Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Iseerphia All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Sanjeev Waters A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

John austin Hollywood 'A' listers Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo ride George Romero's coat tails with mediocre results in the fourth installment of the Dead series. The plot seems like an afterthought after the first three. Here, an established colony faces life in a zombie infested world. They play the class warfare card throughout- positioning different characters in different social classes and portraying the zombies themselves as the ultimate "have nots" in the new society. So, George Romero and Company have definitely entered the post modern identity politics conflict. Man has become the prime villain again in this one with Dennis Hopper exploiting the masses for his own personal gain.Our zombies are evolving in this one as well, with some starting to show signs of cognitive thought. Interesting idea, but we didn't really have to go there to freshen this up.

Patrick Nackaert Looking for an average zombie movie? You'll be pleasantly surprised. The movie has a few interesting aspects. Acting is reasonably good - thanks to the talented cast. The scenery is authentic and realistic. The film is well-written, resulting in a decent number of story lines. Many scenes are inventive and nice to look at.Because the film takes place a long time after the zombie outbreak, the most annoying zombie movie mistake is avoided: people acting in the movie have never seen a zombie movie. Usually it takes half a film for the characters to realise there is an outbreak. Not of all that in this one.The story in two sentences: a businessman built a safe city after a zombie apocalypse. However, zombies become intelligent and this starts to threaten the city. One big minus: the uncountable number of inconsistencies. Why do you put loud headphones on when you're waiting for someone in Zombieland? Why do zombies play tuba? Why do people shoot in the air with limited bullets? Why don't you cut someone's leg/arm when it's infected? And I still don't get the walkie-talkie system where you don't have to choose who you're calling. On top of it all, a soldier going to the ground infested with zombies, when he could have stayed safely in his tower. That's where it got painfully hilarious.An above-average zombie movie - if you're not too much bothered by inconsistencies.

matatosky We begin the movie seeing zombies milling around aimlessly, suggesting that they have spent way too much time unable to do what they mostly love to do, which is feed. Apparently, the inactivity was so endless, the zombies began to retake their former lives and carry out certain aspects of it. Meanwhile, civilization is not completely lost. There is a haven that is called "Fiddler's Green" which is owned and operated by a business mogul named Kaufman, who has been able to continue his trade, even in the face of humanity's total annihilation and provides divided shelter to anyone that is left alive. He has assembled an army of mercenaries, military men and even police officers to ensure some type of order in his empire, and these same people are the ones trusted with the task of scouring for whatever resources they can find deep within enemy lines. Enter our leading men; Riley, Cholo and Charlie. Riley and Charlie representing the good nature that is still preserved in man and Cholo continuing the time honored tradition of greed and mistrust. Longer story short, Kaufman summons the fury of Cholo by treating him like a total peon, after Cholo had the notion that he would be able to join Fiddler's Green's finest living arrangements and become part of the respected elite but Kaufman declines his solicitation, proving that elitism and social class distinction is still alive and well. Cholo seeks comeuppance a different way, by stealing the Green's most powerful vehicle "Dead Reckoning" which is designed to repel a strong zombie attack and holds it for ransom, with the intention of cheating Kaufman out of both his money and car, just like Kaufman cheated Cholo out of a better life. Riley is summoned to retrieve both Cholo and Dead Reckoning by Kaufman, considering Riley designed Dead Reckoning and is closer to Cholo than anyone left in the Green. Riley takes Charlie and a lady who was rescued by both from being eaten by zombies and they go pursue Cholo. Kaufman has sent 3 soldiers with Riley, who are instructed to take Dead Reckoning back, but also dispose of Riley because like Cholo, he also reflects dissent in Kaufman's utopia. Riley succeeds in taking back Dead Reckoning, leaving Cholo to fend for himself and choose his own path, as he no longer wishes to be part of any team. All throughout this, the zombies had actually managed to kill off surrounding patrols and cross a river in order to get to Fiddler's, proving that they have indeed evolved and develop limited but effective cognitive skills. Fiddler's Green becomes under siege and Kaufman becomes a casualty, thanks to Cholo himself and Riley and his team finish off the remaining threat, and proceed to find less secluded but secure locations in Canada.The movie has strong points and goes a different direction by allowing zombies to actually communicate and rationalize. Personally, I loved it. Here are the only 2 points I didn't like about this film, though: The ending. The movie was awesome in its darker and hopeless tone, it gave you a feeling of actual doom. Even though that the zombies have become more aware, they are still relatively evil and naturally inclined to eliminate whatever is left human. So why let a rather large population of them roam around when you're looking for a safer place? The movies themselves have said it: As long as we're alive, they will never run out of food. As long as they're around, there ARE NO safer places. They are not animals. Animals have the capacity to show emotion, compassion and even love. Zombies, no matter how progressed they are, are by all means unable to develop these traits. Their survival instincts may improve but ultimately their purpose should not change as their bodies have wasted away whatever humanity they had left. Pretty questionable move on Romero in the end, but since the movie barely shows any real heart, Im guessing this was done to make up for that. The second point I disagreed with was the dialogue. In Night, Dawn and Day, it seemed to tie the movie together, to have characters show a sense of rationality or reasoning as to why this has happened, thus making us sympathize with them in their situation. Here in Land, it's nowhere to be found. The Riley character was pretty weak and it made you wonder how Bub, who could not speak as he was a zombie in Day, made you bawl your eyes out in his performance, and yet Simon Baker who has a leading role could not. Asia Argento is in this movie but her character is really not that important to the story. I will end this by saying that I love the movie. For what it is, it is pretty good, I mean it is still better than any zombie stuff made around the time it came out, most notably Resident Evil, which degenerated after the 2nd installment and definitely way better than Diary of the Dead, which came after it but it relied on the overused hand-held horror technique. Survival of the Dead was just a horror spoof of a horror classic. One thing this movie continues to emphasize: The ego and pride of man continue to be his worst enemy. You know humanity is in trouble when after 40 years of horror, the zombies have managed to come together for a purpose and end up overtaking the seemingly smarter humans. Nice one, Mr. Romero.

Uriah43 Zombies have pretty much overrun most of the world and the human survivors have barricaded themselves into cities for protection. One specific city is Pittsburgh which has three rivers to protect it and a barrier on the side with land. Outside the city are the zombies. Inside the city living on the streets are the poor and within another barricade in a high rise known as "Fiddler's Green" live the wealthy. In his own personal suite a man known as "Kaufman" (Dennis Hopper) lives in luxury and calls all of the shots. But things are changing. For starters, the zombies are evolving and becoming more intelligent. They also have a leader. And they want inside the city. Likewise, the poor who are having to live on the streets also want their fair share, which Kaufman has no interest in giving them. At any rate, while this film doesn't rank quite as high as some of George A. Romero's previous movies, it is still a pretty good zombie picture. It is dark with plenty of action and gore which most serious zombie fans should appreciate. Additionally, I thought John Leguizamo (as "Chollo DeMora") performed decently enough. On the minus side, I didn't particularly care for the rest of the cast or the fact that the zombies seemed to evolve too much. Especially toward the end. But, all things considered, I still feel it's safe to say that nobody does a zombie movie like Romero.