I don't dispute that Land
is a natural extension of Romero's previous themes. But your summation of them is just as intellectually effective as Romero's movie; probably more so, in fact. Good ideas and consistent themes don't by virtue of themselves equate to good cinema.
Is there anything to the visual analogue that creeps below our rational faculty, revealing something about the way we are?
That's an interesting question, and where we subjectively branch apart, I suppose. I found the analogues (visual or otherwise) very mediocre and obvious. The characters are uninteresting; the exploration of the politics is threadbare; a potential gold mine of situational details are overlooked (negating, to me, what's normally a key point of interest in Romero's work); the plot devices are weaker than ever; the visual aesthetics and imagery all fairly standard for a movie of this genre, at this stage in that genre's development. Even for raw gore, I prefer Day.
Romero's themes may be consistent and his ideas may be good, but to me they lack artistic life and spontaneity in this instance. It all feels rather wooden to me, rather dead. Aesthetically, Romero's previous movies had a certain immediacy and rawness which seemed unique to them, the result in part of a budget effectively applied; -- Land
lacks this quality, its ambitions more discernibly exceeding its production values, the result feeling half-baked and half-glazed (and in a questionable flavor at that.)
Mm. I'm hungry for donuts.
And that wasn't actually Bud, but Shaun from the Shaun of the Dead film. I know this only because of the extras on the dvd.
As in the actor playing the part, or the depicted character himself? Sure looked like Bub to me.