Good god, this movie sucks.


Just watched this and holy god what a crapfest. I think it's time for someone to commit Romero to an old folk's home. Anything to stop him from wasting anymore film and contributing to one more horrible zombie flick. He's destroying the genre he helped create. This movie was so incredibly bad it was literally an endurance test the last 45 minutes. Spare yourself the pain of watching the once great master's slide into senility behind the camera and skip this piece of crap at all costs!

reply

Amen.

But...you know as well as I do it is 100% FUTILE to try to warn zombie fans away from a zombie film, especially one made by GAR. I'd wager 99% of all self-proclaimed zombie fans will eventually watch this movie...and 75% of them will realize what we realize: that GAR has lost his mind. How to explain the other 25%? Well, hell, 25% of the population still think that George W Bush did a "good job" in the White House. 'Nuff said.

reply

[deleted]

The truly horrible thing is waiting ages for a movie from him to come out, hoping, praying & keeping fingers crossed that it wont suck, only to sink into your chair realising it is worse than anything he did prior.

reply

[deleted]

Yeah.
I know I'm done.
Jesus this movie was bad.

reply

Ok, I'll be the fanboy. Whatever, my whole life consists of being a douchebag internet troll.

Anyway, how is this movie that bad? What would you want to make it so good 'the way it should be'? I'm curious. So many low-budget small release independent horror movies SUCK, a lot. A real lot. The plot, direction, acting, camera work, action, effects, editing, sound, music, cinematography of many horror movies made in the last 10 years SUCK. 'Survival of the Dead' wasn't like that. Not exactly great, sure, not exactly a masterwork by any stretch of the imagination, I just don't see how it sucked so bad and let so many people down.


You've got the touch! You've got the power!

reply

[deleted]

Because, guys like Max Brooks have already shown that treated with the proper respect, a zombie story can be great. We've all thought about that movie that was promised (and was NOT delivered) by the original "Dawn of the Dead". Yet, everyone keeps playing it cheap and making horribly acted movies with no plot that seem to depend on the fact that zombie fans are only in it for the stupid kills and that's all. Anyone making an argument for this movie based on it's merits is either completely deluded or lying. It's a terrible movie in every way and with each new film George A. Romero is killing the genre he helped to create.

Just because it's 'independent' doesn't mean it has to be bad. The only reason most independent horror films are awful is because they're cranked out for a quick profit. There are people out there who actually care about making a good film too. Romero can't count himself among those people anymore.

reply

"The only reason most independent horror films are awful is because they're cranked out for a quick profit. There are people out there who actually care about making a good film too. Romero can't count himself among those people anymore. "

I strongly disagree.

Doesn't anyone see how Romero has been evolving this series? Just because it isn't the film you would have made or the direction you wouldn't have gone in doesn't mean its somehow inherently "bad" Not to mention the actual filmmaking quality of this movie is quite high.

The series started as a nice little study in group dynamics (Night), and mainly became a commentary about mankind literally and figuratlively devouring himself through overconsumption (Dawn).

I really think its pretty obvious that is what Romero is doing here with the last few films, and especially 'Survival'. He is exploring ideas of if the Living Dead can regain any function of their previous normal existence and/or if ingrained instincts still exist. As well as how pockets of surviors set up new communites. Its interesting.

Since Zombies are not real, and no, there is in fact no real Zombie apocoplypse it is perfectly valid what Romero is doing here. Anyone can imagine what they want about Zombies and make a movie about it. Its not like making a WWII movie and getting the history all wrong. No one should really take it to seriously and yes, enjoy the movie.

What is he supposed to do? Oh look...its another slow horde of zombies, and oh look, we're another group of survivors doing the exact same thing in all the movies. Look at 'Day of the Dead' that plot was quite different that 'Dawn' and is where the experimentation with zombies started.

Not that people have to actually like any given movie, to each his own.

You've got the touch! You've got the power!

reply

Strongly disagree all you want. I'm perfectly aware of how he's been 'evolving' the zombies in his crap films. AND, were he a competent filmmaker and actually bothered to start with a decent script, I could accept that. But, he's not. He makes horrible movies, with painful dialogue and non-existent plots.

I don't care who you are or what your movie is about, if you don't bother to write a decent story and dialogue and then fill it with actors that can actually deliver what you've written, your movie is going to suck. Period.

Romero is incapable of writing a decent script. His dialogue is godawful. His plots are non-existent. He seems to think if tosses in some lame ass 'political' commentary into everything he makes that people (and you can include yourself in this) will mistake his senile piddles for depth.

He's wrong.

"Survival" is a terrible film on every level. It's not worth a single dime that was spent on it. Romero should retire and allow someone else to competently do what he's now incapable of. And that's making decent zombie flicks.

reply

Oh my, another fan who loves the "symbolism" that Romero trys to shove down our throat.

Likely going to get raged upon for this, but the last good zombie movie I saw was the remake of Dawn of the Dead. It was entertaining, had excellent action - and I don't really care if the zombies are fast or not.

reply

Right on. As much as I love Zombie movies and stories, the last really good one was the new "Dawn of the Dead". It gave you that feeling of dread that a good zombie (or any horror) movie needs. The last 3 Romero films are just laughable - unintentionally so, unlike Zombieland which was funny as hell, but not scary.

I wonder why no-one has made movie versions of the great stories by the likes of Max Brooks, J.L. Bourne, Z.A. Recht (RIP) etc.

reply

..."why no-one has made movie versions of the great stories by the likes of Max Brooks, J.L. Bourne, Z.A. Recht..."
Now there be some great movies if done right. WWZ is allegedly in the works, but I'm not holding my breath on it.
But this latest by Romero....Gawd awful from start to finish. The only good thing about it was the movie poster
Best
Paladin

"Under your skin like a splinter"

reply

No crap about the "symbolism". Who cares. Honestly, I think he never intended to have any, but people just pretended they saw this crap in his films, like in Dawn with "consumerism". Then, he went with it and started pretending he was writing deep crap. These last 3 show he hasn't got a clue. Still playing the strong female garbage, and the whole racial crap where the white hunters chop off black zombies heads?
How about GAR wakes up and sees that there is actually reverse racism in this world, and that some white people actually have a conscience. Seems he tried to finally play up the latter, but that's only because he had one actor willing to work himself into a trilogy of crappy films.

reply

"He is exploring ideas of if the Living Dead can regain any function of their previous normal existence and/or if ingrained instincts still exist. "

He did that in a much more interesting manner with Day of the Dead and with Bub.
I don't understand what you mean from above. There was no "scientific experimentation" going on. All you had were some irish rednecks who didn't want to kill their kin.


"As well as how pockets of surviors set up new communites. Its interesting. "

Really, is that what you thought this was? It was more a bunch of redneck kin who lived in a small community with a dictator patriarch that was taken from a countless number of bad western movies.

"What is he supposed to do? Oh look...its another slow horde of zombies, and oh look, we're another group of survivors doing the exact same thing in all the movies. Look at 'Day of the Dead' that plot was quite different that 'Dawn' and is where the experimentation with zombies started."

Look at the Walking Dead on AMC, that took an old format and made it fresh and intriguing. Sometimes George Romero should focus on the talents of the LIVING actors, and not just teh zombies.

"there is in fact no real Zombie apocoplypse it is perfectly valid what Romero is doing here. "

That makes no sense, his goals should be to entertain us with art (yes movies are considered art). If he cannot entertain or move us, then be prepared for criticism. The saddest thing is a often a fanboy who cannot accept a critique from fellow fans (Yes, I own all of George Romero movies, on top of the 10 other Zombie DVD's I own) on calling it what it is, a crapfest.


Some of the basic parts of the movie were horrible. This includes the lack of atmosphere that Romero is known for (the trilogy had some excellent atmosphere), the horrendously bad props department (really, everyone in the movie had pre-WWI pistols in modern day, Gun-loving AMERICA?)

But the worst of it is the horrible acting, with guys that definitely seemed more Canadian than American. I was waiting for the "eh's" to break out.

And yes, before calling me a stereotyper, I was raised in Winnipeg and Toronto.

reply

effort on the story, less cliches, less shock and awe moments, less "but don't I make you uncomfortable old man because I'm going to hint I'm a lesbian" lines of dialogue, less disjointedness, more self-editing, less brainstorming, more good dialogue, more current social commentary, less hatfields and mccoys, less cross referencing every story he's ever seen, no surprise twin sister moments, no horse food symbolism, less rip-offs of other zombie movies (you created the genre, now let others play in it), less tie-ins to the movies that get you the budget for a sequel, less technology sarcasm because it screams of old guy who just doesn't get it and won't ever.....

and on and on and on..

Just tell a good story. That's all the fans of the classics of any genre are asking for. You can make a bad movie out of a good script but you can never make a good movie out of a bad script. Period.

reply

[deleted]

bump

reply

LOL :D

It's a ZOMBIE movie! ZOM-BIEs. ZOMMMMMMMM - BEEEEEEEZ.
Dead guys.....mobile....on the loose...looking all jacked-up........and eating people!!
Regardless of who made it...it is what it is.
Just go make a bowl of popcorn, grab a cold drink and sit down for a laugh at a silly movie. No big deal.
I have yet to see any zombie movie, in any language, no matter how awful, plot-less or ridiculous...that didn't at least make me laugh :)
"Zombie Strippers" is a perfect example. Way funny, that one.

"GO HARD - or GO HOME!"

reply

So, you're making the 'don't think about it' argument?

Weak sauce, dude.

reply

I hear that I'm "not quite right".
Horror movies are my comedy. Been a monster fan since I was 4. People scare the crap out of me - monsters never did.
So.... Zombies, c'mon!
Of all the monsters they are the lamest and most pathetic. How can you possibly expect too much from them? =)

BRAAAAAAAAAAAINZZZZZZ

"GO HARD - or GO HOME!"

reply

If Land of the Dead wasnt enough to convince you that GAR will never make another good zombie flick then I dont know what will. His last 3 movies, not counting this one because I havent seen it have been so awful i dont know how he keeps getting to make them.

Day, Land, and Diary were so predictable and horrible i don tknow why i keep getting suckered into watching them

FCT

OHHH GOOOD FOR YOU!!

reply

[deleted]

I agree on all counts except about Day.. it was horrid.

OHHH GOOOD FOR YOU!!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I watched this and hung on through the dumb plot and "bad even for a horror movie" acting, but I had to switch it off when there was a friggin ZOMBIE ON HORSEBACK! I can accept the slightly intelligent zombies of Land of the Dead, but ones that accomplish riding a horse at full gallop, I gotta draw the line somewhere.

GAR has outlived his usefulness, and just needs to retire, this will be a sad end to his career, but I fear what he might do next.

reply

Spare yourself the pain of watching the once great master's slide into senility behind the camera and skip this piece of crap at all costs!

I think it's kind of a stretch to use the word "great" to describe even Romero's past films . His best work ripped off Richard Matheson (someone that is worthy of the title of greatness). Take away the first film and you don't have a whole lot.

reply

I thought it was pretty average. A good movie to watch on a rainy day if you have nothing better to do. The plot wasn't bad. Of course if a zombie apocalypse were to happen there would be some people not willing to kill their zombiefied loved ones, and the setting was different. I like that he tries to make all the movies a bit different. He didn't succeed on all levels with this one. There were some logical gaps, the acting was so-so, some of the kills were obviously CGI etc, but it still kept me somewhat entertained till the end. If he makes another zombie movie I won't be expecting much. I thought Land and Diary were a bit better, but not as good as the original trilogy.

___
"What does it do?"
"It doesn't do anything. That's the beauty of it."

reply

The movie was bad, but not THAT bad as some of you suggest.
"The worst zombie movie ever"??? Oh I've seen zombie movies that would make this one nominated for an Oscar!
GAR reached a point in which he needs no one's validation; he's experimenting with the concept of a post-apocalyptic world full of flesh-eating zombies. Don't like what he's doing? Then don't bother watching it, it's as simple as that!
Don't get me wrong, I didn't really like it that much. But once again, I've seen a lot worse than this, my rating for Survival of the Dead is 5/10.

reply

Greetings,

I can recall reading some years ago that George R. intended the entire series to be a quadriliogy Night, Dawn, Day and then something tentatively called "Twilight of the Dead". Obviously this to my knowledge has even been scripted.

However if anyone out there knows anything about this title kindly advise.

By the way, I enjoyed "Land of the Dead" and I really, really liked Savini's take on Night...

bye,

s

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I liked it. I watched it for what it was and didnt try to compare it to the "original 3". And i gotta admit, i enjoyed Land of the Dean more than Dawn of the Dead. Survival wasnt the greatest film ever (obviously) but i really dont think it was as bad as some make it out to believe. I agree the zombies werent as numerous or threatening as in previous Dead film, but i think that was on purpose. If anything, they (zombies) seemed more realistic than they did in GAR's earlier films. Mr. Romero seems to be re-tooling his ideas of what zombies are and what they can do. I understand how that can turn off some fans, but for me (super huge fan) i appreciate what he's trying to do, and refuse to hate a film just because it isnt what i wanted it to be.

reply

But that's not why we hate it. We all hate it because it's poorly acted, poorly written, and boring. The dialogue is terrible and the acting sucks.

I'm all for defending ideas, but gawd. It was painful to sit through. The dialogue had bad timing, and it was trite and sophomoric. The actors were melodramatic. The Irish accents were terrible, and the girl kept dropping hers. And has Romero taken a geography lesson? Does he realize you cannot get to Ireland by barge in an hour? Good grief. And the end? With the horse? Are we being messed with, here?

*Spoiler Alert* - I'm about to talk about the lame ending.

Were they really all convinced that the fact that zombies would now eat horses meant that they would stop eating people? Horse eating is the cure? For real? And were we supposed to believe that those people could bring down a horse at all?

*End Spoiler*

I mean, you're entitled to like the movie; more power to you. But that's why it's universally hated - not because people don't like where he's taking the series, but because it's just a bad movie. I've seen a lot of good movies that went places I didn't like. Knowwhatimean?

reply

[deleted]

I like how you call people who DON'T like the movie nerds, but you stick to fanboy loyalty and point out references that more than likely are coincidences rather than intentional. That's rather nerdish itself. And if people are dumb for not "understanding" it, then wouldn't that mean those who "get it" would be smarter... like a nerd, one might say?

Looks like I just put your protector in the other pocket there, Poindexter.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GxlMGlezX0

reply

[deleted]

Well, DAWN 04 IS better.


And having a good plot to a movie that is unrealistic isn't asking a lot. Take ANY sci-fi movie that is crap. Can I just say "oh stop complaining about it because spaceships with lasers are not real, so it's allowed to be bad"? You'd call BS on me for that in a heartbeat. And that heartbeat causes a pulse... that ol George is too old to have his finger on anymore.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GxlMGlezX0

reply

[deleted]

A whole 15 seconds before you deemed it not "cool"? Would this be a good time to point out that there were already 3 Romero referenced movies by then and a 4th if you made it to 16 seconds. I guess it's a case of seeing what you want to see.

Don't worry. I don't take it personal if you didn't care for it.

And "NAY" on that other video. Did they run out of "cool" things for him to do so they started to reuse footage at the end? For someone kissing Romero's ass, why did you link to a video where zombies act so un-romero zombie like?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GxlMGlezX0

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

You're incredibly full of *beep*

reply

[deleted]

*sigh*

Douchebag ignored.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Another reference of "if you hate this movie, you must be part of today's youth". As pointed out, I'm not part of today's youth and this movie sucked. Gen X/13th Gen here and disappointed by Romero



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GxlMGlezX0

reply

This film was a financial success before it was released

I know I already commented on this post, but I have to add about this statement. Just because a movie makes money doesn't mean it's worth watching. Paranormal Activity was a cheap movie to make and cleaned up at the box office. Enough that it's getting another movie. It licked BALLS!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GxlMGlezX0

reply

[deleted]

I am amazed at how terrible this post is. You my friend must be Romero's #1 fan. How can any of those metaphors be too sophisticated for anyone - he literally almost tries to shove them down your throat.

Unlike his previous movies, there is little or no entertainment - which is why we watch (and I bet most of us here enjoy movies like The Evil Dead immensely)

So please stop kissing Romero's ass - the poor man has lost his touch, just remember the films he made that were actually entertaining.

reply