A fan review

**Fecunditatis** · 11-Sep-2009

"The film starts with action from the very first frame and never let's go. The characters are cool and the whole thing feels - this is weird - more like a good Carpenter than a good Romero".

http://www.horrordvds.com/vb3forum/s...ad.php?t=39658

**krakenslayer** · 11-Sep-2009

Wow! What an incredibly positive review. Variety gave it a poor write-up but then we had the very positive Hollywood Reporter, and now a great fan review.

I'm almost daring to hope that this might a true return to form.

And another suggestion that the movie is an absolute action-packed gorefest too!

capncnut · 11-Sep-2009

Ah, a testicle tickling review. I just hope it isn't post-screening excitement.

**bassman** · 11-Sep-2009

It has the edge of Night, the grittiness of Day and the insight of Dawn, all in 2009.

Excellent.

Where's Livingdeadboy's review? I think he's already seen it at TIFF, if im not mistaken.

**MinionZombie** · 11-Sep-2009

The gore is great, minus the obligatory one or two bad CGI, and the humor is there, subtle but highly inventive. The political comment on this one is also very well worked within the plot and actually it is more dualistic than you think.

Even more amped for this flick!

Even if you dial down the love a smidge (e.g. festival hype), it's still a great fan review/comment on it.

Day of the Dead got rinsed by critics when it came out, and people bitched about it so much for "not being Dawn of the Dead" (

), and look how awesome that movie actually was.

Also - Land of the Dead was shot in 2.35:1, so it's not Romero's first in that aspect ratio. Having it as that in Survival, however, really does help make it look the part even more.

I didn't like GAR's flirtation with subjective camera - it had already been done perfectly with Cannibal Holocaust and The Blair Witch Project, so why did we really need anymore? Least of all when we have [Rec] and Cloverfield at the same sorta time.

So I'm really glad we're back to a 'normal' objective view again.

**Mike70** · 11-Sep-2009

Originally Posted by capncnut

I just hope it isn't post-screening excitement.

sounds like there is a bit of that going on. i realize this is all a matter of opinion and it sounds like this guy was excited by seeing the film but come on:

Finally, a good US horror film by an american director. I mean, FINALLY. It could be his second best film in the DEAD trilogy (I place NIGHT in the 1st place).

this quote is from Choaster's second post in that thread.

you are going to have to go a LONG way to convince me of that.
i hope it is as good as this dude says it is but i've read this kind of masturbatory fan review before and many times they prove to be dead wrong (at least to me and that is all that matters).

Originally Posted by MinionZombie

I didn't like GAR's flirtation with subjective camera - it had already been done perfectly with Cannibal Holocaust and The Blair Witch Project, so why did we really need anymore? Least of all when we have [Rec] and Cloverfield at the same sorta time.

that is something that i hate with a burning passion. aside from .rec, which i loved despite the way it was shot, i really have a big problem with movies shot in the first person. i've always felt that shooting like that really destroys the way a movie ought to flow. you absolutely do not need a camera bouncing all over the place to add realism or tension to a scene.

**AcesandEights** · 11-Sep-2009

Loved one: "What kind of chances do you give him Doc?"
Doctor: "Well that depends, is he a fighter?"

**MinionZombie** · 11-Sep-2009

you absolutely do not need a camera bouncing all over the place to add realism or tension to a scene.

There is that, but it's also a really tough framework in which to work as it really limits a director's options. You can't do a lot of editing, you can't do a lot of cutaways, and you're bound to make a technical mistake (e.g. in [Rec] where they actually show you the tape being rewound to re-view a scene - that bugged the fuck outta me, I gotta say).

Or just anything about Cloverfield ... I wasn't a fan of that flick, it just annoyed me most of the time, and I thought it was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY over-rated. Cannibal Holocaust did it far earlier, and far better.

...

2nd best GAR flick? Well, naturally there's a lot of scepticism around these parts and in general what with the split reactions to Land and Diary, but even still, the original three are just simply better than Land, Diary or even Survival (which I haven't seen yet, obviously).

It's unfair to judge them beside Night, Dawn and Day to be honest. Judge Survival next to Land and Diary, I think.

Almost think of it as "GAR before and after the 90s", if you will ... the 90s being quite a creative vacuum for the man, and a decade that really signalled the break from his Pittsburgh filmmaking family roots into more lone territory.

Fortunately he's now growing a new family of people to work with in Canada, but us all having grown up watching his Pittsburgh stuff, it's hard to live up to that - so expecting him to is unfair really, so you shouldn't - and that's one of the reasons why I was a big fan of Land when it came out.

I like Diary when all is said and done, but I had a variety of issues with it ... many centring around the subjective camera thing.

Maybe I should re-watch Diary again (seen it 3 or 4 times now) and really see where I'm currently at with it...

Anyway - I wanna see Survival, damnit!

**krakenslayer** · 12-Sep-2009

It's showing in Toronto tonight, so expect to see more fan, as well as critic, reviews appearing on Sunday.

**Danny** · 12-Sep-2009

hmm....

im not a big fan review kind of guy, which i realize is an asinine double standard, but this reeks off "OMIGAWD-OMIGAWD-SQUUEEEEEE!" leaving the screening ultra-hype yknow?
I've always found a romero fans take on a new romero movie is very different between "just watched" and "saw it last month", and id much rather rely on the "saw it alst month" review than something right out of the cinema, which is always more than a little hyped.

**MinionZombie** · 12-Sep-2009

and id much rather rely on the "saw it alst month" review than something right out of the cinema, which is always more than a little hyped.

You're always going on about movies you've just seen at the cinema hours beforehand ... more often than not you seem to be moaning about them, but still.

**Danny** · 12-Sep-2009

Originally Posted by MinionZombie

You're always going on about movies you've just seen at the cinema hours beforehand ... more often than not you seem to be moaning about them, but still.

hence the asinine double standard, but like you said, its rare i rave about a movie, the last for me being moon and district 9, which i think later on is still good, though honestly i prefer moon, but i very rarely out and out rave about something and then later get cold to it.

at least in terms of movies yknow.

**MinionZombie** · 12-Sep-2009

Originally Posted by hellsing

hence the asinine double standard, but like you said, its rare i rave about a movie, the last for me being moon and district 9, which i think later on is still good, though honestly i prefer moon, but i very rarely out and out rave about something and then later get cold to it.

at least in terms of movies yknow.

Nah, you just straight up hate from the off.