, I might've loved that. I did like it, but not as much as I have in the past. ^_^
Battie
post #12  on June 29, 2005 - 5:53 PM PDT  
> On June 29, 2005 - 2:45 PM PDT Xtian66 wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> I can't decide if the armored truck thing was supposed to be remniscent of "Damnation Alley," or if Romero was thumbing his nose at the armored shuttle busses in the remake of Dawn.
> ---------------------------------

Forgot to say that I was thinking something pretty similar. :P The moment I saw it, I thought of the remake of Dawn of the Dead. ^_^
Cinenaut
post #13  on June 30, 2005 - 9:10 AM PDT  
I'd have to agree with you, Battie. WotW gets a higher mark than LotD. If only George Romero had Steven Spielberg's budget, eh?

WotW has fantastic special effects and a plot that keeps you on the edge of your seat until the end. Dakota Fanning freaking out makes me freak out, too.

Thanks to Stephanie at Salon.com, I was on the lookout for 9/11 imagery and some of it did bug me*, but overall WotW is a great, nerve-wracking thrill ride.





***POSSIBLE SPOILER***

*The use of dust as an element of horror reminded me too much of 9/11.
Battie
post #14  on June 30, 2005 - 6:54 PM PDT  
> On June 30, 2005 - 9:10 AM PDT Cinenaut wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> ***POSSIBLE SPOILER***
>
> *The use of dust as an element of horror reminded me too much of 9/11.
> ---------------------------------

**Small rant of an explanation**

Hmm...I guess it's because after the first two hours of footage that day, I refused to pay any attention to it. I was ticked off by a lot of comments I was hearing, so refuse to read, watch, or talk about it, since every discussion led to "United We Stand," something about God watching over us, those "bastards" needing to die, etc etc. And it was pretty apparent that politicians were going to use it as an excuse to go to war. ^_^ (Rather valid or not, I thought people should be concentrating less on anger and cliched phrases they couldn't stand on, and more on grief, contemplation, respect, or whatever else each person preferred.)

I actually created a screen name I used for years (and still do) within days. Useless Novelty for every phrase I heard a classmate utter, then turn around and do exactly the opposite. :P

That all sounds bad, but when I compare everything I heard from politicians and people who'd watched the footage on tv, to what I got from a woman I know in NYC (and her cousins, who were in an office building next to the towers), the former pales in comparison, and seems trite and "useful."
So, basically, I can't recognize much of 9/11 anything anyway. ^_^

But dust has been used before...Interview with a Vampire comes to mind.

Dakota Fanning screaming was a little..ouchies. :P But yeah, for such a little chick, she's a good actress. Rather shows how horrible most kid actors are these days. :P
Battie
post #15  on June 30, 2005 - 6:55 PM PDT  
> On June 30, 2005 - 6:54 PM PDT Battie wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> But dust has been used before...Interview with a Vampire comes to mind.
> ---------------------------------

And Mars Attacks! used it, though not quite the same dust/ash.
ahogue
post #16  on July 1, 2005 - 9:33 AM PDT  
> On June 30, 2005 - 6:55 PM PDT Battie wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > On June 30, 2005 - 6:54 PM PDT Battie wrote:
> > ---------------------------------
> > But dust has been used before...Interview with a Vampire comes to mind.
> > ---------------------------------
>
> And Mars Attacks! used it, though not quite the same dust/ash.
> ---------------------------------

I haven't seen the film, but I am immediately suspicious of this sort of comment coming from a Salon critic.
Cinenaut
post #17  on July 1, 2005 - 10:38 AM PDT  
> On July 1, 2005 - 9:33 AM PDT ahogue wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> I haven't seen the film, but I am immediately suspicious of this sort of comment coming from a Salon critic.
> ---------------------------------

See the movie. Read the review. Tell us what you think.
Battie
post #18  on July 1, 2005 - 12:51 PM PDT  
> On July 1, 2005 - 9:33 AM PDT ahogue wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> I haven't seen the film, but I am immediately suspicious of this sort of comment coming from a Salon critic.
> ---------------------------------

Why's that?
dvyi
post #19  on July 1, 2005 - 2:49 PM PDT  
how does it have anything to do with 9/11..

thats critic is pretty stupid
ahogue
post #20  on July 1, 2005 - 5:13 PM PDT  
> On July 1, 2005 - 12:51 PM PDT Battie wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > On July 1, 2005 - 9:33 AM PDT ahogue wrote:
> > ---------------------------------
> > I haven't seen the film, but I am immediately suspicious of this sort of comment coming from a Salon critic.
> > ---------------------------------
>
> Why's that?
> ---------------------------------

Hm. It's not that I think Stephanie Zacharek is a bad critic, but I think she does have a tendency to stretch things a little in order to make an intellectual point. This is pretty common in more highbrow reviewers.

Of course, not having seen the film, I have no real opinion on this yet, but it just sounds suspect to me. ;)
page  1  2      prev | next

about greencine · donations · refer a friend · support · help · genres
contact us · press room · privacy policy · terms · sitemap · affiliates · advertise

Copyright © 2005 GreenCine LLC. All rights reserved.
© 2006 All Media Guide, LLC. Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide®, a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC.