| Home > Horror Reviews > Indie Horror > Survival of the Dead |
| Rated: 5.00/5 | Votes: 2 | Views: 67 |Submitted: 05/28/10 |
|
SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD Review
by Heather Wixson Starring Kenneth Welsh, Richard Fitzpatrick, Kathleen Munroe, Alan Van Sprang Directed by George A. Romero In SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD, we pick up right where George Romero left off with 2007's DIARY OF THE DEAD, in the midst of a full-blown zombie apocalypse. The film starts off not on the mainland, but on Plum Island off the coast of Delaware where two Irish families are locked in a generations-long struggle for power. The O'Flynn's, headed by patriarch Patrick O'Flynn (Kenneth Welsh) approach the zombie plague with a shoot-to-kill attitude. The Muldoons, headed by Shamus Muldoon (Richard Fitzpatrick), feel that the zombies should be quarantined and kept 'alive,' in hopes that a solution will someday be found. The O'Flynn's, who are clearly outnumbered, are forced to exile Patrick by boat to the mainland, where he meets up with a band of soldiers, headed by Guardsman Sarge (Alan Van Sprang). They join forces and return to the island, to find that the zombie plague has fully gripped the divided community. As the battle between humans and zombies escalates, it's up to the survivors to figure out if there's anything shred of humanity left within themselves or the others worth saving anymore. Overall, I didn't dislike SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD but it is certainly a far cry from any of his DAWN movies of the first era of his zombie films. It certainly didn't enrage me the way DIARY OF THE DEAD did, which was by far the weakest Romero film of his entire career. This time, Romero sticks with what he knows- big sets, developing characters and wicked zombies- and he mostly succeeds. The movie turns out to be its own worst enemy though, getting bogged down with 'holier than thou' subplots and the warring families feels like something completely out of place. Had Romero eliminated the feud, I feel like SURVIVAL might have been a complete success. Where DIARY explored the new wave of media, SURVIVAL explores war and humanity and does so a little clumsily here. Some of the 'lessons' Romero tries to teach both audiences and his characters come off a bit heavy-handed. Looking a DAWN and then looking at SURVIVAL, you'll see that Romero's ability to use subtle messages has waned over the last few decades. It doesn't mean the man can't entertain as I certainly was never bored during SURVIVAL. I guess I just left with a feeling of "so what" at the end and that's never a good feeling. I liked the carry-over of the Colonel character (Sprang) from DIARY and thought that was a clever way to keep the current DEAD series feeling very unified, even if both movies couldn't be more opposite of each other. And while SURVIVAL does get a little silly at the end (horse-riding zombies and dueling zombies complete with pistols drawn), overall SURVIVAL feels like one of those snack size bags of potato chips. After you finish, all your left with is an empty feeling, greasy fingers and zero satisfaction. SURVIVAL is still fun for the die-hard horror fans out there but this not a film for the casual horror fan. Today's selective audiences will not be down for this latest installment in the legendary Romero catalog of films. I commend Romero's efforts on SURVIVAL as the movie "looks" like a million bucks, but he just never quite pulls it off in the end. Hopefully, he'll get back into the full swing again for his next DEAD flick. 2.5 out of 5 |
Search | Search the website
Use our search facility to trawl our wide range of content
Contest
Top Members
Username: ArsonCuff
Posts: 332
Username: misterhorror
Posts: 243
Username: terrortu
Posts: 228
Username: heatherwixson
Posts: 135
Username: DavidAsdkl
Posts: 71