Before I get to the actual reviews, let me get something out of the way first. Shut up, Mark.

Moving on.

Half-assed entertainment reviews almost became a regular feature this summer, but somewhere along the way I lost interest. Today I'm interested in it, and I've been watching a lot of zombie movies lately, so… why not?

First on the agenda is George A. Romero's "Land of The Dead." The fourth movie in Romero's seminal zombie series, Land is simultaneously both the best and the worst. Romero became famous, or at least sort of famous, for his 1968 classic "Night of The Living Dead." The landmark original was stark in it's simplicity. Sparse sets, black and white film, unknown actors… this was much like a very good student film.

He followed up a decade later with "Dawn of The Dead," considered by some to be the best zombie movie ever. Again, Romero chose unknown actors but this time he brought more money and a few more skills to the table.

In 1985 (I think, I'm too lazy to look it up), he closed out his "trilogy" with "Day of The Dead." A lot of fans found this one disappointing. I'm not one of those fans. To date, this was Romero's most technically complex film.

Twenty years later, Romero finally returned to add another chapter to the genre he practically invented with this year's Land of The Dead. I was an excited little dork when this movie came to the theaters. On opening weekend, Sister and I scuttled off to the theater to see what Romero might do this time. (Shut up, Mark.)

I was stunningly disappointed.

The two common features of Romero's three previous films were (1) incisive social commentary that focuses on different personality types and how they react to eminent death or even a collapse of society and (2) a near-complete lack of professional filmmaking skills.

Romero's films kind of sucked. But I don't really think of him as a filmmaker. Instead I think of him as something of a satirist who happens to (badly) use movie cameras.

The central focus of the first film was isolation and paranoia. The second showcased denial and consumerism. And the third, laying a heavy foundation for Danny Boyle's excellent "28 Days Later," dealt with despair and powerlessness.

Land of The Dead takes this a step further and deals with class divisions in the post apocalyptic world. The first and most obvious division is among the living. The wealthy live in affluence, safely ensconced in Fiddler's Green, a luxury tower no one ever need leave. The poor, which is of course almost everyone else, live in squalor in the ruins of a fortified city.

The second division is between living and dead. Romero builds on the sympathy he created with Bub in Day and makes Land's most likable character a zombie, "Big Daddy." He also continues his themes from Day by making many of the living less likable than any of the zombies.

When watching Land, right from the beginning I was impressed with how skilled Romero had become in the technical aspects of filmmaking. There were one or two scenes that were very impressive. Apparently Romero spent the last twenty years learning how to really do this shit.

Unfortunately, he also spent the last twenty years neglecting the satire and commentary that made his movies cool in the first place.

Because of the movie's twin subcurrents of class struggle, there are two main plotlines. The first focuses on a "Robin Hood as a bastard" type who's butting heads with the upper class. This plotline is the really stupid one. John Leguizamo steals a very impressive armored vehicle and uses its massive weapons to hold the city for ransom. Ransom. Money has value in the city, where commerce has been reestablished. But what the hell is he going to do with cash out in the wasteland? Eat it? Burn it? Sew it into hundred dollar bill underwear? Ridiculous. This one massive plot hole taints everything in the movie with it's foolishness.

The second plotline is far more interesting, but considerably more subtle. Big Daddy ends up becoming something of a zombie Che Guevara as he leads "his people" against the oppressive living. Big Daddy is obviously the most naturally intelligent zombie Romero has ever featured. Finally angered into action by the violent smash-and-grab supply runs on the zombie infested suburbs, he channels his energy and emotion into something of a shuffling assault on the city.

Although Romero used name actors in his latest film, he's not quite able to wring notable performances out of any of them. It's particularly telling that the best acting was from Eugene Clark, the more-or-less unknown who played Big Daddy.

It's Big Daddy, and Clark's portrayal, that stuck with me after the first viewing. This idea of a zombie liberator is clever and fresh, and in the end is the movie's most redeeming aspect.

Next in the queue is the 1990 remake of "Night of The Living Dead." Tom Savini, the make up and effects wizard from Day and the original Dawn, tries his hand at directing by retelling his mentor's classic original.

And mostly does a pretty damn good job of it, too.

Savini stays faithful to the spirit of Romero's original, but makes a few fundamental changes that leave this feeling like a completely different movie.

As you might expect, Savini's version features vastly improved make up. Gone is the "put some gray powder on his face and call him a zombie" look from Romero's older works. The gore effects are delightfully understated, leaving the focus of this movie exactly where it should be: on the characters.

The male lead, Ben, is this time played masterfully by Tony Todd. Todd manages to perfectly capture the character in a way that seems lifted directly from the original classic. If you could say that Todd is a star (which I would seriously doubt), then you would have to concede that it was this movie that made him so. As a fan of the original, it's just delightful watching the way he breathes new life into his character.

With the exception of an ending that is very different, but no less sardonic, the biggest difference is how the female lead, Barbara, is presented. In the original there's a very long sequence where Barbara is nearly catatonic, motionless and silent, as Ben chatters away about their circumstances and busies himself with fortifying their appropriated farmhouse. Unlike the original, where Barbara never really shakes off this funk, the new version features a Barbara who awakens to discover her inner Schwarzenegger. It's this new "girls rule" Super Barbara that contributes most to the new ending.

All things considered, this remake was pretty good. It doesn't supplant the original, but it comes pretty close on a few points.

And last on our list is the Australian film "Undead." Here's a box of clothes pins. Put one on your nose and pass the box to the next person in line please. This movie is a real stinker.

Undead is not just a zombie movie. You could probably call it a zombie/alien horror/comedy. It's a movie that can't decide what it wants to be. I think perhaps the filmmakers were trying for something that felt like "Shaun of The Dead" with its perfect blend of horror and humor. Undead falls far short of this goal.

The scenes featuring zombies are lighthearted, silly, and even a bit reminiscent of John Woo's Hong Kong style action. These elements almost make this movie a parody. But then leaven that with scenes of deathly seriousness (no pun intended.) It feels like the filmmakers tried for both equally, but in the end they achieved neither.

And aliens? What the hell is that all about? I shouldn't pick on the creative minds behind this too much. They tried something new and bold with what is otherwise a very simplistic genre, and I should laud them for it. But I'm not going to because the end result was so damn clumsy.

Muddle this mess even further with dreadful overacting and gratuitous ultra-violence and you have a Picasso of a movie. The individual pieces are lovely, but the way they're assembled makes no sense at all.

However, I did end up watching this movie twice. The last three minutes are absolutely incredible. But in every respect, it feels like something from a different film. The ending is somber, creative, gritty, and even a little artistic. I watched the movie a second time, looking very closely for hidden brilliance. I didn't find any.

Perhaps the studio fired the filmmakers and hired someone else to finish the picture.

I might recommend you trick a gullible friend into renting this movie just so you can watch the last three minutes without paying for it, but unfortunately the ending won't make much sense unless you suffer through the rest of it. At least wait until it's off the New Release list, or pick a night you feel masochistic.
 

And in conclusion, I'll just add one more thing. Shut up, Mark.