SnoopyStyle Sarge Nicotine Crockett (Alan Van Sprang) is disillusioned with the military and the fight against the zombies. He leads a group of former military as bandits. Meanwhile six days after the dead started walking, Patrick O'Flynn (Kenneth Welsh) leads an effort to destroy the dead. The O'Flynns has a long feud with the Muldoons on Plum Island off the coast of Delaware. Seamus Muldoon (Richard Fitzpatrick) leads his family keeping his undead relatives waiting for a cure. Seamus exiles Patrick and some of his men to the mainland. Then later, there is a battle between Crockett's men and the O'Flynns at the docks. Sole survivor Patrick goes back to the island with Crockett's group. There they find the island teeming with the undead and the Muldoons in charge.The whole idea of family feud on an island is stupid. It feels like an idea from a century ago especially with all the Irish accents. The general quality is B-movie. Most disappointing is the quality of the CGI. If the CGI would be that bad, then I would rather have all real effects. There are so many ways to make this great and it does none of it. It starts with the bad writing. Of course, the budget is pretty low for a modern movie with that much ambition. There are some lame attempts to be funny. And it's not funny enough to be campy. It is a disappointment. Others have taken the genre to higher heights leaving Romero behind.

turdymac 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.

Foxbarking 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.

geminiredblue Before I start the review, I want commend dear ole George. For over 40 years, he has consistently found ways to scare audiences. And he's pretty consistent in his message: No matter what we try to do to save ourselves, we are our own worst enemies. His first film, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, is a classic that redefined horror movies. His sequel, DAWN OF THE DEAD, is an epic classic too. In recent years, audiences have started to wonder if dear ole George has lost his spark. But I say, he hasn't lost one iota. Now as for the sixth installment in his DEAD series, I have to admit it's not quite as good as his previous films. In SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD, we have three competing stories. STORY 1: On Plum Island, off the coast of Delaware, two rival families square off against each other. Think the Hatfields and McCoys. Each has their own strategy for dealing with the dead. The O'Flynn family, led by Patrick (Kenneth Walsh) want to eliminate all the zombies. The Muldoon family, led by Seamus (Richard Fitzpatrick) want to cure the zombies. After a harrowing opening scene, Patrick O'Flynn and his followers are expelled from the island. STORY 2: A team of renegade National Guard troops, led by Sgt. Nicotine Crockett (Alan Van Sprang, Robert Downey's look-a-like) have commandeered an armored truck and have decided to head for Plum Island. At the docks, they form an unsteady alliance with Patrick, who leads them back to Plum Island. STORY 3: Once on Plum Island, they discover that the Muldoons have corralled most of the zombies. Muldoon's goal is to try and make the zombies eat something other than people. The finale is yet another bloody masterpiece as the rivalry between the O'Flynns and Muldoons comes to a head.While the movie is entertaining, with plenty of grisly moments, the movie isn't quite up to the quality of Romero's previous work. Part of the problem is that, with this film, the characters and dialogue are too self-referential. And while there are plenty of good ideas, they don't seem to gel very well together. And halfway through, the story loses its focus. Also, Muldoon's theory, that we're safe if zombies learn to eat something else, is sketchy. Just because zombies may learn to eat a horse doesn't necessarily mean they'll stop eating people. This isn't the worst zombie film ever, but it's far from the best.