376 reviews
The weakest of Romero's zombie movies
I really dislike the whole "found footage" genre, and I wish it would finally die. Luckily, this movie doesn't quite fit 100% into that genre, but it's close enough that I got fairly annoyed. Diary of the Dead is basically about some film school kids documenting the beginning of the zombie apocalypse, and thus it's more of a fake documentary than anything else. Unlike some movies shot in this style, one of the main themes involves criticism of the obsessive need to document everything rather than actually participating. There are also some shots at censorship, social media, and the propaganda potential for the mainstream media.
Unfortunately, Diary of the Dead feels like a watered-down reboot of his classic franchise, modernized and targeted at teenagers, with the requisite group of stereotypical dumb ass characters found in every direct-to-video slasher movie. The social criticism is blatant and lacks subtlety, and Romero resorts to outright lecturing the audience. I generally agree with Romero, but I prefer his older movies. He's never been particularly subtle, but this is just too overt and generic for my taste. He comes off as having been inspired by soulless ripoffs of his own work.
It's one of Romero's worst movies, but that still makes it better than much of the crap that litters the horror landscape. Hopefully, if we get any more movies from Romero, they'll be as uncompromising and powerful as his earlier work, but it seems as though Romero has had some real problems getting funding. Watered-down, mainstream Romero is better than no Romero, but it's difficult to recommend. This may be a good introduction to his material for younger audiences, though.
Unfortunately, Diary of the Dead feels like a watered-down reboot of his classic franchise, modernized and targeted at teenagers, with the requisite group of stereotypical dumb ass characters found in every direct-to-video slasher movie. The social criticism is blatant and lacks subtlety, and Romero resorts to outright lecturing the audience. I generally agree with Romero, but I prefer his older movies. He's never been particularly subtle, but this is just too overt and generic for my taste. He comes off as having been inspired by soulless ripoffs of his own work.
It's one of Romero's worst movies, but that still makes it better than much of the crap that litters the horror landscape. Hopefully, if we get any more movies from Romero, they'll be as uncompromising and powerful as his earlier work, but it seems as though Romero has had some real problems getting funding. Watered-down, mainstream Romero is better than no Romero, but it's difficult to recommend. This may be a good introduction to his material for younger audiences, though.
Romero embraces the Youtube age
and its' short attention span
oh dear
I have always admired the films of Romero and there can be no doubt that he is the godfather of zombie films. Alas, i think he should have finished his zombie career with day of the dead. Land of the dead certainly wasn't a bad film and this is far from the worst i've ever seen but the step down is none the less noticeable. The modern cinematic world owes a lot to Romero but it's clear that the modern cinematic world has moved on from him.
Lets start with the main problems(and ignore the million little ones):-
1. An idiot who keeps filming even when he or his friends are in danger (at no point does the brilliant idea of putting the camera down occur to him)
2. A narrator that appears to have edited the film so that it looks polished and yet who chooses to leave in the moments when the camera goes off or turns black
3. A narrator (and editor) who thinks incidental music should be added for tension (imagine those who filmed 9/11 doing the same and you will arrive at the same tasteless nature of this)
4. A narrator (and editor) who wishes for us to witness her rotting corpse family attack her (journalists may pretend to put journalistic integrity before emotional involvement but this is perverse)
5. An allegory for the war in Iraq (we aren't being given the full information etc) that needs to be endlessly repeated.
6. The notion that they needed to film everything to show the world the truth (like walking zombies wouldn't do it for most people)
7. Romero getting the opportunity to remind everyone that he thinks zombies should be slow (and reminding us again and again)
This isn't an absolutely awful film by any stretch but in relation to the history and reputation of Romero, it is alas.....somewhat of an embarrassment
Lets start with the main problems(and ignore the million little ones):-
1. An idiot who keeps filming even when he or his friends are in danger (at no point does the brilliant idea of putting the camera down occur to him)
2. A narrator that appears to have edited the film so that it looks polished and yet who chooses to leave in the moments when the camera goes off or turns black
3. A narrator (and editor) who thinks incidental music should be added for tension (imagine those who filmed 9/11 doing the same and you will arrive at the same tasteless nature of this)
4. A narrator (and editor) who wishes for us to witness her rotting corpse family attack her (journalists may pretend to put journalistic integrity before emotional involvement but this is perverse)
5. An allegory for the war in Iraq (we aren't being given the full information etc) that needs to be endlessly repeated.
6. The notion that they needed to film everything to show the world the truth (like walking zombies wouldn't do it for most people)
7. Romero getting the opportunity to remind everyone that he thinks zombies should be slow (and reminding us again and again)
This isn't an absolutely awful film by any stretch but in relation to the history and reputation of Romero, it is alas.....somewhat of an embarrassment
Has Romero sunk so low?
If you're a fan of the genre this is worth checking out
I liked this one quite a bit, more than I thought I would actually as I'd been expecting a fairly low budget/cheesefest of a movie. If you don't analyze anything too much this ends up being a fun ride though; following a group of collage film students who are shooting their own low budget horror film and inadvertently begin documenting the early days of a zombie apocalypse. It becomes a bit of a road trip movie with ravenous walking corpses at every stop and filmmaker "Jason" documenting first-person style the horrors they witness in an obsessive and unflinching manner. Even as his friends die he keeps filming.
The story is decent as are the special effects, I mean this ain't' no 'Walking Dead' and it is very much a B movie but the zombie kills are fun and unique; the melting head covered in acid comes to mind and the opening scene at the hospital is also really good.
Horror king George A Romero definitely has a style and as writer-director here, if you're a fan of the genre this is worth checking out. 10.13
The story is decent as are the special effects, I mean this ain't' no 'Walking Dead' and it is very much a B movie but the zombie kills are fun and unique; the melting head covered in acid comes to mind and the opening scene at the hospital is also really good.
Horror king George A Romero definitely has a style and as writer-director here, if you're a fan of the genre this is worth checking out. 10.13
- juneebuggy
- Dec 21, 2014
- Permalink
Not Romero's Finest Hour!!!
Astronomical Disappointment!!!
- tungfliker
- Feb 19, 2008
- Permalink
McCheesy's take on "Diary of the Dead"
- mr_popcorn
- May 5, 2008
- Permalink
I hate not seeing the end of a film.
I watch a lot of movies. Not that I'm an expert or anything but I have a pre-paid pass that means I can see as many movies I want at the cinema for a year.
And with that pass I watch everything. To the end.
I've seen a lot of terrible movies and a lot of good movies but Diary of the Dead was one of a very few that I have actually walked out on my own decision.
Being a George AR fan naturally I expected good things. Land of the Dead was enjoyable enough, I liked it. Bought it. I own all the others and I consider the original three to be horror masterpieces, but masterpiece this movie is not.
Plagued with dire acting, over-preachy inconsistent plot riddled with cringeworthy clichés, I could honestly find no good qualities watching this. Hated the characters(whiny, emotionless, clichéd, students) who just did not convince me that this was real at all. In fact the camera style, also similarly used in REC and Cloverfield is supposed to install a sense of realism but everything felt incredibly staged, from actors to scenarios and really detached me from the whole experience.
And with little action altogether(Judging from the 60mins I saw) it felt more like a film about a group of students pretty standard psychophysical debate set during a zombie invasion. In reality it should have been students trying to survive during a zombie invasion but with such a lack of emotion from every character it seemed like this was just a pretty average day.
All in all this is definitely one of the worst movies I've seen in recent years and has truly made me believe that George AR isn't just having a bad streak, but may be going completely senile.
However I may watch it if it ever comes my way, some people are giving it good ratings and now I want to see if it changes into a completely different movie after the 60th minute because the pile of pants I watched doesn't even deserve a vote or even a damn entry into IMDb for being such a half-assed, poor excuse for a film.
And with that pass I watch everything. To the end.
I've seen a lot of terrible movies and a lot of good movies but Diary of the Dead was one of a very few that I have actually walked out on my own decision.
Being a George AR fan naturally I expected good things. Land of the Dead was enjoyable enough, I liked it. Bought it. I own all the others and I consider the original three to be horror masterpieces, but masterpiece this movie is not.
Plagued with dire acting, over-preachy inconsistent plot riddled with cringeworthy clichés, I could honestly find no good qualities watching this. Hated the characters(whiny, emotionless, clichéd, students) who just did not convince me that this was real at all. In fact the camera style, also similarly used in REC and Cloverfield is supposed to install a sense of realism but everything felt incredibly staged, from actors to scenarios and really detached me from the whole experience.
And with little action altogether(Judging from the 60mins I saw) it felt more like a film about a group of students pretty standard psychophysical debate set during a zombie invasion. In reality it should have been students trying to survive during a zombie invasion but with such a lack of emotion from every character it seemed like this was just a pretty average day.
All in all this is definitely one of the worst movies I've seen in recent years and has truly made me believe that George AR isn't just having a bad streak, but may be going completely senile.
However I may watch it if it ever comes my way, some people are giving it good ratings and now I want to see if it changes into a completely different movie after the 60th minute because the pile of pants I watched doesn't even deserve a vote or even a damn entry into IMDb for being such a half-assed, poor excuse for a film.
- NukedaFridge
- Apr 13, 2008
- Permalink
Something of a return to form.
I just saw a screening in Glasgow last night and was really impressed. After seeing Land of the Dead I feared GAR was destined to make only studio controlled zombie films that sold out his previous works, but this is something of a return to form. The budget is tiny and the actors unknown (as is the case with his best films), but the special effects are top-notch and there is plenty of gore that's made even more unsettling as seen through the lens of a camcorder.
The 'Point Of View' technique is bound to generate concern over similarities to other films using the same style (Cloverfield for instance) but Diary is a very different kind of film and certainly not a 'rip-off', but rather a smaller scale movie doing it's own thing.
There's humour (some real laugh-out-loud moments), social commentary (perhaps a little heavy handed, but relevant and intelligent), suspense, gore and everything else we've come to expect from a Romero film but bundled-up into a new and fresher style by the old guy. It was really interesting to see him trying something new.
As a fan of the genre and of Romero's works I was ultimately relieved and impressed by Diary after entering the theatre a sceptic. This isn't his best film and some fans will no doubt be let down, but after seeing it myself I was happy to see him back on track.
Thanks George.
The 'Point Of View' technique is bound to generate concern over similarities to other films using the same style (Cloverfield for instance) but Diary is a very different kind of film and certainly not a 'rip-off', but rather a smaller scale movie doing it's own thing.
There's humour (some real laugh-out-loud moments), social commentary (perhaps a little heavy handed, but relevant and intelligent), suspense, gore and everything else we've come to expect from a Romero film but bundled-up into a new and fresher style by the old guy. It was really interesting to see him trying something new.
As a fan of the genre and of Romero's works I was ultimately relieved and impressed by Diary after entering the theatre a sceptic. This isn't his best film and some fans will no doubt be let down, but after seeing it myself I was happy to see him back on track.
Thanks George.
- projectcyclops
- Feb 18, 2008
- Permalink
Could the characters be more stupid?
Romero's Return To His Roots
George A. Romero is one of those filmmakers who shouldn't need an introduction. If you're a horror fan at all, you should be intimately familiar with his Dead series by now, and if you're a movie fan at all, you should at least know Night Of The Living Dead and Dawn Of The Dead, the first and still the strongest entries in the genre. It's no hyperbole to say that Romero essentially invented the zombie movie, gave it the structures and tones that have relentlessly followed the genre through 40 years of movie history.
Diary Of The Dead, Romero's new movie and latest entry into the 5-part series, is a return to the form and feel of his original classic Night Of The Living Dead. The three movies in between (the classic Dawn, hit-or-miss Day and severely underrated Land) showed a world consumed by destruction and fear, already well past the point of no return in an unthinkable apocalypse. Diary takes us back to the beginning, taking place during the first few days of the attacks, documenting how a group of college students (and one drunken professor) cope with the crisis growing around them.
The hook of the movie is that what we're seeing is not presented in a typical film fashion, but instead as a series of homemade video clips made by the characters themselves. While shooting their own low-budget horror movie, the students are interrupted by the sudden, jarring realization that freshly dead bodies are coming back to life and attacking people. What follows is a documentation of their quick departure from their suddenly deserted campus and their long trip to home, safety and any sort of an answer.
If the plot description has you thinking of The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield, the comparison ends with the initial conceit of horror via home movies. There's no shaky-cam addled suspense here, and you won't ever feel motion sick. The camera's presence in the movie serves to give a heightened feeling of suspense and immediacy. Unlike most other zombie movies, there's no outside camera telling the story, letting us know where the zombies are and when they're coming. We follow the characters through the movie, and the threat of danger is always palpable, even when nothing on screen is particularly frightening. Hitchcock once said that surprise was a bomb going off under a table unexpectedly, while suspense was letting the audience know there is a bomb under the table while the characters remain unaware. Diary is a movie with thousands of bombs waiting under thousands of tables, waiting to explode every time the camera turns a new corner.
After Land Of The Dead, a great movie that felt buried beneath a huge budget and massive studio interference, it's great to see Romero returning to his indie roots. Diary is entirely his own movie, and he gets the tone perfect. The campy scares and the gross-out gore explosions are all present, and will delight fan boys to no end. (They sure got some big laughs out of me.) But what Romero does best is suddenly switch from fun to disturbing when you least expect it. The best moments of Diary come when the gory thrill ride comes screeching to a halt and everything suddenly becomes all too relatable, entirely too real. These are the moments that will stick with you after the gory brain-splatter effects have lost their novelty.
Diary isn't quite a perfect movie though. Occasionally the hand-held camera device becomes too distracting and begins to get in the way of the story. The movie takes too much time rationalizing why the characters decide to film the events, rather than trusting the audience to go along with the idea. At times it feels like the movie is apologizing for its own concept, which it definitely does not need to do. We don't need to know the details of why the movie is edited, or why music has been added. The explanations slow down the movie, and only highlight problems instead of fixing them. Also, the pace slows down quite a bit in the third act, which is when Romero movies usually jolt up to a fevered pitch. Stick it out though, because the movie's last sequence, and especially its last line of dialog, are worth the price of admission alone. This is most likely not the end of the Dead saga, but if it were, it could not have come to a more perfect conclusion than the jarring, horrific last shot Romero gives us.
Diary Of The Dead, Romero's new movie and latest entry into the 5-part series, is a return to the form and feel of his original classic Night Of The Living Dead. The three movies in between (the classic Dawn, hit-or-miss Day and severely underrated Land) showed a world consumed by destruction and fear, already well past the point of no return in an unthinkable apocalypse. Diary takes us back to the beginning, taking place during the first few days of the attacks, documenting how a group of college students (and one drunken professor) cope with the crisis growing around them.
The hook of the movie is that what we're seeing is not presented in a typical film fashion, but instead as a series of homemade video clips made by the characters themselves. While shooting their own low-budget horror movie, the students are interrupted by the sudden, jarring realization that freshly dead bodies are coming back to life and attacking people. What follows is a documentation of their quick departure from their suddenly deserted campus and their long trip to home, safety and any sort of an answer.
If the plot description has you thinking of The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield, the comparison ends with the initial conceit of horror via home movies. There's no shaky-cam addled suspense here, and you won't ever feel motion sick. The camera's presence in the movie serves to give a heightened feeling of suspense and immediacy. Unlike most other zombie movies, there's no outside camera telling the story, letting us know where the zombies are and when they're coming. We follow the characters through the movie, and the threat of danger is always palpable, even when nothing on screen is particularly frightening. Hitchcock once said that surprise was a bomb going off under a table unexpectedly, while suspense was letting the audience know there is a bomb under the table while the characters remain unaware. Diary is a movie with thousands of bombs waiting under thousands of tables, waiting to explode every time the camera turns a new corner.
After Land Of The Dead, a great movie that felt buried beneath a huge budget and massive studio interference, it's great to see Romero returning to his indie roots. Diary is entirely his own movie, and he gets the tone perfect. The campy scares and the gross-out gore explosions are all present, and will delight fan boys to no end. (They sure got some big laughs out of me.) But what Romero does best is suddenly switch from fun to disturbing when you least expect it. The best moments of Diary come when the gory thrill ride comes screeching to a halt and everything suddenly becomes all too relatable, entirely too real. These are the moments that will stick with you after the gory brain-splatter effects have lost their novelty.
Diary isn't quite a perfect movie though. Occasionally the hand-held camera device becomes too distracting and begins to get in the way of the story. The movie takes too much time rationalizing why the characters decide to film the events, rather than trusting the audience to go along with the idea. At times it feels like the movie is apologizing for its own concept, which it definitely does not need to do. We don't need to know the details of why the movie is edited, or why music has been added. The explanations slow down the movie, and only highlight problems instead of fixing them. Also, the pace slows down quite a bit in the third act, which is when Romero movies usually jolt up to a fevered pitch. Stick it out though, because the movie's last sequence, and especially its last line of dialog, are worth the price of admission alone. This is most likely not the end of the Dead saga, but if it were, it could not have come to a more perfect conclusion than the jarring, horrific last shot Romero gives us.
- mikeisawesome17
- Jan 23, 2008
- Permalink
The Death of Death
While filming a horror movie of mummy in a forest, the students of the University of Pittsburgh Jason Creed (Joshua Close), Ridley Wilmot (Phillip Riccio), Francine Shane (Megan Park), Tony Ravelo (Shawn Roberts), Elliot Stone (Joe Dinicol), Mary Dexter (Tatiana Maslany), Elliot "Gordo" Thorson (Chris Violetti) and Tracy Thurman (Amy Lalonde) and their professor Andrew Maxwell (Scott Wentworth) hear on the TV news that the dead are awaking and walking. Ridley and Francine decide to leave the group, while Jason heads to the dormitory of his girlfriend Debra Monahan (Michelle Morgan). She does not succeed in contacting her family and they travel in Mary's van to the house of Debra's parents in Scranton, Pennsylvania. While driving her van, Mary sees a car accident and runs over a highway patrolman and three other zombies trying to escape from them. Later the religious Mary is depressed, questioning whether the victims where really dead, and tries to commit suicide, shooting herself with a pistol. Her friends bring her to a hospital where they realize that the dead are indeed awaking and walking and they need to fight to survive while traveling to house of Debra's parents.
I do not say that "Diary of the Dead" is disappointing, but indeed there is nothing new in this movie "à la The Blair Witch Project (or Cloverfield)". The story is a kind of "documentary" of George A. Romero's trilogy, with the cinema student Jason Creed shooting the movie with his handy camera. Unfortunately there is a total lack of credibility in this unreasonable character that keeps shooting his movie even in the most weird or dangerous situation for himself or for his group of friends. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): Not Available
I do not say that "Diary of the Dead" is disappointing, but indeed there is nothing new in this movie "à la The Blair Witch Project (or Cloverfield)". The story is a kind of "documentary" of George A. Romero's trilogy, with the cinema student Jason Creed shooting the movie with his handy camera. Unfortunately there is a total lack of credibility in this unreasonable character that keeps shooting his movie even in the most weird or dangerous situation for himself or for his group of friends. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): Not Available
- claudio_carvalho
- Dec 11, 2008
- Permalink
Horrifying, not in a good way
Romero is officially in his old age
- yogsottoth
- Jun 27, 2008
- Permalink
Another excellent film from Romero.
George A. Romero's recent films seem to have been rather divisive amongst fans. Actually, we could say that his zombie films have been divisive since 1985, because I have read a lot of negative comments about Day of the Dead—that might be attributed to its limited theatrical run, however. It never quite had the mainstream success that Dawn of the Dead received, despite being an equally good film.
Land of the Dead picked up where Day left off, developing the 'intelligent zombie' concept explored through Bub further. The divisiveness of Day of the Dead, then, is probably one of the main causes for Land of the Dead being equally divisive. The same theme is explored more prominently—and, being a fan of Day, I like that direction, making Land a worthy addition to the Romero canon for me.
Diary of the Dead regresses somewhat, not following the direction of Land of the Dead. Instead, it explores a similar point in the zombie invasion to the one that can be seen in Night of the Living Dead, before the zombies had become prominent enough to outnumber the living. That is why I found it surprising to see so many haters of Day and Land also disliking this film—it leaves the direction they disliked behind, and arguably contains more social commentary than any other Romero film. I cannot see what there is to dislike about this film, a few minor moments of melodrama aside (less than Night of the Living Dead, in response to that criticism!), and I would rank it as one of his better efforts.
If you haven't seen it, the premise is that a group of film students try to document their experiences at the beginning of this zombie outbreak, with the intention of uploading it to the internet to help any potential viewers whom will find inevitably themselves confronted by zombies. By seeing how others deal with them through the documentary, they will know how to handle the similar situations. In that sense, it almost seems altruistic.
However, I don't think Romero is completely sympathetic; throughout the film, Jason—the director with the idea of documenting everything—continually puts his documentary above the safety of his friends, making more of an effort to film everything around him than to help people by taking out zombies. What Romero is targeting with his criticism is DIY news reporting, and the notion that people would—through instinct—rather stop and watch people in distress than help them.
This film is far more in vain of Night of the Living Dead than the rest of the series in that the relationship between the characters is just as important as the zombie threat. That isn't to say that character relationships are not important in the other three—they are, but the zombie threat is given more prominence in most of them (Day of the Dead being a possible exception, putting them on an equal standing, a factor that works in its favour). The antagonism caused by Jason's insistence on filming rather than helping is a recurring theme, and it is clearly the most central tenet of Romero's social critique.
You may want to call me a rabid fan boy at this point, but I think this is an excellent film; entertaining, intelligent and relevant to modern culture, Romero proves that he is still the greatest director in the zombie genre. There are minor flaws here, but they do little to detract from the quality of the film. It might not be as good as Dawn of the Dead, but this is a very worthy addition to Romero's canon.
8.5/10.
Land of the Dead picked up where Day left off, developing the 'intelligent zombie' concept explored through Bub further. The divisiveness of Day of the Dead, then, is probably one of the main causes for Land of the Dead being equally divisive. The same theme is explored more prominently—and, being a fan of Day, I like that direction, making Land a worthy addition to the Romero canon for me.
Diary of the Dead regresses somewhat, not following the direction of Land of the Dead. Instead, it explores a similar point in the zombie invasion to the one that can be seen in Night of the Living Dead, before the zombies had become prominent enough to outnumber the living. That is why I found it surprising to see so many haters of Day and Land also disliking this film—it leaves the direction they disliked behind, and arguably contains more social commentary than any other Romero film. I cannot see what there is to dislike about this film, a few minor moments of melodrama aside (less than Night of the Living Dead, in response to that criticism!), and I would rank it as one of his better efforts.
If you haven't seen it, the premise is that a group of film students try to document their experiences at the beginning of this zombie outbreak, with the intention of uploading it to the internet to help any potential viewers whom will find inevitably themselves confronted by zombies. By seeing how others deal with them through the documentary, they will know how to handle the similar situations. In that sense, it almost seems altruistic.
However, I don't think Romero is completely sympathetic; throughout the film, Jason—the director with the idea of documenting everything—continually puts his documentary above the safety of his friends, making more of an effort to film everything around him than to help people by taking out zombies. What Romero is targeting with his criticism is DIY news reporting, and the notion that people would—through instinct—rather stop and watch people in distress than help them.
This film is far more in vain of Night of the Living Dead than the rest of the series in that the relationship between the characters is just as important as the zombie threat. That isn't to say that character relationships are not important in the other three—they are, but the zombie threat is given more prominence in most of them (Day of the Dead being a possible exception, putting them on an equal standing, a factor that works in its favour). The antagonism caused by Jason's insistence on filming rather than helping is a recurring theme, and it is clearly the most central tenet of Romero's social critique.
You may want to call me a rabid fan boy at this point, but I think this is an excellent film; entertaining, intelligent and relevant to modern culture, Romero proves that he is still the greatest director in the zombie genre. There are minor flaws here, but they do little to detract from the quality of the film. It might not be as good as Dawn of the Dead, but this is a very worthy addition to Romero's canon.
8.5/10.
- opus-eighteen
- Apr 2, 2009
- Permalink
Interesting script - Weak characters - Bad actors.
Are we worth saving? You tell me.
This was quite a creepy film for the most part - the scene at the hospital was really creepy: the location, the build up and the pay off were all great.
Romero does a good job of showing the savagery of man. I think his vision is that we are not much different than the zombies as our humanity declines. He is also showing that the media and the government cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
It is a movie about zombies, and it has the usual excitement. Not a lot of gore, and the girl doesn't get her clothes ripped off, but exciting nevertheless.
Romero does a good job of showing the savagery of man. I think his vision is that we are not much different than the zombies as our humanity declines. He is also showing that the media and the government cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
It is a movie about zombies, and it has the usual excitement. Not a lot of gore, and the girl doesn't get her clothes ripped off, but exciting nevertheless.
- lastliberal
- Jan 1, 2009
- Permalink
Very Disappointing
- crustysaltmerchant
- Jul 9, 2008
- Permalink
Romero's Best Dead Since The Original
Many will disagree with me here, but I found "Diary of the Dead" to be the best of Romero's "Dead" flicks since his original "Night of the Living Dead" classic. This time he nails it and the method in which he goes about filming in first person perspective is the most effective I have seen to date.
A group of film students and their professor, finding themselves thrust into a "dead are returning to life to feed on the flesh of the living" setting, hop in a motor home and head for their respective homes. With a couple of high-end video cameras, they decide to document their journey when it is discovered that the government is in concert with the media to cover up the truth of what is really happening in the world. Along the way, one by one, the group "deceases" in number falling victims to the horror in their midst.
Diary has some eerie scenes, jump-out-at-you scares, some kick-ass humor, and enough gore for you picky freaks out there that demand and thrive on red goo. Romero goes without the hokeyness of Dawn, Day, and Land this time and the result is impressive!
A group of film students and their professor, finding themselves thrust into a "dead are returning to life to feed on the flesh of the living" setting, hop in a motor home and head for their respective homes. With a couple of high-end video cameras, they decide to document their journey when it is discovered that the government is in concert with the media to cover up the truth of what is really happening in the world. Along the way, one by one, the group "deceases" in number falling victims to the horror in their midst.
Diary has some eerie scenes, jump-out-at-you scares, some kick-ass humor, and enough gore for you picky freaks out there that demand and thrive on red goo. Romero goes without the hokeyness of Dawn, Day, and Land this time and the result is impressive!
- Kashmirgrey
- Mar 31, 2008
- Permalink
Romero's next to last film and, of course, people eat each other.
I had no idea that this existed and I seem to be in the minority here as I didn't think it was too bad for what it is, though it's a bit polished for a George Romero film. Crude was usually his style. I don't recall liking the previous one, Land of the Dead, which seemed ridiculous, but it's been a while. I also have no idea if I've seen his final film, Survival of the Dead, as we've seen an awful lot of walking dead movies since he got this ball rolling in 1968. This has a dumb premise of some students, with cameras they won't let go of, filming a mummy movie when they hear about people dying and eating each other and seem so shocked and surprised. Don't these people ever go to the movies?! The acting's not bad here and there is some creativity, though yet another person running around filming everything is, as usual, beyond belief. Nothing special, but it held my attention.
- justahunch-70549
- Jun 16, 2023
- Permalink
TIFF screening
At first I was apprehensive about this new entry in Romero's Dead series, but that pretty much disappeared after the first scene. The fact that the film was shot all in subjective camera doesn't result in a gimmicky, incoherent mess, like, say, the Blair Witch, but is used intelligently and effectively.
The scares and effects were great, and the movie actually takes a rather complicated approach to the topic of today's media-saturated environment, rather than being a crude polemic.
My only complaint would be that the voice-over and dialogue were a little clunky at times, overexplaining things that could have been inferred without too much trouble. That's a minor problem though. Overall, a totally worthy entry in the series.
The scares and effects were great, and the movie actually takes a rather complicated approach to the topic of today's media-saturated environment, rather than being a crude polemic.
My only complaint would be that the voice-over and dialogue were a little clunky at times, overexplaining things that could have been inferred without too much trouble. That's a minor problem though. Overall, a totally worthy entry in the series.
Unimpressive zombie flick,but still pretty good.
A group of film students is in the woods shooting a low-budget zombie horror flick when the zombies start to rise with a hunger for human flesh.Next we see civilization fall apart as the zombie apocalypse is coming.Two of the group peel off and head back to a house they describe as a fortress and the rest sally forth in search of family aboard an RV.The students are also filming themselves trying to survive the end of the world."Diary of the Dead" is shot cinema-vérité style by our fledgling film crew caught up in the web of horror.There is a decent amount of gore and the acting by unknown cast is adequate,but the tone of the film is sometimes too preachy.If you are paying attention, assorted radio broadcasts are voiced by Romero fans such as Quentin Tarantino,Simon Pegg and Guillermo del Toro with a religious rant by Stephen King.7 out of 10.
- HumanoidOfFlesh
- Jun 2, 2008
- Permalink
I can't believe Romero put his name on this.
First of all, this film tried the already-proved-to-fail camcorder approach. Guess what! It failed. I have to give credit where it's due, because the lighting and scene construction were done pretty well.
Generally speaking, a film can please a large audience by combining excessive foul language with gratuitous drug use, sex, or violence, but this film doesn't have anything other than cursing.
Over the years, George Romero has been pivotal in the specific sub-sect of horror that focuses on the idea of a zombie apocalypse. I have come to enjoy a lot of Romero's works, and that's why this befuddles me. Night of the Living Dead was ground-breaking, and Diary of the Dead should have stayed dead.
Generally speaking, a film can please a large audience by combining excessive foul language with gratuitous drug use, sex, or violence, but this film doesn't have anything other than cursing.
Over the years, George Romero has been pivotal in the specific sub-sect of horror that focuses on the idea of a zombie apocalypse. I have come to enjoy a lot of Romero's works, and that's why this befuddles me. Night of the Living Dead was ground-breaking, and Diary of the Dead should have stayed dead.
- adamcfreeman
- Apr 9, 2012
- Permalink
Yet another "what wouldn't you do in this situation" movie