ChokeOnEm
25-Mar-2010, 08:08 PM
Longtime Romero fan here.
Like most of you, I consider the original trilogy the holy grail of zombie flicks.
With each passing new installment, I find myself falling into the same trap of breathlessly waiting for Romero to deliver a classic.
For ‘Survival’ I remembered to manage expectations, but I would be lying if I said a part of me didn’t come away disappointed.
I was hoping for a film at least on the level of 'Land', and to some extent, it meets this modest goal (let’s just put Diary behind us, shall we).
The setting is unique, Kenneth Walsh steals the show, and the feuding rivalry between the Muldoons and the O'Flynns is one of the fresher spins on the genre in some time.
Romero’s dark humor is also on-display throughout.
Religious hypocrisy is his latest target, just as terror politics was skewered in "Land".
Here, the “pro-life” (or would it be "pro-living dead”?) island patriarch, Seamus Muldoon, just as soon blasts the deadheads away as he does pray for their salvation.
The final shot is also a classic (shame so many reviewers felt the need to spoil it).
However, I have to give 'Land' the edge due to the far superior gore work of Nicotero.
Many of the practical splatter efx are just really poor here.
Survival’s disembowelment scene(s), in particular, barely even measure up to the original ‘78 Dawn.
Back then, a young Savini worked his magic, and could have you believe a biker was literally having his guts torn ashred by blue faced hordes.
In Survival, there’s little integration between the actors and the feeding frenzy, everything is just a noticeably fake prop torso.
This is also visibly jarring during a scene where a character has the skin ripped from his skull.
The dummy head flails about weightlessly exactly like, well, a dummy head.
Of all the shortcomings of Romero’s recent output, weak and limited gore is not one I expect.
Dripping entrails and viscera don’t make or break a movie, but in the case of a zombie film, especially a Romero one, it IS a factor.
During 'Land', I thought Savini’s master touch was sorely missed.
In Survival, KNB is missed.
If a Romero film can’t even adequately deliver on the red stuff, why bother?
Technical quibbles aside, I also think Alan Van Sprang’s overacting is worth a mention.
Van Sprang has a good look and is a likeable lead, but on two occasions his character goes into such a massive freak out that it makes Tom Towles' turn as Harry Cooper in the Night remake look restrained by comparison.
As with Big Daddy howling and barking at the moon, I have to wonder, where is the quality control?
Does nobody behind the video assist monitor recognize the cheese and shout “CUT”?
Lastly, Romero has seemed to develop a lazy writing quirk.
On no less than 2 to 3 occasions, Character A will say a line of dialogue only to have Character B recite the same line back to A for dramatic effect.
For example, Tomboy upon catching O’Flynn when he jumps to the ferry says “You’re lucky I’m me.”
Later, when O’Flynn steps forward to rescue Tomboy from the clutches of the Muldoons, he quips to her “you’re lucky I’m me.”
This happens again when Tomboy mercy kills the transforming Francisco, saying “you finally changed my life forever.”
This dovetails with Francisco, who said earlier that he would change her life.
Nicotine also repeats the line “If you ever get to be full grown” twice for effect.
I don’t know how else to say this, but this is the hallmark of a hackish amateur, not a seasoned pro like Romero.
I normally cringe when this happens even once in a movie script, but repeatedly? C’mon. :annoyed:
All in all, as others have mentioned, 'Survival' is a step up from 'Diary', but if you were hoping to be disabused of the notion that Romero has lost quite a bit between Day and now, don’t bother.
Whether this can be chalked up to Romero’s own advanced age or the loss of Savini and Rubinstein, I have no idea, but it cannot be denied.
I’d be less inclined to micro-analytically harp on these things if the movie raised the bar for squibs and inventive use of pig guts, but even in this shallow respect, Romero has been soundly outmatched by the new kids on the block.
Like I said earlier, what’s the point?
C
Like most of you, I consider the original trilogy the holy grail of zombie flicks.
With each passing new installment, I find myself falling into the same trap of breathlessly waiting for Romero to deliver a classic.
For ‘Survival’ I remembered to manage expectations, but I would be lying if I said a part of me didn’t come away disappointed.
I was hoping for a film at least on the level of 'Land', and to some extent, it meets this modest goal (let’s just put Diary behind us, shall we).
The setting is unique, Kenneth Walsh steals the show, and the feuding rivalry between the Muldoons and the O'Flynns is one of the fresher spins on the genre in some time.
Romero’s dark humor is also on-display throughout.
Religious hypocrisy is his latest target, just as terror politics was skewered in "Land".
Here, the “pro-life” (or would it be "pro-living dead”?) island patriarch, Seamus Muldoon, just as soon blasts the deadheads away as he does pray for their salvation.
The final shot is also a classic (shame so many reviewers felt the need to spoil it).
However, I have to give 'Land' the edge due to the far superior gore work of Nicotero.
Many of the practical splatter efx are just really poor here.
Survival’s disembowelment scene(s), in particular, barely even measure up to the original ‘78 Dawn.
Back then, a young Savini worked his magic, and could have you believe a biker was literally having his guts torn ashred by blue faced hordes.
In Survival, there’s little integration between the actors and the feeding frenzy, everything is just a noticeably fake prop torso.
This is also visibly jarring during a scene where a character has the skin ripped from his skull.
The dummy head flails about weightlessly exactly like, well, a dummy head.
Of all the shortcomings of Romero’s recent output, weak and limited gore is not one I expect.
Dripping entrails and viscera don’t make or break a movie, but in the case of a zombie film, especially a Romero one, it IS a factor.
During 'Land', I thought Savini’s master touch was sorely missed.
In Survival, KNB is missed.
If a Romero film can’t even adequately deliver on the red stuff, why bother?
Technical quibbles aside, I also think Alan Van Sprang’s overacting is worth a mention.
Van Sprang has a good look and is a likeable lead, but on two occasions his character goes into such a massive freak out that it makes Tom Towles' turn as Harry Cooper in the Night remake look restrained by comparison.
As with Big Daddy howling and barking at the moon, I have to wonder, where is the quality control?
Does nobody behind the video assist monitor recognize the cheese and shout “CUT”?
Lastly, Romero has seemed to develop a lazy writing quirk.
On no less than 2 to 3 occasions, Character A will say a line of dialogue only to have Character B recite the same line back to A for dramatic effect.
For example, Tomboy upon catching O’Flynn when he jumps to the ferry says “You’re lucky I’m me.”
Later, when O’Flynn steps forward to rescue Tomboy from the clutches of the Muldoons, he quips to her “you’re lucky I’m me.”
This happens again when Tomboy mercy kills the transforming Francisco, saying “you finally changed my life forever.”
This dovetails with Francisco, who said earlier that he would change her life.
Nicotine also repeats the line “If you ever get to be full grown” twice for effect.
I don’t know how else to say this, but this is the hallmark of a hackish amateur, not a seasoned pro like Romero.
I normally cringe when this happens even once in a movie script, but repeatedly? C’mon. :annoyed:
All in all, as others have mentioned, 'Survival' is a step up from 'Diary', but if you were hoping to be disabused of the notion that Romero has lost quite a bit between Day and now, don’t bother.
Whether this can be chalked up to Romero’s own advanced age or the loss of Savini and Rubinstein, I have no idea, but it cannot be denied.
I’d be less inclined to micro-analytically harp on these things if the movie raised the bar for squibs and inventive use of pig guts, but even in this shallow respect, Romero has been soundly outmatched by the new kids on the block.
Like I said earlier, what’s the point?
C