There are bad zombie movies and there are BAD zombie movies. If anyone doubts this fact, check out what poor Brother D has to deal with on a weekly basis at www.mailorderzombie.com. Since 1968 when Romero’s original classic gave life to the modern zombie, it has been a tough road for those shambling ghouls.  For the handful of “Return Of The Living Dead’s” and “Dead Alive’s”, there are scores more “Zombie Lake’s” and “Burial Ground’s”.
 
So that brings me back to the confusion I have regarding all the extreme hate for Romero’s latest “Survival Of The Dead”. If you listen to most of the poison slung at the movie and at Romero you would think that this was an epic fail along the lines of “House Of The Dead” and even worse from what most of the critics are saying.  When I finally got a chance to see it on the big screen, I was struck with a severe case of what I can only call “did they ever see ZOMBIEZ??-itus”.  It was like I watched a completely different film. One that is by no means the greatest of Romero’s zombie epics, but still leaps and bounds better then every single “Resident Evil” movie, and WAY better then 80 percent of the onslaught of crap indie zombie movies that pollute DVD racks each week. 

“Survival Of The Dead” is the first of the Romero saga to feature a returning character from “Diary Of The Dead”, Alan Van Sprang’s military Winnebago hijacker Sergeant “Nicotine” Crockett who, just like everyone else in every other zombie movie, is trying to find a place to wait out the zombie invasion. While searching he comes across an island on the coast of North America, where two feuding familial clans, The O’Flynns and The Muldoons, are fighting for control, one camp wanting to eliminate the threat, the other wanting to contain their zombiefied friends and loved ones hoping for a cure.

Romero comes to this new chapter with several of his old tricks up his sleeve. There is the blatant hippie social commentary on “us vs. them” peppered throughout the film. Albeit not as severe as in “Diary” or “Land”, but you can see that, unlike most zombie films, George really does set out to say something with each chapter. Agree with him, don’t agree with him, we know he’s a baby boomer who came out of the 60’s who has lost touch with new technology and that scares him, and that’s been prevalent with the last few “Dead” films. 

And as a writer, we all have to admit that his dialogue has always been a little clunky and his characters are mostly stereotypes based on his politics, we can trace that back to “Night”. But at least he has the sense to try not just to exploit the subgenre by just throwing new meat at the ghouls and peppering the screen with blood. With varying degrees of success he always gets his message across. And I admire that he’s still not just cashing a paycheck with each new film. I may not agree with his views, and they may sound like a scared old man, but I still respect that fact that he uses filmmaking, and the genre as an outlet for that. It’s what the horror genre was invented for. And in the end, in a zombie film, all we can really ask for is a decent story and some good gore effects, and we get that here. It’s fun, if not a masterpiece.

From an editing and cinematography standpoint it’s clear from the outset that Romero’s is making his zombie western. The pace and editing convey that nicely without being too slow. The only thing that, again, stalls this film from looking truly great is its generic Canadian locations. No offense to our neighbors from the north, but  I found myself wishing that he would have chosen a better location for shooting, maybe Australia which is a great place to shoot a western, ask John Hillcoat. But the shots are decent and look as good if not better then the last few dead films, even if it is still a bit TV like.

Veteran character actors and “that guy’s” Kenneth Welsh and Richard Fitzpatrick have the time of their lives as the leaders of the O’Flynn and Muldoon clans. Welsh is especially charismatic as Patrick O’Flynn, and you can tell both he and Fitzpatrick are loving the western showdown aspects of the film. They are both a little theatrical, but that’s just Romero’s style. The other acting is decent if not overwhelming. I will say that the cast fares far better then anyone in “Diary”.

Sure, when putting this film up against “Night”, “Dawn” and “Day” I will admit that it doesn’t hold a candle to any one of them.But then again, how many zombie movies do? Hell I won’t even put this in the same league as most of Romero’s filmography. But at least its not “Gangs Of The Dead” or worse “Return Of The Living Dead: Necropolis” (ugh).  And as zombie movies go, you could do a hell of a lot worse.