Survival (I) (2006) User Reviews

Doesn't live up to it's potential

[TyRowe · 1/10 · 21 March 2008]

I love all types of films, especially horror. That being said, Survival does not live up to ANY of the hype surrounding it.

I can't give it any points on originality. There is nothing wrong with exploring the same themes, or remaking what others have done. It has just become a cop out for indie films to take us on a slasher journey through the woods, a crazed killer, and as of lately, throw in some crazy family. On those lines I have to compare it with the likes of Texas Chainsaw, Wrong Turn (though the twist in that one is obvious), and others. Survival falls up way short against comparable films. The plot was just not original in ANY way. Some films can get by with a weak (and way over-done) plot with superb acting, special fx, or a slew of other factors. Survivial doesn't have any of that to bank on. If you will, note the following: The acting in the movie never took off. I don't knock or blame the actors for that, nor the director. The dialogue was at best mediocre, and the actors involved never showed (not saying didn't HAVE) the talent to pull it off. I mention 2 standouts. The leading man in this film certainly has the look, but I seriously thinks he needs to consider more training before he is ready to carry a film. The actor who portrayed Greg also had potential, but we never got to see any of it (watch the movie to see why, you won't believe it..).

The grainy film look. Ah yes, that little tid-bit of film making magic designed to take us to the glory days of "Grindhouse" films. In today's film making, that has become a gimmick. It either works or it doesn't. In this case it just does not work. There are too many other flaws going on, so it winds up distracting from the film, not adding to it. That being said, I think they did a good job of adding that grain. That is some good, quality grain. I think with a different script, better direction, and possibly actors, they should try another "Grindhouse" attempt. They will probably pull it off.

As far as the tech aspects, in my opinion, they never quite gelled for me either. Better care could have been taken with audio (sounds like it was fed directly into the camera, but there is nothing wrong with that) and for being shot on DV, it was too soft for my taste.

That is all I have to say about that.....

Frustrating and Ultimately Unmemorable

[FilmFatale · 2/10 · 9 August 2015]

I watched this barely 24 hours ago and had to search the synopses to remember anything about it - not a good sign. I try to be understanding with low-budget films but this one had two major problems that had nothing to do with budget. First, it's terribly precious. It tries so hard to look like a newly-discovered drive-in classic from the 70s with its scratched film stock and "missing reel" cards but there's something so cutesy about those touches that it really took me out of the experience. Second, it's insanely boring...and that's unforgivable when you've got a house of crazies and a batch of potential victims. I never quite understood what the doctor (Father) was trying to do, and whether the kids were supposed to be their own conveniently insane offspring or if they had been experiments that were mildly successful and kept around to procure more victims. There's obviously some potential on display here and I'll be willing to give the filmmakers another chance because after Survival, they've pretty much got nowhere to go but up.

"Survival" is 1980s horror fun for 2008...and that's a good thing!

[parrishrandall · 8/10 · 25 March 2008]

Hey this flick is a must see for fans of the old 1980's Vestron Video style horror releases that you used to find on your local video store shelves. Reminiscent of features like "Don't Go In the Woods", this film is gritty, campy and damned good fun for the viewer seeking escapist horror entertainment. Is it ultra low in budget? Hell yes...and that is what makes it as fun to watch as it is! If this film had have had a budget of 20 million it would have detracted from the "camp factor" and the film would have become just another slasher in the woods thriller. Instead, we are treated to low budget scenes of great "in the woods" gore effects, chicks in jeopardy and dudes being butchered...or turned into brain-dead psychos! Good performances by the indie cast and a super fun throwback to the golden age of "blood and guts VHS" make this one a must see for any fan of the carnage in the woods film genre!

Typical of the independent horror genre

[brooksd12 · 7/10 · 28 April 2008]

Survival is just another variation on the campers lost in the woods, stalked by killers storyline that we've all seen before. But it works because the film makers decided to pay tribute to the movies that inspired it and in doing so were able to elevate this no budget slasher from tepid and tired to fun and inspired. A few things helped them achieve this.

One is the film stock look. The movie plays like an old film complete with scratches and hairs on the stock. It is a nice homage to the older classics of the 1970s that proliferated the cinemas/the b movie greats that you would catch on late night cable. It was a nice touch and truer to the genre than the studio produced "Grindhouse, which used the same technique.

The story was not to complex even though I am still not sure about the killers motives. Still it was easy to follow because the actors seemed to be having a good time. Speaking of the acting, some was really good, others were really bad. The actor playing Rufus made the movie, plain and simple. He was the highlight of the movie and was a memorable character. The mother character was also a delight to watch with her 1950s Leave It To Beaver mannerisms. Overall the acting helped make the movie work, although there were some low points. (I'll discuss later) The special effects were exactly what they should have been and they worked. I could tell that most of the money went to the effects. They were in short, effective (pun intended.) The music was better than most low budget movies except for a couple of missed opportunities where the music could have helped raise the tension. But the music was perfect otherwise.

In all I really enjoyed Survival, despite its flaws which I will cover here. Regardless of the movies short comings, it still works as a film and is enjoyable. Obviously the budget is the biggest problem. It is easy to see that the film makers didn't have a lot of money in this production and it shows.

Another low point is some of the acting. While most of the acting was really good and fun to watch, some of it was painful. Most of the bad acting was from the curly head actor playing the shy boyfriend. He was very wooden and horribly delivered his dialogue . This is the problem with most low budget movies when they hire non actors or friends to ACT when they obviously can not.

Also there was ample chances to show some nudity but the film flaked out in that department. The lady who played Lauren did a good job acting but should have showed a little skin if you catch my drift. It would have made the movie feel more like what it was trying to go for.

I still say you chould check this out when it hits DVD just to show support for these small films that are as good as the stuff that Hollywood is putting out.

It's a fun low budget ride, that's for sure!

[TwiceLifeTobey · 10/10 · 31 March 2008]

I got to meet the director Joe Francis and one of the actors Jamie Smith at Texas Fright mare Weekend a couple months ago, and actually got a screener of the movie from Joe.

Even though this isn't about Survival per say, I would like to point out how truly pleasant these two guys were and fun to talk to Francis is a really funny guy. I hope someday to see more from the both of them.

Okay so what about the movie? It was a lot of fun! The story is pretty basic but the generic plot was done justice for the type of movie it is. Some college kids go to the woods to camp and meet up with other friends, but get caught up when one of the girls steps on a spike and soon they get help from a family that's secluded deep in the forest. The brother and sister are pretty evil and the guy that played Rufus Don Prentiss was so freaking cool and wicked that i can't wait to get my hands on other movies with this guy. Vanelle who was Lauren did a great job, too. So did Jamie Smith who was really cool to really evil with the flip of the switch. also, Ricky lee Leonard had a small part, even though he did the effects. That guy is very talented on that side of things.

I thought the shots were pretty cool too. Overall it stands apart from a lot of the crap floating out there, so hopefully it will get a good release and not be stuck on some crappy multi pack. It's deserving of it's own release for sure.

Anyway I think that's it. It was really cool meeting those guys and if they read it THANKS FOR THE MOVIE! Oh also the music was freaking awesome! If there's ever a soundtrack I would defiantly buy it cause that end credits song was so cool!

A good start

[upupandachaco · 10/10 · 28 October 2007]

Two guys, a case of beer, a rubber mask and a Hi8 camera came together one night in a maelstrom of drunken hi-jinx to put together a world renowned short film masterpiece which catapulted a young would be filmmaker into a new visionary of independent film. Nobody is saying that Joe Franks and his first feature film "Survival" are the next best thing since sliced bread. But one can not deny the heart, blood and sweat that went into the making of this VERY low budget and time constrained production by all those involved in its making. How many would be filmmakers actually succeed in pulling off a project like this, and how many get discouraged during production and call it quits. I applaud the entire crew for their works. And to add a little icing to the cake, the movie is actually pretty good! I'm no movie critic, at least not until EW calls me back, but I have seen Hollywood rim the toilet and drop some crap into our laps that would make "Survival" seem like "Forrest Gump." Keep an open mind and give it a chance and I think you will be pleasantly surprised by the fun that can be had watching this film.

A Great Way to Spend an Hour and a Half

[craigjunkie83 · 10/10 · 2 July 2007]

We all know the back-story of Survival. It was a $1200 film that used Ebay to get much of its funding. So... the verdict? Survival is damn fun! So it didn't cost a few million bucks and feature every actor from the WB, it did pack a fun punch and was one of the best backyard films I have ever seen.

That isn't to say that the movie was without its faults. A few of the actors are a little stiff, the special effects are a little cheesy, and there are a few small plot holes. But who the hell cares? Horror movies are supposed to be disturbing, entertaining, and above all - fun! This movie delivers on all these things.

The movie had good directing and editing. I can't wait to see what these guys have in store for us in the future. If they can make a movie this great for only $1200, imagine what they can do with a real budget?

Survival Is Worth An Audience!!!

[sikomike1987 · 8/10 · 19 August 2008]

I was looking forward to this film long before it was even done with Pre-Production. It was meant to be a fun and entertaining throwback to the old Grindhouse/terror in the woods sub-genre of the 70's and I must say that it did its job. Granted, it probably won't be everybody's cup of tea, but it pleased me. This film proves that the indie horror movies are the way to go these days. Some are good and Survival falls into the good category for me. Definitely worth a watch and even a rental. If you truly like it as I did then go ahead with a purchase. Now, I'm waiting for the sequel, which I have a feeling will live up to this fun original.

SCORE: 8.5/10