First off it loses points simply for hopping on the awful bandwagon of first person horror (or whatever the devil you call a horror movie where the camera is part of the movie). I can't stand these kind of movies. The monumental hurdle you have to clear in order to make it believable that people would be stupid enough to drag a running video camera through the apocalypse is incredibly difficult. The only one of these movies I found believable and at all enjoyable start to finish was "[Rec]", but the rest never seem able to come to terms with this.

This movie at least tries, by putting the cameras in the hands of hopeless over-pretentious film students; but in that we find another flaw. The movie is mired in characters that are hopelessly pretentious and the voiceovers are the height of unbearable.

Another problem is that message that the movie drives home like railroad spikes. In earlier Romero "Dead" films, the message was woven into the story--social changes, consumerism, and the military were part of the story but not the driving force. With "Land Of The Dead", and especially this one, it beats you over the head with its message. It felt always overpowering and almost ham-fisted.

I am the biggest fan of the first three "Dead" movies, and it might be the reason I disliked this movie so. I expected a higher calibre of film from George Romero. Instead I got a low grade zombie movie that like so many other zombie movies these days is getting lost among gimmicks.

If there is to be a 6th "Dead" movie, I think the best bet is to return to what works: a straightforward movie about likeable people under attack by hordes of the shambling dead. No more Speedy Gonzales zombies, no more first-person camera nonsense, just simple zombies and gore done right.