Rented Survival last night....

[zombie_killer]

Sorry to inform you guys, but Romero's new movie is one of the worst zombie films ever. I rank it only slightly higher than the dreaded Day of the Dead remake. The plot and script are bad, even for a B movie. I feel like it was rushed, maybe he ran out of money to finish the project. What he wanted to accomplish plot wise could have filled a two hour movie, not 1hr. 24min. The gore effects are weak, mostly CGI that doesn't look real or imaginative, like Savini special effects once did. There is an attempt at dark humor, but it makes the movie amatuerish rather than hilarious. Romero dropped the ball by not sticking to his roots as a master of horror. I even will defend Land and Diary, as I liked both depsite all the cirticism. I still love Romero, but this movie hurts me. I can explain more if you like, but I don't want to post a lot of spoilers in case you want to see it for yourself..... In closing, even if you thought the story was lacking in previous movies, you could always depend on the zombie killing and gore. Not the case with this movie. The special effects are as lame and the plot and the acting.

[Danny]

[bassman]

Sorry to inform you guys, but Romero's new movie is one of the worst zombie films ever. I stopped taking you seriously after that. Survival isn't a fan favorite and is down right hated by some, but one of the worst ever it is not. There are WAY too many other shit zombie films for that category.

[SymphonicX]

I stopped taking you seriously after that. Survival isn't a fan favorite and is down right hated by some, but one of the worst ever it is not. There are WAY too many other shit zombie films for that category. Yeah that little piece of drama at the start of his post might get a few noses pointing north... But by and large I know his comments are basically valid - but what really gets me, and I will NEVER understand this....is when people say Survival is worse than Diary... I mean....are we watching the same films? Cos...Diary is fucking unwatchable man....UNWATCHABLE. It's cringingly embarassing. At least Survival wasn't a gimmicky mess of bullshit social messages - Survival had a bit more subtlety to it. Yeah the gore is pretty awful, the heads on sticks were particularly embarassing - I could have done better on AFX CS3 or bloody avid effects. But it had really, really strong moments - like when they get to the island and find the zombies chained up "working" and stuff. The opening 10 minutes are pretty strong (as with Land too), and some of the characters are likeable, and most importantly the movie has a sense of progression and dare I say, adventure. Diary though was like a bad teen comedy road trip movie, without the comedy...absolutely awful. So yeah Survival isn't the best film in the world but I can't see any reason to peg it below Diary, cos that really is one of the worst zombie films ever made IMO.

[JDFP]

But by and large I know his comments are basically valid - but what really gets me, and I will NEVER understand this....is when people say Survival is worse than Diary... Not only is "DIARY" better than "SURVIVAL", but it's also better than "LAND", too. Hell, "SURVIVAL" was better than "LAND", IMO. See, this always begins the never-ending debate on: "This Romero flick from the nouveau trilogy didn't suck as badly as that one!" and then we all argue and bicker for about 30 posts in a thread as to why this one sucked more and why that one sucked less -- ultimately realizing that the original trilogy is like staring up at the light of blue label Johnny Walker while being stuck with Evan Williams to drink instead (the new trilogy). So, you'll never understand why I (and alot of other people) like "DIARY" better than "SURVIVAL" and "LAND". Okay. I guess to each their own, really. I feel the same way you feel about "DIARY" about "LAND" myself. I think "LAND" is unwatchable tripe in which Romero could only improve upon with his next film (which he did by leaps and bounds, IMO, with "DIARY). It's all subjective... Man, I'm always up for a good debate, but even I am even getting tired of this "This one was better, no, this one was!" discussions. It just promotes headaches and none of us ever change our opinions of our taste preferences. To the O.P.: If you think "SURVIVAL" is the worst zombie flick of all time you've apparently not seen but a handful of films in your life. While I agree "SURVIVAL" was quite dreadful in places, it's a Cannes-worthy / BAFTA-worthy / Academy frickin-Award worthy work of greatness compared to about 80% of supposed "zombie" flicks out there. Being this is your first post that you've made here, I won't go any further than that in realizing that you forgot to look around you and realize: "Hey, this HPotD site is set up an dedicated for ROMERO fans!" as opposed to being just a 'general' zombie site. Sure, we all get into different horror and different zombie films, but the primary dedication here is for Romero. Tread lightly, my friend. j.p.

[Trin]

It seems to me the OP is heavy on wanting gore and effects in a zombie movie. Judged on those terms Survival may very be one of the worst ever. The zombie kills were ridiculous to the point of being comedic (perhaps intentionally), the CGI was so standout that I could tell it was there (which is really saying something), and there was a distinct lack of gore. Personally, I couldn't care less about those elements, but to give the OP some credit I think that judged on those terms there's some validity to his stance.

[SymphonicX]

Not only is "DIARY" better than "SURVIVAL", but it's also better than "LAND", too. Hell, "SURVIVAL" was better than "LAND", IMO. See, this always begins the never-ending debate on: "This Romero flick from the nouveau trilogy didn't suck as badly as that one!" and then we all argue and bicker for about 30 posts in a thread as to why this one sucked more and why that one sucked less -- ultimately realizing that the original trilogy is like staring up at the light of blue label Johnny Walker while being stuck with Evan Williams to drink instead (the new trilogy). So, you'll never understand why I (and alot of other people) like "DIARY" better than "SURVIVAL" and "LAND". Okay. I guess to each their own, really. I feel the same way you feel about "DIARY" about "LAND" myself. I think "LAND" is unwatchable tripe in which Romero could only improve upon with his next film (which he did by leaps and bounds, IMO, with "DIARY). It's all subjective... Man, I'm always up for a good debate, but even I am even getting tired of this "This one was better, no, this one was!" discussions. It just promotes headaches and none of us ever change our opinions of our taste preferences. To the O.P.: If you think "SURVIVAL" is the worst zombie flick of all time you've apparently not seen but a handful of films in your life. While I agree "SURVIVAL" was quite dreadful in places, it's a Cannes-worthy / BAFTA-worthy / Academy frickin-Award worthy work of greatness compared to about 80% of supposed "zombie" flicks out there. Being this is your first post that you've made here, I won't go any further than that in realizing that you forgot to look around you and realize: "Hey, this HPotD site is set up an dedicated for ROMERO fans!" as opposed to being just a 'general' zombie site. Sure, we all get into different horror and different zombie films, but the primary dedication here is for Romero. Tread lightly, my friend. j.p. You don't have to chime in on it man, the point was made and I responded to it - if it gives you a headache feel free to walk away Personally I like the debate, and I'd like to hear over and over why some hate Land and some hate Diary in equal measures, it gets us thinking about the films and often we come back with different elements or things we like or hate, different reasoning, which leads to analysis of the movies - which is the point of the board. I certainly don't want to open up a circular debate where we're just talking smack about each other's favourite movies but it's always good to chat about this stuff in a friendly manner If my briefly written post made you think that's what I was after, I apologise and I can certainly see how you thought that...sorry

[JDFP]

You don't have to chime in on it man, the point was made and I responded to it - if it gives you a headache feel free to walk away Personally I like the debate, and I'd like to hear over and over why some hate Land and some hate Diary in equal measures, it gets us thinking about the films and often we come back with different elements or things we like or hate, different reasoning, which leads to analysis of the movies - which is the point of the board. I certainly don't want to open up a circular debate where we're just talking smack about each other's favourite movies but it's always good to chat about this stuff in a friendly manner If my briefly written post made you think that's what I was after, I apologise and I can certainly see how you thought that...sorry It's all groovy man, there for a second I just shook my head and thought: "Oh, great Maggie Gyllenhaal! Here we go again!". Nothing personal of course, you always do a great job of articulating your posts and you're absolutely right... we are here to discuss the great flicks (and not so great flicks as well). Sometimes it just seems that we get caught up in a circular debate with it (the whole "LAND" V. "DIARY" thing, and now we throw "SURVIVAL" into the mix) though on the whole "Which one sucks more?" debate sometimes. My response was more gut reaction as opposed to reaction to your post itself. It's all good, man. j.p.

[Trin]

Personally I like the debate, and I'd like to hear over and over why some hate Land and some hate Diary in equal measures, it gets us thinking about the films and often we come back with different elements or things we like or hate, different reasoning, which leads to analysis of the movies - which is the point of the board. That was the fun part of the old Land Haters thread. It was a lot of arguing, but a lot of interesting points came out too. I'm still thinking on Survival so these posts are good for me. My opinion is not fully birthed yet. I've been compiling a list of thoughts and a lot of these little discussions add points to the list. Btw - I hated Land, then mellowed, then hated it again, then saw Diary and hated it, which made me like Land more by comparison, then watched Land again and was okay with it cause I ignored the parts I hated, then watched Diary again and still hated it, then saw Survival and was okay with it, then read a bunch here and kinda hated it, and want to watch it again. That's my opinion and I'm very unlikely to stick to it. It's really amazing how the latest 3 have been so universally discordant. People love some, hate some, tolerate some, but no two people seem to be able to agree on which some is which.

[ProfessorChaos]

i rented survival the other day, and i actually had to turn it off...i was that let down by what i saw. and before anyone says anything like "you just want another dawn of the dead! derp!", that's not the case. land was tolerable, diary was a bit better, but this was just wretched...here's a quick list of the top of my head of things i can recall: 1. worst acting ever 2. least likeable characters ever 3. horrible accents 4. terrible cgi all over the place 5. that grenade blew up and took out a huge portion of that wall and those dudes are standing there looking like cartoon characters who used dynamite as birthday candles 6. terrible dialogue: (referring to in car) "yeah, but he'll never pass his driving test." from the little i saw, i could go on for quite a while about this, but i think i've made my point.

[Sammich]

I saw SOTD and liked it alot. Worst zombie move ever though? Have you ever seen a movie called ZOMBIE NATION? Watch that and see if you can seriously still say SOTD is the worst.

[ChokeOnEm]

Yeah that little piece of drama at the start of his post might get a few noses pointing north... But by and large I know his comments are basically valid - but what really gets me, and I will NEVER understand this....is when people say Survival is worse than Diary... I mean....are we watching the same films? Cos...Diary is fucking unwatchable man....UNWATCHABLE. It's cringingly embarassing. At least Survival wasn't a gimmicky mess of bullshit social messages - Survival had a bit more subtlety to it. Yeah the gore is pretty awful, the heads on sticks were particularly embarassing - I could have done better on AFX CS3 or bloody avid effects. But it had really, really strong moments - like when they get to the island and find the zombies chained up "working" and stuff. The opening 10 minutes are pretty strong (as with Land too), and some of the characters are likeable, and most importantly the movie has a sense of progression and dare I say, adventure. Diary though was like a bad teen comedy road trip movie, without the comedy...absolutely awful. So yeah Survival isn't the best film in the world but I can't see any reason to peg it below Diary, cos that really is one of the worst zombie films ever made IMO. Well stated. You just saved me a post. Agreed 100%.

[zombie_killer]

I wonder if Romero actually directed this movie. Nothing about it screams George Romero, master of horror. This movie is like a bad horror flick with a big name attached to it in a producer's role. I know there are worse zombie movies, but when you consider the icon that Romero is, this effort is unacceptable. BTW, Diary is much better that Survival. I agree, the social commentary was thick, but the special effects and the action was much better (in Diary). I almost quit watching Survival, but I invested the money to rent it so I followed through. One of my "favorite" bad scenes was when the protagonist shoots a zombie in the chest with a flare gun and watches its head light up before lighting his cig with its head. Not only is it not realistic, but it wasn't funny either.... ridiculous is more like it. As for the crummy plot, how about when he drops the twins on you with no hints early on. You learn not to do that stuff in intro to creative writing.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Have you seen LAND? The believe me this is from Romero... just slightly better than Land in terms of time wasted. I only felt I lost 45 minutes compared with Land where I lost 97 minutes.

[bassman]

I wonder if Romero actually directed this movie. Nothing about it screams George Romero, master of horror.. I think just about everyone here can agree that Romero's master days are behind us. He had a good run, but you can only catch lightning in a bottle so many times. It really is amazing that he was able to do it as much as he did.