Review of Survival of the Dead (2010) by Billy B — 16 Nov 2010

3.7/10.

Isn't it strange how one day, a man is an inspirational director who re-invents a genre, and then the next day he's a generic, forgettable bloke? George A. Romero, King of the Zombies, is without a doubt one of those men. The man has made good to great films before; take the original "Dawn of the Dead" for example. But his zombie career, particularly in the "Dead" series, has gotten worse and worse as time goes on. His zombies are now the least of his worries when it comes to decaying; his career itself is beginning to show its age. And much like a zombie, it comes without a mind and ferociously lashes out at you, but in the form of blood and style instead of political undertone. I know that it was not in Romero's intention to disappoint, but his ability to do so overshadows any potential goodness in his "films". It's funny, because I envisioned that "Survival of the Dead" would be worse than it actually was. Never did it look like it was going to be particularly good, due to the film's presentation and Romero's decision to continue his ever-dying "Dead" franchise. It's time to put an end to it, Romero. Turn the gun on the series and for the love of god, pull the trigger. If it can get worse than this, then I just don't want to see it. The Zombie/Horror sub-genre is one with promise and full of potential excitement, and you, the man who once re-invented the genre for the good, are doing nothing to help it in its success. In fact, you're doing the opposite. With "Survival of the Dead", you have officially lost all trust that I've ever had for you. After the mediocre "Diary of the Dead", I hoped that there was something bigger or better around the corner. Apparently, you've got your future pretty well planned out. You're going to make more mediocre/awful zombie features, and then you are going to finally give up the gun. I'm sorry to say this, but I can't wait until that day comes.

Romero does little to update his fight-for-survival story-line by adding in generic and uninvolving characters and story-telling as bleak as the apocalypse-to-happen. This particular tale of survival throws in a feud between two men, both of whom supposedly owned a piece of an island which has become dead center, literally. The group of military men from "Diary of the Dead" is basically thrown into the middle of the fight, as they locate one of the owners and descend into the depths of hell itself by venturing to the island. Residing on the island is the man's rival, who is somewhat of a "wild west nut", as some would say. He's just trying to keep things, the "things" primarily being the zombies, under control; and by the looks of it, he's doing a mediocre job. Nobody can truly contain the undead because of their slow-but-vicious natures, although he's doing what few men can do: survive. The problem is that the entire film is wasted on religious references and a general lack of entertainment. There are certainly some amusing scenes, but nothing in the way of a compelling let alone interesting plot. It kind of disappoints me, because Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" was CONSISTENTLY amusing, and "Diary of the Dead" has its share of those moments too. But "Survival of the Dead" might as well take the cake when it comes to almost non-stop boredom and a general lack of focused artistry.

The acting is surprisingly decent, although by no means is any of it particularly entertaining. Alan van Sprang takes the leading role and does decently enough until he becomes subject to formula and predictability. I might as well say that for every decent performance in the movie, there are about half a dozen problems that come with them. Kenneth Welsh is also pretty decent, and stands as the only actor in the film who can, at times, be somewhat entertaining to watch. But...he's the only semi-decent performer. The rest of the cast is perfectly fit for the film, which is saying absolutely nothing. The reason: because this film is bad and if it wants to be so, then it needs a bad cast. If Romero intended for his super-cheesy zombie flick to be...super-cheesy, then he of course succeeded. But if his head was elsewhere, then he had little luck in entertaining me. What this movie needs to do is look at "Land of the Dead" and say, "Hey, look how many cameos that movie had!" If it had the slightest bit more celebrity cameos, then maybe it would have been semi-decent as far as zombie-fare goes. It might as well BE semi-decent on its own. But it misses the mark, as far as I'm concerned. As does the cast, mostly consisting of people you've never heard of. Let's keep it that way.

George Romero used to have a "thing" for artful filmmaking. Now he has a "thing" for making us yawn. "Survival of the Dead" lives up to its name in the worst possible way; it is indeed the survival of the dead, the dead being those who have sat through all of Romero's other near-pathetic attempts at filmmaking (those being his recently made films ONLY). Romero was never one for undead frights; he is without a doubt, a man of humor. He knows how to take an undead horror and make us laugh at it. He can put roller blades on a zombie and let them roll around for our amusement, without literally doing so. That is what Romero used to be, and somehow I think there's still a part of that humor in him today; he just doesn't show it any more. "Survival of the Dead" takes itself seriously to the point where it lacks all fun and potential greatness. There's no fun in watching zombies trudge through the woods, especially when they're all doing the same thing. There is a reason why Romero's past setups were so goddamn fun; because they either took place in a mall or on your front lawn. That's what I've loved about Romero's films in the past; his unfailing ability to impress with the one genre he belongs to. But now, Romero has simply taken a bite out of the genre and rendered it for the worst, leaving all the work up to the likes of directors such as Danny Boyle and British director Edgar Wright. There's style to be found in this independently produced zombie flick, but most of it is squandered by bleak cinematography and a distinct lack in ambition. I think that Romero should shoot for campiness next time, for from what it looks like, that might just be the way to go for one of our most (has-been) influential horror directors.

John Carpenter did not take the knife away from Michael. Wes Craven did not take the claws off of Freddy. Sam Raimi did not take the blood out of "The Evil Dead". Thank god. That leaves Romero to take one hell of a bite out of his career, and he takes one big chomp indeed. What bothers me the most about the movie he has made is its own ability to suck as much as it does. It feels so unnecessary and leaves even more room for even more "Dead" films. Oh, goody. As if "Land of the Dead" wasn't enough, it's getting even MORE sequels. The hardcore Romero fans may be jumping for joy, but other people, such as me, cannot help but irk the possibility. This is quite possibly Romero's worst film to date, lacking the potential to earn him any "Worst Director" Awards, but certainly preventing him from getting any of the like on a more positive note. Romero has proven that he needs to step far away from his favorite genre and try doing something else. For the better or for the much worse, it will be something moderately different than the typical zombie-fare from the legendary horror director. I no longer admire the man. It would be nice if there was one guy aside from Sam Raimi who could have made a good horror classic in the past, make a film now, and still make it riveting. No other director can seem to do what Raimi does. I was kind of hoping that Romero would be that much-needed "other one". But in the end, he simply was not. Good day to you Romero. Good day.