I was one of LAND OF THE DEAD's biggest fans. I was thrilled that George Romero had a new entry in the "Dead" series and even more so that he had a major studio releasing it worldwide. The movie lacked the out-of-the-mainstream edge and effortless wit of the previous movies, but it was still refreshing to see a horror movie with subtext and satire rather than just a brainless gorefest.
Unfortunately, Romero's new notoriety gave him the means to restart the "Dead" series and he unleashed the intelligent but mind-numbingly boring DIARY OF THE DEAD. He made some good points and got decent performances from his cast, but the movie made the heavy-handedness of LAND OF THE DEAD seem laid back. If DAY OF THE DEAD was a little on the talky side, then DIARY OF THE DEAD was shamelessly preachy.
With his latest entry in the "new Dead" series, SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD, he improves a little bit on DIARY, if only because SURVIVAL zips along at such a fast pace it never really has the chance to become boring. But the relentless pontification of the characters and the use of the zombie plague as nothing more than a backdrop for a sociological study weigh the movie down and keep it from really taking off.
Other than some embarrassing CGI gore effects toward the beginning, there is little in SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD that is flat out awful. As always with Romero's "Dead" movies, it's intelligent, topical and compelling. Unfortunately, it lacks wit, charm and humanity. The characters are pretty much two-dimensional caricatures about whom we don't care very much. In the first two movies, we got to know Ben, Barbara, the Coopers, Flyboy, Peter, Fran and Roger. We could relate to them as people; they were never just pawns with no purpose other than to move the story along.
And I think that's the problem Romero has been having lately. He is intent on filling his movies with satirical and political content but has lost the finesse (or the desire) he once had to weave it into the story. Instead of being a scary, thrilling or entertaining horror movie, it seems more like the self-righteous ranting of an angry old man. And that is more depressing than the classic finale of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.
Unfortunately, Romero's new notoriety gave him the means to restart the "Dead" series and he unleashed the intelligent but mind-numbingly boring DIARY OF THE DEAD. He made some good points and got decent performances from his cast, but the movie made the heavy-handedness of LAND OF THE DEAD seem laid back. If DAY OF THE DEAD was a little on the talky side, then DIARY OF THE DEAD was shamelessly preachy.
With his latest entry in the "new Dead" series, SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD, he improves a little bit on DIARY, if only because SURVIVAL zips along at such a fast pace it never really has the chance to become boring. But the relentless pontification of the characters and the use of the zombie plague as nothing more than a backdrop for a sociological study weigh the movie down and keep it from really taking off.
Other than some embarrassing CGI gore effects toward the beginning, there is little in SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD that is flat out awful. As always with Romero's "Dead" movies, it's intelligent, topical and compelling. Unfortunately, it lacks wit, charm and humanity. The characters are pretty much two-dimensional caricatures about whom we don't care very much. In the first two movies, we got to know Ben, Barbara, the Coopers, Flyboy, Peter, Fran and Roger. We could relate to them as people; they were never just pawns with no purpose other than to move the story along.
And I think that's the problem Romero has been having lately. He is intent on filling his movies with satirical and political content but has lost the finesse (or the desire) he once had to weave it into the story. Instead of being a scary, thrilling or entertaining horror movie, it seems more like the self-righteous ranting of an angry old man. And that is more depressing than the classic finale of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.