Survival of the Dead (2009)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Film C

  
  Not my favourite zombie movie at all, in fact it was pretty terrible and even if your a huge zombie fan you may want to avoid this movie.

• Chris W

  
  Well, he did it. George A. Romero finally somehow managed to make a zombie movie that I can't bring myself to recommend. It's sad too. I mean, Land and Diary weren't as good as the original trilogy, but they were still pretty decent movies all things considered.… More
  Well, he did it. George A. Romero finally somehow managed to make a zombie movie that I can't bring myself to recommend. It's sad too. I mean, Land and Diary weren't as good as the original trilogy, but they were still pretty decent movies all things considered. Depending on certain factors (since I'm a little wary of change), I kinda like it when a band or director I like does something different. And that's the case here, where the film is basically The Hatfields and McCoys plus Zombies. Also different is that there's little if any real subtext here, unlike the previous films, and this is also the closest that the series has come to having a direct sequel since the main characters here plaed a small role in the previous entry. This film follows a group of mercenary national guardsmen (and lady) who robbed the protagonists of hte previous film. Here, they are deserters just looking to find a better place and situation. They make their way to an island off the coast of Delaware inhabited by two feuding Irish families who have differening views on how to deal with the zombies. This all could have been some very compelling stuff, but it never turns out to be that way. The film feels unfocused and incomplete. There are traces of substance, but no real hardsocial commentary, and what is there comes off as half formed. There's some humor here, whic his fine, but more than I fiured there'd be, and tonally, (and I hate using this comparison) this feels A LOT like Jason X. The humor also comes off as silly and doesn't work that well. Also, the acting is all over the place. So, with all of that, you might be wondering why I've not given it a lower score. Well, it's got violence and gore, and some rather interesting ways of killing zombies. A couple of the kills have some painfully bad cgi effects, which sucks, but still, they are at least creative. Also, I kinda liked the pseudo sequel idea. There's some okay ideas here, but it just feels like George has really run out of ideas and confirmed what many have known for a while now that he's pretty much just phoning it in. I did like that there's a random and pointless scene of the female soldier breifly masturbating though. Sigh. It's odd. This isn't that good of a film, but I was never really bored. That's especially odd since this film isn't always that interesting. Maybe it's just my love for the man and his past films. See this only if you're a completist, or if you feel you really have to. Otherwise, just pass.

• Drew S

  
  Coming as a huge surprise to absolutely no one, Survival of the Dead really sucks, barely functional as a slow-paced zombie action film and absolutely nothing else. No scares, no drama, dull characters, feeble gore, uncreative zombie death set pieces...aside from the visceral thrill… More
  Coming as a huge surprise to absolutely no one, Survival of the Dead really sucks, barely functional as a slow-paced zombie action film and absolutely nothing else. No scares, no drama, dull characters, feeble gore, uncreative zombie death set pieces...aside from the visceral thrill of watching people of various ages and occupations gun down the living dead, and the vicarious thrill that I personally get whenever I watch a zombie movie ("what would I do?" is always the best part, in my opinion) there is absolutely nothing here worth seeing. Romero's excessive hype of both this film and Diary of the Dead are clear indicators that he simply doesn't have his finger on the pulse of the genre anymore, and the only virtues of his two most recent films are merely to show how far he's fallen. Sad.

• Lee ?

  
  Ah, it wasn't as bad as I was expecting. It doesn't have that epic feel the other Romero Zombie films had and it does have that straight-to-DVD feel to it. A little bit more humour to this one as well which wasn't really needed, but still fun. It's gorier than… More
  Ah, it wasn't as bad as I was expecting. It doesn't have that epic feel the other Romero Zombie films had and it does have that straight-to-DVD feel to it. A little bit more humour to this one as well which wasn't really needed, but still fun. It's gorier than Diary of the Dead but some of it has been digitally added. So overall it's a small scaled down addition to Romero's Zombie saga, but it's fast-paced, fun and still bloody.

• Cassandra M

  
  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… More
  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. <a href="http://photobucket.com/images/survival%20of%20the%20dead" target="_blank"><img src="http://i582.photobucket.com/albums/ss266/joanlafulla/survival_of_the_dead_1.jpg" border="0" alt="Survival of the Dead Pictures, Images and Photos"/></a>

• James A

  
  Thank you Romero for creating the flesh eating zombie. Now stop making these horrible ___ of the Dead movies.

• Chris G

  
  George Romero has spent a lifetime telling us the story of the day that the dead walked the earth. The original Dead trilogy (Night of, Dawn of, and Day of) are all classic films in a genre Romero literally created. There is more to them than brainless zombies consuming what's… More
  George Romero has spent a lifetime telling us the story of the day that the dead walked the earth. The original Dead trilogy (Night of, Dawn of, and Day of) are all classic films in a genre Romero literally created. There is more to them than brainless zombies consuming what's left of humanity. They're character pieces. How will certain people react to a situation like this. These are great movies. The last few Dead films from Romero have been lacking in the story or just the way they were made and the director has rounded out another trilogy of zombies with Survival of the Dead, a film that off shots from Diary of the Dead and represents something closer to Romero's original commentary style. The film begins on an island where one group is exterminating anyone who has become the undead while the other segment of the small population believes that they can be trained and saved. Eventually the leader of the pro-killing group is expelled from the island . In the meantime a rogue group of military personnel are looking for a place to hole up and stumble on this old man and his party robbing people and sending them to the island, because "they hate strangers". They return to the island and begin a struggle to determine who will be the dominate group of the island itself. The film is a very basic premise and delivers its message that seems focused on our own belief systems. It's all there in black and white and as happens in most of these films, no one wins in the end. Except possibly the zombies. The main problem with the film is that there isn't much build-up. Most movies over do it to the extreme, whereas Survival of the Dead seems to be running too fast to its conclusion. It could have been built a little slower and a little better. Otherwise, this is a Romero film and it is still light years ahead of some of the slop coming out today. Anyone can do a zombie movie. Only George Romero can do a thought provoking film that just happens to have flesh eating dead people running around.

• Jason S

  
  This is more an old school family rivalry story than it is about the Zombie apocalypse. The film starts out with a soldier who is tired of the war with the zombies doing a monologue that really doesn't serve a purpose. Everything they were showing us was giving us the story and… More
  This is more an old school family rivalry story than it is about the Zombie apocalypse. The film starts out with a soldier who is tired of the war with the zombies doing a monologue that really doesn't serve a purpose. Everything they were showing us was giving us the story and the bad voice over was just distracting. The acting as a whole in this movie is pretty bad but I wasn't expecting much from this straight to DVD gore flick. The majority of the action takes place on the island that the two families live and feud on. One group wants to kill all the zombies and clear the island of the living dead so they can live out their lives apart from whats happening in the world and the other family is intent on keeping the zombies alive in hopes that a cure can be found. This leads to more of a war between the survivors than a battle to live through the rising of the dead and it started to bore me. They wanted us to feel for these characters and I just didn't. I was fine when one by one they all started to drop. Another issue with the movie was that there was a little too much CGI work when it came to killing the zombies. It gave the movie a pretty cheap look and took away from the eeriness the zombie film should have. Plus it seemed a little too bright and clean and that made the zombie make up come off as silly. Over all... I've seen worse. But that doesn't mean I would want to see this one again anytime soon.

• Jeff "

  
  Average zombie film. As far as a George Romero film is concerned this is pretty disappointing and I had mixed feelings about. I though it was simply average. Considering this is a Romero film, I expected something good. Well it kinda is, but it's not the best. The film lacked… More
  Average zombie film. As far as a George Romero film is concerned this is pretty disappointing and I had mixed feelings about. I though it was simply average. Considering this is a Romero film, I expected something good. Well it kinda is, but it's not the best. The film lacked something that makes a Romero film so special. The film delivers on the gore and violence, but theres something missing to truly make this one very good. Romero obviously has done everything he can with the Zombie medium, and he seems to be running out of great ideas. While watching this film, don't expect something excellent. Expect something average, and you may not be disappointed. With George Romero nowadays is so-so. His recent zombie films aren't bad, in fact Land Of The Dead and Diary Of The Dead were great. But they don't live up to the timeless classics such as Night Of The Living Dead and Dawn Of The Dead. I the film is fun to watch and does provide the viewer with juicy gory bits, but this is his weakest entry in the Dead series. If you have doubts about watching this film, don't do it. pass on it, if you're mildly interested in seeing this film, then do so with the knowledge that it's Romero's weakest. Still I was entertained. But in the long run, this film will be forgotten.

• Adam M

  
  It's "Canada of the Living Dead." Who cares about the Muldoons vs the O'Flynns when the whole earth is being overrun by zombies? A: George Romero. They're getting worse, George. You still direct with the energy of a young man and bake up some tough-cookie… More
  It's "Canada of the Living Dead." Who cares about the Muldoons vs the O'Flynns when the whole earth is being overrun by zombies? A: George Romero. They're getting worse, George. You still direct with the energy of a young man and bake up some tough-cookie dialogue, but you're bumming us out with high-variety overkill, stereotypes w/o added charm and dull metaphors -- all in the mud-grey lighting of HD video. If you want to do a Western, do a Western ... a good one. Points only for waddling Kenneth Welsh. Alan Van Sprang and Athena Karkanis should be in another movie, where their tears are saved for the end.

• Conner R

  
  While this is slightly better than Diary of the Dead, it's still a defamination of what George A. Romero created with his first four zombie movies. This isn't really smart, it looks like a student film for the most part and has bad characters. It's almost hard watching… More
  While this is slightly better than Diary of the Dead, it's still a defamination of what George A. Romero created with his first four zombie movies. This isn't really smart, it looks like a student film for the most part and has bad characters. It's almost hard watching these movies, but I guess it just shows what utter genius the others are in comparison.

• Robert C

  
  aka: "The Hatfields and the McCoys and Zombies". All in all a disapointment. Sure there are some fun/gruesome "zombie deaths/murders", but not enough to make up for the underdeveloped story line, completely boring characters and numerous plot holes. I fear Mr.… More
  aka: "The Hatfields and the McCoys and Zombies". All in all a disapointment. Sure there are some fun/gruesome "zombie deaths/murders", but not enough to make up for the underdeveloped story line, completely boring characters and numerous plot holes. I fear Mr. Romero may be loosing his touch.

• Steve K

  
  It's officially embarrassing. He needs to stop damaging his own legacy.

• MisterYoda ?

  
  Land of the dead was a real disappointment, but George Romero had hit a real low with his Diary of the dead. So was it a good idea to put his reputation on the line with a fifth zombie movie? Maybe not, but the fact remains that his latest outing, Survival of the dead, is his best… More
  Land of the dead was a real disappointment, but George Romero had hit a real low with his Diary of the dead. So was it a good idea to put his reputation on the line with a fifth zombie movie? Maybe not, but the fact remains that his latest outing, Survival of the dead, is his best since Day of the dead. Survival of the dead is an exciting and fresh take on the zombie phenomena. The main part of the movie takes place on a island where time stood still. The religious inhabitants can't say goodbye to their loved ones. So even when they turn into zombies they still want their living dead around, in most cases chained to the ground. This situation is actually very well done. It even supplies the movie with an incredible magic moment. I won't spoil it for the viewers, but it involves a girl riding a horse. Back is the gore. Back is the military. Back are the inventive ways to kill off a zombie. The movie ends like you would expect it: once again the zombies take over. I can live with that. But maybe Romero should retire from zombie movies and give his torch to fellas like Zack Snyder (the Dawn of the Dead remake) or Ruben Fleischer (Zombieland). Because although Survival of the Dead isn't a bad film, it doesn't reach the heights of ultimate classics like Night, Dawn and Day of the dead.

• _kelly .

  
  Few people are greater Romero devotees than me, which is why it's a worse fate than a zombie bite for me to have to first watch and then review this movie. Had a extremely young first time film-maker, an only time film-maker, or a fan group made this, it might have been… More
  Few people are greater Romero devotees than me, which is why it's a worse fate than a zombie bite for me to have to first watch and then review this movie. Had a extremely young first time film-maker, an only time film-maker, or a fan group made this, it might have been considered marginally good and might have even earned them a shot at legitimate directing. From a master such as Romero, this is a sign that the man no longer has any interest in film, and he is begging us for a mercy kill like so many of his characters. This is little more than an exercise in emulating the cheesiest of bad film-making and a game of "what marginally amusing and creative zombie kill can I do next with shitty CG and bottom tier squibs?" I am beyond shocked how terrible this attempt at a movie is. At this point, I think it is depressing that this film earned distribution, and I realize now that any of us ever cared about this film only because it was Romero. Well, it's not Romero anymore, kids. It's just a zombie wandering about doing what he vaguely recalls doing in life.

• Brian D

  
  He is the only man who can make the right zombie movie and again prove he still got the touch.This one as more of a simple story than diary and land was.Its more tongue n cheek and got a few laughs a long the way which is refreshing. Gore is plenty with some nice killings and the… More
  He is the only man who can make the right zombie movie and again prove he still got the touch.This one as more of a simple story than diary and land was.Its more tongue n cheek and got a few laughs a long the way which is refreshing. Gore is plenty with some nice killings and the special effect are pretty good but not excellent for this low budget film.There is a nice cross over here from diary of the dead.All is all a good enrty in Romero dead series,not the best but enteraining or the same.

• E.J. B

  
  FROM TIFF: When you think about it, George A Romero has only had two good films: Night of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead. Of course, both of these films not only spawned the entire zombie genre as we know it, but they brought to the forefront the notion that horror filmmaking… More
  FROM TIFF: When you think about it, George A Romero has only had two good films: Night of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead. Of course, both of these films not only spawned the entire zombie genre as we know it, but they brought to the forefront the notion that horror filmmaking can be as deep and thoughtful as any Oscar winning drama. But Romero's attempts at social commentary have become only more obvious and even more annoying with each subsequent film in his ____ of the Dead saga. Granted, I liked Diary a lot, and I seem to be the only one. I liked how Romero handled the contemporary need to document public tragedies, how we are living in an age where information is streamlined almost immediately, so what we are seeing is happening now, at this very moment. Survivial of the Dead seems to be about tribalism, or in a more specific sense, warring factions who are stuck in their beliefs to the point where they will resort to violence to uphold them. The film takes place in a distant Quaker-esque island where one clan wants to kill all the zombies, while another clan acknowledges that these zombies were once their friends and family, thus, their bodies should be kept locked up and "alive" so they can find a cure. Romero hammers this point into your head within the first five minutes. The rest of the film is a lot of bad acting, bad writing, lame zombie mayhem, and a climax that would have been great if the rest of the movie had been enjoyable. The film stumbles between B-movie cheez, while piling on blatant CGI gore. None of it works. But perhaps the most offensive part of Survival is the idea that zombies can survive by eating other animals. Guess what happens by the end of the film? I might be overreacting here, but this idea negates my whole undestanding of zombies as metaphors for how we as a society destroy ourselves and each other through consumerism, war, etc.. Long story short, if you're a Romero fan, you'll be disappointed. If you aren't, you wouldn't have even bothered seeing this movie anyway.

• Andy S

  
  The good acting and gore effects keep this film interesting. The fact that about two thirds of the cast has an Irish accent is slightly annoying, but doesn't detract from the overall product. The extremely cryptic ending sends the greatest zombie film saga of all time off with a… More
  The good acting and gore effects keep this film interesting. The fact that about two thirds of the cast has an Irish accent is slightly annoying, but doesn't detract from the overall product. The extremely cryptic ending sends the greatest zombie film saga of all time off with a bang.

• Matthew Y

  
  Easily the weakest thing George A. Romero has given us since he first invented the Zombie genre in 1968. With Survival we are given a slightly campy film about two rival plantation owners who can't see eye-to-eye on anything, not even how to deal with the dead during the zombie… More
  Easily the weakest thing George A. Romero has given us since he first invented the Zombie genre in 1968. With Survival we are given a slightly campy film about two rival plantation owners who can't see eye-to-eye on anything, not even how to deal with the dead during the zombie apocalypse. A couple of sight gags, especially the films final scene where the two now zombified rivals are approaching each other trying to cock and fire empty pistols, give a few mild chuckles but overall this film is too low-budget and light on gore to give us anything really worth watching. If not for the fact George A. Romero directed it I don't know if anyone would have watched it at all.

• Jacob P

  
  Although it may not be the best of the Dead series, it still delievers it's gore and scares like all the previous films. Although, it is probably the worst of the George A. Romero series, but that doesn't mean it's not good.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings