For those of you who **have seen** Survival of the Dead - - - opinion poll!

[MoonSylver]

GAR has transcended traditional horror. Survival is the true meaning of horror. It takes your money and leaves an empty place in your soul. Enjoying movies is for romantic comedies. Wusses. A horror movie should fill you with hate. Your buddy shoulda come up and punched you in the nose for all the deep suffering you caused him, and then you say, "Yeah, that's right. It was a pretty good horror movie huh." Horror movie performance art?

[AcesandEights]

Survival is the true meaning of horror. It takes your money and leaves an empty place in your soul. Like Vegas?

[rawr]

There was not a single redeeming quality in this entire film. Horrible SFX. Horrible story. Horrible acting. Horrible dialogue. The score was easily forgettable and presented no atmosphere. I love George Romero, I grew up with his movies just like most of us have, but he needs to stop.

[ProfessorChaos]

i seriously think the only reason some come to the defense of this turd of a film is the fact that it's got "GEORGE A RUHMERO!!!!!!!!!!'s" in the title. that would be the only redeeming feature i see...and even that ain't saying much these days.

[blind2d]

Chaos is right. While I didn't mind Land or Diary as much... Survival just... it just sucks, in so many different ways. I mean, the gags were dorky and contrived, the entire plot was contrived, for that matter! And there's no point for her being a lesbian other than her being a lesbian! Which is brainless. Also, money? Who would honestly give a shit about money during the zombopocalypse? I guess that was an issue I had with Land, too, but then it felt a little more... I don't know, believable? Class warfare, and all that. Anyway, what the hell is up with her having a twin?! Why did that have to be a surprise? Why did all the "good guys" who died die in such flippant ways? Why did I hate that young man from the woods throughout the entire film? Maybe it's because he didn't fucking do anything! Why the hell did she let herself get bit by her sister? I could go on and on, but yeah... I am disappoint, and though I won't throw my copy away, I must say it'll be a while before I ever get the urge to rewatch it. Damn...

[MoonSylver]

It's growing on me in some odd & unidentifiable way I can't explain. (no fungus or disease jokes please ) I don't know WHY, but I have the REALLY strong & irresistible urge to watch it again soon, which is strange, as I really do think it's the weakest of the series...

[BillyRay]

It's growing on me in some odd & unidentifiable way I can't explain. (no fungus or disease jokes please ) I don't know WHY, but I have the REALLY strong & irresistible urge to watch it again soon, which is strange, as I really do think it's the weakest of the series... I'll put it in one word: "MULDOOOOOOOOOOOONNN!!!!!!!

[AcesandEights]

The funny thing is, it seems fairly well received in the poll, I think better than Land or Diary. For me--to be honest--it was a case of lowered expectations. It was okay and I liked it for what it was: light, made for sci fi channel standard spaghetti zombie film, and a pretty good one at that. As much as people say the movie is heavily defended by fans of Romero, there's a big time case for people coming on here unduly pissed--pissed about a zombie movie of all things--because Romero disappoints their life long expectations. PS--   Muldooooooooon!!!

[MoonSylver]

[BillyRay]

My heart is warmed that this is a Thing now...

[Trin]

There was one redeeming.... well, redeeming might be an overstatement... There was one facet of the movie I enjoyed. The opening conflict between O'Flynn and the family with the children in the cribs. When you hear that the central conflict of the movie is centered around two factions - one who support destroying the dead, and one who support housing them... well, it sounds pretty hokey. I mean, what's to decide there? You eradicate zombies, no debate required. But when O'Flynn is faced with having to put a bullet through the heads of those kids it was very well done. Especially him losing the will to implement his own recommendation. These are not vicous monsters. They are docile children chained in cribs. This isn't years into it. It's maybe a week. I don't know. I pretty much agree with all the rants about Survival. And I don't think it came through on the solid premise. But for a second there it was pretty cool.

[MoonSylver]

When you hear that the central conflict of the movie is centered around two factions - one who support destroying the dead, and one who support housing them... well, it sounds pretty hokey. I mean, what's to decide there? You eradicate zombies, no debate required. For a reasonable person yes. But you can bet that early on there would be some people who would try to keep them around thinking "they're not REALLY dead" or "they can be 'cured'...". So I liked the premise, but the execution? Yeah...other than that one moment...

[darth los]

For a reasonable person yes. But you can bet that early on there would be some people who would try to keep them around thinking "they're not REALLY dead" or "they can be 'cured'...". So I liked the premise, but the execution? Yeah...other than that one moment... Well, with merely a few days into the plague I can see how there would be those who would be wary of shooting the loves of their lives in the face unless they absolutely had to. A few days into it how do they know they are not just sick or crazy? But once it's been confirmed that they were actually dead and not sick then keeping them around is not an option. There was a post not to long ago about the inconsistencies in survival and one of the points was that at first muldoon wanted to keep the dead around,But on the return to plum he was inexplicably shooting zombies in the head with abandon. Me thinks that he too came to the realization that they were not alive and just sick. Once he found out they were really dead and would that his wife would rip his throat out if given the chance he took a harder stance and tried to look for alternative food sources for them.

[Trin]

There was a post not to long ago about the inconsistencies in survival and one of the points was that at first muldoon wanted to keep the dead around,But on the return to plum he was inexplicably shooting zombies in the head with abandon. It wasn't that inexplicable. At first he was shooting the ones that weren't kin. Especially in light of O'Flynn sending masses of people seeking safe haven to the island I can see how he'd be led to thin the heard of walkers. Later he was shooting them as he couldn't control them or entice them with food. He was getting overrun and knew it. Me thinks that he too came to the realization that they were not alive and just sick. Once he found out they were really dead and would that his wife would rip his throat out if given the chance he took a harder stance and tried to look for alternative food sources for them. But did his wife make any indication she'd rip his throat out? I found it odd that some of the zombies were very docile even with humans quite close. She seemed to be one of them. The alternate food source thing was the biggest "inexplicable" for me. Why does GAR harp on finding alternative food sources? They don't get full so it won't pacify them (like food does me). They don't degrade without food so there's no need to feed them while awaiting a cure. If they won't eat bacon then are they worth saving anyhow?

[krakenslayer]

The alternate food source thing was the biggest "inexplicable" for me. Why does GAR harp on finding alternative food sources? They don't get full so it won't pacify them (like food does me). They don't degrade without food so there's no need to feed them while awaiting a cure. If they won't eat bacon then are they worth saving anyhow? The idea in Survival was not simply to get them to eat that which is not human, but to redirect the craving onto something else. By default, a zombie craves human flesh - it sees someone walking around and lunges after them drooling - but if you get it to eat something else, and it enjoys that "something else", and that "something else" is made more accessible than human flesh, then it stands to reason that they will, by degrees, become less interested in pursuing the unobtainable human meat (which most of them have never succeeded in tasting anyway) and rechannel their hunger towards this new food source. It might work - it's fairly sound from a behaviourist psychology perspective - or it might not. In Day, Frankenstein's plan was somewhat similar, but geared towards a different end. He wanted to find something that the zombies enjoyed, something that could be used as a reward, in order that he could train them. It's like training a dog: it does something good, you give it a treat; it does something bad, you withold the treat. Eventually, the behaviour becomes so ingrained that they will do the "good" action even in the absence of a treat. What was the potential benefit of this? It's only implied in the film, but very clear in the original script: they can train the zombies to kill other zombies.