A theme in George Romero’s SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD, his sixth zombie opus, is taking sides – where we stand, and where you stand and I suspect his legion of fans will be split into sides as well. Like the director’s previous entry DIARY OF THE DEAD, many will embrace it but just as many will loathe it. Romero has earned this horror fan’s loyalty and I’ll always look forward to seeing his films, but SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD has to be judged in context of his earlier DEAD entries, and I found it a mixed bag at best. It’s not the worst in the series (hey, it’s better than DAY) but it’s all over the map in terms of tone and Romero seems to have trouble finding the right balance between horror and spoof. It also suffers from a completely ridiculous plot as well as inappropriate slapstick, clumsy dialog and bad acting. But plot, acting, and dialog may not be what many fans of the series are looking for and SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD is at times an interesting, polished, fast-moving film that doesn’t skimp on the gore and has some memorable moments and images.
Romero fills SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD with his usual social commentary as he continues to drive home the point that mankind’s reaction to a zombie outbreak is as dangerous, if not more so, than the plague itself. The concept of the living fighting amongst themselves while facing the walking dead is front and center of the new film’s plot. It has been several weeks since the deceased began rising from their graves as flesh-eating monsters as laid out in DIARY OF THE DEAD. On Plum Island, two families are engaged in a struggle for power, as they apparently have been for generations. The O’Flynn’s, headed by patriarch Patrick O’Flynn (Kenneth Welsh), approach the zombie plague with a survivalist shoot-first attitude. The Muldoons, headed by Seamus Muldoon (Richard Fitzpatrick), are dead-set against killing zombies, believing it to be a sin as they waits for a cure to be discovered and cling to the belief that the undead can be rehabilitated (or at least taught to change their diet). The O’Flynn’s are outnumbered so they’re forced to exile Patrick by boat to the mainland where he meets up with a band of soldiers headed by Guardsman Sarge ‘Nicotine’ Crockett (a minor character in DIARY OF THE DEAD played by Alan Van Sprang and the first time a DEAD series character has appeared in a subsequent film). They join forces and return to the island to confront the Muldoons as well as the zombie threat.
SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD doesn’t work at all in the too-frequent scenes where the horror elements take a backseat to the foolheaded conflict between the O’Flynns and the Muldoons. An Irish family feud is an ill-conceived concept to hinge the plot of a zombie movie on (and though Plum Island is supposed to be off the coast of Delaware, they all speak with such forced, clichéd Gaelic brogues, I kept waiting for someone to say “Erin go Bragh! These zombies are after me Lucky Charms!”) and while I want to credit Romero with attempting something different, things get way too bogged down with philosophical debate. Watching middle-age Irish men in cowboy hats argue the morals of shooting zombies wears thin quick and there’s so much bickering about the ethics of killing the undead I wondered if Romero was trying to make a statement about the abortion issue (I hope not). Romero’s allegories have always been heavy-handed but with SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD he gets so hung up with satire that he forgets to make the film scary. It shouldn’t be too hard to make slow-moving flesh-eaters frightening but they don’t attack in masses and they’re so passive here (and the living are all so heavily armed) that they have no chance and are barely a threat.
Though I’ve just pointed out a lot of faults in SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD, I’m not going to discourage anyone from seeing it. I mean come on, just the fact that 70 year-old George Romero has a new DEAD film opening in theatres is something to celebrate. There is no shortage of zombies in sight (children zombies, underwater zombies, etc..), and he’s come up with more than enough fresh zombie-kill moments to sate the gorehound fan base. The zombie deaths occur in a wide variety of fashions, most of which feature laughably outrageous, but well-executed effects and they are the best elements of the film. I’ve heard complaints about Romero’s overuse of CGI gore, but I think it’s used effectively in SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD, especially a stunning shot of still-gnashing zombie heads plopped on stakes and a great eye-popping fire extinguisher trick. It’s the best looking of Romero’s second trilogy with moody lensing and a crisp, widescreen image. There are many atmospheric moments; a zombie woman’s trek across the rural countryside on a galloping horse is haunting and the final image (also involving a horse) is heavy food for thought. If someone named George Smith had directed SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD, I might be a bit easier on it but the expectations and anticipation for an entry into this long-standing series by a profoundly influential director were high and the end result falls short, but I recommend that Romero’s fans see it and judge for themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment