George A. Romero’s Survival of the Dead

I’m not one to whine over sequels being made. If anything, I welcome them. They’re better than remakes (or reboots, as Hollywood executives are now calling them), which tend to capitalize on the original’s success by recreating scenes and calling it new. Sequels, on the other hand, continue the story. Picking up where the first one left off, a sequel can weave its own tale with familiar characters, making the viewer more comfortable in choosing this picture over one that doesn’t have familiarity on its side.

The new sequels to the original “Dead” trilogy have struck me as odd, however. The first new sequel (third sequel all-around) came out twenty years later after Day of the Dead, which seemed to be the final installment. I was curious as to the meaning of a new sequel, Land of the Dead, coming out so late, but did take into thought that it could have been an idea George A. Romero had floating around in his head for awhile. It was possible it took him awhile to get it financed, therefore the huge gap. The film itself was nothing new, but entertaining. That’s when I figured the series was done.

Then Diary of the Dead was released. Using the hand-held camera POV style of filming a la Cloverfield and The Blair Witch Project (which those films utilized well), this one felt like a cheap cash-in. Incorporating a hot craze at the time, Diary didn’t continue a story, it started its own using a brand name to give it appeal. This wouldn’t have been that bad if the plot was good, but it wasn’t. It was a vanilla story with annoying characters and shot in a grungy fashion. Worst of all, it didn’t have the Romero feel to it. You could have told me any Joe Schmo with a buck and a camera made it and I would have believed you. I was almost certain that this gloomy trashing of the “Dead” name would be the final one.

Enter Survival of the Dead, George A. Romero’s latest attempt to keep the “Dead” series afloat. Picking up after the events of Diary, this one follows Sarge ‘Nicotine’ Crocket (Alan Van Sprang) and his comrades, Kenny (Eric Woolfe), Francisco (Stefano Di Matteo) and Tomboy (Athena Karkanis) as they try to survive the zombie outbreak. Tagging along is a pest who simply goes by Boy (Devon Bostick), who they pick up in the backwoods. Thanks to him, they discover that a gentleman who goes by the internet nickname of ‘Captain Courageous’ is shipping out survivors to Plum Island, where they can rest easy.

Turns out this is a prevarication by Patrick O’Flynn (Kenneth Welsh), who was ousted from the island due to differences with Seamus Muldoon (Richard Fitzpatrick). They each have differing views on how to deal with the zombies (or deadheads, as they’re referred to in this movie). Patrick thinks they should be shot and officially killed, while Seamus feels he can train them to feast on animals as opposed to humans. Seamus wins out the argument with the townsfolk, since his solution involves less murder. Patrick uses Sarge and his gang as bait to commandeer a motorboat and head back to the island to stop Seamus’ madness and save his daughter, Jane (Kathleen Munroe), who abandoned him.

The zombies are used as fodder for a bigger scenario which basically circles around gang warfare. The story itself may be intriguing, but it unscrupulously downtroddens the zombie outbreak, the selling point of the movie. It’s as if Romero wanted to do a new, original story, but was forced to make another “Dead” movie at the last second. Neither plots work well together, only effectively working on their own. Once they collide, the film falls apart.

Just like in Diary, the direction doesn’t have the Romero feel to it that the original trilogy (and, to a lesser extent, Land of the Dead) had. It played out more like an amateur director who gets his movie on the shelves of Blockbuster. There’s no tension or claustrophobic ambiance that the originals had. The zombies themselves aren’t even a threat anymore. The characters easily dispose of them with their guns, flares and even fire extinguishers. It’s disheartening to see one of the masters of horror reduce his creations to such low standards.

The acting ranges from decent to middling. Alan Van Sprung is fine as Sarge when he’s in tough guy mode. When the script asks for him to show emotion or anger, he falls short. He has a Ron Livingston vibe going, just without the acting range. Kenneth Welsh is excellent as Patrick O’Flynn, who makes you second guess whether or not his methods and attitude are correctly tuned. Kathleen Munroe, who plays his daughter, Jane, isn’t as good, usually just sleepwalking through her scenes. Richard Fitzpatrick makes a good counter-thesis to O’Flynn, giving him a redneck tycoon aura to boot. Athena Karkanis is commendable as Tomboy, giving her a tough outer exterior, but a sweet inner interior. Her proposed love interest (which is weird considering she outs herself as a lesbian halfway through the movie), Francisco, is played drably by Stefano DiMatteo. Thanks to him, they have no chemistry and their scenes fall flat.

If this weren’t a zombie movie, it may have had a better chance of enjoyment. The plot between rivaling minds is interesting, but is held back by the zombies. On the other side of the spectrum ,the zombie outbreak, as always, plays out well as a good starting point. There’s no follow-up to it, however, as the gang warfare story takes over. Survival of the Dead consists of two stories, both in which are good separately, but fail as a whole.