Survival of the Dead

I did not dislike this film for the most part like so many others seem to have. I liked parts of it, I thought it would have been better had it simply followed the national guardsmen of the "Diary of the Dead" film rather than having the feuding island clans plot, but it at least was not boring. I would give this one a seven, but the use of computer generated kills and blood made me lower the score a point. I never thought George Romero would resort to using computers to do his gory kills. Still, there is enough none computer kills that I will only lower the film a point rather than two. The film follows those wacky guardsmen from the Diary movie which I liked as it seems more like a sequel film than any of the previous Romero movies. Though this one can survive independently of the previous movie as well, the only thing one might be curious about had they not seen that movie is the scene where the one guardsmen goes over there scene in that film. Well they end up going to an island where one group believes they should try to kill all the zombies on the island while the other thinks they should try to coexist with them. The zombies look good at times and there are a lot of them. So as far as zombie action goes this one does all right. I just wish the film could have done more with the national guardsmen just going from place to place rather than bogging the film down a bit on the island of the living dead and incredibly stupid people.

As an avid watcher of zombie movies, particularly George A. Romero's Of The Dead movies, I was optimistic for this latest instalment. Survival of the Dead is Romero's sixth Of The Dead movie, but after 2007's disappointing Diary of the Dead it's beginning to show that he's running out of ideas.

Survival of the Dead does try to put an original spin on things though, with a group of people attempting to get the zombies to feast upon something other than human flesh. It's an interesting idea, too bad it isn't played out as well as it could be. The acting isn't as bad as in Diary of the Dead, despite its relatively low budget feel and slow story progression, it manages to outdo Diary of the Dead in literally every way.

Another major flaw: it's not scary at all. Romero's previous Of The Dead instalments (we'll forget Diary) have all been, at least, a little scary. This, sadly, is where Survival fails. There isn't anything even remotely scary here, and the jumps are far in between and very, very few. Romero leaves the scare factor box well and truly unchecked.

As you may have gathered, it's not terribly amazing stuff, but the cast all play likable characters and there's enough gore in here to satisfy. Nothing on Dawn of the Dead but miles better than Diary of the Dead.

http://www.ukmore.tk/

Well, it's not nearly as bad as Diary of the Dead. In fact, I'd call this George Romero's best zombie movie since Dawn of the Dead. That's honestly sad. Taking a minor character from the previous film and making him some sort of proto-protagonist in the middle of a familial feud that doesn't actually involve him, Survival of the Dead doesn't really work, but it's not nearly as much of a disaster as what Romero had been putting out over the previous few years.

Sarge (Alan van Sprang) leads a small unit of military officers a few weeks into the zombie apocalypse. After stealing all of the supplies from the college students of Diary of the Dead, he encounters some good ole boys in the woods who have decapitated a group of zombies, leaving their moaning heads on pikes. This is overwrought stuff, recalling the emotionally unmoored yelling predominant in Day of the Dead. Thankfully, though, it doesn't last long, the group killing all of the good ole boys and picking up Boy (Devon Bostick). This exists in comparison to the opening on Plum Island, off the coast of Delaware, where we see the exile of Patrick O'Flynn (Kenneth Welsh) by Seamus Muldoon (Richard Fitzpatrick) over the question of what to do with the recently undead: kill them or preserve them in the hope for a cure.

So, this opening points to a major issue with Romero's dealing with the undead in his work since Day of the Dead. There has been this on-again, off-again effort to make the zombies sympathetic which contrasts wildly with the glee with which Romero films the killing of the undead. It's this real whiplash between efforts to use them for pathos reasons in one scene followed immediately by something like Sarge blithely shooting a flare into a zombie, which bursts their head into flame. He then lights his cigarette with the fire before kicking him off a boat. Were we supposed to sympathize with that zombie? Or were we supposed to just clap along with the violence? Romero is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

So, the army group heads to a port where O'Flynn has set up, sending out an internet video (that the internet still works more than a month into a zombie apocalypse either shows that the internet is super resilient or that the apocalypse isn't that bad) that attracts people with promises to Plum Island which end up being a trap. There's a shootout leading to the stealing of a barge, and O'Flynn ends up on the barge, acting as guide to Plum Island for the army group. The actual meat of the film is when they reach Plum Island. This is really a western filled with Irish characters set on an island off the eastern coast of Delaware (probably the best of its class!), and it's about two families at war with each other. The business of getting Sarge and his men to the island is really just because Romero had plans on making this the first of a trilogy that were probably going to star Sarge and however many of his group survived.

The conflict between the O'Flynns and the Muldoons is decently built with this emphasis on Muldoon trying to find a way to get the zombies feeding on something other than humans to try and save them. Romero films largely outside, and he takes in the sights well. There's a nice image of a zombie girl riding a horse that looks good but ends up making no sense when Muldoon tries to get her to eat the horse. If she's been riding it for weeks, why would she suddenly start eating it? I dunno.

Anyway, it's a decently put together series of events that work a bit better in isolation than strung together. It entertains basically enough while never really coming together as a complete film. Sarge and his group are out of place in the film's actual story. The zombies may be rehabilitated idea is underdone. O'Flynn has twin daughters (Kathleen Munroe), but the existence of the second is hidden for about half the film for some reason even though the first is in the opening scenes. There's also another overarching concern over cash that is so out of place if the world has actually collapsed, Romero apparently not understanding that the value of currency would vanish in a world where the government no longer backs its fiat money with its ability to tax since, you know, it's collapsed. I mean, cash is a great MacGuffin, but it doesn't work when cash has no value. In addition, it just gets forgotten for more than half the film. It's weird.

So, it's not good. However, it's decently performed (a huge step up from Diary), it looks surprisingly good, and it has some entertaining individual moments. Romero has lost all ability to make his films about something, and his efforts here are embarrassing. Still, as a neo-Western filled with Irish characters set on an island off the eastern coast of Delaware, it's not terrible.

25 years ago, I sat open-mouthed in awe of the intense visceral horror experience that was George Romero's Day of the Dead; today, I sat jaw agape once more at the director's latest zombie flick, Survival of the Dead, although for a very different reason: utter disbelief!

How could George Romero, the creator of the modern movie zombie, get everything so totally wrong?

With Survival, it looks like the director has finally taken on board the criticism aimed at his last two films and ditched the heavy-handed social commentary (the messages are still there, but are far less 'in-your-face'); unfortunately, somewhere during the creative process, he's also unwisely opted to up the level of comedy, meaning that much of this film plays the global zombie threat for laughs.

Remember how Romero used the slapstick custard pie scene in Dawn of the Dead to momentarily relieve the tension? Well in this one, it's all 'custard pie' and absolutely no tension. During the course of the film, we get to witness several cringe-worthy comedy zombie slayings, a hilarious bitter feud between two stereotypical Irish clans, a zombie woman on horseback, a car ferry strangely moored in six feet of water, zombie fishing, plus loads of other nonsense that beggars belief. Not once, however, do we get a sense of dread. The closest Romero ever comes to delivering the goods is with a couple of cheap jump scares that are accompanied by loud noises and some admittedly splattery gore (that relies a little too heavily on CGI for my liking).

Had Survival of the Dead been made by anyone other than Romero, then I may have rated it as high as 5/10: it's never boring, I suppose. But coming from the guy who practically invented the genre, the film can only be seen as a massive disappointment—easily the worst of his 'Dead' films to date—and therefore fully deserves my lower score of 3/10.

Man, where do I begin? Survival of the Dead. it could have easily been one of Romero's best, since his beloved Dawn of the Dead, but what went wrong? what did he miss? what moment did he not seize? After getting my UK Blu-Ray I was sort of reserved in what i was going to think about this flick. I mean I thought the trailers looked corny, the feel amateur, even for Romero's standards, but I was willing to give it a go none the less.

Survival should have been the next DAWN of the DEAD. It had the set up, it had the locations, but it missed the story and the vibe. The film is skewered by a weak cast and an even weaker storyline.

Survivals western vibe and feel just seems so out of place and wasted. What should have occurred was trying to rebuild life on Plum island, what should have happened was an exploration of the rebuilding of humanity, something Romero has yet to touch upon in any of his Dead films... which is a goddamn shame.

I will say Survival is slightly OK. I still think Diary is the best of his newer zed flicks, and Survival is way better than Land but it is still a weak film, in fact Romero's 3 newest entries are all weak and devoid of the magic originally on display in Night Dawn and Day. When Romero gets back to that magic he will regain what is lost in the zombie genre, but with him sticking to the cheap thrills and half-assed writing I think his fall from zombie grace will be harder than even he will ever imagine.

These newer entries only seem to alienate his fan-based and this smart zombies back story he is trying to shove down our throats isn't working with the fans. Romero needs to get back to plain and simple story telling. Story telling that will show us why we followed him all these years, but this rushed production, dialog and all around feel is what is giving his series a bad name.

Survival will deliver on the gore, even on its corny moments, and it tries really hard to engage the audience with its characters but it falls apart because the cast and screenplay aren't strong enough.

in the end... another disappointing zed flick from the grandfather of the modern zombie.

George, if you read this... go back to Dawn, and look at it again and give us a film like that... that is what we want, and we know you have it in you, but if you set out to make another disaster like this it may be time to fold up the directors chair.

5 out of 10