Geroge A. Romero new zombie movie: SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD

[thenammagazine]

Really? I thought Diary was great! I think its really one of those films you need to see with a crowd of zombie fans. I saw it at Sundance and the entire crowd just loved it. It wasn't all that scary, but it was hilarious. And I think Romero is smart enough to see the potential for humor with zombies. Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead are great for a reason. They don't take the zombie problem too seriously and it works. I think that is what Romero was doing with Diary.

I watched Diary with two buds in an empty theatre in San Jose. The film got little hype and only played for a week. I left thinking it was a great addition to the series, one bud thought it was "okay" and the other hated it. After talking to them, I don't think they quite got the underlying message of the film.

 

[ArmoredFoe]

Yeah I loved Diary, and when I seen Land in the theaters I loved it then when I watched again later on dvd I didnt care for it so much, not total waste but it wasnt one of the better dead flicks. Diary was great to me.

 

[thenammagazine]

Yeah I loved Diary, and when I seen Land in the theaters I loved it then when I watched again later on dvd I didnt care for it so much, not total waste but it wasnt one of the better dead flicks. Diary was great to me.

Yup. I think out of all of them, Land is his weakest. I think if the zombie make-up had been better, and Hopper's overacting toned down to 11, it would've been a better movie. Everything else there was fairly solid, but the zombies weren't really "creepy" and Hopper's overacting impersonation of Rumsfeld are what killed it for me.

 

[usswanker]

Yup. I think out of all of them, Land is his weakest. I think if the zombie make-up had been better, and Hopper's overacting toned down to 11, it would've been a better movie. Everything else there was fairly solid, but the zombies weren't really "creepy" and Hopper's overacting impersonation of Rumsfeld are what killed it for me.

I'm thinking Survival was the weakest and then land. I dont see how Romero went from slightly crappy Land to good Diary to totally crappy Survival. I wonder if we are going to see anything new from him and the Dead series.

 

[thenammagazine]

I'm thinking Survival was the weakest and then land. I dont see how Romero went from slightly crappy Land to good Diary to totally crappy Survival. I wonder if we are going to see anything new from him and the Dead series.

Won't know anything about Survival until the end of May.

 

[jonny88]

sweet asss sweat, love romero zombie flicks.

 

[karamazov80]

Personally, I really enjoyed Land (not Diary, though). Over-acting is OK with Romero films (look at Day), and with Hopkins, it really works IMO, as many of his most well known roles were him acting like a complete wack job. And I personally had no issue with the effects/makeup.

 

[furystorm]

I like Land better myself, Diary is okay for what it was trying to do. But still my favorite zombie is in Land at the beginning. I just love the creepy animatronic lady in the park.

So for me, personally it would be:

1. Day of the Dead
2. Dawn of the Dead
3. Night of the Living Dead
4. Land of the Dead
5. Diary of the Dead

and I will place Survival once I see it, hopefully next week.

 

[thenammagazine]

Personally, I really enjoyed Land (not Diary, though). Over-acting is OK with Romero films (look at Day), and with Hopkins, it really works IMO, as many of his most well known roles were him acting like a complete wack job. And I personally had no issue with the effects/makeup.

Day of the dead kinda make that situation work. Everybody's confined to basically a tomb and going crazy, surrounded by zombies they captured. That's why it worked. Land wasn't like that. You had people resuming normal life, in an anything but claustrophobic environment. And it's Hopper, not Hopkins. Hopper is a great actor, but he tried too hard to send his anti-republican message in Land. And George failed at not telling him to tone it down. Hopper's villain in Speed is a prime example of how well he can play the antagonist with little eccentricity. It's much more creepy too. Messages like that work best when subtle, not yelled directly in the face of the viewer. His performance didn't make me think so much as it annoyed me. As for the zombies, I agree that some did look great, but when you look at the hero zombies, they just didn't work for me, especially Big Daddy.

 

[Dollmanron]

Here's how I personally rate them,

Night of the Living Dead - Good
Night of the Living Dead Remake - Great

Dawn of the Dead - Good
Dawn of the Dead - Remake Good, just didn't like the fast Zombies

Day of the Dead - Fair
Day of the Dead Remake - Sucked all around for me

Land of the Dead - Great

Diary of the Dead - Weak

Survival of the Dead - Haven't seen yet

I refuse to watch those other guys Dead films out of respect for Mr. Romero.

 

[A.L.I.E.N]

I like Land better myself, Diary is okay for what it was trying to do. But still my favorite zombie is in Land at the beginning. I just love the creepy animatronic lady in the park.

So for me, personally it would be:

1. Day of the Dead
2. Dawn of the Dead
3. Night of the Living Dead
4. Land of the Dead
5. Diary of the Dead

and I will place Survival once I see it, hopefully next week.

For me....

1) Dawn of the Dead
2) Day of the Dead
3) Land of the Dead
4) Survival of the Dead
5) Diary of the Dead

 

[CelticPredator]

Dawn the remake is amazing. I dont care what anyone says.

 

[karamazov80]

Day of the dead kinda make that situation work. Everybody's confined to basically a tomb and going crazy, surrounded by zombies they captured. That's why it worked. Land wasn't like that. You had people resuming normal life, in an anything but claustrophobic environment.

I disagree. Crazy behavior is justified in any Romero zombie film. Being closed off in an underground facility, closed off on an island, closed off in a house, closed off in a mall, you're still in a world filled with flesh eating undead, where hope for a truly normal world is illusory. Hopkins was a product of that environment in Land. As for Romero's ham-fisted ideological message, no worse than his portrayal of the military in Day.

 

[A.L.I.E.N]

Dawn the remake is amazing. I dont care what anyone says.

I agree I like The original and The remake equally! 11/10

 

[Seditionary]

I guess my issue with Romero using humor in Diary is its over the top goofyness does not mix well with the over the top seriousness of the narration.

Honestly, I think hes losing what it was about him that was good by trying to stay relevant or fresh or modern or something. Although his style of film making has changed I feel he ultimately doesn't really have anything new to say. He's been personifying the zombies as "like us" since land...and I'm guessing thats the point of survival. And that horrible narrator really beat the thought of that over our heads in diary.

 

[ArmoredFoe]

Day of the dead kinda make that situation work. Everybody's confined to basically a tomb and going crazy, surrounded by zombies they captured. That's why it worked. Land wasn't like that. You had people resuming normal life, in an anything but claustrophobic environment. And it's Hopper, not Hopkins. Hopper is a great actor, but he tried too hard to send his anti-republican message in Land. And George failed at not telling him to tone it down. Hopper's villain in Speed is a prime example of how well he can play the antagonist with little eccentricity. It's much more creepy too. Messages like that work best when subtle, not yelled directly in the face of the viewer. His performance didn't make me think so much as it annoyed me. As for the zombies, I agree that some did look great, but when you look at the hero zombies, they just didn't work for me, especially Big Daddy.

One of the main reasons why I dislike Land. Im just not down with the thinking evolving zombie, excluding Bub, becasue that was done very well.

 

[Something Sexy]

Day of the dead kinda make that situation work. Everybody's confined to basically a tomb and going crazy, surrounded by zombies they captured. That's why it worked. Land wasn't like that. You had people resuming normal life, in an anything but claustrophobic environment. And it's Hopper, not Hopkins. Hopper is a great actor, but he tried too hard to send his anti-republican message in Land. And George failed at not telling him to tone it down. Hopper's villain in Speed is a prime example of how well he can play the antagonist with little eccentricity. It's much more creepy too. Messages like that work best when subtle, not yelled directly in the face of the viewer. His performance didn't make me think so much as it annoyed me. As for the zombies, I agree that some did look great, but when you look at the hero zombies, they just didn't work for me, especially Big Daddy.

He was very eccentric. Just don't call him crazy.

 

[thenammagazine]

I disagree. Crazy behavior is justified in any Romero zombie film. Being closed off in an underground facility, closed off on an island, closed off in a house, closed off in a mall, you're still in a world filled with flesh eating undead, where hope for a truly normal world is illusory. Hopkins was a product of that environment in Land. As for Romero's ham-fisted ideological message, no worse than his portrayal of the military in Day.

Hopkins wasn't in Land...did you even see the damn movie ?

HOPKINS

HOPPER

Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge difference. The fact that you don't see it makes me doubt you saw the flick in the first place. Credibility = none.

 

[rabid_wolf]

I dont think any zombie movie can ever capture the genius of Night. While I loved the original Dawn, some of the quirky scenes at the end kept it from being the masterpiece it could have been. (ie-pie fight with zombies) I think the actors in Night had a huge part in making it so great as well. There was no overacting and their acting made the story actually believable. Plus all the cahracters were very well developed and the zombies were completely creepy despite the fact that there was little to no effects and make up used.

The concept of Diary had potential but IMHO the movie did not even come close to that potential. Both Land and especially Survival did not even have the feel of a zombie movie for me. The zombies just felt like filler.

 

[thenammagazine]

I dont think any zombie movie can ever capture the genius of Night. While I loved the original Dawn, some of the quirky scenes at the end kept it from being the masterpiece it could have been. (ie-pie fight with zombies) I think the actors in Night had a huge part in making it so great as well. There was no overacting and their acting made the story actually believable. Plus all the cahracters were very well developed and the zombies were completely creepy despite the fact that there was little to no effects and make up used.

The concept of Diary had potential but IMHO the movie did not even come close to that potential. Both Land and especially Survival did not even have the feel of a zombie movie for me. The zombies just felt like filler.

You should see if you can get your hands on the screenplay for Day of the Dead. If George had been able to make that movie, it would've easily rivaled NOTLD. Unfortunately, budgetary restraints gave us a watered down version of it.