MovieChat Forums > Survival of the Dead (2010) Discussion > Huh? I Don't Get It

Huh? I Don't Get It

posted 14 years ago by WeRNotAfraid
8 replies | jump to latest

So, they didn't like the old man at the beginning, and thought he was too "strict," because he was killing the zombies? Why? What were they supposed to be doing, giving them hugs and feeling sorry for them? That doesn't make any sense at all.

I think the whole "I can't shoot Jimmy Bob Sue" thing is way too cliche by now. Obviously, the zombies aren't people any longer, and they are dangerous and have to be destroyed. Clearly, too, the former people would probably would not have wanted their bodies to be allowed to reanimate, walk around like that, and endanger people.

I'm still not all the way through this movie, but this one thing really annoyed me and seemed really PC and whiny.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WeRNotAfraid 14 years ago

I'm afraid I didn't care for it much. The characters all seemed like caricatures, and again much of it didn't make any sense. I just don't believe people would feel bad for shooting dangerous walking corpses, or find the old man too "strict" (huh?) for killing them.

What made Night of the Living Dead so scary, to me, was that it seemed like real people, and how real people would act. Barbara and Ben and the Coopers were just like anybody else, and easy to relate to. The zombies were terrifying, because they had a silent, lurking quality that made them ghostly and "wrong." I don't get that from this movie. It's sort of "Hey, look at the drunk Irishman, and the bitchy daughter, and the stupid military types!" Very cliche. Also, the zombies in this weren't even remotely scary. If they weren't being killed in ridiculous ways, they just sort of lumbered around in bad make-up and didn't seem to be much of a threat. I really feel like all of the energy on this film went into gore and a heavy-handed "message" instead of into creating atmosphere and protagonists you could relate to and feel for.

[–] Punisher55 13 years ago

They understand why he does what he does, but it is his nature to go to an extreme. For example, the women in the house early on, he's willing to go THAT far to prove his point. I agree that its with everyone's best interest to kill the zombies, but I'm not willing to kill innocent human beings to do so. Its about having sensibilities, O'Flynn was guilty of caring more about being agreeing with him then about taking care of the actual problem. I think regardless of the zombies, he would have wanted Muldoon dead.

[–] corgi37 13 years ago

It's so dumb that so many people even listen to the old geezers in the 1st place.

[–] runar-11 13 years ago

Well, for me it doesn't make sense that are muslim terrorists, cult socity like Haven's Gate that make mass suicide, mormons living like it's year 1500 and so on. They do still exist. So I don't find it that hard to belive that a group of people on an island would do something like in the movie.

[–] Punisher55 13 years ago

Exactly. There is no denying the over the top manor of it all, but really look at some of these extreme religious organizations. Their logic for everything is beyond foolish. Look at some of the nut bag evangelicals in America today.

[–] debrisyat 11 years ago

Romero explains his view on SOTD: "Survival of the Dead was a Western. I love John Ford, I love William Wyler I modeled Survival of the Dead off of a Wyler Western called The Big Country. Unabashedly I said we're going to steal from this movie's imagery and themes all of that."

Here's Romero's total view: "My zombies are purely a disaster. They are a natural disaster. God has changed the rules, and somehow this thing is happening. My stories are about the humans who deal with it stupidly, and that's what I use them for. I use them to sort of make fun of what's going on in a number of societal events. And that's it, I don't use them to just create gore. Even though I use gore, that's not what my films are about, they're much more political. That's it."

Romero incorporates slapstick, which can be viewed as silly and cliche. I think Romero likes cliche. He makes fun of the humans and deliberately makes them stupid. I don't think this is his best work and Romero obviously has a formula and rules for his own version of the ZA and it's not for everyone.

[–] GreyHunter 9 years ago

My problem with Romero, and I know I will elicit some horrified gasps here on the board for one of his movies, is that he undoubtedly includes considerably subtext (much of it so blatant that's it's hard to really call it subtext anymore) but he seems to think he's being more profound than he really is. Take "Dawn", widely considered to be the apex of his career. Yes, it has commentary on vacuous consumerism and the like, but it's not particularly pointed or even focused commentary. It's really only a few stuttering steps away from just being nothing more than a zombie movie that spends too much time rambling about. Frankly, I prefer the re-make simply because it has fewer pretensions and more focus than Romero's original. And when Romero makes a serious effort at social commentary, as in "Land," he ends up beating us over the head with the themes to the point where it feels like Romero felt obligated to go deep into commentary without having the deft touch necessary to suggest it through metaphor and symbolism. "Survival" is certainly political. It's also dreadfully monotonous and filled with caricatures simply because caricatures are the easiest way to get the point across. It really does feel like Romero sat down one day and said, "Okay, people expect me to make a zombie movie that makes a statement. What would be good statements to make, and how do I shoehorn zombies in there? Hmm...what if I made a movie about our tendency to split into factions and used zombies to make sure they get screwed?" It's just not good writing.