Badmovies.org Forum

love them both but which one is better

i think the new DAWN OF THE DEAD is the all around better of the two, the story, much like the original obviuosly, is better, the acting is better, and even the graphics are better.

i like LAND OF THE DEAD for the simple fact its based in my home town but there are some bad actors in it for example John Leguizamo, whoever thought that he would be good for a zombie movie was out of there mind.

any way what do think!

I think they are on par with each other, they both have their strengths and weaknesses but from a fanboy perspective Land of the Dead inches ahead just for the fact that it was directed by George himself  :teddyr:

I thought Leguizama was excellent in Land of the Dead.  He's a remarkable versatile and generally quite skilled actor - watch him in Summer of Sam for an example.

I found the Dawn of the Dead remake to be entertaining with some likeable characters.  Land of the Dead has a lot of good characters, a much more interesting plot, a climax that isn't idiotic (the ending of Dawn was just dumb to me), much better humor and was just generally a better film.  Dawn was cliche to the extreme. 

Dawn is a 7/10.  Land is a strong 8, nearly a 9 out of 10.

John Legui-zombo should be the actor's new name, lol

For me, the original Dawn of The Dead was he better of the two, in terms of story. The opening 30 or 40 minutes was one sheer block of chaos after another:

You had the news station in a state of collapse, a talk show that was on the verge
of anarchy, the situation at the apartment complex, and the scene in the basement with Roger and Peter blowing away the zombies. Then you had the near-death of Flyboy at the old aircraft hangars....it was pure action and one cliffhanger after another.

As an action movie, the 2004 remake pf DOTD was good, but for a solid story and more believable view of the breakdown of society, the original is the ticket.

Land Of The Dead?  It was fun for an afternoon, I guess. Seeing Tom Savini's character returning was cool. Not too many people in the audience got it, save for me and my two buddies.

Well, I think one thing most on this board will agree on is that Dawn of the Dead is way better than both the remake and Land.  :thumbup:

True...a great story makes a great movies as well as FX, and Romero delivered the goods with DOTD. Heck, it even inspired Dead Rising even though Capcom had to refute it with their little disclaimer on the case for the game, lol A lot of heart (as well as other organs) went into the 1978 DOTD and it shows.

Land Of The Dead did have some good FX though. The "belly button ring" scene actually had me wincing more than the stuff in Romero's previous movies. That was nasty!

I often find that it's the subtler forms of injury in movies that really get to an audience. Dismemberments are just, well, not a sensation the human mind can normally wrap itself around without having actually experienced something like it. Getting a piercing torn out? Ouch! Double ouch if you have or have had an actual piercing! I myself have had my nose stud get caught in the little loops on towels; just having the thing yanked a little bit hurts. Getting it ripped out? Yikes!

It doesn't help that for the first few weeks after getting my nose pierced I was a little paranoid that it'd get caught on something and get torn out.

That works...if it's not a form of injury yuo can't relate to, the feeling won't be the same.

Earring and piercings? I'd be scared too!  That's why, years ago,  I was a bit paranoid about picking up my baby cousin when I had the long pierced earring in my left ear; you know how babies like to grab things. She never grabbed them though, because I always wore a stud earring instead.