Survival of the Dead (2009) User Reviews (184)

I never thought I'd say this...

[Heislegend · 4/10 · 17 March 2010]

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.

Another let down... From Romero

[DjfunkmasterG · 5/10 · 15 March 2010]

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

In this film the dead are still surviving.

[Aaron1375 · 6/10 · 6 September 2010]

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.

How could he get it so wrong?

[BA_Harrison · 3/10 · 21 April 2010]

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.

My, how far we've fallen.

[johnmcdev · 3/10 · 10 May 2010]

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.

By George, I Think He's Lost It

[colinrgeorge · 2/10 · 31 May 2010]

George Romero has totally lost it. In fact, his latest zombie opera, "Survival of the Dead," is so bad that I'm beginning to doubt he ever really had it. Romero, like everybody's other least-favorite George, has been tainted by his early success, and is now every bit the cluelessly misguided, ineffectual storyteller Lucas is.

It's actually astounding that "Survival of the Dead" comes from someone who's been in the business for forty years, because it positively reeks of amateurism. The writing is dense and talky, with stilted, masturbatory dialogue, and some of the laziest attempts at horror I've ever seen. Not only is "Survival" not scary, it's not entertaining, and for all its attempts at social commentary, it's not even insightful.

It's like Romero spent the last few decades reading essays on "Night" and "Dawn of the Dead," endlessly stroking his own ego as both a Master of Horror and a respected sociological voice. But where his early "Dead" films were dedicated zombie pieces with a muted social backdrop, "Diary" and "Survival of the Dead" are full-blown, pretentious soapbox films that just so happen to star the walking deceased. In fact, the big zombie sequences this time around are used more to artificially herd our protagonists than they are to exhilarate audiences. Romero's first film, "Night of the Living Dead," is unsettling because the threat of attack is omnipresent, and growing exponentially direr. Now, zombies show up seemingly at random, and even by the admission of the characters, pose little threat. The action itself is also horribly cut, and panders to those for whom the zenith of entertainment is a creative zombie death.

But even the most over-the-top kill is rendered meaningless when it's executed at the hands of such uninspired characters. Romero's cast is comprised of uniformly cartoony, stereotypical surrogates for human beings that prove not only that Romero doesn't know his craft, but also that he doesn't particularly understand people. It might not be so embarrassing if he wasn't desperate to stay relevant, but he jams in a superfluous teenager who says things like, "Low tech? This is no tech," and can't wait to show everyone his iPhone. You're 70, George. Get over it.

Ultimately, these complaints are just the limp appendages on Romero's rotting carcass of a career. The man simply cannot write and relate a coherent story anymore. It's tough to even summarize "Survival of the Dead." I mean, cell phone kid and a ragtag team of ex-military something-or-others clash with two feuding Irish families on an island off the coast of Delaware (???), a place apparently so far removed from modern society that they settle their disputes with 19th century rifles. What? It's all just tacky garnishment around Romero's big question, which is whether or not euthanizing the living dead is a humane practice. It's an intriguing premise, but one that doesn't have any real world application. Plus, he posits that a zombie can learn, but also that it's no less hungry for flesh. Hypothetically, if they're real, they're dead, and they want to eat us, I'm not sure it really matters that they have some miniscule capacity for intelligence.

When you get right down to it, there's nothing in this film that works. "Survival of the Dead" goes beyond a forgivable exercise in over-thinking—It's so sloppily conceived and ineptly executed that it casts doubt on any talent I once thought Romero had. Like with Lucas and his later "Star Wars" films, the director has, at best, faded into a distant echo of the artist he once was. At worst, his audience is forced to consider that maybe he was never the genius we hailed him as. Now there's a scary thought.

Survives, But Doesn't Thrive

[goodlooksproductions · 7/10 · 4 June 2010]

Survival of the Dead, whose title is somewhat of an oxymoron, tends to act as such: combining elements that would not normally go together, but then trying to play them off as being cohesive.

What I mean is that Romero has gone along with his typical zombie formula, which tends to be serious in tone, but for some reason or other, Romero has thrown in some comedic elements into an otherwise "serious" film. Some of them were funny, such as the zombie grabbing the stick of dynamite, but then others seemed completely unnecessary, like the female character masturbating out in the open, in front of her fellow soldiers. Things like that made the otherwise okay plot feel incoherent at points, and the mood would swing from trying to be funny to trying to be serious, stoic, and didactic, and the transitions weren't smooth.

Also, I said "female character" because I can't remember many character names after seeing the movie, which is never a good thing. A lot of the characters were stereotypical archetypes, some just zombie fodder (which, to be fair, is to be expected), and were largely underdeveloped, so it was hard to relate to some of them (yet, being a horror film, should be expected). However, I liked Patrick O'Flynn, and his struggle seemed legitimate (save for plot holes and faulty logic).

With that being said, Romero added some new things to Survival, like trying to stem zombies off of eating humans, as well as zombies continuing to get smarter (like one that remembered how to drive a car, albeit poorly), and even zombies that resided at the bottom of a lake, which will grab at you from the depths (which, personally, I think is the most horrific thing presented in the film, if not for the still "alive" zombie heads on pikes).

Survival seemed to have an over-reliance on spectacle, with zombies dying in some of the most fantastic feats, which was entertaining, but seemed to be used to distract the viewer from plot holes.

With all that being said, I still enjoyed the film, since, when Romero had the film heading in the right direction, the plot become much more interesting and thoughtful, and the zombie killing was always entertaining, if not somewhat contrived.

Had Romero stayed more focused on the intent and themes of the plot and concept, without sullying it with unnecessary, albeit entertaining humorous distractions, then this could have been a zombie great, instead of just a zombie okay. It's better than a lot of things out now (which is sort of sad), and if you can take the good with some of the bad, then you'll get a kick out of this film, but if you're looking for another zombie classic, you have some waiting to do.

What Makes a Zombie to Wander?

[Tin Man-5 · 7/10 · 19 March 2010]

I see what Romero is getting at with this genre-blending experiment. He shoots the movie like an old B-western and utilized all the standard clichés. Heroes never miss, villains can't shoot to save their lives; people stand around and wait to get shot; there's the Good (Crockett), the Bad (Muldoon), and the Ugly (O'Flynn), who are all really just chain-smoking opportunists; posses and horses and cowboys with shifting alliances. The zombies are reduced to the "other" a la Native Americans in cheesy, pre-revisionist era westerns who just sort of wander about as an inconvenience; you get the impression that the characters think of interesting ways to kill them in order to survive the boredom and monotony of a territory overrun by unwanted "savages". So many of the criticisms about this film being cheesy are, I believe, deliberate attempts at Romero mirroring (but certainly not transcending) the old school western, and I admire him for constantly subverting our expectations.

Unfortunately, where Survival fails is providing a reason to exist in the first place. I don't think that Romero, as skilled a filmmaker as he is, has given us any clear progression in his themes. Everything here seems recycled from his previous films - the irony that the villain is actually correct, the shootout between humans while zombies just wander about picking up the leftovers, human nature's tendency for tribalism and dehumanizing anyone who isn't a part of their team, et al, are all points he's already made.

What he has done with Survival is recycle these ideas in a very entertaining way. But for the first time while watching one of his zombie films, I'm finally getting the impression that Romero's zombie universe is running out of steam. Perhaps it is time for him to hang up his undead hat and make a different film altogether. I'm reminded of the line in Scott's "American Gangster": "Quitting while you're ahead is not the same thing as quitting." Still... a very decent film. 7/10 (the lowest rating I've ever given a Romero zombie film)

George misses ...again

[blueeyedguy25 · 2/10 · 12 September 2010]

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!

It was good, funny, and I've seen worse!!!!

[tashabeard · 10/10 · 23 September 2018]

It's a little better than some of Romero's work. It has more humor than usual. The only thing I cannot figure out is why the are off of the Delaware coast on plum island but everyone is speaking with Irish accents. I don't know but it's low budget but I've seen a lot worse than this. I don't think it deserves a 4.9 rating.

Great movie for zombie fans!

[djeveled · 7/10 · 4 April 2010]

I enjoy most zombie movies. Romero zombie movies ALWAYS satisfy me. What's up with all the haters? This movie had some great scenes. The guy swimming with the zombies under the water was cool, kinda creepy too.(biting off a zombie's thumb doesn't cause infection? I wouldn't chance it) Handing the lit dynamite through the door to the zombie was funny. Loved the eye popping fire extinguisher trick zombie. Ghost Rider Zombie??? Brokeback Mountain Cowboy getting eaten from the rear? Eww... but funny. The black people on spikes was more social commentary on the rednecks, and in the past few Romero flicks they do show body-less zombies still having life in their heads. Shooting a zombie in the brain kills it. Cutting off the head will just stop a zombie from chasing you, but the head may still bite. Precedent has been set for that in previous movies so that should not come as a surprise. Not a bad movie at all. Very funny. What is wrong with you people? Are you all dead-spoiled already? Maybe it's me. After all, I did enjoy Flight Of The Living Dead too. I guess I haven't seen too many zombie flicks I didn't like. This one I loved!!! I am worried, now that zombies can eat animals, that the next installment will have a lot of animal torture in it. That would make me hate it. But that is George's vision of how zombies will evolve. Who are we to question the genre he invented?

Seamus: "All I ever wanted is for you to admit that I am right and that you are wrong. You do that much, and you and the boys here are free to go."

Patrick: "Thanks for the offer Seamus but you see I cant go. Not with business undone"

Seamus: "What business?"

Patrick: "Well for one thing, I ain't killed you yet."

Sarge: "I would have played that out a little differently."

I loved how they fought with empty guns after they were both dead. LOL!!!

Nothing on Dawn but miles better than Diary

[ryshpr · 5/10 · 7 May 2010]

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/

saw this at frightfest

[pregno1970 · 12 November 2009]

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.

Romero's Treading Water But Sinkng

[Jakealope · 3/10 · 11 September 2010]

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.

Easily the Worst Movie I've Seen

[frost_eternal · 1/10 · 17 October 2010]

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.

Hilariously Bad

[BrianDT75 · 2/10 · 15 March 2010]

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.

Saw it at fantastic fest in Austin (spoilers)

[bigjonpimpjuice · 7/10 · 30 September 2009]

I saw Survival of the dead last weekend at Fantastic Fest and I still have mixed feelings about it. Romero basically invented the genera so I do think he has earned the right to do whatever he wants with his creation but I still came away disappointed. The story follows some of the soldiers who robbed the kids in diary of the dead and their quest to find a safe place. The soldiers and a teenager they pick up find an armored car and decide to drive to Delaware to meet someone who is advertising passage to a safe place. Once they arrive they are double crossed by O'flynn and are forced to steal a ferry and escape with O'flynn to Plum Island. Once they arrive they find out o'flynn has been banned from the small island because he has been fighting with the Muldoon family who believe that the living dead should be kept "alive" until a cure is found or they can be taught to eat something that's not them. The movie itself is fun and the concept is great too but some things just seen un Romero like. For one the zombies are never a threat to anyone. They are also very high functioning like in land of the dead. For example there is a zombie who rides a horse. The acting is also somewhat spotty. There are parts where it seems very b movieish and at times the story just really does not make much sense. It is all very funny when it does but that use to a more serious zombie film will be a little surprised. (Big time spoiler) The final thing that really ruined the movie for me is that one Zombie does decide to take a bit out of a horse and then other zombies follow suit. I know this is part of the zombie evolution but to me it just seemed wrong and against the whole concept of the living dead. I mean in Day of the dead dr. Frankenstein had to kill one of the soldiers just to have treats to train Bub. Why have zombies take that step? Maybe it is just that nobody wants to see an innocent horse get eaten alive, they want to see the guy who was kind of an ass get bit from behind after bailing on his friends. In conclusion: It's Romero! Go see it but don't expect it to be your new fav.

Fans of the original trilogy beware

[johnnyb784-597-741081 · 1/10 · 14 May 2010]

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.

Western dead?

[paul_haakonsen · 7/10 · 16 March 2010]

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.

Bad. Really bad.

[jdhz · 1/10 · 20 December 2010]

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. What little plot is present makes no sense. The characters are ridiculous and the acting is horrible. I have watched a lot of bad movies, but this is one of the few that was bad enough to make me turn it off. Why are the characters concerned about a bunch of cash when the world has ended and it is not worth the paper it is printed on? Why is there an island full of Scottish people right off the coast of the USA? Why would anyone actually want to keep zombies around? Why are the living killing each other left and right and not killing the zombies? How can a zombie ride a horse? Why would a zombie ride a horse? Horrible. Absolutely horrible. Romero should be cast into the Pit of Despair.

The Hatfields & McCoy's of zombieland!

[Brian-9229 · 8/10 · 25 July 2017]

Yet another wonderful outing from the man, George A.Romero. I was pleasantly surprised with this movie, unlike so many others, who seem to think that George Romero's "Of the Dead" movies of late, should all follow the formula used by nearly all other zombie movies of the last decade. Fact is, and should always be, that George Romero makes the movie he wants to make. Sure, continuity is all over the place, from film to film. Who Cares! Its Fantasy, Fiction, Make Believe! None of which should necessarily be logical, or make perfect sense. Fact is George made the movie he always wanted to make, more or less, he just threw zombies in the mix. I thought the whole concept of this movie was fresh for the zombie genre, what with, families that had been feuding for generations, an isolated island, twins who both get turned, and plenty of humor throughout. Every minute of this movie felt to me like an authentic George Romero zombie classic, and I can only hope that he keeps making the films he wants to make.

Solid Dead

[Tweetienator · 6/10 · 27 January 2021]

Yes, the original trilogy is unchallenged and also the predecessor Land of the Dead is better, but Survival of the Dead is still better than 90% of the output of the genre. I found this little flick lately in my collection and watched it again - nothing special, and no masterpiece, but solid and entertaining, okay comes to mind, but that is compared to the first dead movies (Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead) of course rather a disappointing statement to make.

Does not Work Well

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 22 October 2010]

In the Plum Island, off the coast of Delaware, the long feud between the families of the patriarchs Captain Patrick O'Flynn (Kenneth Welsh) that intends to eliminate the zombies and Seamus Muldoon (Richard Fitzpatrick) that intends to keep his undead relatives waiting for a cure culminates with O'Flynn expelled from Plum. Meanwhile in the continent Sarge "Nicotine" Crocket (Alan Van Sprang), Chuck (Joris Jarsky), Cisco (Stefano DiMatteo) and Tomboy (Athena Karkanis) are plundering and seeking a safe place to stay. When they rescue the young Boy (Devon Bostick) from group of sadistic hunters, Boy decides to join the group and suggests them to head to Plum Island since he had heard a O'Flynn's broadcast inviting people to move to the island. When Sarge and his team arrive in the island, they are attacked by Muldoon's men and they see that the place is crowded of undead. Sarge's friend Chuck is killed and they decide to fight against Muldoon.

"Survival of the Dead" is the sixth movie about zombies written and directed by George A. Romero that unfortunately does not work well. The story has black humor but neither the comedy nor the drama fits well to the horror genre. The actress Kathleen Munroe is not tailored for the double role of Jane and Janet O'Flynn. The special effects and make-up are probably the best in this disappointing film. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "A Ilha dos Mortos" ("The Island of the Dead")

Another great Romero zombie flick

[TdSmth5 · 26 September 2011]

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.