George A. Romero Survival of the Dead

[Henry88]

[metal_bryan]

[MouthForWar]

I don't think the story sounds stupid at all. Some people think all zombies should just be killed and others want to keep their loved ones alive and hope for a cure... I think that's brilliant. I'm pumped. Count me as someone who really liked both Land and Diary and find both to be much better than they're given credit for. Romero has made much worse (see: Bruiser, Season of the Witch, Two Evil Eyes). And I'd take any Romero zombie flick over pretty much anything else coming out of the horror/zombie genre right now. He's one of the few to do flesh eating zombies right (heck, he created them!) and he actually does something new and interesting with each one instead of recycling himself.

I've heard nothing but good reviews for Survival. It got a standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival.

[KaijuHQ]

[jellydonut25]

[metal_bryan]

[KaijuHQ]

[MouthForWar]

Poster looks cool

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/photos ... w=600&zc=0

[jellydonut25]

is this going to be a theater release? if so, I think I'll go see it...there hasn't been a Romero "Dead" film I haven't liked...

I want to support GOOD stuff

[MouthForWar]

[jellydonut25]

[MouthForWar]

[Flame of Udin]

[jellydonut25]

[Flame of Udin]

[MouthForWar]

[metal_bryan]

[ultrazilla2000]

[MouthForWar]

Watched this on demand tonight since we didn't get it in theaters.

After watching this, I've realized I'll NEVER agree with the general concensous of horror fans. This movie was fun as hell. No, its not as good as Night or Dawn (or even Day), but its much better than Diary and at least on par with Land. Its vintage Romero through and through. The tone is right there with the rest of the Dead series. The writing and acting are about on the same level as the previous entries (but better than the too on-the-nose Diary).

It makes me wonder what the response to a movie like Dawn of the Dead would be now. I guarantee you people would b*tch all day about zombies on escalators and the pie fight... the older I get, the less I care about a film's status and I just enjoy it for what it is... if its a classic and I think it sucks, I'll say so. I think a lot of people seem obliged to find faults in current films like Survival (like bad acting), while overlooking them in older films. Even Night of the Living Dead (the BEST zombie film of all time and one of the top 5 horror films ever IMO) has some spotty acting. Same goes with Star Wars. The prequels are bad because the writing is lazy and they are boring... but the original Star Wars movies had silly dialogue and bad acting and plot holes also, yet those are the biggest complaints about the prequels. Or Godzilla Final Wars, which is every bit as stupid as Godzilla vs. Megalon or Gigan, but polarized the fan base MUCH more than those. I'm not saying Survival is as good as Dawn, I'm just saying that NONE of these movies are perfect... yet there's loads of zombie fans (as well as Star Wars fans) that will scream to high heavens that the original trilogies are perfect and flawless, even though a lot of their problems exist in the newer entries as well. My point is that I think some people see older films with "classic" status through rose colored glasses sometimes.

With these nerd backlashes, I've been finding more and more that a lot of the complaints about a new film can be applied to the classics as well. I just think modern audiences are too cynical. I think the older entries in any series always get a free pass because of a certain legacy or nostalgia in some viewers and I think that renders them incapable of seeing them as what they are. In this case, the Dead films are all b-movies made on really low budgets and with unknown actors, and this one is no exception. And I'm not someone who likes these just cuz of Romero... he's made quite a few films I don't like at all, but it just so happens that none of the Dead films are among them. Romero doing zombies always feels right, while most of the time, other zombie films just seem to feel like knock offs. Romero's worst zombie flick is usually better than the rest of the pack. While some of the original genre greats like Argento, Craven, Hooper, and even Carpenter have certainly fallen off the wagon with their last few films, I think Romero is still making decent films. He has yet to release anything near the monumental failure of something like Argento's Mother of Tears.

Day of the Dead was UNIVERSALLY loathed by horror fans when it came out and its considered a classic now and a lot of the haters from that time have gone back on their word. Time can only tell how Land, Diary, and Survival will hold up. But while some armchair critics pick these films apart and expect the next Dawn of the Dead with each passing entry, I'll enjoy them in the now for what they are... fun and imaginative b-movies that actually try to say something.

[jellydonut25]

I totally agree with you on the notion that if something is considered a 'classic' people feel like they have to LOVE it and ignore its faults but if something is new people feel like they are allowed to tear it apart...

like how people tear apart some of the better scifi/horror films recently (The Mist, District 9, Splice) for a fault or two and yet refuse to admit that, as good as The Shining is, without Jack Nicholson it would totally fall apart. People have really stopped judging movies on their own merits: in terms of remakes, I don't have a HUGE problem with that, but people feel the NEED to compare even original ideas to something that exists already; Splice gets compared to Species (and then people have the audacity to claim Species was BETTER?!?!?!) District 9 gets compared to AlienNation, even The Mist gets put up against other films...


Haven't seen Survival yet but like you've said, even Romero's WORST films are nowhere near the EPIC failures of some of the other GREATS like Carpenter's (Escape from LA anybody?), Wes Craven (Scream 2 and 3), and even Sam Raimi

I'd say people just go for the 'look and feel' of those older films, but House of the Devil (not the best movie ever, imho) captured the look and feel of 80s horror PERFECTLY and got no love. People just like what they are told to like; that's why a movie like Transformers 2 can make $400 million while a GREAT film like The Mist only nets $60 million...people just enjoy whatever is marketed best and shoved down their throats.

films like Survival or Diary never even have a chance...

[Benjamin Haines]

I watched this recently on an illegal streaming website. ($12.99 to rent a downloadable file? Way to encourage guilt-free piracy.)

This movie is a blast. Compared to Land of the Dead, I found the open woodland and island setting to be a refreshing change of scenery, and I liked how Romero seems to have gotten more relaxed as a filmmaker. He did his modern-day, post-apocalyptic capper to his original Dead trilogy with Land of the Dead (which I liked), and he got to start with a clean slate and experiment with Diary (which I still haven't seen). Survival is old-fashioned Romero at work, with a simple character-centric adventure story and plenty of cool sequences of suspense and zombie splatter.

The film's biggest flaw is the same problem Land had: Romero can't write dialogue anymore. Though overall it's not nearly as cringeworthy here as it was in Land, and it certainly doesn't stop the proceedings from being fun to watch, he should really just get someone else to write his characters' dialogue in the future.

[KaiserGhidorah]

[MouthForWar]

[MouthForWar]

Shameless plug for my full length review at Sci Fi Japan.

http://www.scifijapan.com/articles/2010 ... -the-dead/

[DannyBeane]