Opiniones de usuarios

But George Romero should just stop. No, not stop altogether. But stop making "...Of The Dead" movies. It's become so generic that even the name of the studio is "Blank Of The Dead Productions". People seem to forget that Romero ever did anything besides zombie flicks. He did...and he did them damn well. Just look at the original version of the recently remade The Crazies. When "Land..." came out, I thought it was a rare miss. Then came "Diary..." and I thought it was weak, but I was still hopeful. Now with "Survival..." I'm about ready to give up.

The story is pretty standard zombie stuff...a group of living folks just looking for a place to be zombie free. Fair enough. The problem is that it's just that...standard. Romero's earlier work, even when lacking in gore, was great because it was full of some subtle but still heavy social commentary. The only thing going on here is a second half plot line that turns into an Irish version of a Hatfield vs. McCoy situation. Sure, there's a lame last minute attempt to teach us a lesson that revenge doesn't get you anywhere, but it's too little too late. The film is certainly better than a lot of zombie films we've been treated to as of late, but that's sure not saying much.

Truth be told I was really excited to see another Romero flick (and not Cameron Romero). Now I'm just kind of wishing the elder Romero would leave well enough alone and move onto something besides beating this dead horse.

Man, where do I begin? Survival of the Dead. it could have easily been one of Romero's best, since his beloved Dawn of the Dead, but what went wrong? what did he miss? what moment did he not seize? After getting my UK Blu-Ray I was sort of reserved in what i was going to think about this flick. I mean I thought the trailers looked corny, the feel amateur, even for Romero's standards, but I was willing to give it a go none the less.

Survival should have been the next DAWN of the DEAD. It had the set up, it had the locations, but it missed the story and the vibe. The film is skewered by a weak cast and an even weaker storyline.

Survivals western vibe and feel just seems so out of place and wasted. What should have occurred was trying to rebuild life on Plum island, what should have happened was an exploration of the rebuilding of humanity, something Romero has yet to touch upon in any of his Dead films... which is a goddamn shame.

I will say Survival is slightly OK. I still think Diary is the best of his newer zed flicks, and Survival is way better than Land but it is still a weak film, in fact Romero's 3 newest entries are all weak and devoid of the magic originally on display in Night Dawn and Day. When Romero gets back to that magic he will regain what is lost in the zombie genre, but with him sticking to the cheap thrills and half-assed writing I think his fall from zombie grace will be harder than even he will ever imagine.

These newer entries only seem to alienate his fan-based and this smart zombies back story he is trying to shove down our throats isn't working with the fans. Romero needs to get back to plain and simple story telling. Story telling that will show us why we followed him all these years, but this rushed production, dialog and all around feel is what is giving his series a bad name.

Survival will deliver on the gore, even on its corny moments, and it tries really hard to engage the audience with its characters but it falls apart because the cast and screenplay aren't strong enough.

in the end... another disappointing zed flick from the grandfather of the modern zombie.

George, if you read this... go back to Dawn, and look at it again and give us a film like that... that is what we want, and we know you have it in you, but if you set out to make another disaster like this it may be time to fold up the directors chair.

5 out of 10

I did not dislike this film for the most part like so many others seem to have. I liked parts of it, I thought it would have been better had it simply followed the national guardsmen of the "Diary of the Dead" film rather than having the feuding island clans plot, but it at least was not boring. I would give this one a seven, but the use of computer generated kills and blood made me lower the score a point. I never thought George Romero would resort to using computers to do his gory kills. Still, there is enough none computer kills that I will only lower the film a point rather than two. The film follows those wacky guardsmen from the Diary movie which I liked as it seems more like a sequel film than any of the previous Romero movies. Though this one can survive independently of the previous movie as well, the only thing one might be curious about had they not seen that movie is the scene where the one guardsmen goes over there scene in that film. Well they end up going to an island where one group believes they should try to kill all the zombies on the island while the other thinks they should try to coexist with them. The zombies look good at times and there are a lot of them. So as far as zombie action goes this one does all right. I just wish the film could have done more with the national guardsmen just going from place to place rather than bogging the film down a bit on the island of the living dead and incredibly stupid people.

25 years ago, I sat open-mouthed in awe of the intense visceral horror experience that was George Romero's Day of the Dead; today, I sat jaw agape once more at the director's latest zombie flick, Survival of the Dead, although for a very different reason: utter disbelief!

How could George Romero, the creator of the modern movie zombie, get everything so totally wrong?

With Survival, it looks like the director has finally taken on board the criticism aimed at his last two films and ditched the heavy-handed social commentary (the messages are still there, but are far less 'in-your-face'); unfortunately, somewhere during the creative process, he's also unwisely opted to up the level of comedy, meaning that much of this film plays the global zombie threat for laughs.

Remember how Romero used the slapstick custard pie scene in Dawn of the Dead to momentarily relieve the tension? Well in this one, it's all 'custard pie' and absolutely no tension. During the course of the film, we get to witness several cringe-worthy comedy zombie slayings, a hilarious bitter feud between two stereotypical Irish clans, a zombie woman on horseback, a car ferry strangely moored in six feet of water, zombie fishing, plus loads of other nonsense that beggars belief. Not once, however, do we get a sense of dread. The closest Romero ever comes to delivering the goods is with a couple of cheap jump scares that are accompanied by loud noises and some admittedly splattery gore (that relies a little too heavily on CGI for my liking).

Had Survival of the Dead been made by anyone other than Romero, then I may have rated it as high as 5/10: it's never boring, I suppose. But coming from the guy who practically invented the genre, the film can only be seen as a massive disappointment—easily the worst of his 'Dead' films to date—and therefore fully deserves my lower score of 3/10.

With this latest Dead entry from George, I realize we're never going to approach the original trilogy's greatness ever again. It took 20 years after Day of the Dead (still my favorite) to get to Land of the Dead (entertaining, but nothing new). In the last 5 years, George has cranked out 3 Dead movies. Is he inspired or trying to stay commercially viable? Diary annoyed me with its Scream/Blair Witch hybrid and now, if it's possible to get worse, we have.

Survival of the Dead plays like a TV movie with profanity. I couldn't get over how lifeless this movie was. I appreciate the Irish Western flavor, but that's all that's new here. While watching this, I felt like it was a rehash of Day of the Dead, substituting two feuding Irish families for the feuding military vs scientists. The so-called twist at the end is embarrassingly desperate. I know some fans will want George to make one more great Dead movie and retire the series. After witnessing this second trilogy, I feel the more he makes, the more creatively bankrupt he appears.

As an avid watcher of zombie movies, particularly George A. Romero's Of The Dead movies, I was optimistic for this latest instalment. Survival of the Dead is Romero's sixth Of The Dead movie, but after 2007's disappointing Diary of the Dead it's beginning to show that he's running out of ideas.

Survival of the Dead does try to put an original spin on things though, with a group of people attempting to get the zombies to feast upon something other than human flesh. It's an interesting idea, too bad it isn't played out as well as it could be. The acting isn't as bad as in Diary of the Dead, despite its relatively low budget feel and slow story progression, it manages to outdo Diary of the Dead in literally every way.

Another major flaw: it's not scary at all. Romero's previous Of The Dead instalments (we'll forget Diary) have all been, at least, a little scary. This, sadly, is where Survival fails. There isn't anything even remotely scary here, and the jumps are far in between and very, very few. Romero leaves the scare factor box well and truly unchecked.

As you may have gathered, it's not terribly amazing stuff, but the cast all play likable characters and there's enough gore in here to satisfy. Nothing on Dawn of the Dead but miles better than Diary of the Dead.

http://www.ukmore.tk/

First things first, I love all of Romero's work. He was my introduction to horror. I really like this film and like the fact that it takes on themes from to earlier films. Love that it is like a zombie western. You have to remember that you can't compare any of Romero's dead films with each other. They are all totally different films that each carry social subtext. If you want a good Zombie movie, do yourself a favour and watch this. It's brilliant...just different.

Once upon a time, I remember back to when I was about 12, when I sat in absolute terror in my own home watching a grainy, poorly -scored,low budget zombie flick. It was easily the most scary movie I had ever seen. It was the now famous Night of the Living Dead. Over the years, as Romero's name has become almost synonymous with the zombie genre, I keep expecting him to rise to the occasion again and deliver a piece of cinema that keeps me awake at night. He has not done so. Sitting through Land of the Dead in great disappointment and almost as much with "Diary", I wanted to give old George another shot with "Survival". What a mistake. Never a real moment of tension or fear. Way too much comedic moments (at least I hope they were INTENDED to be funny) and a lackluster plot out of the Gunfight at the OK Corral. I think he has been churning out these movies with little concern that he can do wrong. I hope he is finished ruining the genre that he started because folks, I am gonna say it: He Doesn't Have IT Anymore. Like an old man that has a family that lets him keep driving and he becomes worse and worse, someone has to step in and say: enough!

Much better than I expected..i wasn't sure what to expect after the let down that was Diary of the dead but this is much better.

Its a nice idea, developed well and beautifully shot.There are good performances and a lovely touch of dark comedy.I enjoyed this film.

The main thing that marred it for me- and most people wouldn't notice but its my pet hate- is the cgi blood splatter and effects.STOP IT! you can always tell and it looks fake as hell.

I'm not 100% sure that survival is an 8 out of 10 but it followed a godawful vampire comedy called Umbrage and anything would have seemed good after that. Its a solid 7 at least and worth watching. Nice to see Romero back on almost top form.Welcome back George...there are lots of people trying to copy you but none come close.

In any case if it wasn't for this and Carriers Frightfest would have been crapfest.

Hey I loved the heck out of Romero and his Zombies, a line from "Dawn of the Dead" is my signature. So I am slamming this derivative, hackneyed and degenerate piece in hopes of his redemption.

His zombie movies, as he states in that lame humorous intro, are social satire. which was always obvious. But this movie takes the cynical amoral anti-hero to a new low with Sarge 'Nicotine' Crocket. He and his band of deserter soldiers as the protagonists is like making the biker gang in "Dawn of the Dead" as the good guys. These lowlifes kill and let other die for the slightest reason, like their commanding officer or some rednecks they surprised as they were just minding their business.

Okay, everyone is panicked & society has fallen apart because it seems that people like Sarge and the wildly improbable Irish brogue talking Seamus Muldoon clan on Plum Island have a hard time killing zombies but no regard for killing live people. Add to the mix are the usual idiots who wander around in perilous places for the sole purpose of providing zombie food. No one seems to care about anyone outside their little band. Not only is this a stunning lack of humanity but a lack of plain selfish survival tactics. Why not have lots of live people around for mutual defense, companionship and the potential for rebuilding society. Not only do these mental morons lack that instinct, after all the mayhem they created, they simply surrender to the Muldoons because Muldoon has the female soldier tied up in peril.

Yes there are some interesting zombie head blast effects, gratuitous body devouring and some clever zombies behaviors like the horsewoman riding zombie or the mailman delivering mail one. But expect all the usual stuff, like people all of a sudden unable to defend themselves from a small group of zombies and then getting themselves eaten just like in the cave of "Day of the Dead". There is no hope for anyone in this movie because according to George, we are already dead.

Well, at this point it certainly seems that George Romero has left any bag of tricks he may have had behind. Gone is the biting social satire, gone is the moody innovation, gone is the quotable dialogue. Survival is a movie by definition only. It's roughly two hours long, has people on screen playing something other than themselves. It even has a script, if you want to call it that. None of these elements have even the smallest amount of believability or dimension.

Within 15 seconds of the film starting, I was already cringing at the acting, dialogue, and cinematography. It really only gets worse from there.

Romero seems hell bent on creating caricatures instead of real characters. Every line in the film is more idiotic than the last. Who calls their neighbors by their first AND last names. His dialogue comes from 70's B-movie clichés that are no longer useful, unless used ironically, and the meaning of true irony seems well out of Romero's grasp at this point.

I'm now 10 minutes into the film and had to stop and write this review. Another crapfest from the supposed master of the genre. I recommend watching Rec. or Rec. 2 if you want a solid zombie fix. Skip this one unless you're a completist or want to see how NOT to make a film.

I did not like this movie.....at all. I did not like Diary and Land was...well okay. I think the thing that disappoints me the most is that the original trilogy is so good. Now as I already said, I did not like Diary. So considering that this was a technically constituted as a continuation ruined it for me from the start. I think the biggest problem with this film is it lacks (just like the other two) the one thing that made George's original 3 so creepy....an impending sense of doom. To sum it up, you always knew that the characters (in the original trio) were f#@ked some way or another. Forget the social commentaries and forget the plot. That is what made his original trio scary. Okay I know this film has some bad CGI, bad acting, plot holes, crappy music, etc. etc. But when you think about it, his original 3 kind of did too. It was the atmosphere that made it creepy and unsettling. This film has no atmosphere.

This is the type of movie I would have on just to have on. Everything felt forced and thrown together. I think George is just making movies to make movies now. I think he is experimenting with new techniques and loosing some good fans (the most hardcore ones) along the way. Sorry George but I've lost all respect for you as a film maker.

First of all, I don't get the hype about people putting down "Land of the Dead" and "Diary of the Dead". I found them both to be good and entertaining. The same goes for "Survival of the Dead".

Well, I am a bit put off by the title of the movie. It just doesn't add up compared to the other previous movies Romero made. But despite the title, this movie is not one to let you pass you by.

The movie is very well shot, and have lots of really nice shots in really good scenery. The classic Romero touch is most definitely showing through in "Survival of the Dead".

The cast was very well selected for the movie, and they all did a wonderful job bringing their characters to life (and unlife). And they all had good, solid stories that clashed well together for a greater storyline. However, I found it to be a bit too classical western movie. I didn't like that aspect of it, it was like a John Wayne movie with zombies in it.

Also, the touches of dark comedy and sometimes over the top jabs at funny scenes were a bit misplaced in a movie like this.

The zombies, the make-up and the effects were good, up to the usual standard you expect to see in a Romero movie. Nothing to complain about there. And of course, in the classic Romero fashion, there is a good amount of gore in the movie.

I liked the part that showed how this movie overlapped with the story portrayed in "Diary of the Dead", that was a really good twist.

The overall storyline was good, though it was a some points a bit too sassy. I was left with a feeling that some major part of the puzzle was missing, and had that been revealed the movie would have been so much better.

Now, what I really hated about this movie was the ending. I am not saying how it ends, but what the... That was just too much.

I am a big fan of Romero's work, and this movie is a great one, despite some minor flaws and things that didn't go well in my book. If you are a fan of Romero's movies and/or the zombie genre, you should definitely check out "Survival of the Dead", it takes the zombie genre and puts a new twist on it.

Romero have yet again provided zombie fans worldwide with good, solid, flesh-ripping entertainment.

Well, it's not nearly as bad as Diary of the Dead. In fact, I'd call this George Romero's best zombie movie since Dawn of the Dead. That's honestly sad. Taking a minor character from the previous film and making him some sort of proto-protagonist in the middle of a familial feud that doesn't actually involve him, Survival of the Dead doesn't really work, but it's not nearly as much of a disaster as what Romero had been putting out over the previous few years.

Sarge (Alan van Sprang) leads a small unit of military officers a few weeks into the zombie apocalypse. After stealing all of the supplies from the college students of Diary of the Dead, he encounters some good ole boys in the woods who have decapitated a group of zombies, leaving their moaning heads on pikes. This is overwrought stuff, recalling the emotionally unmoored yelling predominant in Day of the Dead. Thankfully, though, it doesn't last long, the group killing all of the good ole boys and picking up Boy (Devon Bostick). This exists in comparison to the opening on Plum Island, off the coast of Delaware, where we see the exile of Patrick O'Flynn (Kenneth Welsh) by Seamus Muldoon (Richard Fitzpatrick) over the question of what to do with the recently undead: kill them or preserve them in the hope for a cure.

So, this opening points to a major issue with Romero's dealing with the undead in his work since Day of the Dead. There has been this on-again, off-again effort to make the zombies sympathetic which contrasts wildly with the glee with which Romero films the killing of the undead. It's this real whiplash between efforts to use them for pathos reasons in one scene followed immediately by something like Sarge blithely shooting a flare into a zombie, which bursts their head into flame. He then lights his cigarette with the fire before kicking him off a boat. Were we supposed to sympathize with that zombie? Or were we supposed to just clap along with the violence? Romero is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

So, the army group heads to a port where O'Flynn has set up, sending out an internet video (that the internet still works more than a month into a zombie apocalypse either shows that the internet is super resilient or that the apocalypse isn't that bad) that attracts people with promises to Plum Island which end up being a trap. There's a shootout leading to the stealing of a barge, and O'Flynn ends up on the barge, acting as guide to Plum Island for the army group. The actual meat of the film is when they reach Plum Island. This is really a western filled with Irish characters set on an island off the eastern coast of Delaware (probably the best of its class!), and it's about two families at war with each other. The business of getting Sarge and his men to the island is really just because Romero had plans on making this the first of a trilogy that were probably going to star Sarge and however many of his group survived.

The conflict between the O'Flynns and the Muldoons is decently built with this emphasis on Muldoon trying to find a way to get the zombies feeding on something other than humans to try and save them. Romero films largely outside, and he takes in the sights well. There's a nice image of a zombie girl riding a horse that looks good but ends up making no sense when Muldoon tries to get her to eat the horse. If she's been riding it for weeks, why would she suddenly start eating it? I dunno.

Anyway, it's a decently put together series of events that work a bit better in isolation than strung together. It entertains basically enough while never really coming together as a complete film. Sarge and his group are out of place in the film's actual story. The zombies may be rehabilitated idea is underdone. O'Flynn has twin daughters (Kathleen Munroe), but the existence of the second is hidden for about half the film for some reason even though the first is in the opening scenes. There's also another overarching concern over cash that is so out of place if the world has actually collapsed, Romero apparently not understanding that the value of currency would vanish in a world where the government no longer backs its fiat money with its ability to tax since, you know, it's collapsed. I mean, cash is a great MacGuffin, but it doesn't work when cash has no value. In addition, it just gets forgotten for more than half the film. It's weird.

So, it's not good. However, it's decently performed (a huge step up from Diary), it looks surprisingly good, and it has some entertaining individual moments. Romero has lost all ability to make his films about something, and his efforts here are embarrassing. Still, as a neo-Western filled with Irish characters set on an island off the eastern coast of Delaware, it's not terrible.

Zombie films are separated into 3 distinct eras.

The Pre-George Romero Era of Automatons. This includes fun movies like King of the Zombies (1941) with Mantan Moreland.

Then there is the Romero era of Zombie films. Romero made Zombies dangerous Flesh Eaters. He made hyper-depressing sequels, and no end of Living Dead movies were made by others.

And now we live in the third Era of Zombie Films. The rebirth of fun zombies. These new zombie films mix fright with fun. Now movies like Shawn of the Dead and Zombieland can be made beside Resident Evil, Bio-Zombie and 28 Days Later.

Survival of the Dead does run with a very Romero-esquire theme with out sacrificing the fun on the alter of importance. I watched this on whim, as there were no other choice in the damn Red Box and was quite pleasantly surprised. I now feel compelled to lift my self ban on Romero and check out of "Land of" and "Diary of".

If you saw the original Romero Dead films in the theater or drive-in, you are most likely old and set in your ways. I for one revel in Romero's new direction.

'SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

The master of all zombie films George A. Romero adds a fifth entry to his 'Of The Dead' series, which started in 1968 with the classic 'NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD'. This one is more of a comedic zombie / western spoof than a frightening thriller. For this reason the film drew a lot of criticism from fans and critics alike but Romero is famous for always trying something new. That's what's most impressive about his zombie series, not one of the installments is anything like the others. They all center on random characters trying to survive in a world of zombies and focus more on social commentary than anything else but each film has it's own unique style and character as well. While this film is not nearly as good as the original trilogy it is better than a lot of other zombie movies coming out these days.

The film tells the story of two feuding Irish clans, the O'Flynns and the Muldoons, on an island off the North American coast. The O'Flynns think the proper way to deal with the zombie epidemic is to exterminate all zombies once they've become infected while the Muldoons believe they should keep zombies alive in hopes of finding a cure and assimilating them back in to society. Early on the Muldoons gain the upper-hand on the O'Flynn clan's leader Patrick (played by Kenneth Welsh). They exile him and a few followers from the island. While away Patrick hooks up with a ragtag team of ex-National Guard just looking for a place they can go to survive, they're led by Sargent 'Nicotine' Crocket (played nicely by Alan Van Sprang, who's appeared in Romero's last three zombie films). O'Flynn leads the team back to his island and enlists their help in getting revenge on the Muldoons and especially their leader Seamus (played by Richard Fitzpatrick. Along the way they also meet up with a young boy (played by Devon Bostick) and Patrick's daughter (played by Kathleen Munroe).

Like I said the movie is light on scares but it does have plenty of the traditional zombie gore. The zombies in this film are extremely passive, slow and much more of a comedic nuisance most of the time than a real threat. Which a lot of Romero's fans hated about this movie. The real threat (like in all of Romero's zombie films) is man and the conflicts that we let tear us apart. As I said the movie has all of the usual Romero social commentary, this time it deals with the feuding Irish clans that would rather kill each other and prove they're right than find a peaceful way to live together. There's of course nothing new to Romero's story telling but the way he delivers it is fresh; this zombie flick is a throwback to the cheesy westerns of years past. We've never quite seen a zombie film like this before. While it doesn't live up to the original trilogy, like I said, or the nearly as impressive fourth installment 'LAND OF THE DEAD' it is superior, slightly, to Romero's last installment 'DIARY OF THE DEAD' (and like I said a lot of the other low budget zombie films being released). It's no classic but it's still got that Romero feel that no other zombie films possess. Not a great film but in my opinion it doesn't disappoint.

Watch our review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22OZUY3a_KI

Me, and the two friends with me unfortunate enough to share in the experience, unanimously--with no doubt in our scarred minds--voted this as the worst film any of us had ever witnessed.

There's really nothing more to say. I am astounded. This is a work of art in that it is so profanely bad. Was it intentional? Has the director gone insane? I don't know. I don't feel I know anything anymore. The entire firmament of my mental processes have been utterly destroyed by the experience of watching this film.

What? IMDb wants me to write more? What I've said isn't enough to count as a review? This is akin to being shot in the leg because my last words prior to being hung were not memorable enough. I've been spat upon.

A military group that has turned into bandits during the zombie infestation decides to follow an online infomercial and tries to make it to the peaceful island it promises. At the harbor they realize they have been ambushed by the guy pitching the island. He robs the potential clients and dumps them on the island, which is nothing but zombie-free.

Earlier in the movie we meet this guy O'Flynn, a fisherman on the island. He's runs one of the two Irish clans on the island. His nemesis is Seamus. When zombies infest the island, O'Flynn opts to eliminate them all while Seamus wants to keep them "alive" and chained. They kick O'Flynn of the island leaving his daughter behind.

Now the military guys make it to the island followed by O'Flynn who sees this as an opportunity to avenge himself from Seamus. They find that Seamus is trying to domesticate the zombies, enchained and treated like cattle or horses. His special project is trying to teach zombies to eat animal meat and not human. So far he has been unsuccessful.

Eventually we have the confrontation between the two clans plus the zombies in a bloody and brutal outcome.

As all Romero movies, this one is smart, sometimes funny and with plenty of zombie violence. Even what should be a lame scene, Romero manages to make it interesting. He's particularly good as showing human interaction. And of course there is the usual criticism of human inhumanity in how they treat the zombies. The last minutes are particularly entertaining for those who are into gore. The only problem I have with this movie is that the final zombie mayhem is presented as a comedy. It's unnecessary and doesn't suit the violent tone of the content. Otherwise this is classic Romero in a quickly paced and gory zombie movie.