Survival of the dead reviews thread

[general tbag]

movie was ok, not the best not the worse and well i think he dwelled to much on trying to make a point at the sacrifice of plot. I was really hoping for a movie about the survivors going to this island to try to regroup and form a plan, however it falls short with yet again another message of peoples and societys short comings. Why cant we get a zombie movie with a happy ending? one where all the characters actually walk out ahead. It one reason why land of the dead shines abit brighter now for me. I wanted land to keep going knowing they had the dead reckoning. If this movie had any reality to it, it plays out horrible.I cant imagine people or even the last bit of survivors playing out the scenario as the plot does. To much trying to be written in such a short film,it almost seems forced and over complex , for a bunch of zombie survivors going to a "safe island". I was waiting for this movie for awhile and cant say it was satisfying or worth the wait.Yea there a few scenes that make the movie watchable but they are few and far. And yes it did feel like a sunday night movie it something that could of been a movie of the week, i think it would of been shot better as a mini series instead of a 83min... movie BTW i think a good climax to the series would to shot it from the angle of the goverment and the conflict that happens as the epidemic unfolds.Day touches abit on this but in a later time line .

[Debbieangel]

I went into watching "Survival" hoping for the best and I gotta say, I wasn't disappointed in it at all! It was far better than "Land and Diary". I definitely will be buying this movie when it is available. I hope GAR makes another one like it but expands on the apocalypse more,like,what is happening on the mainland? Adding more characters to the plot. I would like to see him do something along the lines of say, what a neighborhood would be doing. You know people you have known for years fighting and surviving. I know Survival was like that but I would like to see it in a more surburban area. You know like you own neighborhood. Plus, see a happier ending as the fight goes on to survive. Why do all zombie movies have to end in disaster? I wonder what the world would be like in a movie that has the inferstructure still in tact? Communications still active? All this done in a different way? (and I dont mean like "Fido").

[general tbag]

I went into watching "Survival" hoping for the best and I gotta say, I wasn't disappointed in it at all! It was far better than "Land and Diary". I definitely will be buying this movie when it is available. I hope GAR makes another one like it but expands on the apocalypse more,like,what is happening on the mainland? Adding more characters to the plot. I would like to see him do something along the lines of say, what a neighborhood would be doing. You know people you have known for years fighting and surviving. I know Survival was like that but I would like to see it in a more surburban area. You know like you own neighborhood. Plus, see a happier ending as the fight goes on to survive. Why do all zombie movies have to end in disaster? I wonder what the world would be like in a movie that has the inferstructure still in tact? Communications still active? All this done in a different way? (and I dont mean like "Fido"). it was one of dawn 2004 shining point,it tried to show the everyday interaction of the epidemic and normal lives.It was visually shot very well the opening sequence to try show the break down of society. If not mistaken i thought diary and survival did have the communications intact hence the iphone and laptops? btw you are right debbie, the whole series just touches on tidbits about the world and america as a whole. Why i think a goverment point of view would pretty much sum up alot of the events leading into the other movies. We are never truly given a explanation of why this happened, or what was done to preserve america . For survival i think the message about trying to social condition the zombies was already done in day. survival just readded the old theme again,not adding much to the overall series. Reading the original day script seems to have alot of similarities in survival.

[bushcraft]

That was crapLike a bad tv movie come on how bad was that CGI ?.I am a big fan of night dawn and day but this was inbarassing

[MinionZombie]

Here's my thoughts on the movie, folks: http://deadshed.blogspot.com/2010/03...l-of-dead.html Now we are presented with Romero - the Toronto era - it began with the little-seen, not-too-shabby Bruiser, and has been thriving of late with Land of the Dead, Diary of the Dead, and now Survival of the Dead. However, Land and Diary have split the fanbase somewhat violently with some digging one but hating the other, hating both, or loving both. What is certain however, is that Land through Survival is not Pittsburgh era Romero. That time has come and gone and left behind a glorious back catalogue of titles. As such, Survival (nor Land or Diary) were ever going to live up to the closely guarded objects of affection that is "the original trilogy" (but lets avoid any and all Star Wars "original vs new trilogy" rants).

[Andy]

Where do i begin? GAR has done it again, he actually has.. he's made a film equal in shitiness to land. I was in HMV today and i saw survival of the dead for £9.99 and zombie lake for £7.. now only having a spare tenner on me, i bought GAR's latest offering and where do i begin?   Ridicolous characters, "smart" zombies and a inconheriant plot.. GAR really has fallen from king of the undead all the way down 5th rate director that would struggle to get a late night spot on zone horror.. the moment i saw the opening line (ripped straight from dawn) i knew my expections were already too high.. Character wise.. The platoon, "sarge" the soldier criminal from diary, a bald forrest gump, toto's younger brother and that mexican chick from the first resident evil movie throw in some random irish cowboys (not the type that build a shit patio but john wayne style cowboys) and the kid from zombieland.. We scraping the barrel yet romero? of course not.. throw in some recycled diary footage, some of the worse CGI zombies ive ever seen, some absolutly ridicolous CGI kills and again a plot that makes no sense.. at all.. can anyone actually understand what is happening? ive gotta admit im struggling to feign an interest but from what i can tell, the soilder theif from diary and forrest gump and friends meet some irish cowboy who has been bannished from some religious cult island.. and after fighting they suddenly trust each other without further questions and travel to the religious cult island were they meet more irish cowboys and the have a fight.. is that right? becuase even reading that back to myself, im struggling to get a single click of sense out of that.. i mean zombies riding horses? speaking of that is the irish cowboys daughter a zombie or not? zombie postmen, zombie lumberjacks.. you got them all on ridicolous cult island.. when you think it couldnt get any worse.. your presented with a pyschic horse and a miguel suicide mashed with rhodes death thrown in for good measure, the only thing missing is the cowboy should yell "choke on em!" On reflection, i wish id spent my money on zombie lake. i really do. Well done gar, im actually ashamed to be a fan of yours.. i really need to go watch day and cleanse myself.

[paulannett]

What I find funniest about this thread is that despite the overwhelming majority of reviews coming back very negative, the majority of the fan boys in here declared "Nay! The mainstream just don't get it/Don't like Romero/Don't appreciate the genre." Catch a grip, Romero has dropped the ball again... He made 3 good zombie movies and now he's made 3 shit ones! Oh dear! At least Zack Snyder is 1 for 1 with an awesome zombie movie! (Ignore my Snyder comment, just wanted to give you fine folk an even bigger "Fuck him" moment lol!)

[kidgloves]

Sorry George terrible film. Terrible. Far too uneven to be enjoyable.

[MinionZombie]

Paul - I duno about that, I'd say that the reviews are pretty split down the middle. Like with Diary, like with Land. Andy - you'd be getting ripped off buying Zombie Lake for £7, cos I bought it like 6 or 7 years ago for a fiver ... fun-ass movie, mind you. A mate of mine at uni looked like a young version of Howard Vernon (who plays the Mayor in ZL) ... also, ZL has got tons of bewbs and minge in it. Survival of the Dead rocks. That is all. http://deadshed.blogspot.com/2010/03...l-of-dead.html

[DjfunkmasterG]

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

[krakenslayer]

I think "the fans" are Romero's worst enemies these days. I just watched Survival with some non-horror-geek friends and they thought it was really, really good. I worked in a Blockbuster when Land and Diary came out and I never had a customer complain they were shit, and always got at least moderately positive comments on them. Non-fans just seem to generally enjoy these films better (moreso than me, even), I don't know what that means, just an interesting observation I've made.

[CooperWasRight]

I think "the fans" are Romero's worst enemies these days. I just watched Survival with some non-horror-geek friends and they thought it was really, really good. I worked in a Blockbuster when Land and Diary came out and I never had a customer complain they were shit, and always got at least moderately positive comments on them. Non-fans just seem to generally enjoy these films better (moreso than me, even), I don't know what that means, just an interesting observation I've made. "The fans" by in large are fanboys.... What a lot of them seem to do is glorify the original trilogy to a unrealistic, nostalgic level that is harder to replicate then finding the unobtainium. I love Romero's films but the original trilogy from a critical perspective is plagued with amateur writing, no story, b grade acting(and in a lot of cases that is being generous) and so on and so fourth... Gee whiz does any of this sound familiar???? I love Romero's films in spite of all the "technical" downfalls because his films don't fall into what most cinema is graded by. George grew up on EC comics... Morality tales or social commentary that use archetypes to deliver a message and also entertain also on a junkfood horror level. Newsflash to the bitter fanboys... None of the original trilogy has a traditional arch or what you would refer to as a story. They are films about people dealing with survival... Just because "stuff happens" as some may say does really not qualify as a "story"..... Now with the exception of night I think most of the performances in the trilogy is passable... I enjoy the films performances but lets face fact here..... NO ONE really went on to having a extremely successful career after acting in the original trilogy... George's films are far greater then the sum of there parts and can not really be graded in a typical manner as his new films seem to be by many. Most people have a tough time when it comes to critical analysis, It is not a natural human tendency... Most fanboys seem literally incapable of seeing the difference between the subjective and objective. Frankly on a technical level Land of the Dead strongest film, It is not my favorite be any means.

[clanglee]

Huh. . . well. . I mean it wasn't even close to his best movie, but. . . I. . well. . . I think I liked it. I know for sure that I didn't hate it. It was better than his last 2 films . . . for me anyways. I was actually surprised to like it as much as I did. I think it may be in part that I went into this one with rather low expectations, and came out kinda surprised. The negative: Storyline was rather weak and contrived. There were some rather silly moments and situations. A lot of the CGI effects were pretty cheesy. I also had a hard time with some meaningless stuff like the Irish accents on an American island, and the blase way that the characters interacted. The positive: The quality of the film was higher than Diary. There were lots of zombies. The acting was quite good. There were lots of zombies. Some of the kills were pretty nice. The zombies were in not overly intelligent. . . and there were lots of them. There are lots more positive and negative things about the movie, but that is what comes to mind right now. I think the main reason I liked this one was because it didn't take itself seriously at all. It was a fun ride and sort of the antithisis of the overtly serious tone of Diary. It would have been a much better movie if George was able to walk the line between silly and serious the way he did in Dawn, but for what it was. . .I'll take it and not complain overmuch. 7/10

[LoSTBoY]

I'm on the line with this, there are some good bits (final scene) but ther are also some ridiculous bits (Fire extinguisher kill ) I will have to watch it again, I didn't give it my full attention tbh.

[LouCipherr]

Survival should have been the next DAWN of the DEAD. Herein lies the problem. Just like John Carpenter will never have another Halloween, Wes Craven another Nightmare on Elm Street (the first one, not the shit sequels) Romero will never be able to recapture the original trilogy. It was the right time, the right place and the right film in that period - that can and never will be recaptured. That being said, I'm going to borrow Dj's copy and check it out for myself. After Land & Diary, I don't have very high hopes so I doubt Survival will disappoint.