Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

George A. Romero's LAND OF THE DEAD bumped up to June 24th!!!

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with good news for us horror fans! While I would have loved to have seen George A. Romero's LAND OF THE DEAD around Halloween, I won't complain that I get to see it almost 4 months earlier! Universal Pictures has the new date confirmed on their website here and here's a link to Bloody Disgusting who got wind of the change first! Universal must be impressed with what they're seeing to move out of the horror friendly October slot and into the competitive summer! I can't wait to see this one!!!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • April 12, 2005, 6:18 a.m. CST


    by YourHero

    didn't even know this was coming out

  • April 12, 2005, 6:20 a.m. CST

    let's cross our fingers...

    by kintar0

    because Bruiser really, really sucked. Hopefully that film wasn't an indication of what's left of Romero's filmmaking ability. I love Romero and zombies as much as George W. Bush loves dead babies, but I am a little worried. On the other hand, it does have Asia Argento in it, so that's one in the plus column.

  • April 12, 2005, 6:24 a.m. CST


    by llephen


  • April 12, 2005, 6:28 a.m. CST

    by llephen

    P.s. I don't know why everyone hates bruiser so much. I liked it the first time i watched it, and then i found out that everyone hates it.. so i went back to watch it again like a year or two later, and i still think it's good. What's so bad about it? ---------------------- anyway, i read somewhere that the studio saw some of the movie (land of the dead), and were so impressed that they threw a whole bunch more money at mr. romero to go shoot more stuff. I'm pretty faithful in the dude, in that he's getting this special treatment all of a sudden because he has produced an awesome product.. rather than making the studio happy by making shit. I don't believe he'd do a thing like that, so this must be something good. Which is why i am so happy. Because this is an indication that the movie is turning out awesome. i can't WAIT

  • April 12, 2005, 7:04 a.m. CST

    Bruiser Sucks etc.

    by godoffireinhell

    I didn't hate the whole movie, just the final 20 minutes or so, the whole goth club bullshit with the Misfits on stage. That really showed how out of touch Romero has gotten with youth culture. It was like a parody of a cliche. The rest of the film was OK.

  • April 12, 2005, 7:33 a.m. CST

    I hate to agree with godoffireinhell

    by capt rosenbalm

    but he's right. I loved the begining of Bruiser but that last part sucked. And I drove from East Tennessee to Chicago to see it. I'm an incredible Romero fan, just ask anyone that knows me, but .... I hope I like this George's return to his famous trilogy more than the other one's. Fingers crossed.

  • April 12, 2005, 7:48 a.m. CST


    by Judge Doom

    The learning dead choosing a leader and creating war plans is kinda stupid.

  • April 12, 2005, 7:53 a.m. CST


    by BDT

    Long Live Romero's Zombies! (can't wait for the new movie!)

  • April 12, 2005, 7:53 a.m. CST


    by BDT

    Long Live Romero's Zombies! (can't wait for the new movie!)

  • April 12, 2005, 8:34 a.m. CST

    God DAMN you script reading bastards that post spoilers

    by vikingkitty

    Its gotten to the point that I'm almost afraid to click the links to read the news at this site, because some douche bag like Judge Doom feels the need to post idiotic one or two line spoilers that add absolutely nothing to the conversation, but succeed in diminishing my anticipation for the movie.

  • April 12, 2005, 9:02 a.m. CST

    don't read TOO much into this bump...

    by duanejones

    ...for g-d's sake, in an era when _final destination, with a vengeance_ and its ilk win the weekend box office sweepstakes without so much as a coherent plot to entice an audience, horror films are hot, no matter how awful, and hot trends equals summer film. el jorge, accomplished director/editor that he is, probably brought his baby in way on time/under budget, making a summer release an option. mindful of zombie war plans and other "spoilers" -- e.g., m. romero's abysmally weak output post-_DOTD_ -- my $$ is on this sucking, hard, and disappointment spreading throughout the land of the fan like so much venusian radiation. if only george had made _turn of the screw_, instead. or, _diamond dead_, even. perhaps brad anderson's _crazies_ remake will clear our palette of george's quixotic tilting towards the scholarly undead, as though what his "two outta three ain't bad" dead trilogy needed most was a taste of _conquest of the planet of the apes_. anyways, nice to see a modest re-appreciation of _bruiser_ here, or at least its first hour, which was masterfully directed.

  • April 12, 2005, 9:08 a.m. CST

    and by "m. romero's abysmally weak output post-_DOTD_", i mean,

    by duanejones

    ..._DAWN of the dead_, not the woeful, inadvertant laughfest that was _DAY_. _DAY_ is also the sort of film that would make one (or me) doubt, very seriously, if george romero should ever make another "dead" film ever again. would that m. romero were so beset by such doubt. if "Bub" is any indication of the wit and insight george intends to bring to the theme of the "learning dead" in _LOTD_, please, eat me now, and salute me later....

  • April 12, 2005, 9:28 a.m. CST

    Releasing this movie in the summer is like telling all the other

    by Big Bad Clone

    Land of the Dead could get eaten alive. Doesn't matter, it should be a cool movie and I know my ass will be there on opening day.

  • April 12, 2005, 9:31 a.m. CST


    by radio1_mike

    Please. Day did have it's problems, but Bub was not one of them.

  • April 12, 2005, 9:57 a.m. CST

    Day is incredibly under-appreciated.

    by Ridge

    Yeah sure it wasn't as iconic as Dawn, or even Night, it wasn't as deep as Dawn is in its subtext, but Day still stands as one of the best Zombie movies out there bar none. And I really can't recall a movie that gave a greater feeling of worldwide doom because of a zombie plague... that initial shot of the jawless zombie? Awesome... Oh and by the by... I read the Land script, its a bloody good one and should make a good movie. The Dead DO NOT 'choose' a leader at all, they merely follow a zombie. And the 'learning' as such, is more 'instinctive'. You don't get 'smart' zombies in this movie asides Big Daddy, but theres a fairly good reason for him...

  • April 12, 2005, 10:14 a.m. CST


    by Purgatori

    The day after my birthday! Yeah...turning 30 never looked so good. I read the script too, and it sounds freaking amazing. I have total faith that this is gonna be a bad ass movie, and the plot makes sense if you go by Day. Bring it on baby!

  • April 12, 2005, 10:21 a.m. CST

    While I loved me some...

    by Childe Roland

    ...Night of the Living Dead and enjoyed the hell outta some Dawm of the Dead (both versions of both films), Day sucked a stale ham and cheese flavor of ass that I can only blame on the director. I know he was trying to make a social commentary, but he used a jackhammer where, years in the future, 28 Days Later would use a tweezer and scalpel to make essentially the same point. Granted, 28 Days isn't a "zombie" film, per se, and had the advantage of Day's failures to avoid, but Romero had lost his edge where zombies are concerned by the time he made Day. I'll still see Land to see what the original zombie master does with all the ideas that have popped up amongst two generations of filmmakers inspired by his work, but I don't expect anything inspired or revolutionary. The zombie genre is getting tired (maybe because all the zombies are running too fast these days).

  • April 12, 2005, 10:54 a.m. CST


    by WolfmanNards

    They should push the movie up to right now on my computer. That would be even better.

  • April 12, 2005, 10:57 a.m. CST

    vikingkitty, you moron

    by Judge Doom

    I was exagerating some of the stupid things from the script. There are no war plans or dead doing secret votes for a leader (it

  • April 12, 2005, 11 a.m. CST

    Or maybe there just putting it in the summer to have the greates

    by Darksider

    I admit that I am not the biggest Romero fan, but this doesn't look good. If the movie was awesome, wouldn't you give George the time you promised him originally to finish everything and to have any reshoots, editing, fx, etc. to make the best film he could considering he hasn't made anything this big in years. I never want a film to suck, no matter who makes it, but it sounds to me like the studio has seen enough and just wants to get the fucker out and make some quick cash, which is unfortunate. Another thing that bothers me is the fact that now the film is coming out in two months, there still isn't a website. Are they even going to bother?

  • April 12, 2005, 11:42 a.m. CST

    sounds good to me

    by blue7

    First off, I love Day of the Dead. Is it a great film? Well, not really. It's flawed and all, but I still love it anyway. I know I'll be there opening night for Land of the Dead without hesitation, so all the conjecturing about the script, or Bruiser, or what the studios or George or the price of tea in China might have to do with it really don't mean jack shit, in this particular case anyway. Hope this thing makes a fucking mint, so we'll see even more zombie movies get made. Works for me.

  • April 12, 2005, 12:27 p.m. CST

    What the hell?! Move Serenity back then, cowards!

    by SnowMann

  • April 12, 2005, 1:26 p.m. CST

    LOTD Script Rocks/Mini-Spoiler

    by fenario80

    I don't know what script Judge Doom read, but the one I read absolutely rocked the house, a most worthy entry into the series. And the "learning dead" thing has been much exaggerated by online nitwits- it's not very far beyond what Bub managed in Day of the Dead. Now if they only managed to keep Hopper from chewing every available piece of scenery . . .

  • April 12, 2005, 3:28 p.m. CST


    by Fugazi32

    ..can't wait! :P

  • That's bullshit.

  • April 12, 2005, 4:09 p.m. CST

    Day of the Dead was a pretty solid and underappreciated film. An

    by Mr. Profit

    I will check it out. Hopefully LOTD will be a fun film.

  • April 12, 2005, 4:16 p.m. CST


    by SpikeTBB

    I did not catch that at first, that "Undead" is going to be released two weeks later. I bet beating "Undead" to the box office was the real reason for the move, instead of confidence in the product. I hope I am wrong but this theory makes too much sense. Why else rob Romero of the extra time to fine tune it? They want to steal Undead's thunder instead of having their own stolen.

  • April 12, 2005, 4:35 p.m. CST

    day of the dead was fun

    by bluebottle

    NONE of the films are "great" films. But they're all really fun. I expect LOTD to be fun, that's all i ever expect really.

  • April 12, 2005, 4:48 p.m. CST

    Holy Phantom of the Opera with a devil-lock break dancing to lat

    by Neosamurai85

    Nothing like a rotting corpse to lure me out of my lukewarm pit of mint flavored dust bunnies, dead drained Jerritos bottles, cold half-empty cups of tea, rabid fugitive syllabuses possessed by the lost souls of rubber William Castle bats, and Cramps CDs. Anyway, I agree that Bruiser was a fine shoe string independent films up till the ending. The concepts of the films were interesting, not really new territory for GR, but still interesting. As for Day, I must confess I

  • April 12, 2005, 4:53 p.m. CST


    by Neosamurai85

    For some reasons I keep adding S's to words that don't need S's. Words like films when I'm talking about one film. This seems odds to me. Peaces.

  • April 12, 2005, 6:04 p.m. CST

    This isn't really about you.

    by cookylamoo

  • April 12, 2005, 7:09 p.m. CST


    by johnnylong

    Bring it on....

  • April 12, 2005, 8:28 p.m. CST


    by Capt.Rhodes

    'Nuff said!!

  • April 12, 2005, 8:29 p.m. CST


    by Capt.Rhodes

    'Nuff said!!

  • April 12, 2005, 8:55 p.m. CST

    Chick dig Bub.

    by Uncle Stan

  • April 12, 2005, 11:09 p.m. CST

    Uh... yeah...

    by Neosamurai85

    What Capt.Rhodes said... Peace.

  • April 12, 2005, 11:29 p.m. CST

    It should be noted...

    by theoneofblood

    That in terms of "Day of the Dead", George Romero was pressured into making it by greedy studios, he also only got a third of the budget he was first promised. He had to drastically cut back on many of his ideas and larger concepts (eg war with zombies), and reduce it to it's bvasic elements. I think the reason a lot of people don't like it is because they expected another "Dawn" with it, whereas GR is always interested in going somewhere new. However, I will concede that the music for the third "dead" film sucked hard and Rhodes is too loud. But hey, it was the 80's!

  • April 13, 2005, 6:15 a.m. CST

    How fucking good was that Dawn of the dead Remake!!!!

    by TheGinger Twit

    then I watched the original. Piece of shite!

  • April 13, 2005, 9:17 a.m. CST

    Return of the Living Dead looked awful...

    by theoneofblood

    But it was supposed to! It was a comic zombie romp, with no emphasis at all placed on horror, character, emotion or decent special effects. The zombies are laughable, especially the "dead man" in the beginning, the situation is utterly ridiculous and the music is hilariously camp and over-the-top, but again, this is entirely what the movie set out to achieve! And that punk chick who decides to strip naked for absolutely no reason whatsoever, man that was awesome. In conclusion, I love both Day and Return for entirely different reasons. BTW, is it becuase of a very low budget that the ending of ROTLD is just the same re-animation footage used earlier?

  • April 13, 2005, 12:15 p.m. CST

    All I remember from Day is

    by numberface

    Interminable scenes of people sitting around a table arguing about Zombies. Sucked. But like another poster mentioned, Romero was screwed on that one.

  • April 13, 2005, 1:22 p.m. CST

    I don't buy the budget argument. Night was the only film that w

    by Darksider

    Besides, the full script for Day wasn't any better than the movie that came out. In fact, it was worse. In the audio commentary for Dawn, Romero said they used the mall because a friend owned it, so it would be cheap to shoot it there. The "social commentary" is bullshit. I would like to see him make another film, but those films just weren't that good. I didn't see Dawn and Day until a couple years ago. They were horrible, especially to hear people talk about them for years. I saw the original Night last year, and it was still good. If you don't have a budget, then you have to be creative and make the most of what you have. The studios don't owe anyone anything. It's their money! They will get behind anything they think will make money back. George wanting a Star Wars budget to make Clerks is ridiculous. Just fucking excuses. Let the films stand on their own.

  • April 13, 2005, 4:44 p.m. CST

    Right, Americans...

    by Hamish

  • April 13, 2005, 4:45 p.m. CST

    What I meant to say was...

    by Hamish

    mumblemumblestupidenterkey... Right Americans: please please please all go see this movie so it gets a massive box office so it comes out internationally sooner so I don't have to wait til October to see it. Like y'all did with Sin City (I only have to wait til May 12th apparently...)

  • April 14, 2005, 1:06 a.m. CST

    Re: B Movie Actor Theory

    by fertilecelluloid

    "And remember people, when you have a B movie buget, you get B level actors.... Bruiser" Utter rubbish! BRUISER didn't just suck because of the performances; it sucked because the script sucked. And all sucking begins, dear friends, at the script stage, and that's a fact. I'd also like to point out that most A-grade actors started out as B-grade actors. Did COMPANY OF MEN suck because it had B-rade actors? Of course not. It had some of the best performances of the year. A good script elevates every aspect of a film. And if we're talking DAY OF THE DEAD, my problem with that was the characters. Aside from Ms. Cardille, they were not well differentiated and they were unlikeable. God conflict, though, and some interesting concepts explored. Overal, though, all shade and no light. Everything needs contrast. It had none. Certainly still a decent movie, though. Don't get me started on DARK HALF, though. Utter rubbish. Romero's I like unconditionally: MARTIN and NIGHT.

  • April 14, 2005, 7:52 a.m. CST

    Day of the Dead - why its great, but flawed, in 7 steps

    by goatboy500

    1. Guys sitting around discussing an apocolyptic event not realistic? where the fuck have you been living for the last 100 years? thats how the west does shit. 2. the special effects are awesome and people being eaten alive by undead people has never been done so well on film. Shaun of the dead lifted the dylan moran death scene straight from this film. 3. Army guys being assholes. Eh? the timeframe of the movie is never estbalished (plague could've been around for months..even years), but in 28 days later army guys turn into horny rapists in LESS than a month. Discuss 4. Bub. Fuckin hell, you guys are acting like he's Jar Jar. But George's explanation for his intelligence is well handled in the movie unlike some.... (Tryoxin, midichlorians.... anyone?. plus he likes Beethoven. 5. The sit in an underground chamber surrounded by hordes of the undead for a year or so and then bitch about the actions of these characters. Romero knows this universe better than anyone so i'll take his view if you don't mind. 6. Alright so the radio guy and the helicopter guy are shite, and I have no defence for them...but finally.... 7 the first scene with the hands coming out of the wall fucks you up everytime yuou see it, no matter how many times you've seen it. So there. Ps, ROTLD was a COMEDY. great film, but a postmodern ironic one with a fcukin shaggy dog story ending. comaring Day with ROTLD is like comparing Halloween with scary movie.

  • April 15, 2005, 3:10 p.m. CST

    manolha dargis review of _amityville horror_...

    by duanejones as to back up my argument on the _Dead_ bump: "In a world gone drearily mad with sequels and recycled television shows, it is merely rhetorical to ask why anyone ... would revisit a stinker like the 1979 flick _The Amityville Horror_. The answer, of course, is that these days, even the dumbest horror movie scares up decent big-screen business before being shuttled off to DVD perpetuity. Just as crucial, horror is relatively cheap to churn out, especially when the supporting cast features interchangeable no-name guys and gals, and the real star of the show -- in this case, a spacious waterfront Long Island house -- doesn't require its own trailer, a piece of the gross or any of the usual perquisites." substitute "shuffling extras, made-up in cadaver blue" for "a spacious waterfront Long Island house" and you'll see where i'm going with this, as per my inital post above...