I have to give writer-director George Romero credit for this much: No two of his “Living Dead” films are quite like each other. He can’t be accused of unchaining the same old shuffling zombies just to make a buck.
The series’ sixth and final entry, “Survival of the Dead” (2009) – his last film overall before his 2017 death – aims to be a zombie Western, and I have to tip my cowboy hat to Romero for hutzpah. On an island off the coast of Delaware where Irish accents still reign, the O’Flynns and the Muldoons carry out a Hatfields-and-McCoys feud.
A zombie Western
All the actors play it straight, and we get good (if one-dimensional) performances, particularly from Kenneth Welsh as the principled O’Flynn patriarch, Patrick. His opposite number is Seamus Muldoon (Richard Fitzpatrick), who is hard to appreciate even as a villain.
“Survival of the Dead” (2009)
Director: George A. Romero
Writer: George A. Romero
Stars: Alan Van Sprang, Kenneth Welsh, Kathleen Munroe
Seamus’ position is that the undead shouldn’t be shot in the head, because perhaps a cure can be found. This never stops being ridiculous, and increases in absurdity when Seamus chains up zombies going through their human motions (delivering mail, chopping wood, tilling soil, etc.) all over the island.
In addition to arguably being a Western, “Survival” is almost a comedy (it’s listed as such on IMDb, for whatever that’s worth). But if it’s a comedy, it’s so deadpan that I didn’t laugh, and I usually enjoy subtle humor. This movie came out when “Shaun of the Dead” (2004) and the fast-zombie “28 Days Later” films (2002 and ’07) were hot, and “Survival” can’t compete in laughs nor in action. (But the practical and CGI effects provide bursts of fun.)
As with all the “Living Dead” films, a group of disparate humans are somewhat randomly thrown together and they learn to trust each other. That’s a core appeal of these movies, and it’s not totally absent here. Sargeant Crockett (Alan van Sprang), the jerk National Guardsman who steals our heroes’ supplies in “Diary of the Dead,” is the narrator and main character – and he’s more likable now.
Getting by in a zombie apocalypse
Crockett is not proud of being a thief. Rather, he claims to be a man getting by in a world where everyone’s a thief. When he comes upon an armored truck with $1 million in the safe, he still believes money is worth stealing in the apocalypse. “Money’s not worth s*** anymore,” one member of the group argues. “Money will always be money,” another says.
Kathleen Munroe, as Flynn’s daughter, pops somewhat simply because she’s beautiful. And we get mildly intriguing issues such as a guy who is bit and slowly becomes ill, an out-of-nowhere twin, and the question of whether zombies can learn to eat animals other than humans. If so, what does that mean for their evolution? (If zombies are even capable of evolution. That’s a recurring and intriguing — but ultimately unanswered — question in Romero’s lore.)
But generally, these characters are flat by Romero’s standards. Crockett’s eventual decency makes him more realistic and appealing (if we were talking about real people) than “Day of the Dead” military madman Rhodes. But Rhodes is more re-watchable and quotable.
“Survival” isn’t terrible, and I can imagine someone out there making a case that it’s an overlooked genre-mashing gem. There’s no arguing with the technical quality. As with the other two Toronto-filmed “Living Dead” pictures, this one looks nice, achieving an autumn flavor on the island.
Even with the never-particularly-subtle Romero at the helm, “Survival of the Dead” doesn’t have a sharp, pointed commentary to make. I wouldn’t go so far as to say Romero seems bored, as he does find a new angle into the old material. But his passion has lagged. There’s a difference between surviving and thriving.