My thoughts on "Survival of the Dead"

[livingdeadboy]

Hey all,

First and foremost this won't be a long review (in fact it's going to be painfully short), I'm out of town right now and don't have the time to write a crazy big in depth review.

I went to the midnight madness screening of Survival last night. In a nutshell, I really enjoyed the movie. From the get go though, I'm pretty sure a majority of you are going to tear this poor movie to shreds. And I base that on practically everyones thoughts and feelings on his last two films. I'll give it this, I enjoyed it more then Land, and it had a higher entertainment value than Diary.

Now the reason I think this movie won't sit well with people is the ridiculus odd ball and comical tone of the movie. I'm quite sure the movie doesn't take itself seriously at all. The actors chew the scenery with their sometimes over the top and "classic western character" acting. A lot of grimacing at various situations and quippy one liners. Personally I enjoyed the hell out of it. The acting to me has never been a strong point in any of the dead films. So it was nice to see a movie where the actors don't try and make more out of their roles.

This need for CGI blood in movies really gets to me, sometimes it's pulled off quite well. And other times, it just looks terribly silly. This movie had a few too many CGI moments that made me shake my head with a bit of sadness. I understand the reason to approach the effects this way, being that the set up time with practical effects is always a bitch. But lets face it, practical always looks better.

Anyways, I've already written too much, and I gotta fly. Despite it's flaws, it was a Romero zombie movie, and I'll probably enjoy each and everyone that he makes and releases. I think people take these damn zombie movies a little to seriously when they should just be enjoyed for what they are. Fun. And that's what Survival was, it was fun.

I can post more in the next few days about it. I hate writing reviews, so if you ask some questions about the movie I'll do my best to provide spoiler free answers.

[krakenslayer]

Hmm... :|

[MoonSylver]

From the get go though, I'm pretty sure a majority of you are going to tear this poor movie to shreds. And I base that on practically everyones thoughts and feelings on his last two films.

I've been bracing myself for this oncoming shit storm since the movie was first announced...;) When the movie finally drops, I ain't gonna be surprised at the weeping, moaning & gnashing of teeth at all.

[rongravy]

Where can I find the trailer? I bet this will harder for me to see in the theater than Diary was. Bummer.

[bassman]

Where can I find the trailer?

Unfortunately there's no official trailer yet. I imagine there will be pretty soon seeing as how the film just got picked up for distribution. There's a work print trailer floating around the net, but it's not too impressive because of the quality.

Thanks for the review, LDB!

[DubiousComforts]

I've been bracing myself for this oncoming shit storm since the movie was first announced...;) When the movie finally drops, I ain't gonna be surprised at the weeping, moaning & gnashing of teeth at all.

I wrote this more than a year ago in this very forum: "Awesome, an untold number of months of fan bitching and belly-aching begins!"

Maybe we can start a support group?

[Monrozombi]

I wrote this more than a year ago in this very forum: "Awesome, an untold number of months of fan bitching and belly-aching begins!"

Maybe we can start a support group?

Thats my main question, "When did it become the 'cool' thing to attack Romero on every front about every film he's released this decade?"

[MoonSylver]

Thats my main question, "When did it become the 'cool' thing to attack Romero on every front about every film he's released this decade?"

Since Day was released & every one was pissed because it wasn't "Dawn pt II" (at the time)

:lol::p

[shootemindehead]

...the ridiculus odd ball and comical tone of the movie.

Oh well...fuck that then.

Don't want comedy in my zombie flicks thanks you and if the "comedy" in 'Dawn of the Dead' is anything to go by, it might be better not to see it. :(

Not much chance of that though either way... :D

[Trin]

Thats my main question, "When did it become the 'cool' thing to attack Romero on every front about every film he's released this decade?"
It's cool to do what everyone else is doing until the cool people start doing something else and then it's not cool. Not cool at all. :D

Land and Diary have garnered a lot of negativity, especially early after their release, and yes that caused some pitch-fork mobs to form loosely based around sentiment. But that's all just smoke blowing around the fire. No one takes it seriously when someone says, "I hated it" without reasons.

Look at some of the well thought out attacks and you'll see they center around certain specifics of each movie. You'll also see that where the movies deserved accolades they get them even from the haters. There are very, very few people who hate either Land or Diary on every front.

And Dawn, the crown jewel of zombie films, gets attacked in those areas where it is weak. Fewer weak areas = fewer attacks, but it gets attacked nonetheless.

I really hope Survival gives me cause to come on here and not be a hater. :)

[bassman]

I would say that Dawn has MORE weak areas than his last two flicks.:confused:

[DjfunkmasterG]

I would say that Dawn has MORE weak areas than his last two flicks.:confused:

:eek:

DAWN has more weak areas? Did we see the same film? DAWN is a masterpiece next to that shit pile they call Land of the Dead.

Diary on the other hand I enjoy, maybe because it has that Night of the Living Dead vibe to it and it was more serious than goofy.

[bassman]

DAWN has more weak areas? Did we see the same film? DAWN is a masterpiece next to that shit pile they call Land of the Dead.


Dawn is a more enjoyable film. On that I agree. But as for how the films were made and put together....Land is a better achievement.

[Monrozombi]

I would say that Dawn has MORE weak areas than his last two flicks.:confused:

Please elaborate on this one, i'm very curious to hear what Dawn's weak areas are.

[bassman]

Please elaborate on this one, i'm very curious to hear what Dawn's weak areas are.

For starters the acting, the cheese, the effects, the music....

[Trin]

Ths is one of those example areas where people's difference in taste comes in.

I loved the acting in Dawn. The main 4 at least. And I loved the music. From the heavy bass tones of the main score to the gonk - everyone loves the gonk man!! And the effects - they were right there for late 70's. I watched it and thought they looked like zombies - good enough for me.

The cheese... well, you know, dogging a 70's movie for being cheesy is like getting on NOTLD for being in Black & White. It's a valid gripe, but it's a reflection of the times just as much as the shopping mall was. We're lucky Peter wasn't wearing a pimp hat and Roger in a bit wide belt holding up polyester pants. :)

Where we don't traditionally hear Dawn criticized is plot structure, character development, and plausibility. Those are all areas that are way more important to me than special effects and music.

[bassman]

Where we don't traditionally hear Dawn criticized is plot structure, character development, and plausibility. Those are all areas that are way more important to me than special effects and music.

And this is why I said I prefered Dawn over Land. It's just that Day and Land are miles ahead of Dawn in all the technical aspects. That's all I was saying....Land is a superior film as far as the technical portions, but Dawn is suprerior in other areas.

As for the effects...we'll just have to disagree on that. Some of the effects turned out great, but others didn't. There were other films around the time that were above and beyond in the effects department....

[darth los]

And this is why I said I prefered Dawn over Land. It's just that Day and Land are miles ahead of Dawn in all the technical aspects. That's all I was saying....Land is a superior film as far as the technical portions, but Dawn is suprerior in other areas.

It's hard to argue with that although I'm sure some will try.




Thats my main question, "When did it become the 'cool' thing to attack Romero on every front about every film he's released this decade?"


It's cool to do what everyone else is doing until the cool people start doing something else and then it's not cool. Not cool at all. :D

Land and Diary have garnered a lot of negativity, especially early after their release, and yes that caused some pitch-fork mobs to form loosely based around sentiment. But that's all just smoke blowing around the fire. No one takes it seriously when someone says, "I hated it" without reasons.

Look at some of the well thought out attacks and you'll see they center around certain specifics of each movie. You'll also see that where the movies deserved accolades they get them even from the haters. There are very, very few people who hate either Land or Diary on every front.

And Dawn, the crown jewel of zombie films, gets attacked in those areas where it is weak. Fewer weak areas = fewer attacks, but it gets attacked nonetheless.

I really hope Survival gives me cause to come on here and not be a hater. :)



I don't think it's a question of joining the GAr hater's band wagon. When the man makes a good film I'll be the first one waving the pom poms. If he keeps releasing things like his last couple of offerings, which include bellowing zombies, he's gonna keep hearing it.



I think there's another aspect of this we're not even discussing. The argument from some against those who are "hating' is that "oh, they just want GAr to keep remaking dawn over and over." I don't think that's true at all.


Of the entire series, the original trilogy in particular, dawn is the crown jewel, there's really no debating that. The other two are also very, very good films but if you notice they are nothing like dawn in style or tone. Yet for some reason everyone here respects and loves them just the same.

It's not that we want dawn made over and over, we want him to make good films again. And no one here can seem to explain what's missing from the new trilogy that was there in the original. Both trilogies have gore, satire, guns and zombies. So what 's the difference?


Any answers to that one?....:confused:







:cool:

[Trin]

It's just that Day and Land are miles ahead of Dawn in all the technical aspects. That's all I was saying....Land is a superior film as far as the technical portions, but Dawn is suprerior in other areas.How was Day miles ahead of Dawn in technical aspects? I'm not sure what really comprises a movie's "technical aspects." What would be an example?

@darth - I can tell you exactly what's missing for me in the new ones. When I place myself into the position of any of the main "hero" characters I just go WTF with all their actions. I cannot immerse myself into the situation. I cannot be part of it. It's so ridiculous how they act and react. The problems that they cause themselves. Their mindset. I didn't feel that way with Night, Dawn, or Day.

[DjfunkmasterG]

How was Day miles ahead of Dawn in technical aspects? I'm not sure what really comprises a movie's "technical aspects." What would be an example?

@darth - I can tell you exactly what's missing for me in the new ones. When I place myself into the position of any of the main "hero" characters I just go WTF with all their actions. I cannot immerse myself into the situation. I cannot be part of it. It's so ridiculous how they act and react. The problems that they cause themselves. Their mindset. I didn't feel that way with Night, Dawn, or Day.

In terms of cinematography, effects, editing and shot composition... Day is ahead of it and I think that is where Bassman is coming from

[bassman]

In terms of cinematography, effects, editing and shot composition... Day is ahead of it and I think that is where Bassman is coming from


Bingo.;)

[darth los]

What's the over under on how long it will take for someone to argue against that?






:cool:

[Trin]

In terms of cinematography, effects, editing and shot composition... Day is ahead of it and I think that is where Bassman is coming from
Then my ignorance is truly bliss, because on all those topics I think of them about equal. I don't even know what good editing or shot composition would look like. Or how bad it'd have to be before I'd notice. :)

I will say that in Day I thought the lab scene with the zombies was well done. But I'll also say that the zombie munching end of Rhodes always seemed stupid to me. I mean, ripping a body in half while the guy is talking to you - I thought that was over the top.

And I actually rate Land about the same as the others across those categories. Perfectly acceptable but not particularly stand out. That's keeping in mind that the advances in technology give it an obvious edge, of course. I don't think it stands out from its peers of the time any better or worse than Dawn or Day did at their times.

[shootemindehead]

ummmmm.....in terms of effects 'Day of the Dead' is light years ahead of 'Dawn of the Dead'.

[darth los]

ummmmm.....in terms of effects 'Day of the Dead' is light years ahead of 'Dawn of the Dead'.



I don't think its even a debate whether day's effects are superior or not.



I actually had this conversation the other day. Day's effects even blow Land's out of the water, a movie that was made 20 years later mind you.


I could name a bunch of effects in Dawn that are just laughable.

*Frankensteinhead at the airport anyone? Everyone I show that to is more horrified by the shape of his head than anything else. :lol:







:cool:

[Trin]

Those are interesting points. Especially the notion that Day's were better than Land's.

As I said, I'd never really given much thought to the effects. They look like zombies. As an old Doctor Who fan I guess I just thought they met the minimum requirements of effects and that was good enough for me.

Maybe I'll go back and watch them again with effects in mind.

Of course, this whole conversation is really threatening my "ignorance is bliss" philosophy. :)

Dang, I am starting to get anxious to see Survival. This is not a good path.

[darth los]

Those are interesting points. Especially the notion that Day's were better than Land's.


There's no question in my mind. Especially since the effects people in land had the benefit of computer technology. Those people should be ashamed of themselves.


Cgi technology has not yet gotten to the point where it's seemless. You can almost always tell when the effects are being used which is a buzz killer. When conventional effects are used masterfully as in day it draws you in. To see flesh being ripped of of bone when it's done in that matter gets a way more visceral reaction from viewers than cgi. Most cgi looks "fake" and that right there takes you out of it.



At this point cgi needs to be used only in certain spots such as enhancing the size of a zombie crowd from a hundred actors to tens of thousands of ghouls on screen. I thought the dawn remake did a good job of that and with using cgi effectively in general.






:cool:

[SymphonicX]

Hmm, someone posed the question: what does Dawn have that the recent offerings don't?

I think it's a sense of adventure, likeable characters who don't seem or sound like caricatures or stereo types...lack of silly nicknames helps (barring "Flyboy"), and a really "big" feeling to it, like you always get the feeling that this is happening EVERYWHERE....even with Land's set pieces and exterior scenes you never really get the impression that this is happening in every city...for instance, all we see of the outside world is a crappy little town at the beginning...they should've gone out to two or three towns (which is when the young soldier should've been killed by Cholo's inconsistent demands).

Also I think the film is a barrage of moments...in what other movie do you see an exploding head in the first 6 minutes? It hits you and hits you from the first scene in the TV station til the very end - the onslaught doesn't let up for our protagonists...the film isn't trying to be dark or moody like Day, Land, and Diary...(not to slate Day but you get my drift)...in fact a lot of the action is set in daytime, or in brightly lit areas...its this sense of reality that adds to the overall scope that the movie has...

To me, Land, and Diary and even to some degree Day all seem like they are trying to be horror movies....Dawn doesn't.

[Trin]

Good points SymphonicX

You made one point I'd like to elaborate on. The sense of it happening everywhere. In my mind Dawn did this and Land didn't. Which seems odd and reversed of how it should be. In Dawn we got news reports and saw things from the chopper and stuff. We watched the progression from relatively organized panic to no one left.

In Land there was a whole wealth of information that the characters had (or should have) that was left to our imagination as viewers. Was Fiddler's Green the only remaining city? It's impossible to know. Things were said that point both directions. But the whole lack of knowing the state of humanity just made me feel cheated. We should've somehow been given insight into how the world ended up after that amount of time living in a zombie world. But we didn't.

Ultimately we knew less about the outside world than we did in Dawn or Day. In fact, the conversations in Day influenced what I thought was happening in Land - and probably negatively. I went into Land assuming that outposts were all but none based on Day's scouring of the east coast. But Land infered that there were other cities - possibly many. It's frustrating.

[strayrider]

I think it's a sense of adventure, likeable characters who don't seem or sound like caricatures or stereo types...lack of silly nicknames helps (barring "Flyboy")

You've hit the nail on the head. Too many characters with nicknames. While this works well in a film like Knightriders, it falls flat in a zombie flick.

And the characters themselves as you mentioned. In Night we had ordinary people in an extraordinary situation, a situation which we could relate to and place ourselves in. It was "realistic" and because of this terrifying.

In Dawn we still had relatively ordinary people, a couple of cops, and a couple of professionals. We could relate to them and put ourselves in their shoes. Heck, give me some guns and some good people to back me up and I'd be running around a shopping mall blasting zombies too.

By the time Day comes around there were few ordinary folks left. You had either soldiers or scientists. Blue collar, Joe Average was nowhere to be seen. You could remotely relate to the characters, but could you place yourself in their shoes? Not unless you were a soldier or scientist.

In Land, Joe Average is back, but he's regulated to a nameless face milling about in a dreary market square watching puppet shows and waiting to be eaten by zombies at the end of the film.

I won't even get into Diary which I have seen all of one time (a record for me when it comes to Romero films).

It seems to me that Romero has lost touch with the common man in his films and that is what made his films great. People with little, or no training fighting to survive.

Ordinary people. Extraordinary situations.

:D

-stray-