Survival of the dead reviews thread

[sirjacktorrance]

hi, i think that it´ll be more simple to put all the new reviews in a single thread , we can sum up all the reviews that are coming from external sites...

http://www.metronews.ca/calgary/entertainment/article/309927
positive

monrozombi review at dreadcentral! positive!!


http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/survival-dead-2009
thanks man!!

negative mini review another about lame script,acting and CGI

http://www3.timeoutny.com/newyork/tonyblog/2009/09/toronto-old-horrors-new-horrors/

another negative comment .he only say that the movie is shit

http://www.filmjunk.com/2009/09/13/gregs-2009-tiff-report-day-2/

- Video review.i cant watch it but i guess that its´negative

http://www.horror-movies.ca/horror_16455.html

-Another negative

http://twitchfilm.net/reviews/2009/09/tiff-09-george-a-romeros-survival-of-the-dead-review.php

-another negative...i´m fearing the worst, guys....

http://www.tiffreviews.com/2009/09/14/thesubstream-tiff-review-3-survival-of-the-dead/

[Neil]

Another from AICN:-

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42341

VERY negative - "I can't even really say I was disappointed by Survival of the Dead. Angered and offended is probably closer to the mark."

[MinionZombie]

Another from AICN:-

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42341

VERY negative - "I can't even really say I was disappointed by Survival of the Dead. Angered and offended is probably closer to the mark."
You have to wonder with these negative nancies - what on earth do they want? :rolleyes:

[bassman]

You have to wonder with these negative nancies - what on earth do they want? :rolleyes:

Apparently not comedy...

[sirjacktorrance]

there´s lots of horrible reviews..i´m a bit worried.i trust millionzombie and the guy from venice who says is the "carpenter" romero´s movie....

another negative review...


http://www3.timeoutny.com/chicago/blog/out-and-about/2009/09/toronto-international-film-festival-day-four-the-road-george-a-romeros-survival-of-the-dead/

another report-review .with heavy spoilers!!!


of course, negative

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/awards/2009/09/zombies-on-parade-george-a-romeros-survival-of-the-dead.html

[Ghost Of War]

Seems like a lot of bandwagon-jumping to me. Once the majority of initial reviews sway one way, the rest follow suit. I'd much rather make my own mind up.

[Fecunditatis]

The Fangoria review (by the guy who did the short one for Metro News):

"SURVIVAL is Romero in full-on DAWN OF THE DEAD playtime mode. This is pure, old-fashioned pulp, breezy and designed to entertain and filled to the bursting point with bizarre, outlandish plot twists and buckets of sloppy, gruesome splatter. Which is not to say it lacks for eerie, disturbing moments".

"The film is as much RIO LOBO as it is Fiddler’s Green, and those who fail to grasp the comic-book cheekiness of it all simply aren’t getting the gag (witness the recent, post-Venice Film Fest review from Variety for a particularly obtuse analysis)".

http://www.fangoria.com/reviews/2-film/3888-survival-of-the-dead-film-review.html

[sirjacktorrance]

big horror movie sites are getting good reviews that's good!!

[AcesandEights]

You have to wonder with these negative nancies - what on earth do they want? :rolleyes:

Flying zombies! :D

OOH-WAH-AH-AH-AH!

:lol:

Yeah all these mainstream reviews just seem to jump on each other's self-aggrandising bandwagon.

The only reviews I'm interested in are those from the horror movie press, and even then I'll make up my own damn mind.

[darth los]

Seems like a lot of bandwagon-jumping to me. Once the majority of initial reviews sway one way, the rest follow suit. I'd much rather make my own mind up.



Agreed.

I've been of that mindset for over 20 years.


I recall seeing a "film critic" talk about how awful and far fetched back to the future was and that it should be avoided.

It ended up being one of my top ten films of all time....






:cool:

[sirjacktorrance]

another positive, but reminds BAD CGI issue.i hate ****ing CGI!

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/the-m-c-review-survival-of-the-dead-returns-some-glory-to-romero-s-zombie-saga

-and another negative:

it´s curious how they talk now about the lack of social commentary and that there´s is not evolved zombies,the thins that was so criticated in land and diary as well


http://www.lucidforge.com/reviews/16-film/2412-tiff-review-survival-of-the-dead-2009-.html

- another negative:

it´s curious how they talk now about the lack of social commentary and that there´s is not evolved zombies,the thins that was so criticated in land and diary as well


http://www.lucidforge.com/reviews/16-film/2412-tiff-review-survival-of-the-dead-2009-.html


-a fan very dissapointed:

http://veryfrankpictures.blogspot.com/2009/09/tiff-2009-reviews-george-romeros.html

[Fecunditatis]

it´s curious how they talk now about the lack of social commentary and that there´s is not evolved zombies,the thins that was so criticated in land and diary as well


Well, in my opinion, being who he is, and with the kind of baggage he carries, Romero just can't please everyone.

By the way, regarding his visual style or lack thereof... I'd like to point one particular scene in "Land of the Dead", the shoot-out in the club, when they free Slack. Just compare the theatrical version to the extended DVD cut: very few directors nowadays are able to do action scenes as clear and effective as that one. No shaky camera, no string of close-ups: we know where is everybody and who does what to whom. Romero was a pioneer in fast-editing (again, compare "Dawn" or "Martin" to most of their contemporaries), but his style had more to do with Welles than with what the MTV generation later brought.

[sirjacktorrance]

negative ,4/10

http://movies.ign.com/articles/102/1024701p1.html

and another...
http://phantasmicblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/toronto-filmfest-reviews-survival-of.html

another negative


http://www.killerfilm.com/film_reviews/read/survival-of-the-dead-tiff-review-13741

i don´t know, its gonna be THAT BAD???

i don´t know how to think consider i loved Diary ...

positive from venice i think is the same guy of the post "a fan review"

http://cimpher.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/back-from-the-66th-venice-film-festival-for-survival-of-the-dead/

a zombie mini review, positive,...
http://www.prettypoopie.com/?p=308

-another AINTITCOOL negative

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42364

(i hope harry saves the day with this movie...)

[darth los]

about the ign review:



ouch dude. Obviously written by someone who doesn't get that GAr's films have never really been about the zombies.

I can racall in dotd about a half hour stretch where there were virtually no zombies in it all and we only reminded what the situation was when Peter drops tennis balls off of the roof. Amazing accomplishment really.

Furthermore, in DAy there wasn't all that much zombie action either save for the last 25-30 minutes.






:cool:

[sirjacktorrance]

there´s new things that worried me:

-the confusion about the action.some people says is a ride some says that it´s boringg and without zombies...


janet muldoon.a lesbian?,twins?,introduced playing with herself??? sounds chessy as hell!!

[AcesandEights]

Hey Sir Jack, that spoiler info is readable, not that it bothers me in this case. You can add spoiler tags as such, if you like: ["spoiler"]Just remove the quotes around the spoiler and /spoiler and put the spoiling information within the brackets["/spoiler"].

Just an FYI.

[MinionZombie]

Hey Sir Jack, that spoiler info is readable, not that it bothers me in this case. You can add spoiler tags as such, if you like: ["spoiler"]Just remove the quotes around the spoiler and /spoiler and put the spoiling information within the brackets["/spoiler"].

Just an FYI.
Done. :cool:

[krakenslayer]

Wait... there's nubbin rubbin in this film!!?!?!?

[krakenslayer]

Slightly off-topic, but who can tell me what's wrong with this picture...

http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=251&stc=1&d=1253054935
(read the little blurb under the Survival pic)

Like I'm really gonna trust THAT review... :lol:

[MoonSylver]

I'm getting tired of douche reviewers & sites that can't even be buggered to get the NAMES right of the actors, filmmakers, etc, something that I can do in about 2 seconds on Google any ol' damn time I please.

Fucktards. Get your facts straight or piss off & don't bother me with your amateur so-called review.:mad:

[Ghost Of War]

Jesus :lol: Sam Raimi :lol: fuckinell

[sirjacktorrance]

traslation from a italian reviewer. very positive!!


Zombie Revolution
Review of the film Survival of the Dead (2009)
ed Luciana Morelli
Romero brings us to the middle of a zombie-western set on an island surrounded by nature, but an enchanted land burdened by old and new conflicts, populated by dull men who persist in continuing the old personal feuds, heedless of the fact that the world is sinking in an incubator without end.

Few days have passed since the disease of 'dead heads' has begun to spread throughout the planet and nobody seems to know how to escape. The zombies are everywhere, military forces are in disarray, there are no rules or hierarchies. A handful of soldiers so decided to put 'own' and seek safety with their forces and take refuge in a safer place in the city. The perfect place, as suggested by a message issued on the internet by a gentleman of middle age, and Plum Island, an islet off the coast of dalawa, an oasis of outstanding natural beauty where the people know everyone and where it seems that zombies are not yet arrived. In fact the man who appears on video is the founder of O'Flynn, one of the two families that have always lived on the island and between which has been ongoing for years, a violent dispute. Exiled by his countrymen because they were accused of killing unscrupulous friends, relatives and neighbors-turned-zombie, Patrick O'Flynn will join the handful of soldiers to regain their lands and prevent the disease from spreading further. It matters little whether to die, this time permanently, must be the people with whom he spent his entire life, including his daughter. The strategy of the Muldoons, its fierce opponents, is to leave things open chains taking friends and family infected and living with them until the world has not invented a cure.

Romero did not spring, is unwilling and unable to leave his show, even if takes them up in the lagoon. It could not be his first zombie movie in history to land on the red carpet of the Film Festival and what's more even competition for the Golden Lion. We can say that Survival of the DeadSixth chapter of his epic about the undead, which began now more than forty years ago with the complaint it inherent socio-political Night of the Living DeadMarks a new era of zombie films in a broad sense but also in the strict sense. Yes, because the creative spark of Romero seems to have not been exhausted, as has happened to other authors of gender, so that the putative father of the 'dead heads' sets with this Survival of the Dead a new beginning (or a new order, depending on your point of view) for both the living and the dead, a year zero, which promises great, great things for the future.

There is also this time the social-political subtext in the best tradition romeriana and the scenario is not too different from its predecessors. George brings us to the middle of a zombie-western set on an island surrounded by nature, but an enchanted land burdened by old and new conflicts, populated by dull men who persist in continuing the old personal feuds, heedless of the fact that the world is sinking in an incubator without end. A microcosm of incivility in which the disease that is ravaging the world is exacerbated by old grievances that nobody is willing to forget to find the best way to 'survive'.

He could only come from him this revolutionary innovation, from which one of the monsters and undead knows more than anyone in the world, a filmmaker who has created, changed, modernized and made the undead evolve in tandem with the real world without never change too much in their basic characteristics, even aesthetic. Elegantly back Survival of the Dead is the confirmation that seventy played George A. Romero is still the same despite the infirmities. What is amazing is how over the decades has never changed its look polemic about the behavior of the masses, as there has never weakened his sensibilities or his attention, his biting irony and his desire to withdraw from the mental regression a world in disarray.

The universe of his living dead time changes in the opposite than real because Survival of the DeadFollowed the ideal narrative Diary of the Dead (in which a group of film students that we see in flashback filmed with his camera), it is fun to work analyzing the human condition today, showing weakness, greed, fear of losing the honor and possession of things rather than to lose the affections, the inability to adapt, to live together, the lack of tolerance and common sense even in the face of a disaster that will destroy all traces of humanity from the planet.

Survival of the Dead is in line with the latest chapters, but has the great merit of raising new questions and open up new scary scenarios, in short, laying the groundwork for at least two other films about zombies, brand new stories that Romero will tell us, hopefully soon, with his usual lucidity. Man regresses, the zombie moves, like the fantastic universe created by the legendary George.

Released: 10/09/2009

another mixed review.

not bad but relies onhe silly comedy vibe of the movie

http://boxoffice.com/reviews/2009/09/george-a-romeros-survival-of-t.php

[Mike70]

Apparently not comedy...


i'll reserve judgment until i see the movie but i'm troubled by some of what i've read about the comedy in this film. there is a very thin line in a movie like this between using comedy to break up tension a bit and give the audience a break and comedy sinking the film. if you go too far with it, you can quickly find yourself in the quicksand of self parody and ridiculousness, resulting in the destruction of the films entire tone.

[sirjacktorrance]

another
2 positiveS !

http://www.theauteurs.com/notebook/posts/1034

http://moviemoxie.blogspot.com/2009/09/tiff09-day-5-monday-september-14-2009.html

[bassman]

How do you find all these? You must spend a lot of time searching...

[AcesandEights]

How do you find all these? You must spend a lot of time searching...

Probably using a scheduled search feature on google or the like. I do that for some things and they email me a link to every related hit as they are detected by google as being added to the web.

It's a great feature and one of the ways I assume some people were choosing to keep abreast of their Romero and zombie related info.

[sirjacktorrance]

How do you find all these? You must spend a lot of time searching...

google notices or blogs, i spend about one or 2 hours a day since sunday.i ´m obsesed, uh?:D

[bassman]

google notices or blogs, i spend about one or 2 hours a day since sunday.i ´m obsesed, uh?:D

It's a dirty job, but somebodys gotta do it!:D

[darth los]

traslation from a italian reviewer. very positive!!


Zombie Revolution
Review of the film Survival of the Dead (2009)
ed Luciana Morelli
Romero brings us to the middle of a zombie-western set on an island surrounded by nature, but an enchanted land burdened by old and new conflicts, populated by dull men who persist in continuing the old personal feuds, heedless of the fact that the world is sinking in an incubator without end.

Few days have passed since the disease of 'dead heads' has begun to spread throughout the planet and nobody seems to know how to escape. The zombies are everywhere, military forces are in disarray, there are no rules or hierarchies. A handful of soldiers so decided to put 'own' and seek safety with their forces and take refuge in a safer place in the city. The perfect place, as suggested by a message issued on the internet by a gentleman of middle age, and Plum Island, an islet off the coast of dalawa, an oasis of outstanding natural beauty where the people know everyone and where it seems that zombies are not yet arrived. In fact the man who appears on video is the founder of O'Flynn, one of the two families that have always lived on the island and between which has been ongoing for years, a violent dispute. Exiled by his countrymen because they were accused of killing unscrupulous friends, relatives and neighbors-turned-zombie, Patrick O'Flynn will join the handful of soldiers to regain their lands and prevent the disease from spreading further. It matters little whether to die, this time permanently, must be the people with whom he spent his entire life, including his daughter. The strategy of the Muldoons, its fierce opponents, is to leave things open chains taking friends and family infected and living with them until the world has not invented a cure.

Romero did not spring, is unwilling and unable to leave his show, even if takes them up in the lagoon. It could not be his first zombie movie in history to land on the red carpet of the Film Festival and what's more even competition for the Golden Lion. We can say that Survival of the DeadSixth chapter of his epic about the undead, which began now more than forty years ago with the complaint it inherent socio-political Night of the Living DeadMarks a new era of zombie films in a broad sense but also in the strict sense. Yes, because the creative spark of Romero seems to have not been exhausted, as has happened to other authors of gender, so that the putative father of the 'dead heads' sets with this Survival of the Dead a new beginning (or a new order, depending on your point of view) for both the living and the dead, a year zero, which promises great, great things for the future.

There is also this time the social-political subtext in the best tradition romeriana and the scenario is not too different from its predecessors. George brings us to the middle of a zombie-western set on an island surrounded by nature, but an enchanted land burdened by old and new conflicts, populated by dull men who persist in continuing the old personal feuds, heedless of the fact that the world is sinking in an incubator without end. A microcosm of incivility in which the disease that is ravaging the world is exacerbated by old grievances that nobody is willing to forget to find the best way to 'survive'.

He could only come from him this revolutionary innovation, from which one of the monsters and undead knows more than anyone in the world, a filmmaker who has created, changed, modernized and made the undead evolve in tandem with the real world without never change too much in their basic characteristics, even aesthetic. Elegantly back Survival of the Dead is the confirmation that seventy played George A. Romero is still the same despite the infirmities. What is amazing is how over the decades has never changed its look polemic about the behavior of the masses, as there has never weakened his sensibilities or his attention, his biting irony and his desire to withdraw from the mental regression a world in disarray.

The universe of his living dead time changes in the opposite than real because Survival of the DeadFollowed the ideal narrative Diary of the Dead (in which a group of film students that we see in flashback filmed with his camera), it is fun to work analyzing the human condition today, showing weakness, greed, fear of losing the honor and possession of things rather than to lose the affections, the inability to adapt, to live together, the lack of tolerance and common sense even in the face of a disaster that will destroy all traces of humanity from the planet.

Survival of the Dead is in line with the latest chapters, but has the great merit of raising new questions and open up new scary scenarios, in short, laying the groundwork for at least two other films about zombies, brand new stories that Romero will tell us, hopefully soon, with his usual lucidity. Man regresses, the zombie moves, like the fantastic universe created by the legendary George.

Released: 10/09/2009

another mixed review.

not bad but relies onhe silly comedy vibe of the movie

http://boxoffice.com/reviews/2009/09/george-a-romeros-survival-of-t.php



Definitely more positive than the american reviews we've been reading. They just have a different sense of art and film making in europe. Anyone ever think that if GAr spent his career in Europe instead of here that he would be more appreciated?







:cool:

[sirjacktorrance]

mmm i dont know...
here in spain there´s a lot of haters too. But there is not a Romero cult like in the states.Here is not well known.but in france there´s a lot of fans of carpenter and romero..

i think the Us reviewers focus mainly in the execution and the final look while europeans valore the single fact that romero makes movies in an old school sense that it´s difficult to find out there.

[darth los]

mmm i dont know...
here in spain there´s a lot of haters too. But there is not a Romero cult like in the states.Here is not well known.but in france there´s a lot of fans of carpenter and romero..

i think the Us reviewers focus mainly in the execution and the final look while europeans valore the single fact that romero makes movies in an old school sense that it´s difficult to find out there.


That's one thing for sure that i agree with. No one makes films the way GAr does. Not even close. As a matter of fact I think it's a testament to the man that he's even able to keep making films despite them not being big money makers, which as we all know drives today's movie making industry.






:cool:

[Fecunditatis]

Try looking in Google for "Survival of the Dead recensione". You'll find, besides a few bad ones, lots of glowing Italian reviews such as this one:

http://www.film.it/articolo/survival-of-the-dead-la-recensione/9271741

"In the end, it's much more interesting and thoughtful than many recent zombie movies, including those shown in this festival [Venice]. The fact is that Romero always is able to overcome the lack of budget with ideas, with a story that once again includes a pitiless attack on the "american way of life"".

[clanglee]

The “in your face” commentary of Diary has been a point of contention for many fans, but rest assured Survival’s message is there but presented in a way that does not hinder the story. Tribalism is the main theme of this film, and it is presented such that the viewer does not get pulled out of the experience and can remain engaged. Who and what started this feud is alluded to, but at this juncture it’s a moot point as it has already gone to the next level. Should the dead be put down permanently, or should they be “saved” in hopes of a cure or to honor them by letting them “live?” But in this new world do old differences matter? The world we know has ended, and now it is time to adapt or die, and some people just can’t seem to let go of old ideals. Is O’Flynn right about putting down every resurrected body? Or does Muldoon have it right about respecting our recently dead and now undead family members and letting them survive? Do we “teach” them to eat things other then humans or how to perform everyday mundane activities? Does any of this really matter when resources and supplies start dwindling and the zombies still want to eat us? George raises these questions without asking them directly to the audience, showing he has regained a balance of story vs. message in Survival

This quote from the Dread Central review relieves a lot of my worries about the film. I am now officially excited.

[Trin]

That is very compelling.

[krakenslayer]

Survival gets a very positive review on the this podcast: http://zedwordblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-survival-of-dead-review-on-mail.html

I've transcribed a little bit of it for you to read:


Alright, now to answer the question that everybody has been thinking. How was Survival of the Dead? Is it any good?

Well, before I can talk about Survival of the Dead, we have to talk a little bit about Diary of the Dead. Many fans, including myself, thought that Romero's last zombie film... left a lot to be desired. Diary had a poor story, terrible acting, and a preachy message that dominated the film and had all the subtlety of a club being bashed repeatedly against your skull. I've heard from a lot of people that they thought Romero had lost his "gift" after Diary of the Dead, then again people have been saying the same thing since Day of the Dead in the eighties. From a narrative perspective, I've enjoyed all of Romero's zombie movies up until Diary. Land of the Dead is not his best film, but it's still an interesting and good zombie film... However, Diary was just inexcusable. I'd never felt so disappointed coming out of a movie as I had with Diary. Therefore, like many of you, I was very worried about what Romero had in store for us with Survivial of the Dead.

It is with this in mind that I come to you... a very relieved zombie fan. I come to say that Survival of the Deadis one fun-as-hell zombie movie that more than makes up for Diary of the Dead. Although it lacks some narrative weight, and it lacks a strong emotional centre, it is perhaps the most fun I've ever had at a Romero film since watching Dawn of the Dead when I was a little kid.

You can hear the rest in the podcast at the above link.

[sirjacktorrance]

Mr disgusting(who loved diary) doesn´t like survival...

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/review/1993


The cinematography was horrible, the lighting was blown out and the scenes were staged horribly
what´s wrong with cinematography? the clip and trailer looks better than lot´s of horror films today.actually the travelling of the clip it´s really cool

another mixed, but positive..well sort of..

http://www.fearnet.com/news/reviews/b16700_tiff_09_review_survival_of_dead.html

[sirjacktorrance]

another very positive !!!


http://www.thenightlygamer.com/movie-reviews/09/2009/survival-of-the-dead/


When compared to other films in the genre, “Survival of the Dead” is certainly a league above. Horror fans in general should easily find something to like about this one. All of George A. Romero’s “of the Dead” films are entertaining in some manner, but this is definitely one of the better of the series, if not the best.

[Neil]

another very positive !!!


http://www.thenightlygamer.com/movie-reviews/09/2009/survival-of-the-dead/

"if not the best"...?

Hmmm... Are they suggesting this is comparable to/better than Night, Dawn and Day? Wow!

[bassman]

"if not the best"...?

Hmmm... Are they suggesting this is comparable to/better than Night, Dawn and Day? Wow!

Surely he meant the best of the new series? As in not the original trilogy?

[AcesandEights]

Surely he meant the best of the new series? As in not the original trilogy?

But what if? I almost started this as a topic not an hour or so ago, but felt ambivalent about starting a whole new topic for it. What if this was the best of any of GAR's previous works?

Of course, I'd be shocked. And of course, I'd have to imagine I'd be pleased were I to see a film in the genre by GAR that I felt surpassed all his previous works. It's damn hard to imagine, though.

[MinionZombie]

But what if? I almost started this as a topic not an hour or so ago, but felt ambivalent about starting a whole new topic for it. What if this was the best of any of GAR's previous works?

Of course, I'd be shocked. And of course, I'd have to imagine I'd be pleased were I to see a film in the genre by GAR that I felt surpassed all his previous works. It's damn hard to imagine, though.
I'd be shocked, stunned and a little bit disoriented if Survival was better than Night, Dawn or Day to be honest - and I simply don't see it happening.

It's unfair to compare his new flicks to those long-standing, much-loved classics.

What I'll be looking for is, will Survival beat Land of the Dead in my "21st century GAR zombie movie" affections?

[Trin]

Get those expectations nice and high Aces... nice and high. I don't see ANY downside to that kind of thinking. :)

But seriously, I'm not sure there can be an apples to apples comparison between the original 3 and today's GAR offerings. Not so much because movies have changed, but because WE have. Most of us watched the originals as youngsters, when loving movies was more an emotional reaction than a well-formed dissection of plot and cinemetography and whatnot. Overcoming that emotional nostalgia is hard.

But some of those reviews... whew... no matter how devoted you are to making up your own mind... it's hard to ignore the potential downside.

[AcesandEights]

Get those expectations nice and high Aces... nice and high. I don't see ANY downside to that kind of thinking. :)

:p

Hey, I've gone on record a few times about my expectations being low, yet open minded (relatively speaking, anyway).

[clanglee]

:p

Hey, I've gone on record a few times about my expectations being low, yet open minded (relatively speaking, anyway).

You go watch going through life with those kind of expectations there Aces. I had that kind too. . until I woke up with that one legged midget transvestite hooker. That's a life changer for sure. ;)

[kev]

[QUOTE=Trin;200439]Get those expectations nice and high Aces... nice and high. I don't see ANY downside to that kind of thinking. :)

But seriously, I'm not sure there can be an apples to apples comparison between the original 3 and today's GAR offerings. Not so much because movies have changed, but because WE have. Most of us watched the originals as youngsters, when loving movies was more an emotional reaction than a well-formed dissection of plot and cinemetography and whatnot. Overcoming that emotional nostalgia is hard.

QUOTE]

I totally know where your coming from, movies when you are younger are so much easier to just get lost in the action and not worry about plot etc.

[Trin]

;)
:p

Hey, I've gone on record a few times about my expectations being low, yet open minded (relatively speaking, anyway).
Yep, yep, yep... that's true. All on record.

But...


What if this was the best of any of GAR's previous works?
Yer letting the "what ifs" creep in.

Oh, it all starts harmlessly with a little "what if" thinking. "What if it's his best work. We all know it won't be... but what if?" Then it turns into optimistic rationalization. "Those dock pics looked Kewl! If the whole movie is like that, wowza!!" And then the inevitable refuting of the facts. "So bloody-disgusting gave it a 3 out of 10. I mean, what do those guys know of horror?!?"

It's a slippery slope that ends with you sitting in a theater with a huge grin on yer face. And 90 minutes later all you got is regret and anger and the warmth generated from all the flames you spew out here. It's no way to live man.

We all want the "what ifs" to be true, Aces, we all do. But you can't let em in. You just can't. They'll eat ya up inside.

:D:p

[MoonSylver]

But seriously, I'm not sure there can be an apples to apples comparison between the original 3 and today's GAR offerings. Not so much because movies have changed, but because WE have. Most of us watched the originals as youngsters, when loving movies was more an emotional reaction than a well-formed dissection of plot and cinemetography and whatnot. Overcoming that emotional nostalgia is hard.

Well said indeed. One of the most insightful summations I've seen. Well done.

[AcesandEights]

We all want the "what ifs" to be true, Aces, we all do. But you can't let em in. You just can't. They'll eat ya up inside.

:D:p

Did you just try and give me the ol' 'If wishes were fishes' life lesson? :lol:

[darth los]

;)

We all want the "what ifs" to be true, Aces, we all do. But you can't let em in. You just can't. They'll eat ya up inside.

:D:p


That if that isn't a life lesson that can be applied to virtually any situation then I don't know what is. :thumbsup:


You should write fortune cookies dude. :p






:cool:

[Trin]

Did you just try and give me the ol' 'If wishes were fishes' life lesson? :lol:
Mostly I just want you to have really stellar expectations walking into the theater. That will be a really fun train wreck for the rest of us to watch. :lol::p


You should write fortune cookies dude. :p
I have tons...
"It's never too late to be proactive."

"Positive thinking is great but it's no substitue for actual thinking."

"If you don't have anything good to say then say something so bad it leaves your victim broken and incapable of reply."

"If at first you don't succeed make sure to fail so utterly that you become legend."

[MoonSylver]

I have tons...
"It's never too late to be proactive."

"Positive thinking is great but it's no substitue for actual thinking."

"If you don't have anything good to say then say something so bad it leaves your victim broken and incapable of reply."

"If at first you don't succeed make sure to fail so utterly that you become legend."


You missed your true calling in life...you could have fortune & glory in the T-Shirt or Motivational Poster field...:lol::p

[sirjacktorrance]

guys, another positive:

http://www.pronetworks.org/index.php/independent_films/post/my_review_of_george_a._romeros_survival_of_the_dea d_at_2009_toronto_interna/

[darth los]

This reminds me of the healthcare debate.

People on both sides saying all kinds of things. Meanwhile the people in the middle don't know what the hell to believe. :(






:cool:

[sirjacktorrance]

Fanttic fest reviews:

positive:
http://www.vivalageek.com/?p=6603

(positive)Quint of aintitcool:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42514

[Fecunditatis]

Devin Faraci from CHUD:

"A truly solid film that looks like a movie, Survival of the Dead is, hands down, the best Dead film since Day. Sure, that sounds like faint praise, but read on."

http://chud.com/articles/articles/20925/1/REVIEW-SURVIVAL-OF-THE-DEAD/Page1.html

[Neil]

+ve from AICN

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42514


I wouldn’t call it a return to form, but this is definitely Romero on an upswing. It’s not his best movie, but it’s very far away from his worst.

[kidgloves]

(positive)Quint of aintitcool:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42514




And some people might have a problem with a couple of the more Looney Tunes moments (there’s literally a scene with a giant bundle of dynamite that might as well have ACME stamped on it), but then again this is the man who ended his masterpiece with a damn pie fight.

For me, this alone makes the film worth seeing.

[MinionZombie]

For me, this alone makes the film worth seeing.
I belive we've seen little glimpses of that scene - the dude lobbing that bunch of dynamite through a door he opens briefly before closing, then the building explodes ... yeah, that looked enjoyable - the crew rather liked it as I remember.

Interesting to see a lot of positive reviews flooding forth now, after the inevitable knee-jerk bitch-fest from a bunch of mainstream nob'eds hopping on a bandwagon like they always do.

[kidgloves]

I belive we've seen little glimpses of that scene - the dude lobbing that bunch of dynamite through a door he opens briefly before closing, then the building explodes ... yeah, that looked enjoyable - the crew rather liked it as I remember.

Interesting to see a lot of positive reviews flooding forth now, after the inevitable knee-jerk bitch-fest from a bunch of mainstream nob'eds hopping on a bandwagon like they always do.

Yup.

I think this is probably the most confusing one though.

http://www.quietearth.us/articles/2009/09/27/FANTASTIC-FEST-09-Review-of-George-Romeros-SURVIVAL-OF-THE-DEAD


What's that? A 6 out of 10 for a film which has been panned so badly, the master himself even said on stage "we'll see if you like it"? A film so atrocious, every aspect of it, and I mean every, was so horrific that my Austin partner in crime got a headache from watching it? A film so terribly rendered that George has clearly taken a step backward into "who gives a f***" land and, I would guess, just wants to make a few bucks as he's missed out on the entire sub-genre he created? I walked into that screening knowing full well it was going to be terrible, and the man has certainly undone any effort he put in his last 2 outputs and created something so haphazardly put together that it was actually kind of good.

??????

[sirjacktorrance]

another BIG positive:

http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/survival-dead-2009-0

(different of matt´s review!!)

positive!

http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/reviewsnews.php?id=12009

Positive!!

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/reviews/fantastic-fest-review-survival-of-the-dead.php

[bassman]

http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=28802


So, the film is a fun but ultimately forgettable mish-mash, comic book romp. It’s recommended for anyone of the genre. For fans of Romero in particular, though, satisfaction of another masterpiece is still out of reach.

[sirjacktorrance]

http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=28802

they gave it a 7/10...
but it´s not very exciting....
one thing i love in george movies it´s the replay(endless)value..

[Trin]

I don't trust any review that states, "I walked into that screening knowing full well it was going to be terrible." That has self-fulfilling prophecy all over it.

[bassman]

I don't trust any review that states, "I walked into that screening knowing full well it was going to be terrible." That has self-fulfilling prophecy all over it.

I agree with you 100%. But let's be honest....most people will be walking into a new Romero Dead film with this in mind, ya know?

[panic]

Seriously panned on Quiet Earth:

http://www.quietearth.us/articles/2009/09/27/FANTASTIC-FEST-09-Review-of-George-Romeros-SURVIVAL-OF-THE-DEAD

[paulannett]

I read through the first 3 pages of this thread and I've come to an astonishing conclusion. 90% of you are Yes Men and hang on GARs nuts waaaaay too tightly, seriously.

It's embarrassing, is it that hard to remove your rose tinted glasses and see his (recent) films for what they really are? Utter tripe. If there was any other film, by any other film maker and that film received so many negative reviews before it was released, you'd all be saying "I'll be skipping that shit fest." But it's different with GAR, you'll fight the critics to the death. No doubt, this post will incite you further, but c'mon... Time to wake up and smell the coffee... GAR, the innovator of old, is gone and should hang up those massive glasses of his.

Edit: read pg4, it seems some are coming to their senses, though others still refuse to believe!

[darth los]

I read through the first 3 pages of this thread and I've come to an astonishing conclusion. 90% of you are Yes Men and hang on GARs nuts waaaaay too tightly, seriously.



I wouldn't have put it like that because talk like that is not conducive to a civil, productive debate.



That being said there's no doubt that people's opinions of his films are skewed.





:cool:

[AcesandEights]

This can't be a surprise to you.

Do I really need to tell you to read a couple more threads and you'll find there are people who hate, people who love and people who are in the middle.

Of course, there's also people who hate on those who love and those who loathe thems that hates, and what can really be said of those folks?

[MinionZombie]

As I always say, heaven forbid people come to a website dedicated to Romero who love his work and are hopeful for his new flicks. :sneaky::p;):D

I mean, how dare they! :lol:

[darth los]

As I always say, heaven forbid people come to a website dedicated to Romero who love his work and are hopeful for his new flicks. :sneaky::p;):D

I mean, how dare they! :lol:

Yeah, if you notice people who show up on these boards with that attitude have very short lifespans here.



:cool:

[krakenslayer]

As I always say, heaven forbid people come to a website dedicated to Romero who love his work and are hopeful for his new flicks. :sneaky::p;):D

I mean, how dare they! :lol:

+1

If we really didn't like his film and had not hope for the next one, most of us wouldn't be here. Diary was a good throwaway zombie flick that didn't live up to expectations, but I'm not prepared to turn my back on the series just because of a couple of sub-per additions. Like I said, I don't have the time to spend ages posting on forums about movie franchises I no longer care about.

[Trin]

I agree with you 100%. But let's be honest....most people will be walking into a new Romero Dead film with this in mind, ya know?
With the acceptance of Land and Diary so all over the map, and reviews of Survival so mixed and at the same time so polar, I don't know how anyone could walk into this movie expecting anything, love or hate.

At this point I'm just waiting it out. I will literally walk into the theater with nothing more than some hope, some popcorn, and an enduring belief that GAR's best Dead movies are not necessarily behind him.


I read through the first 3 pages of this thread and I've come to an astonishing conclusion. 90% of you are Yes Men and hang on GARs nuts waaaaay too tightly, seriously.

It's embarrassing, is it that hard to remove your rose tinted glasses and see his (recent) films for what they really are?
I'll grant you that GAR is given all the chances in the world around here, but hey, the man made Night, Dawn, and Day of the freakin Dead. That's enough to cement a legacy, not get hit with a bunch of "what have you done for me lately" talk.

As for rose tinted glasses, I don't see too much of that on these boards in general. Opinions range from fanboy to complete flame regarding GAR's recent movies, but most tend to be moderated and thought out whether they be favorable or otherwise.

[paulannett]

As I always say, heaven forbid people come to a website dedicated to Romero who love his work and are hopeful for his new flicks. :sneaky::p;):D

I mean, how dare they! :lol:

Ah okay, so when 9/10 reviews say it is rubbish, you'll kindly ignore those ignorant fools and watch the film to make up your own mind (it'll be like remembering old ex-girlfriends imo, you remember the great and funny times and they'll seem so much more substantial compared to all the shitty times which you'll sweep under a rug). But if Michael Bay releases Transformers 3, his film is met with terrible reviews, you'll shit over him and his film without giving it a chance and making up your own mind.

Heaven forbid you look at his films with some objectivity and not be all doe eyed.

Kraken, saying his new films are shit does not affect the original trilogy in the slightest, so you wouldn't be turning your back on anything. Don't be so melodramatic.

Trin, I agree that his original trilogy has cemented a legacy for Romero. But past glories are exactly that. At some point, purely relying on past glories to get you everywhere is really quite sad. At what point do you start accepting that maybe he is past it? Land was gash, Diary was gash, what of Survivors then? If it's a piece of shit too, that means half of his dead films officially suck balls, all of which were made in the past 5 years, which is a good indicator that he is done.

darth los, it's an image that I hold strongly in my head... As unpleasant as it is. It also perfectly describes what I'm trying to say.

I'll watch Survivors and I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but I'd hoped to be pleasantly surprised by his last two films and what did that get me?:annoyed:

Blind faith.

[krakenslayer]

Kraken, saying his new films are shit does not affect the original trilogy in the slightest, so you wouldn't be turning your back on anything. Don't be so melodramatic.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that because the last two films were not classics doesn't mean he will never make a really good film again. In my own experience/opinion, the last two were not nearly as bad as many people make out (although they lack the re-watch value of the trilogy), but even if they were horrendous, that doesn't preclude the prospect of other, better films in the future.

Bear in mind that after Night, he made There's Always Vanilla and Season of the Witch, both of which are by all accounts terrible, and it was only with the rough but decent The Crazies that he started to hit an upswing. It was 1977's Martin when he finally hit his stride again. Now, I've read a lot of good reviews of Survival, and I've read a smiliar number of bad reviews, but all-in-all I've seen more good reviews for this than Diary got in the early days of its festival tour. As I said, I didn't hate Diary, but it wasn't particularly entertaining, mainly because Romero seemed constrained by the shooting style and the film was marred with some irritating characters. As a Romero zombie film it was just passable, but as a zombie film in general it was okay. So if Survival entertains me more than Diary, as I expect it to (but I'm not banking anything on it emotionally), I'll be happy. I don't care if the characters in this are cartoons, so long as they don't bore me. My one hope is that it has the Romero "feel" that was bled from Diary by the shooting style and dull characters.

[paulannett]

Kraken, this is going to be a short reply.

I agree with you. :eek:


I guess I'm just disillusioned to the point of having no faith in him delivering.

It just grinds me (and it's kind of sad that I let it do so) that people completely disregard overwhelming negative reviews because it's about a film they have complete blind faith in.

[Mike70]

Trin, I agree that his original trilogy has cemented a legacy for Romero. But past glories are exactly that. At some point, purely relying on past glories to get you everywhere is really quite sad. At what point do you start accepting that maybe he is past it? Land was gash, Diary was gash, what of Survivors then? If it's a piece of shit too, that means half of his dead films officially suck balls, all of which were made in the past 5 years, which is a good indicator that he is done.



is it possible that we've found someone more cynical than me?:lol:

do you really think romero is trying to live off the past? isn't it possible that as he's gotten older, he's lost some of the edge he had in his 30s and 40s? there is a vast difference between how you see the world and the things you want to do at nearly 70 years old.

i'm not on the land hater wagon. if some of you detest it, fine. i respect your opinion but keep in mind there are people who do like land and diary. that doesn't mean those who like the movies are engaging in blind faith in romero. it's more a case of different strokes.

and as far as the reaction to the reviews goes, i think it only natural that people would want and hope for their favorite film maker to keep putting out good movies, even if his last efforts haven't been up to par in some people's eyes.

i think it comes down to being willing to give romero the benefit of the doubt until we see the movie for ourselves.

[clanglee]

Besides it seems like most revies are moderately positive. . or at the least half and half. . .which is to be expected judging by his last 2 films. *shrug* no need to get the panties in a wad tho. It will be what it will be. We will either love it, or hate it.. . .or both. .or neither. And then we will all get on here and argue about it till we are blue in the face. Tis our job. . Tis what we do. :D

[MinionZombie]

Heaven forbid you look at his films with some objectivity and not be all doe eyed.

Not sure how often you swing by these forums, but I've said on several occasions about how disappointed I was with Diary - it's "okay", and has moments, but I don't care for any of the characters and the message is far too blunt, I mean REALLY fuckin' blunt - I don't despise it by any means and I have it on DVD (had it pre-ordered too).

I've also said more than once on these forums recently about how when re-watching a few clips of Land of the Dead when it was on one of the ITV channels, that I noticed a variety of things that jarred with me - often bits of dialogue - as well as the very fast pace everything gets rushed along at.

I still love Land of the Dead, but it's no Night, Dawn or Day - however, did I ever expect it to be? Nope.

...

This is still a GAR dedicated website, so why can't people love his work - new & old - and be excited for it?

There's plenty of moaning about his recent work on these forums, and plenty of hopefulness, and plenty of lovers - that's a solid mix, and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

And I don't care much for reviews, especially when they're so split - I'll make up my own fucking mind.

*rant over* :p

[Neil]

I watched Diary once, and have never managed to bring myself to watch again!

[MinionZombie]

I watched Diary once, and have never managed to bring myself to watch again!
And that's from the Pimp Daddy who runs this site!

Objectivity? HPOTD's got plenty of it.

[darth los]

And that's from the Pimp Daddy who runs this site!

Objectivity? HPOTD's got plenty of it.


I agree. Neil's definitely a pimp. :D :p




Seriously, Andy is on record saying he can't stand LOTD as well.


So yeah, there are very diverse opinions here on the subject but we disagree respectfully here. It's the secret to our success . :sneaky:


:cool:

[AcesandEights]

So yeah, there are very diverse opinions here on the subject but we disagree respectfully here.

*COUGH* Usually. *COUGH*

:)

[MinionZombie]

*COUGH* Usually. *COUGH*

:)
:lol:

Although a definitive poll on Land of the Dead did find more people in favour of Land than against it.

A more convoluted "yay/meh/nay" poll showed the extreme diversity of opinion regarding Land and Diary combined.

[Trin]

Heaven forbid you look at his films with some objectivity and not be all doe eyed.

Trin, I agree that his original trilogy has cemented a legacy for Romero. But past glories are exactly that. At some point, purely relying on past glories to get you everywhere is really quite sad.

Blind faith.Past glories have earned Romero the benefit of the doubt, not blind faith.


I guess I'm just disillusioned to the point of having no faith in him delivering.

It just grinds me (and it's kind of sad that I let it do so) that people completely disregard overwhelming negative reviews because it's about a film they have complete blind faith in.
How can you criticize people for being hopeful and reserving judgement when you yourself are making huge assumptions based on your own preconceived notions and third party reviews? You have blind faith in his failure to a much greater extent than anyone here has blind faith in his success.

Go back and read all the threads in this section where the banter is largely skeptical of Survival. There's no blind faith here.

[darth los]

Past glories have earned Romero the benefit of the doubt, not blind faith.


How can you criticize people for being hopeful and reserving judgement when you yourself are making huge assumptions based on your own preconceived notions and third party reviews? You have blind faith in his failure to a much greater extent than anyone here has blind faith in his success.

Go back and read all the threads in this section where the banter is largely skeptical of Survival. There's no blind faith here.



Very eloquently put. Furthermore, the fact that he has made the best zombie films to date have implications that are twofold.

!0 Yes he has earned the benefit of the doubt.

2) it's a sad endicment on the industry that no one has been able to top any of the original triology in what ? 40 years?
:skull:


:cool:

[Trin]

it's a sad endicment on the industry that no one has been able to top any of the original triology in what ? 40 years?
What a fantastic point.

In a world where people turn out an idea only to be mimiced and one-upped almost immediately, GAR has his work sitting atop a pedestal seemingly untouchable for decades.

[AcesandEights]

I watched Diary once, and have never managed to bring myself to watch again!

I got that topped. ;)

I did see Diary twice, but my second time, which was on dvd, I was so done with the film I never returned it to the case. The DVD circulated the apartment for months and eventually ended up with my former roommate, who I don't think will ever watch it.

A sad, sad fate, indeed, but no less than it deserves, I reckon.

I only bring it up, as Neil's comment reminded me about it and I thought it interesting, as I've never really done that before with another DVD that I can recall.

[Mike70]

i'll jump in to say that diary is one romero movie that does not get regular viewings at mike's house. most of the rest of george's stuff probably gets looked at once a month or once every other month (stuff like monkey shines) but interestingly enough, diary never seems to make the cut.

[Trin]

I saw Diary in the theater and have watched the DVD three times I think. I did not like it, but more than that I didn't care enough about it to get worked up over it.

So why have I seen it 3 times? I keep getting sucker punched around here by someone who says it will get better over time, or that certain parts of it are good, etc. Then I watch it again and the memories of past traumas all come flooding back. I walk around for a week scared and angry anytime I see a camera or hear about YouTube.

And I'll watch it again. I'm planning a pre-Survival Dead marathon. Diary may be the retarded bastard stepchild, but it still gets invited to the family reunions.

[clanglee]

. Diary may be the retarded bastard stepchild, but it still gets invited to the family reunions.

:lol:

I guess that makes Land the creepy Uncle who once touched you inapproriately when you were 7.

[Zombie Snack]

:lol:

I guess that makes Land the creepy Uncle who once touched you inapproriately when you were 7.

:D:D funny

[Neil]

Another +ve from AICN

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42577

[Trin]

:lol:

I guess that makes Land the creepy Uncle who once touched you inapproriately when you were 7.
Sounds like Land is encroaching on your territory there Clang!!

[jded]

To all reading:

I have seen no mention at all in the current issue of Fangoria. I flipped through the October issue a few days ago and saw nothing. Usually they make a front page deal out of something like this. Did it find it's way into Sep or Aug and I missed it? Most times you'll get two covers or more and a bunch of behind the scenes and articles along those lines, but I see nadda.

[Mr.G]

I don't remember reading anything. If it was included, it wasn't a full article. There was an excellent retrospective on Halloween II this issue! :skull:

[capncnut]

Here's my tuppence.

Yesterday night I spent at least an hour writing a review for Survival Of The Dead, only to totally erase it on the last paragraph. In it, I included some details about how it came to be, the plot, what was good, what was bad, why Romero has lost it, but I decided "bollocks to it" and just cut to the chase without spoiling it for everyone (unlike some people on this forum I could mention :rolleyes:). A good night's sleep does wonders...

Essentially, Survival is unlike any other Romero zombie movie I have ever seen. In a way it is a total departure from Land and Diary, and it puts me in a place I don't feel entirely comfortable in. It would be easy for the viewer to see the film, jump on a forum and spout a load of shit about how "zombie horseriders suck" or how "Romero should quit" but that's not what I'm here to do and it would be totally unfair of me to say so. What I will do is preface this mini review with this: If you are expecting Survival to be Romero's return to form or his best entry since Day then forget it. "You can go about your business, move along!"

However, if you are prepared to put your brain in a box and enjoy a film merely based on it's gags and less-than-great (but still nonetheless enjoyable) plot then you will get something out of this. I assure you.

We all know the set-up and I wont expand on it much. The story and characterisation is good enough to hold your attention for ninety minutes easily. With Diary, I've had a lot of trouble getting much replay value out my DVD and that depresses me. With Survival, it's quite watchable from the get-go, so I don't predict any complaints in that department at all.

The overuse of CGI effects did not offend me whatsoever. Nor did the gags. We've all seen the fishing scene or the part where Crockett lights his cigarette from a burning zombie before kicking it's ass mercilessly into the water. In fact, this film is gag-tastic and some parts kinda reminded me of Sam Raimi's Evil Dead 2 in a sense. It's not what I'm used to in a Romero movie (hence my slight discomfort) but I found them enjoyable anyway, as did the audience.

Acting isn't too bad really but in places it's pretty ham. As a fan of movies such as Frank Henenlotter's Basket Case or Jim Van Bebber's Deadbeat At Dawn, I really didn't give a toss to be honest. More serious fans of Romero might give a toss though. Saying that, the fueding Paddies have some great lines and Crockett is a somewhat stern but likeable rogue. There are some 'surplus' characters that feel a bit tacked on but this shit has been happening since Land and again, I wasn't bothered by it.

The overall presentation is a bit tacky, to say the least, and this pissed me off the most. Unfortunately Survival has the feel of a television movie more than theatrical and it gives me the impression that this just might go straight to DVD. It's something else I'm not used to with Romero and it did grate, I have to say. Also, the plot was rather predictable and I had 'that feeling' for pretty much the whole duration of the film.

I'm not going to expand on the story any further because I feel y'all need to see this for yourself and, for once, I want to do a review here that doesn't have spoiler tags. :D

Sometimes delving into the brilliant, sometimes delving into the amazingly silly, Survival Of The Dead is a mixed bag which has equal amounts of excitement and disappointment. I wasn't expecting much but got a little bit more than I hoped for. I enjoyed Land but wasn't hot on Diary, so I'll rank this inbetween the two, which wont help many members here because opinion is so divided.

But please, just drill it into your heads that Romero is a totally different filmmaker now. Some of you may like it more than Land, some of you may like it more than Diary, I don't care just as long as you actually LIKE it (and I think the real fans will). I did and that's all I have to say.

Peace out, bitches.

[krakenslayer]

Okay... ooookay... [/larry david] :)

Great review Capn. Glad to hear it's not a complete train wreck. I think I'll have fun with it.

[Debbieangel]

Thanks Capn for the review and I can't wait to view it for myself and make up my own mind about it.
You know I am an avid zombie film watcher so, I can't wait to sink my teeth into this one.
Your review has made me want to see 'Survival' much more than before, I am glad you didn't say it was totally crap,that would have bummed me out because I value your opinion. You have told me about other zombie movies before and you were pretty much spot on what you said, so yeah, I will defo go see 'Survival'!
Hehe like you know I was going anyway!:p

[MoonSylver]

Here's my tuppence.Essentially, Survival is unlike any other Romero zombie movie I have ever seen....

...If you are expecting Survival to be Romero's return to form or his best entry since Day then forget it. "You can go about your business, move along!"

However, if you are prepared to put your brain in a box and enjoy a film merely based on it's gags and less-than-great (but still nonetheless enjoyable) plot then you will get something out of this. I assure you.

(From another thread)

I think GAR realized before a lot of did that there is just no way to top the original trilogy, not even for him.

These last three films are "just for fun", and this one looks like it will be great if taken in that context. I believe that Romero can bring to a zombie flick things that no one else touch and that is how I will view this one.

This is the conclusion I've been coming to for awhile now. The past is gone. No use comparing these newer movies to the classic trilogy. GAR in the past had always contended that each entry wasn't NECESSARILY to be viewed as part of an overall arc...that each was to stand on it's own as an individual & distinct entry.

Now...having said that, the original series CAN be viewed as overarching (& really, that's part of their appeal I think...you have a beginning, middle & end..)

Land kinda-sorta fit in as a continuation (or not depending on your POV...)

Diary obviously was a restart. This one is a continuation of THAT.

However...if you forget about that past, forget all comparisons, take them for what they are, & set aside expectations, then I think the movies can be judged more accurately for it...?

I don't think GAR has any interest in trying to make "the greatest Zombie movie ever" (honestly, he's already DONE that...), trying to top himself, remake movies from the old days or any of that...if I had to guess, I think he sees himself as he always has...as guy making movies, trying something different & making movies that interest him & (presumably) by extension his fans as well...?

Just my rambling, wandering slightly OT, thoughts on how I'm approaching the newer movies & how I'm going to try & approach this one.

Thanks for the Review Cap! Definitely food for thought.

[krakenslayer]

Pretty damn positive review from SexGoreMutants, which is one of my favourite horror review sites so I'm pretty hopeful:

http://www.sexgoremutants.co.uk/optuksurvival.html

[clanglee]

Pretty damn positive review from SexGoreMutants, which is one of my favourite horror review sites so I'm pretty hopeful:

http://www.sexgoremutants.co.uk/optuksurvival.html

Hmmmm. . .for some reason I just can't go to a website named SexGoreMutants at work, it appears to be blocked for some odd reason. . . .that's weird. . . .

[krakenslayer]

Hmmmm. . .for some reason I just can't go to a website named SexGoreMutants at work, it appears to be blocked for some odd reason. . . .that's weird. . . .

:lol:

It's not a porn site or anything. It's a genre site specializing in horror and exploitation films, it's probably just a blanket ban on urls containing the word "sex".

[Publius]

That does sound good. Though the absence of special features is a little disappointing.

[SRP76]

So this is already out in UK, with no US release ever happening?

I can't keep the rumors/discussions on that matter straight around here.

[krakenslayer]

So this is already out in UK, with no US release ever happening?

I can't keep the rumors/discussions on that matter straight around here.

It's released here on March 15. Some reviewers have received screener copies already though.

[MinionZombie]

So this is already out in UK, with no US release ever happening?

I can't keep the rumors/discussions on that matter straight around here.

R2 UK DVD out March 15th, with sod-all extras.

Apparently the guy who did the extra features for Diary of the cut is currently editing the special features, but Optimum wanted to cash-in on the release of Zombieland (also on March 15th in the UK), which you can understand from a business stand point, but from a fan stand point it's annoying that I'll end up double-dipping to get the special features.

That said, if we'd gotten it in the cinema, I would have spent almost the £7.99 the R2 DVD will cost anyway, so I'll treat this barebones DVD in that mindset.

So I'd imagine the R1 DVD will have all the extras later this year after the VOD and small theatrical runs you chaps are getting.

[clanglee]

Oh well. . I guess here in the states we'll just have to wait till it releases over there and then. . . ummm. . . find a way to see it somehow. . . . but how could we possibly do that? I mean it would take some kind of strange machine that allows information to be shared almost immediately globally. Where could we find such a device?

and why don't the producers ever take that into account?

[MinionZombie]

Oh well. . I guess here in the states we'll just have to wait till it releases over there and then. . . ummm. . . find a way to see it somehow. . . . but how could we possibly do that? I mean it would take some kind of strange machine that allows information to be shared almost immediately globally. Where could we find such a device?

and why don't the producers ever take that into account?

You could also do something us Brits have to do all the time ... import the DVD. :D

[clanglee]

You could also do something us Brits have to do all the time ... import the DVD. :D

Gotta have the right kinda player for that. . . .no go there boss man.

Oh I'll buy the DVD when it comes out. . .I am a completionist. But I'll be damned if I wait any longer than I actually have to to see this movie.

[MinionZombie]

Gotta have the right kinda player for that. . . .no go there boss man.

Oh I'll buy the DVD when it comes out. . .I am a completionist. But I'll be damned if I wait any longer than I actually have to to see this movie.

Handset hack, dude ... handset hack.

Piss easy to find on Google, just type in your player model and make with "handset hack" and you'll find something, possibly on VideoHelp ... but naturally make sure any site you go to is given a clean bill of health according to Site Advisor.

I've unlocked three DVD players using handset hacks, and it works a treat. In fact, it's not even a hack, it's merely a production line code.

[clanglee]

Handset hack, dude ... handset hack.

Piss easy to find on Google, just type in your player model and make with "handset hack" and you'll find something, possibly on VideoHelp ... but naturally make sure any site you go to is given a clean bill of health according to Site Advisor.

I've unlocked three DVD players using handset hacks, and it works a treat. In fact, it's not even a hack, it's merely a production line code.

Meh. . . I'll check it out. . but I'm sure my crappy blueray player won't have that option. it's really just easier the other way. and cheaper!

[krakenslayer]

OKEYDOKIE! Survival of the Dead arrived today and I just finished watching it. I've not fully been able to digest and absorb the film yet, but I'll give you guys my initial thoughts.

WOW! I had LOT of fun with it.

The biggest pleasant surprise was the characters: I've read lots of reviews that bemoan the corny accents and cheese-ball dialogue (which is fair enough, but didn't hinder my enjoyment at all), but the one thing that no one ever mentioned was just how well fleshed-out the characters were. Okay, it's not like The Shawshank Redemption, but in this movie Romero spends more time properly fleshing out the characters than in Land and Diary combined. The Sergeant is, by far, the best Romero hero since Peter in Dawn. And major peripheral characters, although most are deliberately cartoonish, are nonetheless given time to exhibit their personalities and grow on us to some degree. The character development felt a lot more like that in Day, where we cared when Fisher gets his brain blown out, than that of Land and Diary where the deaths of Gordy and Motown were just emotionless events.

There was also a lot more action than in Land and Diary, as expected. The action is competently handled and exciting. The CG gore was nowhere near as bad as I'd been led to believe, mostly being used to add additional blood to headshots (the Flaregun scene was the only one that looked really cheesy), and there's nothing as obvious as the Zombie Priest in Land. The underwater zombie scenes were awesome!

The cinematography really stood out to me as being, far and away, the best of any Romero film since The Dark Half, and it is probably the slickest-looking, picture and lighting-wise, of the Dead series. The step up from Survival in this regard is, for obvious reasons, bigger than the step up from Night's black and white to Dawn's day-glo colours. It is a beautiful looking film.

Aside from the hokey dialogue and accents, Romero really played this one as well as he possibly could have, given the constraints of finance and a short shooting schedule. It was very old school Romero, like we've not seen in a LOOOONG time, and several of the issues I had with Land and Diary have been rectified.

There were a few weak points to it, but as far as I can see these are mostly attributable to the low budget (which is apparently more than Diary but a lot less than Land and Day). The film could have been longer, for a start: the pacing is excellent but there is only so much tension and gravitas that can be accumulated in an 86 minute run-time, anyone looking for an epic like Dawn, or a doomy drama like Day, is going to be sorely disappointed.

The short running time affects the film in other ways: a couple of times, events occurred that seemed a little jarring, as if they hadn't quite been set up properly. Nothing as obvious or illogical as the scene with Stephen rolling on the ground with the airport zombies in Dawn, though. But this, to me, was a sign that time was tight on set. Nothing that affected my overall enjoyment though.

I would also like to have seen more downward-spiralling of society in the opening, while the characters are on the mainland. Romero gives us some tantalising glimpses of abandoned highways and docklands, but I would have liked to have seen more. Three weeks in, commercial TV and 3G internet are still running (which corresponds to the period just before the opening of Dawn), so I'm assuming most people are still holed up in private homes and/or are being re-homed in rescue stations. The movie only touches very lightly on this and it would have been nice if Romero could have fleshed out the world as well as he did the characters. As I said before, however, budget was the issue here.

The humour really did work for me. There are a few scenes that would have been totally stupid if I'd gone in expecting something serious like Day, but as I expected, this was Romero in Creepshow mode, and with that mindset it was a fucking blast. The comic timing for some of the set-pieces is excellent. Sitting alone, I laughed aloud more than a couple of times. And the last shot is probably the best finale scene of any of Romero's films, hilarious and poignant at the same time.

I thought Land and Diary were pretty good, but I have to say that Survival is a far, far more entertaining movie than either of those. I'm struggling to resist the urge to say it was even more entertaining than Day, because it was certainly more "fun" and action-packed than Day, but comparing it like that would be misleading because it is by no means as finely-crafted, deep or "epic" as that classic.

I will say this, though: Survival of the Dead is Romero on a strong upswing. No, it's not as good as the original trilogy, you're gonna have to manage your own expectations there, but it is 100% by far the best of the new films, and proof (at least to me) that Romero's career is not on an unstoppable downward spiral. If Survival can be this much more enjoyable than Diary, then I can finally allow myself to hope that his next one will be a true classic.

Get out there and see it.

[MagicMoonMonkey]

OKEYDOKIE! Survival of the Dead arrived today and I just finished watching it. I've not fully been able to digest and absorb the film yet, but I'll give you guys my initial thoughts.

WOW! I had LOT of fun with it.

The biggest pleasant surprise was the characters: I've read lots of reviews that bemoan the corny accents and cheese-ball dialogue (which is fair enough, but didn't hinder my enjoyment at all), but the one thing that no one ever mentioned was just how well fleshed-out the characters were. Okay, it's not like The Shawshank Redemption, but in this movie Romero spends more time properly fleshing out the characters than in Land and Diary combined. The Sergeant is, by far, the best Romero hero since Peter in Dawn. And major peripheral characters, although most are deliberately cartoonish, are nonetheless given time to exhibit their personalities and grow on us to some degree. The character development felt a lot more like that in Day, where we cared when Fisher gets his brain blown out, than that of Land and Diary where the deaths of Gordy and Motown were just emotionless events.

There was also a lot more action than in Land and Diary, as expected. The action is competently handled and exciting. The CG gore was nowhere near as bad as I'd been led to believe, mostly being used to add additional blood to headshots (the Flaregun scene was the only one that looked really cheesy), and there's nothing as obvious as the Zombie Priest in Land. The underwater zombie scenes were awesome!

The cinematography really stood out to me as being, far and away, the best of any Romero film since The Dark Half, and it is probably the slickest-looking, picture and lighting-wise, of the Dead series. The step up from Survival in this regard is, for obvious reasons, bigger than the step up from Night's black and white to Dawn's day-glo colours. It is a beautiful looking film.

Aside from the hokey dialogue and accents, Romero really played this one as well as he possibly could have, given the constraints of finance and a short shooting schedule. It was very old school Romero, like we've not seen in a LOOOONG time, and several of the issues I had with Land and Diary have been rectified.

There were a few weak points to it, but as far as I can see these are mostly attributable to the low budget (which is apparently more than Diary but a lot less than Land and Day). The film could have been longer, for a start: the pacing is excellent but there is only so much tension and gravitas that can be accumulated in an 86 minute run-time, anyone looking for an epic like Dawn, or a doomy drama like Day, is going to be sorely disappointed.

The short running time affects the film in other ways: a couple of times, events occurred that seemed a little jarring, as if they hadn't quite been set up properly. Nothing as obvious or illogical as the scene with Stephen rolling on the ground with the airport zombies in Dawn, though. But this, to me, was a sign that time was tight on set. Nothing that affected my overall enjoyment though.

I would also like to have seen more downward-spiralling of society in the opening, while the characters are on the mainland. Romero gives us some tantalising glimpses of abandoned highways and docklands, but I would have liked to have seen more. Three weeks in, commercial TV and 3G internet are still running (which corresponds to the period just before the opening of Dawn), so I'm assuming most people are still holed up in private homes and/or are being re-homed in rescue stations. The movie only touches very lightly on this and it would have been nice if Romero could have fleshed out the world as well as he did the characters. As I said before, however, budget was the issue here.

The humour really did work for me. There are a few scenes that would have been totally stupid if I'd gone in expecting something serious like Day, but as I expected, this was Romero in Creepshow mode, and with that mindset it was a fucking blast. The comic timing for some of the set-pieces is excellent. Sitting alone, I laughed aloud more than a couple of times. And the last shot is probably the best finale scene of any of Romero's films, hilarious and poignant at the same time.

I thought Land and Diary were pretty good, but I have to say that Survival is a far, far more entertaining movie than either of those. I'm struggling to resist the urge to say it was even more entertaining than Day, because it was certainly more "fun" and action-packed than Day, but comparing it like that would be misleading because it is by no means as finely-crafted, deep or "epic" as that classic.

I will say this, though: Survival of the Dead is Romero on a strong upswing. No, it's not as good as the original trilogy, you're gonna have to manage your own expectations there, but it is 100% by far the best of the new films, and proof (at least to me) that Romero's career is not on an unstoppable downward spiral. If Survival can be this much more enjoyable than Diary, then I can finally allow myself to hope that his next one will be a true classic.

Get out there and see it.

You've summed up the whole movie pretty well there Krak. I liked this more than Land, and it definitely felt more like a Romero zombie flick of the 70's 80's type.
A bit disappointed at the level of gore, but budgets must I suppose.
Although I love Diary, this is more like the Romero you all crave.
Worth the wait imo. Thoroughly enjoyed it for what it was.

[major jay]

Do you two, Minion & Kraken, think low expectations have much to do with you enjoying it so much? I'm just curious because that always seems to be a big factor.

[chuckroast]

I watched it last night and again this morning. I must say, I thought it was even better the second time around.

Waiting over a year to see this, I tried watching it with no expectations. It didn't disappoint me.

I pretty much have to agree with krakenslayer's review.

The cinematography was really well done.

The last scene would make a great wall poster.

[krakenslayer]

Do you two, Minion & Kraken, think low expectations have much to do with you enjoying it so much? I'm just curious because that always seems to be a big factor.

I think it's not so much a matter of expecting a bad film, just not expecting something like Dawn and Day; it's not an end-of-the-world epic, it focuses on one small-ish story, and yeah it's a little cheesy and rushed-feeling in places. But it's a good, entertaining movie that does most things right and doesn't overstep itself, while still throwing in enough action to keep us entertained. If you watched it without knowing it was Romero, I guarantee you'd have a blast and come out of it happy - as far as zombie movies in general go, it's awesome - but if you went in expecting Romero to come out with anything in the same league of epicness as Dawn or Day, you'd be setting yourself up for a disappointment.

My list of favourite Romero zed flicks now looks like this:

1. Dawn of the Dead 9.5/10 (tied)
1. Night of the Living Dead (tied) 9.5/10
2. Day of the Dead 9/10
4. Survival of the Dead 8/10
5. Land of the Dead 7/10
6. Diary of the Dead 6.5/10

Survival is a full point up from Land, and one point down from Day, so it falls perfectly midway in the scale of awesomeness between the new and old movies. Here's hoping it's a stepping stone between them, who knows.

[Danny]

just watched it, did that feel like an extended pilot for a tv series for anyone else?:sneaky:

if the walking dead takes off you never know.


I think this felt more like a sidestory to the traditional zombie apocalypse movie. we have an established world. this is whats going on when the main characters are heading to the rich kids mansion in an rv. I really liked that. i didnt go in with low expectations since id heard no bad stuff about this one. I had heard it compared to a western, but honestly it was more like a contemporary take on the period drama.
Honestly i am pretty sure from the film this isnt going to be the last george sets in this universe, probably not even the last with the same characters, like i said, this feels like a pilot, like next week we tune in again on showtime or hbo or something and next week the 3 protagonists head to some other wierd situation that just happens to be occurring during the zombocalypse. It wasnt trying to be this big dramatic thing and instead was this small movie that really worked pretty well. It feels like land but with a more certain control behind it, if you get what i mean. land always felt a little like a made for tv movie, i love it, but it felt like certain people were working on it thinking "this will make me money" whereas this was more "ive got an idea for something a bit different, heres how im gonna do it"

im not gonna ramble more than i have, its not a big epic world falls apart flick like dawn or day, its a small side story that anyone who likes romero films will really enjoy, it doesnt overstay its welcome and leaves you wanting more, just like any good movie.

[MinionZombie]

Do you two, Minion & Kraken, think low expectations have much to do with you enjoying it so much? I'm just curious because that always seems to be a big factor.


I think it's not so much a matter of expecting a bad film, just not expecting something like Dawn and Day; it's not an end-of-the-world epic, it focuses on one small-ish story, and yeah it's a little cheesy and rushed-feeling in places. But it's a good, entertaining movie that does most things right and doesn't overstep itself, while still throwing in enough action to keep us entertained. If you watched it without knowing it was Romero, I guarantee you'd have a blast and come out of it happy - as far as zombie movies in general go, it's awesome - but if you went in expecting Romero to come out with anything in the same league of epicness as Dawn or Day, you'd be setting yourself up for a disappointment.

My list of favourite Romero zed flicks now looks like this:

1. Dawn of the Dead 9.5/10 (tied)
1. Night of the Living Dead (tied) 9.5/10
2. Day of the Dead 9/10
4. Survival of the Dead 8/10
5. Land of the Dead 7/10
6. Diary of the Dead 6.5/10

Survival is a full point up from Land, and one point down from Day, so it falls perfectly midway in the scale of awesomeness between the new and old movies. Here's hoping it's a stepping stone between them, who knows.

I think Kraken's summed my view up nicely there, although on the numerical scale I would swap Night and Day.

I'll blog my full thoughts tomorrow.

[RJ_Sevin]

If you cast LAND as the final chapter of this new cycle of films, and pretend that Sarge sometimes goes by the name of Brubaker, it all fits together quite nicely.

Far and away George's most visually stunning movie. There are some drop dead gorgeous shots in SURVIVAL.

[CooperWasRight]

Mixed bag...Some of it is really good...Some of it is really bad. But its good to see George still can write humor... "Always have something up my sleeve" being and example of unexpected wit.

[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]

:bored:That was crap:(Like 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/survival-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. :D

Survival of the Dead rocks. That is all.
http://deadshed.blogspot.com/2010/03/survival-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.:D

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. ;)

[bassman]

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.


Exactly. Not only will Romero never capture that same lightning in a bottle, but even if he came close our expectations such as "The next Dawn" can NEVER be met. The film has been simering in our heads for 30+ years. It's reached a life beyond what it was when created. It's a special nostalgic part of our lives and nothing can ever, or will ever be able to live up to that.

Creating a box like that is only going to hurt your opinion of the films rather than going in with an open minded "this is something all together new".

[CoinReturn]

Just wanted to chime in and say SotD was way better than I thought it'd be. I liked it better than Land and Diary, anyhow.

[Mr.G]

Exactly. Not only will Romero never capture that same lightning in a bottle, but even if he came close our expectations such as "The next Dawn" can NEVER be met. The film has been simering in our heads for 30+ years. It's reached a life beyond what it was when created. It's a special nostalgic part of our lives and nothing can ever, or will ever be able to live up to that.

Creating a box like that is only going to hurt your opinion of the films rather than going in with an open minded "this is something all together new".

Great response. If I could give you some virtual reputation I would!

[MinionZombie]

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. ;)


Exactly. Not only will Romero never capture that same lightning in a bottle, but even if he came close our expectations such as "The next Dawn" can NEVER be met. The film has been simering in our heads for 30+ years. It's reached a life beyond what it was when created. It's a special nostalgic part of our lives and nothing can ever, or will ever be able to live up to that.

Creating a box like that is only going to hurt your opinion of the films rather than going in with an open minded "this is something all together new".

Spot on, lads. :thumbsup:

[paranoid101]

It was meh tbh.

Better than diary maybe but still not a good film.

Special effects were really good when CGI wasn't used, when it was it was crap.

The film started strongly but went down hill for me when the Island parts started.

I'm not sure were George is going with his zombies in films now, It started in day with Bub getting smarter after months of training, now only 3 weeks into the outbreak they are starting and driving cars, riding horses, cooking meals etc

Were in the hell on that small island did so many zombies come from? were they really clumsy or maybe people on that island suffered from sudden death syndrome, cause that's the only way I could think of the island ended up with so many, seeing how they only seemed to be the 2 main family's there and maybe a few others, but to have that many zombies there shouldn't have been any survivors at all lol


Silly or stupid deaths for interesting cast members, Sarge's second in command the little bold solider, I liked him would have like to have seen more of him in the film, but no he died from the magic bullet, Muldoon second in command the cowboy in love with O'Flynn daughter, another person I wanted to know more about, only for him not to be fleshed out and to die it a crap way.
Also bringing in the young lad to the main group from the redneck firefight and not fleshing out his character, he might as well have not been put in the film for all he brought to it.

The gun fight at the end, all through the film they are one shot zombies from miles away, the gun fight start and what looks to be a distance of about 30 feet neither side can hit shit.

Deep down I really feel there was a good film trying to get out, but it just seemed to be poor script writing, I wasn't even bother about any of the cast at all apart for maybe Sarge if they survived.

I feel that if George had have just made the film about Sarges group survival in the opening 3 week of the outbreak it would have been a much stronger and enjoyable film, seeing them doing hit and run on shops, other bandit groups etc.

Daughter just decides that the horse looks tasty??????

Plus points.

Make up effect were great as always with zombies.

Sarge the main cast member was fantastic and really kept me watching.

I must admit I liked the end scene with the main 2 Irish men against the moon, still trying to shoot each other even through death.

Sarges squad.

Err thats about it really.

These are just my points of view and if you really liked the film then thats fine too, each to their own as the saying go's.

Daft thing is even after writing all the negative points I bet i still end up buying this film like I did with diary :p

[Danny]

From plenty of the bad reviews of this online ive noticed that the negative points arent about the film at all really. just that romero made something different to his original trilogy that isnt an escape to let people live out there isolationist end of the world fantasies.

Survival wasn't anything special in terms of cinematic prowess, but it was a flick where romero did something different, and i'd rather have that than another film about the end of the world in one location. romeros done it, and he did it the best way anybody has ever done, but he cant make the same movie forever.

[Ghost Of War]

Just been over on IMDB, and had to share this nugget:


Hilariously Bad, 15 March 2010

Author: Brian Tipton from Los Angeles, CA


Well, at this point it certainly seems that George Romero has left any bag of tricks he may have had behind. Gone is the biting social satire, gone is the moody innovation, gone is the quotable dialogue. Survival is a movie by definition only. It's roughly two hours long, has people on screen playing something other than themselves. It even has a script, if you want to call it that. None of these elements have even the smallest amount of believability or dimension.

Within 15 seconds of the film starting, I was already cringing at the acting, dialogue, and cinematography. It really only gets worse from there.

Romero seems hell bent on creating caricatures instead of real characters. Every line in the film is more idiotic than the last. Who calls their neighbors by their first AND last names. His dialogue comes from 70's B-movie clichés that are no longer useful, unless used ironically, and the meaning of true irony seems well out of Romero's grasp at this point.

I'm now 10 minutes into the film and had to stop and write this review. Another crapfest from the supposed master of the genre. I recommend watching Rec. or Rec. 2 if you want a solid zombie fix. Skip this one unless you're a completist or want to see how NOT to make a film.

Oh Come On. I'm not a good reviewer of anything, but even I wouldn't stop 10 mins into a film to write a crap review. Christ. It just made me angry, that's all.

[MinionZombie]

From plenty of the bad reviews of this online ive noticed that the negative points arent about the film at all really. just that romero made something different to his original trilogy that isnt an escape to let people live out there isolationist end of the world fantasies.

Survival wasn't anything special in terms of cinematic prowess, but it was a flick where romero did something different, and i'd rather have that than another film about the end of the world in one location. romeros done it, and he did it the best way anybody has ever done, but he cant make the same movie forever.

Darn tootin' ... there's a lot of pining for Pittsburgh-era GAR in amongst the territory of folks who rally against GAR's latest flicks ... ... but as I said in my review, Pittsburgh-era GAR is long gone - and it left behind a great back catalogue - we're now in the Toronto-era, the world is an entirely different place, filmmaking is conducted in an entirely different manner than in the 60s-80s, and well ... goddamn, people. :eek:

[Mike70]

survival is a bad movie in my not so humble opinion. a cringe inducing, illogical and ultimately idiotic film that i wasted 90 mins of my life watching.

it's not a bad flick because it failed to live up to my "expectations" of romero. i have none. it should be clear that i am not a fanboy and outside of day (and a few other films), i have very little interest left in romero's work and almost zero interest in the original dawn.

survival is a bad movie because of the acting, the effects, the script, and as a special pet peeve of mine - those fucking irish accents. i don't give a rat's ass about theories as to why some of the people on the island spoke like that but it was fooking irritating.

i just didn't buy into this "story" from jumpstreet. nothing about this film is significant, moving, or even relatively interesting. this is one of those films where you wish every single character died at the end, caught in a moment of their own gross stupidity.

there you go- the opinion of someone who doesn't look at dawn through rose colored glasses.

[DrSiN]

My DVD finally got here and I could spend an hour or so picking it apart. Out of his latest 3 movies, this one was the best, but only by a bit. In my opinion it was a solid C. Most of the effort was hampered by a really bad script. The acting, while uneven had it's moments. The cinematography was decent. The sound design was pretty good.

the story however, was a mess. Scenes were poorly setup or pointless. Characters that had no purpose. Blah blah blah.

But it was still better than Diary and Land. Had the story been solid, this would have approached Day at #3.

[bassman]

I enjoyed it. A few parts that I wasn't too happy about, but overall it was a decent flick. Mainly the bad parts were the CGI gags. The non-physical gags were all good though. Made me laugh a few times.

Of the three new ones Land is the best, Survival is second, and Diary last.

[Exatreides]

Ah Survival of the dead.

Here's ex's take on it.


Just a few things to point out before we start that bugged me a little...

I'm in the Army National Guard, and no one has used Jeeps since the early 1990's.
No has worn BDU's since about 2006 (Short of some random gear being still in BDU, helmet covers, poncho's ect)
No one in the Guard has had a m16a1 since about 1996 when the last ones were phased out in the guard.

I know these are just nit picking things, but for me at least they really took the feel out of it. Imagine if in 28 weeks later they had been wearing olive drab. flying huey's and shooting m14's at the runners.

I really wish they would have explained a bit more of the situation as to why they were going AWOL.

Maybe they could have linked up or mentioned the other group of Guard members that were in Diary (The group of blacks and others in the warehouse)

I feel like finding the group of hunters in the woods was an attempt by Romero at pushing some Hillbilly racist thing (Notice all the heads were black) The hunters were all dumb rednecks. Maybe this was an attempt to link back to night and killing Ben?

Besides that one point it just seemed like a weak way to get the kid to hook up with them. Who besides having the phone served no real point in the film. I really didn't like his character at all.

The Mexican guy I dug him, and thought he had a bit of comedic value as well as just being more interesting then the cookie cutter sarge and his BDU wearing buddy. When he died I was pretty disappointed.

So the water was deep enough for a ferry to get through... I Guess those were some really tall zombies then!


Hell I even thought that the cookie cutter bdu buddy was decent to keep around.

The Lesbian chick was good, but I feel like Romero could have used her a bit more. She made it that for in the outbreak only to end up being a Dasmal in distress? I would have liked to see her and the Mexican guy have stronger roles.

In a time where both Immigration reform and gay rights are major issues in the US... Romero has the Mexican getting killed swimming the rio grande and the Lesbian carried away and tied up by angry men.


Since when were there fucking Irish isles off the coast of Delaware? That part just seemed a bit rushed to me. As did the fact that everyone seemingly had turn of the 20th century weaponry. (Where did they get the ammo?) Are there no cars on this isle? Where the fuck does the power come from?

I also think the chained up zombies remembering what they did is a bit rushed. Feels like it just degrades bub and even dare I say big daddy.

The Clan thing felt like it was an poor way of establishing a conflict and following it through.

Horse riding zombie..Really? It takes a lot of balance and coordination to ride a horse, let alone a horse that never ever gets tired.

The zombies in pens thing.. Romero had that in the Original script of Day, when he mentioned training them to fight and do all that stuff. A holdover from that script maybe?

The gore was average and sci fi channel at best. The fire extinguisher thing was pretty terrible I think.



Overall...

As a general zed film I'd give it a...
79% It's above average when it comes to some of the terrible terrible things out there, if it tried a bit harder in a few area's it would have been good. Far from great though.

As a Romero film...
70% It was better then Diary, worse then Land and further cements my belief not to believe in future good Romero movies.

[clanglee]

You know, I actually agree with most of the above, and I had some minor other gripes of my own, but for some reason I still came away liking this film. It's weird.

[CooperWasRight]

In a time where both Immigration reform and gay rights are major issues in the US... Romero has the Mexican getting killed swimming the rio grande and the Lesbian carried away and tied up by angry men.


FUCKING HILARIOUS!

I agree with a lot of what you said... I also agree with your scale on the new trilogy placement.

[krakenslayer]

Anyone notice the thematic similarities to Night?: Right at the end, the asshole character we're set up to hate turns out to have been right about one important thing, just like Cooper with the basement. Also, a character being suddenly shot dead at an opportune moment by a semi-sympathetic character who has misread the situation and doesn't realise the consequences.

I thought that was pretty cool.

[MinionZombie]

Good point Kraken.

[Exatreides]

Did anyone notice how fast the soldier turned at the start of the film? But when BDU buddy died from the gunshot wound it seemed like it lasted eons...

Good point on its comparisons to night. I didn't see that before, I just noticed it from the redneck group of farmers as a reference.

oh and..
In case anyone is feeling down from the reviews heres some
http://pioneermindset.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/kittens.jpg
to cheer you up

[krakenslayer]

Did anyone notice how fast the soldier turned at the start of the film? But when BDU buddy died from the gunshot wound it seemed like it lasted eons...


The moustachioed soldier was dead when the film started, and it seemed like it was probably several hours since he died. I'm not sure which one was the BDU buddy (I have to admit, I don't know what a BDU looks like, or what it is). Was that the bald guy (Kenny or something)? He was shot and then got his brains blown out before turning. Francisco got sick from swallowing zombie blood and got Tomboy to kill him because he believed he was starting to turn, but that takes almost 24 hours and we never see him as a zombie either. Am I thinking of the wrong people?

[Exatreides]

Yeah BDU buddy is friend Kenny or whatever the bald guys name was. BDU refers to battle dress uniform the woodland camo that was phased out of the army in 2005.

Was referring to the guy who had half his face bitten of at the start, seemed like they had him turning right after the bite.

[Danny]

Yeah BDU buddy is friend Kenny or whatever the bald guys name was. BDU refers to battle dress uniform the woodland camo that was phased out of the army in 2005.

Was referring to the guy who had half his face bitten of at the start, seemed like they had him turning right after the bite.

no, he was just in shock and sarge shot him for letting his friend die.

[shootemindehead]

survival is a bad movie in my not so humble opinion. a cringe inducing, illogical and ultimately idiotic film that i wasted 90 mins of my life watching.

it's not a bad flick because it failed to live up to my "expectations" of romero. i have none. it should be clear that i am not a fanboy and outside of day (and a few other films), i have very little interest left in romero's work and almost zero interest in the original dawn.

survival is a bad movie because of the acting, the effects, the script, and as a special pet peeve of mine - those fucking irish accents. i don't give a rat's ass about theories as to why some of the people on the island spoke like that but it was fooking irritating.

i just didn't buy into this "story" from jumpstreet. nothing about this film is significant, moving, or even relatively interesting. this is one of those films where you wish every single character died at the end, caught in a moment of their own gross stupidity.

there you go- the opinion of someone who doesn't look at dawn through rose colored glasses.

Bingo!







oh and..
In case anyone is feeling down from the reviews heres some
http://pioneermindset.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/kittens.jpg
to cheer you up

I fuckin hate cats.

[LouCipherr]

I saw Survival this weekend since Dj brought over his UK import, and all I can say is... "Meh"

I think I'll just leave it at that.

[Rottedfreak]

What a load of crap this movie was, I appreciate fiction that explores zombies but it was a load of crap through a poor script.
Romero's lost his edge, Land was everything he wanted Day to be but mixed up a bit to sut the times, Diary was so so but this is a abomination.
Zombies shouldn't 'learn' to eat animals it should be automatic with them, they co habitate with alligators in Day and eat mice in Night, the movie would have been better spent explaining that with a simple "they ignore cold blooded animals" or retain fear of predators.

[Fecunditatis]

Sorry for those who disliked it, but I had a great time. In fact, one of the things I liked most, which even people who defend the film seem to hate, was the zombie on horseback. It's obvious that Romero is not interested in doing (or cannot afford to do) the film everyone is waiting for. In fact, I think he has not been interested in making the zombies scary for a long while, something that is evident from the minute we watch the talk show jokes in the laptop or, simply, the way the living interact with the dead, more bothered than afraid.
I just wish the story was longer and bigger in "scale" but, for what it is and given the budget, it manages to be quite a classy film, full of interesting ideas I would have loved to see developed.

[MinionZombie]

Interesting you bring up the zombie riding a horse - I wasn't at all bothered by it.

There didn't seem to be much "riding" going on, not in my eyes anyway, just seemed like a zombie clinging on in a robotic fashion ... "riding" the horse as much as the zombie mailman was "delivering" mail, if you know what I mean.

In fact, I really liked the idea about this zombie - previously a horse lover - just riding around and around the island without any purpose. All the little 'bits' the zombies performed throughout the film I found to be fascinating and enjoyable.

[kidgloves]

I saw Survival this weekend since Dj brought over his UK import, and all I can say is... "Meh"

I think I'll just leave it at that.

C'mon mate. Say what you think.
I love George as much as the next fan of his films but this is a mess. As I've said, I'll support the guy but churning out this sort of stuff just tarnishes his reputation. I'm not normally the type to keep banging on about movies I don't like but I have grown up with Georges films and this really really disppointed me.
And no. I'm not looking for Dawn. That's a very patronizing thing to assume about people who don't like this. Quite frankly, Survival is rubbish. There. I've said it and it pains me to.

Cheers

[bassman]

There didn't seem to be much "riding" going on, not in my eyes anyway, just seemed like a zombie clinging on in a robotic fashion ... "riding" the horse as much as the zombie mailman was "delivering" mail, if you know what I mean.


Dude.....she was jumping fences! :lol:

[clanglee]

Dude.....she was jumping fences! :lol:

Yeah, I had a problem with that bit as well. . . .besides. . . didn't the damn horse ever get tired? And aren't horses kinda squeamish when it comes to blood and dead things?



Oh and post 2500!!!!!!!! That's right bitches, I'm chasing prey!!!

[LouCipherr]

C'mon mate. Say what you think.

Fine. I know many of these points have been brought up, but you asked, so here it is:

First rule of filmmaking: bad CGI is bad CGI. If you can't afford the good stuff, leave it the hell out. Do the effects practical or don't do them at all or film it in a way that neither are necessary. The poor CGI is distracting, annoying, and just makes the film more cheesy than it already is. The only CGI that I thought was decent enough to not roll your eyes at was at the beginning when the one military dude gets a chunk taken out of his cheek and he turns slowly to the camera. That's the only place it "worked" for me. Look, I realize this was a low budget affair, but that is no excuse.

Second - the whole Hatfield & McCoy's crap (ie: warring families) was just not something I could digest easily. It's been done to death, and this puts no new spin on it (other than zombies, but that's not enough to make it interesting). Love the 'accents' of the people who live on an island off Delaware.. Laughable.

Third - the humor in this is so sub-par it's sad. Giving a zombie a handfull of lit dynamite then saying "thank you" when he pulls it through the door? Do I even need to mention how - for lack of a better word - gay that was? The fire extinguisher zombie? How about the grenade when it blows up the shack and everyone is just standing there and the guy says "Jesus Christ, what was that?!" C'MON!!!!! That's just fucking stupid - that slapstick shit belongs in a Leslie Neilson movie, not in a Romero film! Yes, you can point me to the pie fight in Dawn and other silly things in the other "dead" films, but this one was the epitome of piss poor humor, wrapped around a sub-par script.

Do we even need to mention the chick rubbing one off at the beginning of the movie? What purpose did THAT serve other than to excite prepubescent boys? puh-lease, George, leave that shit out! I like to see a woman rubbing one out on occasion myself, but the difference is, I usually see it in a PORN! NOT IN A GODDAMN ZOMBIE FILM! and especially not a GAR zombie film.

There's so much more wrong with it, but I'll leave it at that. The bottom line, for me, is this: It was a good for a one-time watch. I admit, I watched it twice total - once with my wife and once with my son (to see if I could get anything else out of it) - and that was one time too many. My wife, 30 minutes into the film, turned to me and said "This is bad!" and my son (who's 14), surprisingly said he liked it, but liked Romero's other Zed films much better, Dawn being his favorite.

I won't say I 'hated' it, but I also won't say I loved the film either. It's a one-time watch without much of a reason for additional viewings.

Like I said... "meh" is the best description I could come up with.

All that being said, I think the film had some beautiful shots as far as the cinematography, and there was some potential there to be a good flick, but I think it just fell short.

Between Land, Diary and Survival, I would have to rate Survival as my least favorite of the Tortonto-Era GAR. That's pretty surprising considering my loathing for Diary and especially Land. I didn't expect another "Dawn" "Night" or "day" but I certainly didn't expect what we got.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Fine. I know many of these points have been brought up, but you asked, so here it is:

First rule of filmmaking: bad CGI is bad CGI. If you can't afford the good stuff, leave it the hell out. Do the effects practical or don't do them at all or film it in a way that neither are necessary. The poor CGI is distracting, annoying, and just makes the film more cheesy than it already is. The only CGI that I thought was decent enough to not roll your eyes at was at the beginning when the one military dude gets a chunk taken out of his cheek and he turns slowly to the camera. That's the only place it "worked" for me. Look, I realize this was a low budget affair, but that is no excuse.

Second - the whole Hatfield & McCoy's crap (ie: warring families) was just not something I could digest easily. It's been done to death, and this puts no new spin on it (other than zombies, but that's not enough to make it interesting). Love the 'accents' of the people who live on an island off Delaware.. Laughable.

Third - the humor in this is so sub-par it's sad. Giving a zombie a handfull of lit dynamite then saying "thank you" when he pulls it through the door? Do I even need to mention how - for lack of a better word - gay that was? The fire extinguisher zombie? How about the grenade when it blows up the shack and everyone is just standing there and the guy says "Jesus Christ, what was that?!" C'MON!!!!! That's just fucking stupid - that slapstick shit belongs in a Leslie Neilson movie, not in a Romero film! Yes, you can point me to the pie fight in Dawn and other silly things in the other "dead" films, but this one was the epitome of piss poor humor, wrapped around a sub-par script.

Do we even need to mention the chick rubbing one off at the beginning of the movie? What purpose did THAT serve other than to excite prepubescent boys? puh-lease, George, leave that shit out! I like to see a woman rubbing one out on occasion myself, but the difference is, I usually see it in a PORN! NOT IN A GODDAMN ZOMBIE FILM! and especially not a GAR zombie film.

There's so much more wrong with it, but I'll leave it at that. The bottom line, for me, is this: It was a good for a one-time watch. I admit, I watched it twice total - once with my wife and once with my son (to see if I could get anything else out of it) - and that was one time too many. My wife, 30 minutes into the film, turned to me and said "This is bad!" and my son (who's 14), surprisingly said he liked it, but liked Romero's other Zed films much better, Dawn being his favorite.

I won't say I 'hated' it, but I also won't say I loved the film either. It's a one-time watch without much of a reason for additional viewings.

Like I said... "meh" is the best description I could come up with.

All that being said, I think the film had some beautiful shots as far as the cinematography, and there was some potential there to be a good flick, but I think it just fell short.

Between Land, Diary and Survival, I would have to rate Survival as my least favorite of the Tortonto-Era GAR. That's pretty surprising considering my loathing for Diary and especially Land. I didn't expect another "Dawn" "Night" or "day" but I certainly didn't expect what we got.


You we're being kind. Call it what it is... a turd. :elol:

[LouCipherr]

I dunno Dj, I did get some enjoyment out of the film, but overall, nothing really struck a chord with me. I didn't expect a "Pittsburgh-Era" GAR film, but I also didn't expect something this sub-par with Survivial, either.

[kidgloves]

Thanks for the input guys. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't just me.
Funny enough I didn't find the cgi distracting except the flaming head.
What did me was the reliance on zombies just wandering around a corner for the sake of the gag. Over and over and over again. George is repeating himself and he's not doing it very well.
Like I said, I'm not going to bang on about it. Maybe I'm looking for a reason to watch it again but I can't bring myself to do it. Just wanted to register my disappointment.

Peace

[ryansson]

Ya know what has been missing for me in the last 3 films? Atmospheric, unique zombie music, you know the type, the bleepy, mechanised, sterile, sombre stuff that was prevalent in Dawn, Day and in Savini's Night remake

[Danny]

Ya know what has been missing for me in the last 3 films? Atmospheric, unique zombie music, you know the type, the bleepy, mechanised, sterile, sombre stuff that was prevalent in Dawn, Day and in Savini's Night remake

True, the zombies look better, but in direct proportion to that the music gets shittier.

well, thats harsh, not shitty. Just dismissible.

[Exatreides]

I thought zombies were terrified of fire. That one didn't even mind being half on fire.

[LouCipherr]

What did me was the reliance on zombies just wandering around a corner for the sake of the gag. Over and over and over again. George is repeating himself and he's not doing it very well.

This was one of my other beefs with the film, as well as the score (they should've got Dj and I to do it - at least then it would've been evil and very menacing), but I figured I did enough bitching. :lol:

[clanglee]

I didn't see the movie as all that menacing really tho. . . it was mostly played for laughs this time. . . And intentionally. . . which is rare for a Romero zed movie.

[ryansson]

Totally agree Clanglee, the absence of this menace and the fact that the zeds are poorly realised in general is very surprising in a GAR flick for me

[bassman]

I didn't see the movie as all that menacing really tho. . . it was mostly played for laughs this time. . . And intentionally. . . which is rare for a Romero zed movie.

I actually dig that. As I've said before, the poor CGI physical effects were an annoyance but the other gags worked quite well imo. The film was a bit more light hearted than any in the past and that worked with me. It didn't work amazingly well, but it worked on a level that kept me interested. I also really liked the old society/western feel.

Survival is kind of like Romero's answer to Shaun. He's always been saying he wanted to make a comedy and this was his chance to try it out a bit. Whether or not it worked is a matter of opinion...

[childofgilead]

Ah Survival of the dead.



I know these are just nit picking things, but for me at least they really took the feel out of it. Imagine if in 28 weeks later they had been wearing olive drab. flying huey's and shooting m14's at the runners.




http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Image:28WL_M213.jpg

Just bustin' your balls chief..:D

[clanglee]

I actually dig that. As I've said before, the poor CGI physical effects were an annoyance but the other gags worked quite well imo. The film was a bit more light hearted than any in the past and that worked with me. It didn't work amazingly well, but it worked on a level that kept me interested. I also really liked the old society/western feel.

Survival is kind of like Romero's answer to Shaun. He's always been saying he wanted to make a comedy and this was his chance to try it out a bit. Whether or not it worked is a matter of opinion...

agreed!!

[DjfunkmasterG]

Ya know what has been missing for me in the last 3 films? Atmospheric, unique zombie music, you know the type, the bleepy, mechanised, sterile, sombre stuff that was prevalent in Dawn, Day and in Savini's Night remake


True, the zombies look better, but in direct proportion to that the music gets shittier.

well, thats harsh, not shitty. Just dismissible.


This was one of my other beefs with the film, as well as the score (they should've got Dj and I to do it - at least then it would've been evil and very menacing), but I figured I did enough bitching. :lol:


Well when Romero does another zombie film he can hire us on the cheap. Between Lou and I our score would be so evil I think he would reject it. :lol:

[MinionZombie]

agreed!!

Second that "agreed" to Bassman.

[LouCipherr]

Between Lou and I our score would be so evil I think he would reject it. :lol:

This. :D

[shootemindehead]

Interesting you bring up the zombie riding a horse - I wasn't at all bothered by it.

There didn't seem to be much "riding" going on, not in my eyes anyway, just seemed like a zombie clinging on in a robotic fashion ... "riding" the horse as much as the zombie mailman was "delivering" mail, if you know what I mean.

In fact, I really liked the idea about this zombie - previously a horse lover - just riding around and around the island without any purpose. All the little 'bits' the zombies performed throughout the film I found to be fascinating and enjoyable.

Ever try riding a horse at speed?

Something that lacks the basic co-ordination to even walk correctly couldn't do it.

It was ridiculous and wholly un-necessary.

[Exatreides]

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Image:28WL_M213.jpg

Just bustin' your balls chief..:D

Aww Damn it...

I meant Springfields! Springfields I say!

[ChokeOnEm]

Roger Ebert has weighed in. He loved Dawn, hated Day, liked Land and liked Diary. When he was a very young critic, he railed against Night as being detrimental to children's moral or something. In any case, here's his take on Survival. Like several people I've talked to, he says he could not get into the Muldoon vs. O'Flynn rivalry whatsoever. IMO, those two bickering colorful geezers were the best part - and a helluva lot better written than Van Sprang's Sarge or the emo kid, or any of the other characters.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100526/REVIEWS/100529983