Survival of the Dead (2010) and Mother of Tears (2010)

So, let's review.

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD: A pretty damn good movie, basically having a major hand in transitioning horror from something typically enjoyed only by moms and kids with airbrushed t-shirts of bela lugosi to something that only weird sheltered nerds really care about.

DAWN OF THE DEAD: Best zombie horror film, possible best horror film.  No other comments apply.

DAY OF THE DEAD:  Some people say critically underrated film satirizing the government and the stupidity of man, others say the first signs that Romero is cracking as a director.  Don't see why I can't be both!

LAND OF THE DEAD: A movie that will remembered by my generation as one of the greatest disappointments, a film that we all tried so hard to convince ourselves to enjoy (LOOK DENNIS HOPPER, A FAT SAMOAN NAMED PILLSBURY, UHHH YUHHH), but eventually we all had to admit was just eye-rollingly bad.  Anyone that disputes this probably needs to go back and watch the ending.  I know it's scary, but we all have to face our fears and trucks shooting out fireworks after making peace with the zombies and jesus christ remember when we thought bub was going to be the limit of trying to make the undead sympathetic.

DIARY OF THE DEAD: Just watch, REC, jesus.

Seriously, why do I keep watching these movies?  Romero ran out of creative steam years ago, and now apparently sits on some cursed throne that gives counterfeit issues of Hollywood Reporter with headlines reading "WHERE ARE MOVIES TELLING US MAN IS THE REAL MONSTER?"  Carpenter at least has the decency to try new things, even if they are all uniformly awful.  Oh wait Romero did Bruiser, that counts for something no it doesn't.

So here comes Survival of the Dead, or in a world of perfect honesty, So You Assholes Don't Consider Day of the Dead a Good Movie Huh Well Here's How It Would Have Looked If I Smeared Shit Over Every Aspect Of That Film.  At least with Diary, there was something interesting about seeing Romero try to one up the new generation's love for all that first person nonsense.  It failed miserably, but at least you could argue that Romero was trying there.  Survival, by comparison, is possibly one of the laziest horror movies ever put out in semi-widespread release.

As noted above, the plot essentially is what would happen if you stuck Day in a Ziploc bag, added a cup of clam chowder, and shook for a full minute.  Okay so see the army guys aren't the bad guys sort of but there's an island of warring family clans and one wants to kill all the zombie and one wants to make the zombies eat pigs because that will solve the whole problem???  The plot is dumb as hell, but far more importantly, it's boring as shit.  It feels like Romero had an idea for some awesome setpieces and wacky character exchanges, with the rest of the film being thrown out to the four winds with the hopes that some acceptable zombie fanservice will blow in.

Oh the fanservice.  I'm sure there is a fair share of people who will continue to watch Romero's awful films because oh boy look at all these cool zombie deaths.  Whoa, that zombie got shot in the chest with a flare and now its head is on fire this movies rules!  Wait what's this copy of Dead Rising 2 coming out of my couch noooooooo.  Hey assholes, remember all the cool gimmick deaths in Dawn of the Dead?  There was that wicked helicopter scene AND THAT WAS FUCKING ALL.  I hate to sound like some potbellied asshat who winces when a well-meaning friend dares to get a movie with fast zombies, but a single low-tech gunshot kill in Dawn had more verve and poise than all the wacky "achievement unlocked" deaths in Survival.

So everyone hated Survival of the Dead.  But alot of people really liked Mother of Tears, which was only slightly less dumb than Survival.  What gives?

I think the initially positive critical wave is the same sort of reaction we all had with Land of the Dead, wanting to believe that as a great horror director finally finishes what most consider to be his most important series after an extremely, there is no way it can be bad.  But there has to be something else, since while Land of the Dead was bad, you could at least squint and sort of see the same directing style that Romero had with his earlier zombie movies.  With Mother of Tears, there is literally no way you could argue that this is the same direction we saw with Suspiria and Inferno.  Gone is anything resembling atmosphere or creepiness, and instead we just get lots of murders and spooky chases.  Alot of horror reviewers made much about the film's balls to the walls action, but they neglect to mention that any scene that doesn't involve someone getting stabbed is unrelentingly boring.  Not a creepy boring, but a "shot of walking from train to bookstore for five minutes" sort of way.  My girlfriend fell asleep during the movie, and I don't blame her, as anyone that isn't as invested in Argento's filmopgraphy and/or feels compelled to kowtow to a horror great probably didn't give a shit about this movie anyway.