Survival of the Dead


Comedy / Drama / Horror / Thriller

IMDb Rating 4.9 10 19379


Uploaded By: FREEMAN
Downloaded 13,736 times
May 20, 2019 at 12:46 PM

720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
772.61 MB
23.976 fps
1hr 30 min
P/S 5 / 23
1.44 GB
23.976 fps
1hr 30 min
P/S 3 / 14

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by BA_Harrison 3 / 10

How could he get it so wrong?

25 years ago, I sat open-mouthed in awe of the intense visceral horror experience that was George Romero's Day of the Dead; today, I sat jaw agape once more at the director's latest zombie flick, Survival of the Dead, although for a very different reason: utter disbelief!

How could George Romero, the creator of the modern movie zombie, get everything so totally wrong?

With Survival, it looks like the director has finally taken on board the criticism aimed at his last two films and ditched the heavy-handed social commentary (the messages are still there, but are far less 'in-your-face'); unfortunately, somewhere during the creative process, he's also unwisely opted to up the level of comedy, meaning that much of this film plays the global zombie threat for laughs.

Remember how Romero used the slapstick custard pie scene in Dawn of the Dead to momentarily relieve the tension? Well in this one, it's all 'custard pie' and absolutely no tension. During the course of the film, we get to witness several cringe-worthy comedy zombie slayings, a hilarious bitter feud between two stereotypical Irish clans, a zombie woman on horseback, a car ferry strangely moored in six feet of water, zombie fishing, plus loads of other nonsense that beggars belief. Not once, however, do we get a sense of dread. The closest Romero ever comes to delivering the goods is with a couple of cheap jump scares that are accompanied by loud noises and some admittedly splattery gore (that relies a little too heavily on CGI for my liking).

Had Survival of the Dead been made by anyone other than Romero, then I may have rated it as high as 5/10: it's never boring, I suppose. But coming from the guy who practically invented the genre, the film can only be seen as a massive disappointment—easily the worst of his 'Dead' films to date—and therefore fully deserves my lower score of 3/10.

Reviewed by johnmcdev 3 / 10

My, how far we've fallen.

With this latest Dead entry from George, I realize we're never going to approach the original trilogy's greatness ever again. It took 20 years after Day of the Dead (still my favorite) to get to Land of the Dead (entertaining, but nothing new). In the last 5 years, George has cranked out 3 Dead movies. Is he inspired or trying to stay commercially viable? Diary annoyed me with its Scream/Blair Witch hybrid and now, if it's possible to get worse, we have.

Survival of the Dead plays like a TV movie with profanity. I couldn't get over how lifeless this movie was. I appreciate the Irish Western flavor, but that's all that's new here. While watching this, I felt like it was a rehash of Day of the Dead, substituting two feuding Irish families for the feuding military vs scientists. The so-called twist at the end is embarrassingly desperate. I know some fans will want George to make one more great Dead movie and retire the series. After witnessing this second trilogy, I feel the more he makes, the more creatively bankrupt he appears.

Reviewed by goodlooksproductions 7 / 10

Survives, But Doesn't Thrive

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.

Read more IMDb reviews