Diary of the Dead

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

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

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.

I never thought i would say this about a Romero zombie film but i was really disappointed by this one and in my opinion it's the worst one of the series. The zombie attacks are few and far between and when they do happen they're over so quickly that there's no time for any anticipation or fear to build up. There's hardly any gore. Anybody wanting lots of scenes of people being eaten by zombies had better stay away from this one. The thing that irritated me most and it's probably why i wouldn't bother watching the film again is the fact that when a character is being attacked hardly any of the group goes to help. They all either stand there or are too obsessed with filming it on their camcorders. OK i know it's only a film but if a friend of mine was being attacked by one of the living dead i would drop the camera and go and HELP. The female lead Deb was a stroppy cow who needed a good slap and Jason was a waste of space. I kept hoping somebody would smash the camera over his head and put him out of his misery. None of the characters were likable and the only interesting ones, for example Samuel, aren't in the movie long enough. I just didn't care what happened to any of them and i wasn't interested in what any of them had to say. That plus the fact that there is hardly any action meant that i found the film dull. It's well made but i wouldn't recommend it.

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.