Land of the Dead is fun until you think about how much better it should have been with that premise. It's like if you went to a bar with some banging chick, but you got too drunk and went home with this fat chick who wanted to give you head in the bar bathroom. You probably still had fun, but it could have been oh so much better.Absolutely this
Think about it - the premise is that there is one human city left in a zombie-infested wasteland. How many amazing stories could have been told in that setting? But instead of telling one of those stories, Romero decided to make a movie about class-based inequality. What the flying fuck? GTFO with that shit. I could pound a handle of Jack straight to the dome and write a better story using that setting than the bullshit that Romero came up with.
He hasn't made a truly good film since Dawn of the Dead, and the 2004 remake stomps all over that one anyway.I wouldn't go so far as to say the 2004 remake stomps all over the original. Maybe as a pure zombie action flick, but I felt that the original worked better on a lot of different levels. And I even liked the progression of the story a lot better in the original. If it didn't have that 70's cheese glaze all over it along with outdated effects, it would definitely be the superior film IMO.
He hasn't made a truly good film since Dawn of the Dead, and the 2004 remake stomps all over that one anyway.