Survival of the Dead, whose title is somewhat of an oxymoron, tends to act as such: combining elements that would not normally go together, but then trying to play them off as being cohesive.
What I mean is that Romero has gone along with his typical zombie formula, which tends to be serious in tone, but for some reason or other, Romero has thrown in some comedic elements into an otherwise "serious" film. Some of them were funny, such as the zombie grabbing the stick of dynamite, but then others seemed completely unnecessary, like the female character masturbating out in the open, in front of her fellow soldiers. Things like that made the otherwise okay plot feel incoherent at points, and the mood would swing from trying to be funny to trying to be serious, stoic, and didactic, and the transitions weren't smooth.
Also, I said "female character" because I can't remember many character names after seeing the movie, which is never a good thing. A lot of the characters were stereotypical archetypes, some just zombie fodder (which, to be fair, is to be expected), and were largely underdeveloped, so it was hard to relate to some of them (yet, being a horror film, should be expected). However, I liked Patrick O'Flynn, and his struggle seemed legitimate (save for plot holes and faulty logic).
With that being said, Romero added some new things to Survival, like trying to stem zombies off of eating humans, as well as zombies continuing to get smarter (like one that remembered how to drive a car, albeit poorly), and even zombies that resided at the bottom of a lake, which will grab at you from the depths (which, personally, I think is the most horrific thing presented in the film, if not for the still "alive" zombie heads on pikes).
Survival seemed to have an over-reliance on spectacle, with zombies dying in some of the most fantastic feats, which was entertaining, but seemed to be used to distract the viewer from plot holes.
With all that being said, I still enjoyed the film, since, when Romero had the film heading in the right direction, the plot become much more interesting and thoughtful, and the zombie killing was always entertaining, if not somewhat contrived.
Had Romero stayed more focused on the intent and themes of the plot and concept, without sullying it with unnecessary, albeit entertaining humorous distractions, then this could have been a zombie great, instead of just a zombie okay. It's better than a lot of things out now (which is sort of sad), and if you can take the good with some of the bad, then you'll get a kick out of this film, but if you're looking for another zombie classic, you have some waiting to do.
What I mean is that Romero has gone along with his typical zombie formula, which tends to be serious in tone, but for some reason or other, Romero has thrown in some comedic elements into an otherwise "serious" film. Some of them were funny, such as the zombie grabbing the stick of dynamite, but then others seemed completely unnecessary, like the female character masturbating out in the open, in front of her fellow soldiers. Things like that made the otherwise okay plot feel incoherent at points, and the mood would swing from trying to be funny to trying to be serious, stoic, and didactic, and the transitions weren't smooth.
Also, I said "female character" because I can't remember many character names after seeing the movie, which is never a good thing. A lot of the characters were stereotypical archetypes, some just zombie fodder (which, to be fair, is to be expected), and were largely underdeveloped, so it was hard to relate to some of them (yet, being a horror film, should be expected). However, I liked Patrick O'Flynn, and his struggle seemed legitimate (save for plot holes and faulty logic).
With that being said, Romero added some new things to Survival, like trying to stem zombies off of eating humans, as well as zombies continuing to get smarter (like one that remembered how to drive a car, albeit poorly), and even zombies that resided at the bottom of a lake, which will grab at you from the depths (which, personally, I think is the most horrific thing presented in the film, if not for the still "alive" zombie heads on pikes).
Survival seemed to have an over-reliance on spectacle, with zombies dying in some of the most fantastic feats, which was entertaining, but seemed to be used to distract the viewer from plot holes.
With all that being said, I still enjoyed the film, since, when Romero had the film heading in the right direction, the plot become much more interesting and thoughtful, and the zombie killing was always entertaining, if not somewhat contrived.
Had Romero stayed more focused on the intent and themes of the plot and concept, without sullying it with unnecessary, albeit entertaining humorous distractions, then this could have been a zombie great, instead of just a zombie okay. It's better than a lot of things out now (which is sort of sad), and if you can take the good with some of the bad, then you'll get a kick out of this film, but if you're looking for another zombie classic, you have some waiting to do.