Survival of the Dead (2010)

Sadly Over-hyped

Just what I expected

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

It has been a while since I watched Survival Of The Dead, which was a huge disappointment when it was released. After a long gap in viewings, I have maintained the same basic opinion. Coming off of Romero's excellent Diary Of The Dead, I was expecting George would deliver another excellent creative film. Not much so. While, I maintain that Survival Of The Dead is watchable, it is far from great. The film tries to take a lighter tone and forces comedy that is'nt funny into the mix. The Hatfield vs. The McCoys dynamic and big nods to the western are not bad ideas, but do few favors to a film that does'nt really work and is less than spectacular in the first place. It is clear that this film was made quickly and cheaply(where George usually shines). It would have been a lot better if George had more time and money to work out his best ideas and had more money to make this better visually. The f/x by Gregory Nicotero are not his best work and has a lot of really bad and obvious cgi. The acting is decent, but the story and characters are not that compelling. The prevalent theme of man's inhumanity to man is there, but is diluted by the sometimes goofy tone of the film and its poor execution. With all that being said, the film is not as bad as some would say. It certainly is better than lots of pure uninspired garbage that has since flooded the horror market, but for George A Romero it is his worst film. It is too bad that George has passed on and this was his last film, I was hoping he would have followed up with something really strong. Either way, Romero is a legend and his original trilogy of Dead films are untouchable, as well as other personal favorites like Martin, Knightriders and Creepshow.

And so these times of zombie movies everywhere you look, the grand master of the genre returns with his latest offering. Depending on what sort of (zombie) movies you like will determine which of George's original saga you like - if you like your horror 'pure' then Night of the Living Dead will be for you, if you like action - see Dawn of the Dead, a darker take on the zombie genre goes with Day of the Dead and finally a more modern 'Resident Evil' touch with Land of the Dead.Then George decided to 'reboot' the franchise set in modern times with Diary of the Dead. Whatever you think of it - it bombed. Neither fans of George or new cinema-goers liked it. So... where does he go from there? Does he learn from his mistake and go back to something more successful, i.e. perhaps a combination of Night/Dawn of the Dead?The answer, sadly, is no.Survival of the Dead is probably the most disappointing film of recent times. Not because it was bad. It's okay. Simply because it could have been so much better. It doesn't have much of a budget, but George is good at working round such limitations. After over thirty years spent making horror movies, this instalment comes across as if it was written by a horror-freshman.If you've ever gone onto the Internet Movie Database (IMDb.com) and looked up movies, sometimes people post in the forums sarcastic topics like '100 things I learned from xxx.' Then they go on to list all the plot holes and things that don't make sense. Unfortunately, Survival of the Dead is one long list of things that don't make sense. Its ultimate downfall is the characters. Not only are they pretty wafer-thin, but they do the most stupid and random things. To start one such list off I'd begin...1. When most of the world has been killed by zombies, the remaining humans think it's a really good idea to keep them alive 2. Stroking a hungry zombie, no matter how lovingly, will get you bitten 3. If you have six bullets in your gun and there are twenty zombies coming towards you, just use up all your ammunition - the undead will surely give up and not eat you 4. Finally, when the world is going to hell and the dead are coming back to life and attacking the living, it's far more important to kill the remaining humans while dragging up old grievancesYou probably get where I'm going with this.The whole film is just a mess. Characters go from being good to bad to who knows what in a matter of scenes. No one makes any sane decision throughout the whole ninety minutes, therefore leaving you not that bothered when they either turn to zombie chow or shoot each other because they suddenly feel like it.Is Survival of the Dead the last of George A Romero's films? He probably thought not. I daresay it is. Pity. It could have been so good.

Sarge Nicotine Crockett (Alan Van Sprang) is disillusioned with the military and the fight against the zombies. He leads a group of former military as bandits. Meanwhile six days after the dead started walking, Patrick O'Flynn (Kenneth Welsh) leads an effort to destroy the dead. The O'Flynns has a long feud with the Muldoons on Plum Island off the coast of Delaware. Seamus Muldoon (Richard Fitzpatrick) leads his family keeping his undead relatives waiting for a cure. Seamus exiles Patrick and some of his men to the mainland. Then later, there is a battle between Crockett's men and the O'Flynns at the docks. Sole survivor Patrick goes back to the island with Crockett's group. There they find the island teeming with the undead and the Muldoons in charge.The whole idea of family feud on an island is stupid. It feels like an idea from a century ago especially with all the Irish accents. The general quality is B-movie. Most disappointing is the quality of the CGI. If the CGI would be that bad, then I would rather have all real effects. There are so many ways to make this great and it does none of it. It starts with the bad writing. Of course, the budget is pretty low for a modern movie with that much ambition. There are some lame attempts to be funny. And it's not funny enough to be campy. It is a disappointment. Others have taken the genre to higher heights leaving Romero behind.

I think it amusing, half of you that are on here to bash films were probably not born when Romero first hit "Night". All you know is "CGI" these days. Yet, during you incubation, REAL films occurred. You Twighlight, Hunger Games idiots (which comprise a lot of you these days have no idea of cinema and it's purpose. Your purpose is to complain and nothing more simply because in "real life" no one give a crap on your opinions. You people are pathetic. How hard is it to actually enjoy a film for what it is? Just a friggin film. People pick apart films too much theses day. It's like they expect it to mirror life on a real scale. What ever happened to just pure fantasy and escape? This is whar movies are intended to be. All I say to you nerds that have to pick apart a film simply because YOU disagree .....well...eat it! Stay at home at 45. Don't try to attempt a life because life don't want you. Better yet....shoot yourself and save everyone the trould of having to take care of you after your mom gets murdered by your dad...'cause I would probably do the samre if I had a kid like you.