Survival of the Dead (Two-Disc Ultimate Undead Edition)
|Additional DVD options||Edition||Discs||
|New from||Used from|
|Watch Instantly with||Rent||Buy|
Frequently Bought Together
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
off the coast of Delaware, live two families locked in a struggle for power and control over the fate of the undead. The O'Flynns approach the zombie plague with a shoot-to-kill attitude. The Muldoons feel that the zombies should be quarantined and kept "alive," in hopes that a solution will be discovered. For both families, existence on Plum Island is a nightmarish world where humans are the minority and zombies rule.
Audio commentary with George A. Romero and crew
Time with George
HDNet: A look at Survival of the Dead
Top Customer Reviews
'Survival of the Dead' focuses on two sets of very different characters. The first we're introduced to is led by 'Nicotine' Crocket (Alan Van Sprang), the jerk "guardsmen" that first appeared in 'Diary of the Dead.' He wasn't a central figure in the previous film, but just one of the many dangerous obstacles the main characters from 'Diary' stumbled across during their journey. Crocket leads a group of other guardsmen around the country looking for, well, anything they can find. After hooking up with a crackshot kid and an armoured car full of cash, the guard unit heads up north after their discovery of Patrick O'Flynn (Kenneth Welsh), an old Irish fella on the internet advertising a safe haven. O'Flynn, the leader of his own group, is a now-banished former resident of Plum Island, a small isle in the Atlantic. Intent on seeking vengeance against the other zombie-saving Irish clansman from the island, O'Flynn convinces Crocket's gang to head to Plum Island with him.
The first thing that many Romero fans will notice is something that had been missing in the 'Dead' series before this film: a recurring character.Read more ›
With that said, here is my take on it, for what it is worth...
This movie does differ in tone than many of Romero's other films. Certainly not as heavy or serious as Diary of the Dead intended to be or Land of the Dead mostly was. When a National Guard Soldier blows the head off of a zombie (in, albeit, a pretty cheesy CGI effect) in the first few moments of the film, my brain did not go into "This movie sucks" mode as so many others seemed to. My brain went into, "Ah! Just like Dawn of the Dead! This movie is a romp!" Like most competent Directors (and I consider Romero VERY competent as a film director, not to mention Indie film hero), Romero shows us what HE wants us to see and he always has a reason for doing it. That head-blowing-off scene was there for a reason. Several people, I feel, just didn't understand the reason.
I personally feel, many fans of any artist (regardless of medium) begin to form a very rigid idea of what that artist's work is, especially when they come to most of that artist's work after it had been completed (or are young fans as I was). And when said artist creates something new, sometimes fans struggle with the interpretation.
What is unique about this film despite its lighter overall tone(and I feel most critiques missed) is that here we have multi-layered social commentary with a subtle complexity not normally seen even in most Romero movies. The initial question: Should we keep our loved-ones "alive" as-it-were as zombies, hoping for a cure?Read more ›
It does have decent doses of your expected flesh-chomping madness. I wonder if Romero uses some bad CGI just to illustrate how inferior it is to old school bloody effects with makeup and props. Still he includes some solid gory moments as well. One scene that puzzled me was when some hunters beheaded some zombies and but their heads on wooden stakes. Dead heads on a stick. These zombies kept moaning despite the fact their brains were removed from the spinal cord. This scene looked pretty cool, and illustrated the foolishness of the men. But it seems to contradict the very zombie rules that Romero helped establish. I was under the impression that headshots or beheadings are supposed to incapacitate the undead, release their souls from their decaying corpses. Oh well.
The most notable point this movie makes is about the violent, idiotic nature of man. Even in the most desperate, grim situation humanity refuses to unite and work together. Really, people aren't much smarter than the freakin zombies.
I also enjoyed the conflict of disposing of the walking dead. Killing an infected loved one would be quite a troublesome circumstance. One man takes it upon himself to rid the world of these soulless creatures. Another man sees the zombs as merely having a sickness, and possibly curable.Read more ›
Most Recent Customer Reviews
I'm giving this film 4 stars partially because I want to support George Romero and his efforts. There are a lot of good things about this films, there are some things I don't... Read morePublished 3 months ago by xxxopher
Before Uwe Boll there was George A. Romero to remind us that not everyone should be making movies. Romero didn’t just make one or two duds, his career is littered full of... Read morePublished 7 months ago by Troy Greer
This sixth in George Romero's "Of the Dead" series is less interesting than any of the first five, and lacks a great deal of their tension. Read morePublished 8 months ago by T. Kuch
This movie was very, very poor. The acting was crappy, and it wasn't even scary!Published 8 months ago by S. Shelbourne
One of the better Romero living dead stories. I put it second to the original "Night of the Living Dead." Good choice of cast.Published 9 months ago by Mary Anderson
George A. Romero made some fantastic movies in his prime. Night of the Living Dead. Dawn of the Dead. The Crazies. And others. Read morePublished 9 months ago by Nick F.M.