Half of us had already seen Night of the Living Dead (which has been made publicly (and legally) available at the archive. None had seen the original Dawn (I received the "ultimate edition" for my B-Day about a month ago). All had seen Day a few months ago.

I won't go into the details of all these movies for now. Opinions on these are on the update and we'll talk about them at a later date. I did write a bit on Day of the Dead and Marianne wrote one on Night of the Living Dead

I still don't know exactly which one of the series is my favorite.

"Night" holds a special place for its sheer originality. For the times (1968!), it's amazing. And the ending, to me, is just pure genious. Especially by today's standards.

"Dawn" is a classic. I had seen "Day" before I saw "Dawn", so I was not used to meeting genuinely likable characters in a Romero movie. I loved it. And its quite different from its remake.

"Day", well... I don't know. It's not a very good movie. It's got its moments and It grows on you. I've heard from alot of place it was Romero's favorite. I just don't get why. Probably because it was the last one he had made. I guess "Land" is now his favorite.

"Land" now. The beef of the subject.

We've seen the "zombie infestation" grow through Night, Dawn and Day. Land is the next step. Zombies are everywhere. Humans are trying to build some sort of society out of what's left.

"Day" gave us the understanding that zombies could learn and somehow process information. Land is showing us how zombies adapt. Quite tastefully done, if I might use such a bold world.

I mean, we don't see zombies talking and playing chess games here. Nor do we get to see a zombie Frank Castle who wants to avenge his murdered family and straps on a machine gun and goes to kill all humans, who he blames for all of what is wrong in the world.

Uh.

Well.

Maybe we do get something a little bit like that.

But it's made in a way that actually makes some pretty darn good sense.

Right at the start of the movie, you get to meet the "zombie leader". A zombie who has creative capacities far beyond the average zombie (eg, it has creative skills). He figures out some of the human's fighting techniques, how to use their tools. He's quite a clever piece animated of rotting human flesh. And he's quite a looker too!

On the human side, well, as could be expected, someone managed to make money usefull again and split humans into rich humans and poor humans, yaddi, yaddi, yadda. Nothing now or terribly imaginative from Romero here. But it still does makes sense.

Who the heck'd expect a "Startrek"-type civilisation there? There's fucking zombies everywhere, man!

I'd say the overall experience was really pleasant. As a movie, it's holding on quite well and doesn't need the level of Romero fanatism that Day of the Dead needs in order to be considered a good movie (Some even consider DayOtD to be a genious piece of cinematography. Well, maybe I'm a cretin and just don't get it, but I don't bend that way).

Characters were rather well developped - another thing which DayOtD completely missed. We end up getting fond of the cast rather quickly and actually not wish for them to die.

I'd say "Land" is at least as enjoyable as "Dawn" but doesn't pack the shock-value that "Night" did.

So, if I had to rank my appreciation of all these movies, it'd go something like this:

Land / Dawn Night Day

I don't really know which I prefer between Land and Dawn. Night gets second only because its very old and sadly can't keep up with nowaday's acting, effects, editing. Day is last, cuz it just is. Make it a scientific exposť with Bob the zombie and our messed-up doctor and it'd go up in score bunches. Or just make me care about someone else than the zombies.

To conclude this and talk about "Land" instead of bitching on "Day", I say:

I enjoyed it and give it a thumbs up, which will probably get nibbled on by some kinda freakish undead monster.