(2009) **1/2
A tangential sequel to Diary of the Dead, Survival of the Dead follows one of Diary’s minor characters, maverick soldier Alan Van Sprang, as he hits the road with a group of ruffians with the goal of reaching an island, reportedly a safe haven from the growing zombie outbreak. Along the way Sprang and his Merry Men encounter occasional zombies, which they easily take out with their large compliment of heavy artillery. After several setbacks the group eventually lands on the idyllic island where they encounter two long-feuding families who have differing ideas on how to handle the “dead”. One family wants to eliminate the zombie scourge from the island altogether while the other family reasons that since most of the zombies are family members they should be contained until a cure for the zombie threat is discovered. As the two clans square off on opposite sides of the island the real threat is ready to take over as cages are opened and shackles are unlocked.
I haven’t made it a secret that I’ve been disappointed in Romero’s new zombie trilogy and after watching Survival of the Dead I have finally been able to identify reasons for my displeasure. First, it’s just obvious that Romero doesn’t have the budget to properly realize a larger vision. In Dawn of the Dead (1978), we were provided with constant reminders about the scope of the zombie menace. In his latest films we are only given small encounters with zombies with little regard as to what is happening to the rest of the world. With a larger budget I would have fully expected Romero’s zombie series to begin addressing the zombie takeover as a worldwide event. What is happening in Europe, for example? How do cannibals handle the zombie thing? What does Arlington National Cemetery look like? What about the space station? What’s happening on the Love Boat? etc. In Romero’s film series the opposite occurs. We go from the global implications of the zombie take-over as presented in Dawn of the Dead to a few zombies on a small island.
Secondly, Romero’s original trilogy presented shocking violence as a means for social commentary. Any “commentary” in his recent films appears to be crowbarred in as a justification for the real reason today’s audiences watch his films, the gore. There are some hints of “family values” and religious indoctrination as “commentary” but by the end of the film you will be asking yourself, just what the hell is Romero trying to “say”? It should be noted that Romero does not disappoint with the gore – no one else does a bullet to the head shot better. There are numerous shootings, stabbings, burnings, etc, that we have come to expect from Romero, but he really does not add anything new save a brief scene involving decapitated heads on stakes.
If you are not familiar with Romero's dead cannon you might enjoy Survival of the Dead for what it is; a serviceable direct-to-video zombie flick with marginal amounts of gore and very little to say. I think it is depressing that the latter part of Romero’s career pales in comparison to his early stuff – and what is with those big-ass, DCD glasses?
