Since the release of "Land of the Dead" in 2005, distance between fans and critics in the realm of George Romero's ongoing zombie series has grown exponentially; while flawed, the epic scope and stinging commentary of "Land" captured the zeitgeist of a militaristic America reeling from the re-election of George W. Bush and his profit-hungry administration. 2008 saw release of "Diary of the Dead," a found-footage experiment that earned jeers for its artificial, calculated, and sometimes amateurish look and feel, but maintained a sense of urgency and dread in its parallel-universe telling of the first ghoul outbreak. Whatever the current critic/fan consensus may be, my own opinion is that Romero -- despite a stiff technique and frequent rejection of the Hollywood System (in spite of the budgetary detriment to his projects) -- has maintained a surprising consistency in his work (his zombie films are usually nothing less than compelling; his more personal projects meander and confound), where his contemporaries (such as John Carpenter, Tobe Hooper, and Dario Argento) have severely fallen from greatness.
Like fine wine, an attribute that worked to the "Dead" films' advantage was the passage of time between episodes; Romero himself has stated in interviews that his intention was to comment on each successive decade (beginning with "Night of the Living Dead" in 1968), with the ensuing anticipation one of the perks of knowing the man was hard at work on his next undead opus. With films like "28 Days Later" and the "Dawn of the Dead" remake opening to respectable box office in the early 2000s, the zombie floodgates split wide open, causing an influx of imitators and wanna-bes; Romero's "Land" fell by the wayside in 2005, but succeeded in spiking interest in the man who started it all. "Diary" followed quickly after, finding its own bone of social commentary/satire to gnaw on, despite the closing gap between films.
Now, less than 2 years after "Diary," Romero's saga continues (and possibly concludes) with "Survival of the Dead," a film that contains brief flickers of the director's wit and social commentary, pitted against a whole lot of silliness and low-rent mediocrity. The director eschews satire in favor of a failed genre crossover: like John Carpenter's "Vampires," "Survival" takes a stab at the American Western, but the straightforward, surprise-free story (concering two feuding families on a remote island), and Romero's lack of technical dexterity (scene setups and transitions are as dull as can be) drowns any possible excitement. The sly, subtle humor of his previous films has become anvil-heavy in its overtness, and the characters are drawn with a jaded apathy which doesn't mirror their situation more than their creator's lack of inspiration. Even the once-practical gore effects have become a barrage of CGI, painful in its transparent fakeness. With such an under-realized premise matched with such production-rushed elements, one wonders if "Survival" was nothing more than a cash grab from the get-go.
Like fine wine, an attribute that worked to the "Dead" films' advantage was the passage of time between episodes; Romero himself has stated in interviews that his intention was to comment on each successive decade (beginning with "Night of the Living Dead" in 1968), with the ensuing anticipation one of the perks of knowing the man was hard at work on his next undead opus. With films like "28 Days Later" and the "Dawn of the Dead" remake opening to respectable box office in the early 2000s, the zombie floodgates split wide open, causing an influx of imitators and wanna-bes; Romero's "Land" fell by the wayside in 2005, but succeeded in spiking interest in the man who started it all. "Diary" followed quickly after, finding its own bone of social commentary/satire to gnaw on, despite the closing gap between films.
Now, less than 2 years after "Diary," Romero's saga continues (and possibly concludes) with "Survival of the Dead," a film that contains brief flickers of the director's wit and social commentary, pitted against a whole lot of silliness and low-rent mediocrity. The director eschews satire in favor of a failed genre crossover: like John Carpenter's "Vampires," "Survival" takes a stab at the American Western, but the straightforward, surprise-free story (concering two feuding families on a remote island), and Romero's lack of technical dexterity (scene setups and transitions are as dull as can be) drowns any possible excitement. The sly, subtle humor of his previous films has become anvil-heavy in its overtness, and the characters are drawn with a jaded apathy which doesn't mirror their situation more than their creator's lack of inspiration. Even the once-practical gore effects have become a barrage of CGI, painful in its transparent fakeness. With such an under-realized premise matched with such production-rushed elements, one wonders if "Survival" was nothing more than a cash grab from the get-go.