Survival of the Dead
September 17th 2010 02:23
My God, it’s been more than forty years since Romero unleashed the walking dead upon us. And Night of the Living Dead (1968) still kicks most modern horrors into the middle of next week. But George Romero has so dropped the ball with the latest in his shuffling, shambolic saga. Survival of the Dead (2009) is the worst of the six movies, even less impressive than Diary of the Dead (2008) which was pretty disappointing in itself. Standing back and looking at the entire series I feel quite comfortable in saying that Day of the Dead (1985) is his masterwork. Night would follow Day, then Land (2005), and then Dawn (1978).
Survival takes place a few weeks after the dead have started to walk, so chronologically it occurs between Night and Dawn, and around the same time as Diary. The action takes place on Plum island near Delaware. It follows the plight of two warring Irish families; the O’Flynn’s and the Muldoon’s, and the soldiers caught in between who arrive on the island in search of sanctuary from the deadheads (as the zombies are referred to).
Romero has fashioned Survival like a Western. He’s also attempted to make the most comedic installment of the series, more so than the satire of Dawn. The movie fails miserably on both levels, and fails even further as a remarkable zombie movie, and as a horror. Romero, what have done?! I can only hope that before he hits 80 years old he delivers us a kick-ass finale; Twilight (or Dusk) of the Dead. The fans demand a return to form! Otherwise they’ll be Hell to pay.
Where do I start? Survival looks, acts and moves like a TV movie. There is nothing visually striking about it. The performances are mediocre at best, with only Kenneth Welsh as O’Flynn standing out, and even then I’m sure if he didn’t have his lilting Irish accent his character would be boring as fuck. Kathleen Munroe as his daughter (including the twin) is okay, but neither can save a dead in the water tedious domestic dispute. The rest of the characters are utterly forgettable, or annoying; like Athena Karkanis as Tomboy, a lipstick lesbian marine.
Since when did the zombies become skilled at riding horses, so soon into the apocalypse?! That so got my goat. But more so is Romero’s reliance on CGI effects. He’s abandoned Greg Nicotero and team and allowed almost every gore set-piece to be executed in post. It’s depressing. There’s one mentionable; a torso tearing a la Rhodes. But the worst is a scene that features several severed heads on sticks with Nicotine Crocket (Alan Van Sprang) wasting precious bullets shooting them. Like, doh! What are the fucking heads gonna do, dude?! Survival is riddled with bullshit.
You would be hard pressed to identify Survival of the Dead as a Romero zombie movie. The undead are far from frightening, there is virtually no menace present. The “performances” of the dead are pathetic, and I mean that most genuinely. The screenplay is dreadful; terrible dialogue, smug characterizations, Romero fills the narrative with unnecessary shots and stupid gags. If there’s a social commentary here it’s buried so deep it will never surface, not in any repeat viewings (which I certainly won’t be doing). At least Diary had a visual edge, albeit slight.
Survival of the Dead should be shot through the head. Enough said.
Here’s the trailer:
Survival takes place a few weeks after the dead have started to walk, so chronologically it occurs between Night and Dawn, and around the same time as Diary. The action takes place on Plum island near Delaware. It follows the plight of two warring Irish families; the O’Flynn’s and the Muldoon’s, and the soldiers caught in between who arrive on the island in search of sanctuary from the deadheads (as the zombies are referred to).
Romero has fashioned Survival like a Western. He’s also attempted to make the most comedic installment of the series, more so than the satire of Dawn. The movie fails miserably on both levels, and fails even further as a remarkable zombie movie, and as a horror. Romero, what have done?! I can only hope that before he hits 80 years old he delivers us a kick-ass finale; Twilight (or Dusk) of the Dead. The fans demand a return to form! Otherwise they’ll be Hell to pay.
Where do I start? Survival looks, acts and moves like a TV movie. There is nothing visually striking about it. The performances are mediocre at best, with only Kenneth Welsh as O’Flynn standing out, and even then I’m sure if he didn’t have his lilting Irish accent his character would be boring as fuck. Kathleen Munroe as his daughter (including the twin) is okay, but neither can save a dead in the water tedious domestic dispute. The rest of the characters are utterly forgettable, or annoying; like Athena Karkanis as Tomboy, a lipstick lesbian marine.
Since when did the zombies become skilled at riding horses, so soon into the apocalypse?! That so got my goat. But more so is Romero’s reliance on CGI effects. He’s abandoned Greg Nicotero and team and allowed almost every gore set-piece to be executed in post. It’s depressing. There’s one mentionable; a torso tearing a la Rhodes. But the worst is a scene that features several severed heads on sticks with Nicotine Crocket (Alan Van Sprang) wasting precious bullets shooting them. Like, doh! What are the fucking heads gonna do, dude?! Survival is riddled with bullshit.
You would be hard pressed to identify Survival of the Dead as a Romero zombie movie. The undead are far from frightening, there is virtually no menace present. The “performances” of the dead are pathetic, and I mean that most genuinely. The screenplay is dreadful; terrible dialogue, smug characterizations, Romero fills the narrative with unnecessary shots and stupid gags. If there’s a social commentary here it’s buried so deep it will never surface, not in any repeat viewings (which I certainly won’t be doing). At least Diary had a visual edge, albeit slight.
Survival of the Dead should be shot through the head. Enough said.
Here’s the trailer:
| 143 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog

























Comment by Lyzsi Sinclair
Cinema Nut
Film News and Reviews...
I know that Romero says he has ideas for at least two more DEAD films, and that he's expressed an interest in shooting them back-to-back - and that they would explore new ideas brought to the surface in this film. I personally wish he'd do something else, and only come back to this franchise if he had a vision SO epic that it must be brought to our screens (and done well).
I do want to watch this but purely so that I can know I've watched it and get it outta my system - not really for any idea of entertainment.
Thanks for the review though, yours is the most thorough and interesting one so far :]
Comment by Royale
Sin City
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Royale, you're part of the majority of Romero fans. But I beg to differ; Dawn's acting is atrocious for the most part and although Day might be more talky, I much prefer its narrative arc than to Dawn's. Plus its score is more atmospheric ... and not to forget Tom Savini's astounding effects work.
Comment by David O'Connell
20/20 Filmsight
Screen Fanatic
Comment by Royale
Sin City
Day and the rest just didnt have the impact. Dont get me wrong I loved all the movies but maybe never having been a green beret or a brilliant scientist the others just dont hit home they are are just zombie action movies to me which is fine...
however I can relate to holing up in a mall with a bunch of crazies I can get...the whole nature of humanity coming back to haunt us/ we are our own worst enemy I can get ...For the record the remake of Dawn sucked depite better acting and film making
Comment by Jason King
Sydney Table
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
I totally agree he should move on
Comment by JMD
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
I actually love Znyder's remake, easily one of the best remakes ever!
JMD, so how the fuck did zombie sister know how to ride a horse? And how come she didn't bite it sooner? Makes no sense.
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
For me "Night" is still the one by the way.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by Royale
Sin City
...yeah Im old....There is no doubt the later movies were vastly superior as far as cinematography but to me they just didnt have the impact and the culture was going through a cycle of appocalypse movies at the time and dawn stood out.
The whole mall shopping culture was still somewhat new...where I grew up in 1978
You could even still buy guns at some mall stores just like in the movies
If survival is as bad as everyone says it is I wont even bother...
George go back to the mall and this time dont kill off all the interesting character as
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
When I finally saw the movie on VHS, as impressive as it was, it still looked dated, especially the very fake looking blood. I found sections of it rather boring too.
I felt the apocalyptic nature of Day was far more oppressive, considering the retreat underground, the hostility between the scientists and the military, and the escape route up the missile silo ... I also loved the ironic humour of the zombie Bub.
We'll no doubt forever be championing each movie ... so perhaps we just leave it at that. You can be the mall rat, and I'll be the bunker boy.
Comment by JMD
Comment by Joshua_the_samurai
Bucket Movies
Weird, Rare, and Overlooked Film
Ultimate Battle
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Or re-watch Romero's Day of the Dead or Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake. Eats this crap for breakfast.