Survival of the who?

Survival of the Dead has quickly become one of the most talked about movies on the web, and for good reason. As most people already know, it's George A. Romero's latest entry into his (second?) "Dead" series. The first news about it was reported over at Dread Central back in 2008. I for one, like many horror fans, have been patiently waiting for Survival to be released. When I found out it was going straight to video in the UK, I immediately pre-ordered the Optimum Blu-Ray (Region B locked).  Confused at first about the odd release schedule both in the UK and US, after watching Survival it makes a lot more sense.

SPOILERS AHEAD

We'll be skipping a plot summary here folks and get right down to it... this film is a mess, plain and simple. On the surface, it's a story about a small group of survivors searching for safety during the zombie apocalypse, laced with Romero's sharp social commentary of course... sound familiar? The underlying story is about two feuding families on a remote island community that our band of not-so courageous survivors happen upon. Doesn't sound too bad yet, but throw in Western themes, lame comedic elements, a horny lesbian soldier, a horseback ridding zombie twin, crazy religious ramblings, bad CGI and zombies eating a horse; trust me, it gets bad quick.

Back in 1985 audiences weren't ready for Day, but over time it became recognized as a modern horror classic. This will not be the case for Survival, as it lacks the focus, character development, amazing effects and excellent writing that make Day a masterpiece. As much as it pains me to say so, Romero's writing is slipping. There are too many different themes crammed into what is essentially a straight-forward story. The Plum Island feud is way over the top, the social commentary is rehashed from older films, comedic elements are lame and thrown in at awkward points, the religious theme doesn't seem completely flushed out, dialogue is weaker than Diary, the overall pace feels more rushed than Land, and I've seen better character development in SyFy original movies. And speaking of Land, if you had a hard time buying Fiddler's Green, good luck with Plum Island. How can a place like it exist in this day and age, even in the Romero Dead world? Sorry, I don't buy the island as anything more than a weak device for setting up the feud and bringing an Old West theme into the movie.

The ending is awful, though I am conflicted over what was worse; the zombie duel (yes they patriarchs of the feuding families actually duel in front of a huge CGI moon) or the zombies eating the horse. Let's go with the horse eating, because there is obviously something deeper suggest here. Throughout the film, the idea of teaching the zombies to eat something other than people is brought up over and over, making less sense each time. Teaching them is one thing, but even in Day Logan rewarded Bub with human flesh. What would make zombies not eat the people living on a farm once they're done devouring all of the livestock? Eating is their business, and business is good in the world of the Dead. The only thing I took away from it, is that the title is literally referring to the Dead surviving, and finding a new food source after humans are extinct. Or maybe surviving along side us, eating animal flesh instead of human flesh. It makes me curious about how Romero plans on building upon this idea in the next Dead entry. Maybe something along the lines of zombie domestication, like in Fido?

Yes there is a lot wrong with Survival, but there are some good parts. Zombies are continuing to "learn" and progress, like in Day and Land (though we don't know where this film fits into the time frame, compared to those two). The Western theme was a great idea, even if the execution was poor. There is plenty of the red stuff and some pretty good kills too, both human and zombie. The practical effects look great, even if the CGI effects look fake as hell. I don't really want to get into the CGI debate, but I think people are focusing too much on it. There are much bigger things wrong with this film. And truthfully I was more upset by the CGI in Land, because Universal could have afforded to shell out more cash for a better effects budget. The fact is that CGI effects are cheap,er than practical effects and shooting films in Canada is cheaper than shooting in the US, so we're stuck with this unfortunate reality. Maybe if George could afford to come back home to Pittsburgh, he could hook up with the gore gurus over at Toe Tag Pictures to do effects for his next film.

On the A/V front, the Optimum BD is just OK. I'm not sure if the film was meant to looked somewhat murky and washed out (this is my impression though), but the blacks just aren't black enough for HD. Detail and sharpness didn't really impress me either, compared to other new HD transfers. And extras... well, what extras? Hopefully we'll see a better release in the US come summer/fall... probably just in time for Halloween. Personally, I'd much rather see a proper stateside NotLD Blu-Ray release.