I must confess, when news of George A. Romero beginning a fourth instalment in his long running zombie saga broke, I was more than a little apprehensive. The first three films in the series (Night Of The Living Dead, Dawn Of The Dead and Day Of The Dead) are now rightly lauded as classics, each with their own distinctive storyline, yet linking together exceptionally well.

Battle won then? Yes, but as we were to discover with 'Dawn', not the war. 'Dawn' skilfully moved the series on to a time where zombies are now over-running most cities, towns and villages in the US. Hope of a quick fix of cleaning the zombie plague has all but gone and zombies now roam freely across America. Survivors have learnt they must fight or die themselves, that they must re-kill any of the undead they happen across. It's now not a case of holing up for a night. Instead, hole up for a year and help will eventually arrive. Hopefully.

So it was in 2005 that Romero revisited his old stomping ground to complete a fourth part - Land Of The Dead. Where would this one go as a logical extension to the first three parts? Would humankind have finally begun to understand how to control these zombies, perhaps even live alongside them? Would the zombies have run out of food, with only a small legion of them still roaming and ambushing the odd unsuspecting human group? Or would the remaining human survivors have ventured from below ground, seeking fellow humans above ground knowing that time is limited in a subterranean world?

Has the film worked? Well, let me state initially that I do admire a lot of Romero's previous work. I'm even prepared to defend his films like Monkey Shines where others are ready to pan it immediately. I wouldn't call myself a huge Romero fan, but I am a huge fan of his zombie saga.

That's not to say that the acting and direction is substandard. Romero handles things perfectly adequately as you would expect. Dennis Hopper provides yet another one of his excellent over-the-top villains roles and the rest of the largely unknown cast (look out for Asia Argento in there - daughter of Dario - stealing a poor show) perform adequately also. Oh, and the special effects are pretty good too.

This entire film, right from its opening to its closing credits, has the feel of a made-for-TV movie. It looks cheap, sounds cheap, is cheap.

If I take into account the standards of Romero's first three zombie films, then this is one of the worst films I've ever seen. Certainly the most disappointing. Take away all trace of the first three films and have this as a stand alone film, and it's merely poor and instantly forgettable.

Incidentally, news has broken recently of a possible fifth Romero zombie film, probably to be called Diary Of The Dead. The story? A group of teenagers head off into the woods with video cameras and stumble upon zombies. Romero bills it as his Blair Witch Project with zombies. The only word that springs to mind when thinking of 'Diary' is simply, why? Oh, and apparently Romero wants this to go straight to DVD so he can keep all the gore in. Again, why? It can always be put back in on the DVD version after a cinematic release for fans. Or is Romero admitting that his cinema days are numbered and he's a made-for-TV director nowadays?

The DVD reviewed here is the Director's Cut (perhaps the non-director's cut is the greatest horror film of all time?) and has fairly decent extras listed on the cover. Director's commentary, making-ofs etc. are all present and correct. Pretty decent looking extras in fact. Mind you, there's what appears to be a desperate British cash-in with a George Meets Shaun Of The Dead featurette. Oh dear.