George A. Romero's Survival of the Dead
- buy from $17.99
- rent from $3.99
Tomatometer®reviews counted: 28see all George A. Romero's Survival of the Dead reviews
Top Critic Reviews
Rotten: A sad confirmation of if not George Romero's complete creative bankruptcy then certainly his wildly diminished gift for imparting glancing metaphorical dread.
- Brent Simon, Shared Darkness, Monday, July 5, 2010
Rotten: 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.
- Clark Collis, Entertainment Weekly, Wednesday, May 26, 2010
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.
- FiLmCrAzY, Sunday, February 5, 2012
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.
- cosmo313, Friday, September 2, 2011
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.
- ceWEBrity, Friday, June 24, 2011