George A. Romero's Survival of the Dead
- buy from $16.99
- rent from $3.99
A sad confirmation of if not George Romero's complete creative bankruptcy then certainly his wildly diminished gift for imparting glancing metaphorical dread.
There are some memorable images, including the sight of a beautiful, horse-riding ''dead head.'' But for much of the movie, Van Sprang's zombie fatigue seems to be an echo of Romero's own.
Shuffle, shuffle, limp, limp. That's not the shambling gait of the zombie hordes in George Romero's Survival of the Dead, but the draggy pace of the movie itself.
Survival of the Dead almost never snaps into focus. Even its oxymoronic title doesn't work. It feels marginal, like an extended footnote.
What we've got here is a just a B-movie western with buckets of gore, which might be fine coming from a Romero wannabe but not from the genuine article.
Placidly photographed and lacking in urgency, Survival shows us the living flailing at fate and the dead just flailing.
A lot of Survival seems stale, as if Romero were growing bored with his own redundancies. Now in the final years of an uneven career, Romero needs to get out of his comfort zone.
Survival of the Dead never comes alive. It feels constrained by a low budget, short running time and the outdated conceit of slow zombies trudging toward fresh victims.
Another year, another George Romero Dead film. But wait, there's plenty to delight in his sixth zombie eat-'em-up, which follows a rogue group of soldiers who come between warring clans on an isolated island.
Maybe it's due to the fact that Romero's work never struck me as particularly exciting or important in the first place, but I mostly enjoyed this newest entry.
I suppose it's nice that Romero has a hobby, but he couldn't be more of a bore if he were showing off his pine cone collection.
Steeped in fan-pleasing gore but woefully thin on ideas, originality (beyond new zombie-offing methods) or directorial flair.
It has been six days since the dead began to walk, and a powerful emotion is gripping the land. Boredom.
Romero is using better actors than in the past, which helps. But they are hobbled by a sometimes nonsensical script with logical lapses even genre fans will find hard to swallow.
At best, Survival's ending, with a riff on "beating a dead horse," may be taken for evidence of self-awareness.
Big set pieces showing how atrophied Romero's cutting and tactical framing have become is depressing to anyone who has valued his films for more than just splatter.
For the first time, a Romero zombie movie feels as if it was rushed out.
George A. Romero's entertaining new zombie feature shows that you can't keep a good man down.
Survival is crawling with weird ideas that make no sense, but Romero treats them as gems of life-changing import.
After you've seen, oh, I dunno, 20 or 30 zombie movies, you sort of stop caring very much, unless something new is going on, as in Zombieland.
The hurtful truth is that others -- many others -- have co-opted Romero's whole living dead thing and have been doing it with more style than the Pittsburgh zombie auteur is capable of these days.
Even Romero's staunchest fans might conclude their hero is going through the motions here. Yes, almost like a zombie.
Like the literary monster mash-ups that have invaded the best-seller lists, Survival of the Dead mixes genres and milieus with absurdist glee.
Romero's Hatfields-and-McCoys setup feels more random than creative, and the idea that they're all Irish -- or cowboys! -- is more desultory still.
Not my favourite zombie movie at all, in fact it was pretty terrible and even if your a huge zombie fan you may want to avoid this movie.
Well, he did it. George A. Romero finally somehow managed to make a zombie movie that I can't bring myself to recommend. It's sad too. I mean, Land and Diary weren't as good as the original trilogy, but they were still pretty decent movies all things considered. Depending on certain factors (since I'm a little wary of change), I kinda like it when a band or director I like does something different. And that's the case here, where the film is basically The Hatfields and McCoys plus Zombies. Also different is that there's little if any real subtext here, unlike the previous films, and this is also the closest that the series has come to having a direct sequel since the main characters here plaed a small role in the previous entry. This film follows a group of mercenary national guardsmen (and lady) who robbed the protagonists of hte previous film. Here, they are deserters just looking to find a better place and situation. They make their way to an island off the coast of Delaware inhabited by two feuding Irish families who have differening views on how to deal with the zombies. This all could have been some very compelling stuff, but it never turns out to be that way. The film feels unfocused and incomplete. There are traces of substance, but no real hardsocial commentary, and what is there comes off as half formed. There's some humor here, whic his fine, but more than I fiured there'd be, and tonally, (and I hate using this comparison) this feels A LOT like Jason X. The humor also comes off as silly and doesn't work that well. Also, the acting is all over the place. So, with all of that, you might be wondering why I've not given it a lower score. Well, it's got violence and gore, and some rather interesting ways of killing zombies. A couple of the kills have some painfully bad cgi effects, which sucks, but still, they are at least creative. Also, I kinda liked the pseudo sequel idea. There's some okay ideas here, but it just feels like George has really run out of ideas and confirmed what many have known for a while now that he's pretty much just phoning it in. I did like that there's a random and pointless scene of the female soldier breifly masturbating though. Sigh. It's odd. This isn't that good of a film, but I was never really bored. That's especially odd since this film isn't always that interesting. Maybe it's just my love for the man and his past films. See this only if you're a completist, or if you feel you really have to. Otherwise, just pass.
Coming as a huge surprise to absolutely no one, Survival of the Dead really sucks, barely functional as a slow-paced zombie action film and absolutely nothing else. No scares, no drama, dull characters, feeble gore, uncreative zombie death set pieces...aside from the visceral thrill of watching people of various ages and occupations gun down the living dead, and the vicarious thrill that I personally get whenever I watch a zombie movie ("what would I do?" is always the best part, in my opinion) there is absolutely nothing here worth seeing. Romero's excessive hype of both this film and Diary of the Dead are clear indicators that he simply doesn't have his finger on the pulse of the genre anymore, and the only virtues of his two most recent films are merely to show how far he's fallen. Sad.
Ah, it wasn't as bad as I was expecting. It doesn't have that epic feel the other Romero Zombie films had and it does have that straight-to-DVD feel to it. A little bit more humour to this one as well which wasn't really needed, but still fun. It's gorier than Diary of the Dead but some of it has been digitally added. So overall it's a small scaled down addition to Romero's Zombie saga, but it's fast-paced, fun and still bloody.
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.
Thank you Romero for creating the flesh eating zombie. Now stop making these horrible ___ of the Dead movies.
George Romero has spent a lifetime telling us the story of the day that the dead walked the earth. The original Dead trilogy (Night of, Dawn of, and Day of) are all classic films in a genre Romero literally created. There is more to them than brainless zombies consuming what's left of humanity. They're character pieces. How will certain people react to a situation like this. These are great movies. The last few Dead films from Romero have been lacking in the story or just the way they were made and the director has rounded out another trilogy of zombies with Survival of the Dead, a film that off shots from Diary of the Dead and represents something closer to Romero's original commentary style. The film begins on an island where one group is exterminating anyone who has become the undead while the other segment of the small population believes that they can be trained and saved. Eventually the leader of the pro-killing group is expelled from the island . In the meantime a rogue group of military personnel are looking for a place to hole up and stumble on this old man and his party robbing people and sending them to the island, because "they hate strangers". They return to the island and begin a struggle to determine who will be the dominate group of the island itself. The film is a very basic premise and delivers its message that seems focused on our own belief systems. It's all there in black and white and as happens in most of these films, no one wins in the end. Except possibly the zombies. The main problem with the film is that there isn't much build-up. Most movies over do it to the extreme, whereas Survival of the Dead seems to be running too fast to its conclusion. It could have been built a little slower and a little better. Otherwise, this is a Romero film and it is still light years ahead of some of the slop coming out today. Anyone can do a zombie movie. Only George Romero can do a thought provoking film that just happens to have flesh eating dead people running around.
This is more an old school family rivalry story than it is about the Zombie apocalypse. The film starts out with a soldier who is tired of the war with the zombies doing a monologue that really doesn't serve a purpose. Everything they were showing us was giving us the story and the bad voice over was just distracting. The acting as a whole in this movie is pretty bad but I wasn't expecting much from this straight to DVD gore flick. The majority of the action takes place on the island that the two families live and feud on. One group wants to kill all the zombies and clear the island of the living dead so they can live out their lives apart from whats happening in the world and the other family is intent on keeping the zombies alive in hopes that a cure can be found. This leads to more of a war between the survivors than a battle to live through the rising of the dead and it started to bore me. They wanted us to feel for these characters and I just didn't. I was fine when one by one they all started to drop. Another issue with the movie was that there was a little too much CGI work when it came to killing the zombies. It gave the movie a pretty cheap look and took away from the eeriness the zombie film should have. Plus it seemed a little too bright and clean and that made the zombie make up come off as silly. Over all... I've seen worse. But that doesn't mean I would want to see this one again anytime soon.
Average zombie film. As far as a George Romero film is concerned this is pretty disappointing and I had mixed feelings about. I though it was simply average. Considering this is a Romero film, I expected something good. Well it kinda is, but it's not the best. The film lacked something that makes a Romero film so special. The film delivers on the gore and violence, but theres something missing to truly make this one very good. Romero obviously has done everything he can with the Zombie medium, and he seems to be running out of great ideas. While watching this film, don't expect something excellent. Expect something average, and you may not be disappointed. With George Romero nowadays is so-so. His recent zombie films aren't bad, in fact Land Of The Dead and Diary Of The Dead were great. But they don't live up to the timeless classics such as Night Of The Living Dead and Dawn Of The Dead. I the film is fun to watch and does provide the viewer with juicy gory bits, but this is his weakest entry in the Dead series. If you have doubts about watching this film, don't do it. pass on it, if you're mildly interested in seeing this film, then do so with the knowledge that it's Romero's weakest. Still I was entertained. But in the long run, this film will be forgotten.
It's "Canada of the Living Dead." Who cares about the Muldoons vs the O'Flynns when the whole earth is being overrun by zombies? A: George Romero. They're getting worse, George. You still direct with the energy of a young man and bake up some tough-cookie dialogue, but you're bumming us out with high-variety overkill, stereotypes w/o added charm and dull metaphors -- all in the mud-grey lighting of HD video. If you want to do a Western, do a Western ... a good one. Points only for waddling Kenneth Welsh. Alan Van Sprang and Athena Karkanis should be in another movie, where their tears are saved for the end.
A squad of AWOL soldiers happens upon a remote island inhabited by two feuding clans with very different ideas of how to deal with the zombie holocaust. I'd love to say that the latest in George Romero's spiralling Dead franchise has finally stopped the rot, but I'd be lying. Survival Of The Dead's recipe of weak slapstick comedy and cartoon gore turns the once fearful zombies into something of a deeply un-intimidating joke and I wish that just ONCE, a Hollywood casting director could actually cast an actual Irish actor instead of just assuming that an American drawling "Oi'm frum Oireland t'be sure" is good enough. The uninspiring small screen cast are very difficult to care about and I would describe the amateurish feel of the whole thing as "TV standard" if The Walking Dead hadn't come along and proven how high "TV standard" has become over recent years. Instead of witty, insightful satire Romero has chosen to turn The Dead series into a cross between The Munsters and The Beverly Hill Billies and the addition of a half-baked message about nationalism at the very end just doesn't cut it. Easily the worst of the series and I'm sad to say that it's about time he called it a day because it's just getting a little embarrassing now.
you might also be interested in
Danny Trejo, Anthony Michael Hall and Mickey Rourke star in this unrated, action-packed battle for vengeance about a man who can only escape damnation by becoming the devil's outlaw.
- Rotten Tomatoes Approval Rating
- critics N/A
- Flixter Approval Rating
- audience 43%