2 ultra pozitina prikaza

[Kunac]

http://www.horrorchannel.com/dread/modules.php?op=modload&name=Reviews&file=index&req=showcontent&id=383

http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=20418

Yeah baby, yeah!

[Lurd]

Ima li spojlera u rivjuima?

[Pajke]

Aaaaaaaaaaaah, svrsit ću!          

Meni su bas drage one plavicaste maske iz Zore(samo kad se setim one scene kad se, dok lezi u krevetu, plavusasti specijalac pretvori u zombija-kako dobra scena!!!). Meni to uopste nije losa maska, cak naprotiv!

[Kunac]

Ima li spojlera u rivjuima?

Prvi je spoiler free.

Drugi je malo više razotkrivajući, tako da u nastavku posta prilažem očišćen i bez-spoilerovani cut istog... specijalno za No. 1 poklonika Eni Lenoks u zemlji Srbiji!

It's been less than 24 hours since I sat in a darkened theater out in the terrible uncivilized wilderness of the Deep San Fernando Valley, invited to watch an advance screening of a film I've waited two decades for. Less than 24 hours since I staggered out of that same theater after the final credits rolled and into the ugly hot sun of Woodland Hills. And my mind is still reeling. I don't even know where to begin...

This year, two beloved filmmakers named George returned to give us the latest (and last?) installments in the legendary franchises they launched many, many years ago. Both franchises have been endlessly imitated by others. Both franchises have legions of rabid fans. Both franchises began as groundbreaking landmarks in their respective genres. There was a lot on the line in both cases. Expectations were high.

Unfortunately, only one of the two Georges got it right. And his last name isn't Lucas.

George A. Romero hasn't had a lot of success in recent years. Even his last zombie film, the woefully underrated "Day of the Dead," came out 20 years ago to mixed reactions among critics and fans alike. In the years since, Romero fans (and probably George himself) have watched with increasing frustration as zombie films made by other, younger, less experienced directors enjoyed solid box office and home video success. It seemed like everyone else and his dog could get a zombie film off the ground...why couldn't the man who practically invented the genre do the same? Why couldn't the Master return to teach these damn kids how it was really done?

Well, at last...at long fucking last...he has. And it is good. Really good. Actually, so much more than that.

"Land of the Dead" is fun, thrilling, scary, meaningful, touching, intelligent and, yes – oh yes – violent, bloody and amazingly, wonderfully, imaginatively gory. It's almost as if the gore in the film was so over-the-top, so brutally fantastical in its violence, that the MPAA didn't even know what they were looking at...as if they had no idea of what was being torn apart into bloody shreds of flesh on-screen.
...

Don't let the trailer and TV spots worry you. This isn't the "Escape from L.A." of zombie movies. This is a very confident film, with a lot on its mind and a pounding heartbeat, made by a director who obviously still gives a damn. Nor is it a hard rock MTV-style gloss-fest. This film is raw, gritty and pure old school Romero. In the same way that "Day" is a bigger budget echo of "Night," so too is "Land" a larger, broader reflection of "Dawn."
...

I always knew that Universal would demand that Romero deliver an "R" rated film. I always consoled myself with the hope that the eventual DVD release would include an uncensored director's cut. My friends and I at the screening were howling and cheering with each new zombie gag, pleasantly shocked that this stuff got through the ratings board. I mean, my God...if this theatrical cut of "Land" is the censored version, I can't even imagine what an uncut version would include.

And that's what's so fun about "Land of the Dead." It represents 20 years of pent-up zombie fetishes unloaded across the screen in one 90-plus-minute explosion. Romero, along with make-up effects god Greg Nicotero and his team at KNB, have dug deep and not just come up with spectacular gore. They've come up with imaginative gore that is not intended to merely gross people out. It serves the story, the moments, the characters. And ultimately, it's there to thrill and entertain. I can't wait to see this again on opening night, this time with a packed house of fellow "Dead" heads.

Is "Land of the Dead" perfect? No, of course not. I wish it could have been 30 minutes longer. Romero creates such an interesting world that I wish we could have had time to savor it more but I'm guessing he was hamstrung by a tight budget and schedule. "Land" moves like a freight train – speeding and, at times, rushing through its plot. "Dawn" was a sprawling epic that took its sweet time with only four primary characters to focus on. "Land" has twice the scope and five-times the characters but is shoehorned into what seems like just over half the running time.
....

I read another early review which ranks "Land" as better than "Night" but not as good as "Dawn." I can't do that quite yet. It's going to take some time for this one to sink in. All I can say is that it's a thoroughly worthy counterpart to the other three films, proudly staking out its own territory and yet perfectly fitting in with the rest of the series. Romero's "Dead" films remind me in many ways of the "Alien" films. Each entry has its own unique style and flavor, which is also what binds them together.

Fortunately for us, however, is that unlike "Alien Resurrection," George A. Romero's "Land of the Dead" doesn't suck. And finally...finally...I can say that I'm actually satisfied and content about a film this summer...

Thank you, Mr. Romero. You did it.