Good movie but grossly overrated

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

And so these times of zombie movies everywhere you look, the grand master of the genre returns with his latest offering. Depending on what sort of (zombie) movies you like will determine which of George's original saga you like - if you like your horror 'pure' then Night of the Living Dead will be for you, if you like action - see Dawn of the Dead, a darker take on the zombie genre goes with Day of the Dead and finally a more modern 'Resident Evil' touch with Land of the Dead.Then George decided to 'reboot' the franchise set in modern times with Diary of the Dead. Whatever you think of it - it bombed. Neither fans of George or new cinema-goers liked it. So... where does he go from there? Does he learn from his mistake and go back to something more successful, i.e. perhaps a combination of Night/Dawn of the Dead?The answer, sadly, is no.Survival of the Dead is probably the most disappointing film of recent times. Not because it was bad. It's okay. Simply because it could have been so much better. It doesn't have much of a budget, but George is good at working round such limitations. After over thirty years spent making horror movies, this instalment comes across as if it was written by a horror-freshman.If you've ever gone onto the Internet Movie Database (IMDb.com) and looked up movies, sometimes people post in the forums sarcastic topics like '100 things I learned from xxx.' Then they go on to list all the plot holes and things that don't make sense. Unfortunately, Survival of the Dead is one long list of things that don't make sense. Its ultimate downfall is the characters. Not only are they pretty wafer-thin, but they do the most stupid and random things. To start one such list off I'd begin...1. When most of the world has been killed by zombies, the remaining humans think it's a really good idea to keep them alive 2. Stroking a hungry zombie, no matter how lovingly, will get you bitten 3. If you have six bullets in your gun and there are twenty zombies coming towards you, just use up all your ammunition - the undead will surely give up and not eat you 4. Finally, when the world is going to hell and the dead are coming back to life and attacking the living, it's far more important to kill the remaining humans while dragging up old grievancesYou probably get where I'm going with this.The whole film is just a mess. Characters go from being good to bad to who knows what in a matter of scenes. No one makes any sane decision throughout the whole ninety minutes, therefore leaving you not that bothered when they either turn to zombie chow or shoot each other because they suddenly feel like it.Is Survival of the Dead the last of George A Romero's films? He probably thought not. I daresay it is. Pity. It could have been so good.

I think it amusing, half of you that are on here to bash films were probably not born when Romero first hit "Night". All you know is "CGI" these days. Yet, during you incubation, REAL films occurred. You Twighlight, Hunger Games idiots (which comprise a lot of you these days have no idea of cinema and it's purpose. Your purpose is to complain and nothing more simply because in "real life" no one give a crap on your opinions. You people are pathetic. How hard is it to actually enjoy a film for what it is? Just a friggin film. People pick apart films too much theses day. It's like they expect it to mirror life on a real scale. What ever happened to just pure fantasy and escape? This is whar movies are intended to be. All I say to you nerds that have to pick apart a film simply because YOU disagree .....well...eat it! Stay at home at 45. Don't try to attempt a life because life don't want you. Better yet....shoot yourself and save everyone the trould of having to take care of you after your mom gets murdered by your dad...'cause I would probably do the samre if I had a kid like you.

All I have heard about from everyone is how bad "Survival of the Dead" was and because of this I put off watching it for a very long time. Personally, when Romero came back to making zombie films, I did not expect him to go any further than "Land of the Dead." My thought has always been that one man cannot just continue making zombie films because it's not a genre that is easy to keep fresh. However, it appears to me that stale zombie horror is exactly what people want and is exactly why "Survival of the Dead" was so unfairly maligned.It is very odd to me to hear someone criticize the plot of a zombie movie, because generally every zombie movie has the same plot. The dead are coming back to life for some unknown reasons, no one ever refers to them as zombies, they attack and eat people in as gore filled scenes as possible and a few people survive. You name your characters a few different names, find a setting that hasn't been used before and add in criticism of the government and voilà... you have a zombie movie."Survival of the Dead" does not have a plot that is any more bizarre than any other zombie film every made. Everyone criticizes it for being shallow and silly. I guess it would seem silly to have an island where half the people want to keep zombies alive and the other half want to kill them. But no one is looking at this movie the way it needs to be viewed.Contrary to what people claim, "Survival of the Dead" is not lacking in social commentary. In fact, it has more social commentary than either "Land of the Dead" or "Diary of the Dead." This movie is not about people who want to kill zombies or people who want to rehabilitate them. This movie is about the inane reasons that governments in this country go to war. We fight over the most idiotic things in this world and not because we believe in them. We do it because we want to fight.An ex boyfriend of mine who is very against religion likes to assume that religion is the cause of conflict in this world. It's not. If religion did not exist, conflict wouldn't go away. Conflict exists in this world simply because we hold onto it and we thrive off conflict. If religion wasn't there, it would be land, or money. In Star Trek it would be the people with the white side of their body on the left side. O'Flynn and Muldoon are not feuding over zombies. They are feuding because that is what they feel the need to do. Muldoon claims all he wants is for O'Flynn to say he is right, but that's not what he wants. In fact, it is the last thing he wants because it robs him of a reason to fight. And these two morons continue to fight even after they're dead because it's not about the issue, it's only about the fight.So anyone who tells you that "Survival of the Dead" is a bad film with no depth needs to actually watch this movie. It makes a point that rings true, especially after a decade of pointless war mongering. This film has the truest message of any of Romero's films and it saddens me that people do not have the depth or understanding of humanities own vulnerabilities to see this.

I'll keep this short for everyone who actually cares enough to read it: Shocking is how I'd describe finding out this movie was by THE George Romero. Why is that so surprising? Well, the movie is s***, you see. I gave it seven stars, sure. Because it's ENJOYABLE s***. It's one of those movies you hope to God wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. It's honestly got terribly hokey zombie scenes (not just fake, but just overall lousy scenes) throughout the movie. It's a movie about a post-apocalyptic world where hundreds of thousands of people die each day, and yet these characters often have time to look around, find an interesting weapon, and kill a zombie. Highlights include literally punching a zombie a couple times, then throwing it around without it doing anything, Upon throwing over that zombie, the character grabs a nearby flare gun, shoots it into the zombie's torso, and the zombie's head somehow spontaneously combusted. Another character kills a zombie by placing a fire extinguisher nozzle into a zombie's mouth, and using the extinguisher until the zombie's eyes explode out.Sorry, I dragged on. To sum up, sure. If you have 90 minutes to kill, watch it. Otherwise, exert the little amount of energy necessary to change the channel from whatever station is playing this (I assume) made-for-TV movie.