One thing I like about George Romero's 'Living Dead' series (this is his sixth), is that he doesn't shy away from writing what you don't expect, and instigating new angles with which to approach fashioning his zombie world. One thing remains true, though: firearms – you can achieve a lot if you carry a gun. If not, you 'don't got no chance.' That's not to say things here are entirely successful. But they are original. Actual tension is lacking, due to the fact that – as established a few films back – zombies are just part and parcel of society. Dark humour partly makes up for that (the character Crockett lights his cigarette from a burning zombie before tipping him into the sea, etc).Two feuding Irish families eject poor old Patrick O'Flynn after he rejects their notion of keeping the living dead from permanent death in the hope of one day finding a cure. With a group of mercenaries, O'Flynn returns to the island to find zombies chained up in environments of an approximation of their past lives. Kenneth Welsh plays O'Flynn as a mischievous rogue who is difficult to dislike.O'Flynn vows revenge on Seamus Muldoon (Richard Fitzpatrick), and it is this distraction that provides the main thrust for the story, although other interesting things are going on with other characters too. The 'hero', Sergeant Crockett (Alan van Sprang) is a good shot, but slightly less interesting than the others. And yet none of the characters are written with a huge amount of depth – possibly the living dead themselves have more pathos as we see them going about the business of their former lives (a postman endlessly posting and removing a handful of letters, for example) whilst manacled.Instead, typically with Romero's later films, the main spectacle is a world ravaged by living dead, and still adapting to a new way of life. This is achieved very successfully, the endless realm of death and destruction made to feel depressingly normal.'Survival of the Dead' has received mixed reviews, mainly it seems, from Romero fans. I really enjoyed it. The zombie holocaust acting as a backdrop of sorts to other stories is a brave and original thing to do, flying in the face of those who perhaps wish to see more traditional guts and gore – two things 'Survival' also possesses, by the way. It seems when anything acquires a 'fandom', it leads to unnecessary negativity from those who are irritated if they don't see their own ideas and preferences worked into the mythos. Romero plans at least two more 'Living Dead' films – I really hope these happen.

The visionary director George Romero himself took the helm of this magnificent entry in the Living Dead series of films and it's quite obvious the Master is back. Working from a his own script and with his usual style and spirit, Romero manages to bring his own unique originality and inspiration to a motion picture that will leave audiences spellbound. The sense of fear and terror, the atmosphere of unease and dread, and the environment of savage survival is almost overwhelming. Unrelenting in its horror and intensity, this film still manages to capture the humanity of the characters inhabiting an isolated island where an unusual society battles for life. Clinging to civilization but feeling it slip through their fingers, these are people of flesh and blood, beautifully realized by an outstanding cast. Romero's genius permeates the film and only he is truly capable of creating such a powerful story with such brilliance.

And so these times of zombie movies everywhere you look, the grand master of the genre returns with his latest offering. Depending on what sort of (zombie) movies you like will determine which of George's original saga you like - if you like your horror 'pure' then Night of the Living Dead will be for you, if you like action - see Dawn of the Dead, a darker take on the zombie genre goes with Day of the Dead and finally a more modern 'Resident Evil' touch with Land of the Dead.Then George decided to 'reboot' the franchise set in modern times with Diary of the Dead. Whatever you think of it - it bombed. Neither fans of George or new cinema-goers liked it. So... where does he go from there? Does he learn from his mistake and go back to something more successful, i.e. perhaps a combination of Night/Dawn of the Dead?The answer, sadly, is no.Survival of the Dead is probably the most disappointing film of recent times. Not because it was bad. It's okay. Simply because it could have been so much better. It doesn't have much of a budget, but George is good at working round such limitations. After over thirty years spent making horror movies, this instalment comes across as if it was written by a horror-freshman.If you've ever gone onto the Internet Movie Database (IMDb.com) and looked up movies, sometimes people post in the forums sarcastic topics like '100 things I learned from xxx.' Then they go on to list all the plot holes and things that don't make sense. Unfortunately, Survival of the Dead is one long list of things that don't make sense. Its ultimate downfall is the characters. Not only are they pretty wafer-thin, but they do the most stupid and random things. To start one such list off I'd begin...1. When most of the world has been killed by zombies, the remaining humans think it's a really good idea to keep them alive 2. Stroking a hungry zombie, no matter how lovingly, will get you bitten 3. If you have six bullets in your gun and there are twenty zombies coming towards you, just use up all your ammunition - the undead will surely give up and not eat you 4. Finally, when the world is going to hell and the dead are coming back to life and attacking the living, it's far more important to kill the remaining humans while dragging up old grievancesYou probably get where I'm going with this.The whole film is just a mess. Characters go from being good to bad to who knows what in a matter of scenes. No one makes any sane decision throughout the whole ninety minutes, therefore leaving you not that bothered when they either turn to zombie chow or shoot each other because they suddenly feel like it.Is Survival of the Dead the last of George A Romero's films? He probably thought not. I daresay it is. Pity. It could have been so good.

Worst zombie movie yet. The zombies are even less scary then the ones in night of the living dead. But not even that, there are barely any zombies in this movie. This wasn't even a zombie movie really. The story is awful. It was basically a really boring story about some army people going to an island with some dude who is in a feud with another guy on the island, the feud is over whether the zombies should be saved or not. The best parts of this movie happen in the last 15 minutes. My favorite part was when the girl gets bit by her twin zombie sister, I laughed pretty hard. But this is not suppose to be a comedy. I don't know what George Romero is thinking, I am in disbelief that this is his movie.