Diary of the Dead Reviews

[Highly rated reviewer]

SO SO SO SO BAD!!!!!

PLEASE DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME AND MONEY ON THIS GARBAGE! ! !

WORST FILM I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE........

ITS CRAZY HOW FILMS THIS BAD CAN BE MADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Highly rated reviewer]

the worst dead

Diary of the dead is george romero's 5th zombie film and the 2nd one he's done in the last 3 yrs. This installment takes us back to the day it all started and is told from the perspective of a group of college students who are filming as the zombie outbreak occurs..think cloverfield with zombies and you'd be on the right track.

Things start promisingly enough with some tension and good make up fx..but about 30 mins in the whole things goes seadily downhill. The film is told at a sanils pace..long lingering dialogue scenes occur without anything really happeneing. When the zombies are on screen the whole thing livens up but the rest is so boring. There was long exposition in both dawn and day of the dead but in those films we cared about the characters and their relationships with one a nother. In this you dont give a damn who dies next and everyone is just bland..apart from the only good character,the kids cocky,alcaholic college professor who prefers to kill zombies with a bow and arrow coz its more dignified!

Some other reviewer said this was better than Land of the dead....it isnt....land was far superior to this even though that was the worse installement till this one. Land had some great moments and great zombie kills/fx and even a couple of cool characters but this has litle to offer.

It isnt all bad..romero is incapable of making a completley bad film. The first 30 mins or so is quite well handled and some of the zombie kills are fun and the last scene is very romero and really cool.

If you are new to these films..below is how i'd rate these in order

1. Dawn of the dead (1979) ( the best installement..the citizen kane of zombie films!)

2. Day of the dead (1985) ( the most goriest and over the top and a cool bad guy too)

3 Night of the living dead (1968) ( grounbreaking when released but quite basic now,save for the very powerful end scene)

4. Land of the dead (2005) ( the most high budget and has the most recognisable cast..a decent entry but nowhere near the best)

5. Diary of the dead (2008) ( well the worse enrty to date im afraid,see review above)

[Highly rated reviewer]

This old Zombie still has some life in it

Zombies? Check. College Kids? Check. Romero? Check. Running headlong into danger with no apparant regard for your own safety? Double Check.

If the above sounds familiar than you know what to expect from Romero's 'Diary Of The Dead'. Not a lot of new ground is covered though it is told in a different way, with every shot being made by the protaganists themselves as they document the sudden rise of the dead and the chaos it causes. Through their filming and internet posts we see the 'dawn of the dead' in the era of camera phones and downloads. Romera has a point to make in this film and it isn't subtle. He at once shows the strengths and weaknesses of the internet/youtube age, as the official media lie about the recent phenomena and the internet confuses everyone with the mass of information available.

If you're not into 'messages' in films than 'Diary Of The Dead' will likely annoy you, as it is very heavy handed. But if you take this film as it seems to have been intended (tongue firmly in cheek) then it is an enjoyable ride with a number of dark humour jokes along the way. The graphics are excellent and the zombie death scenes more imaginative then they've been in other Romero works. Not to mention the coolest Amish man in movies ever.

Sadly though'Diary Of The Dead' is not without it's problems. The cast of characters we are following are largely bland, uncharismatic and at times make crazy decisions that no sane person would surely make in this situation. It's largely acceptable that they manage to get their hands on so many weapons so quickly (this is America after all) but it makes you long for the inventiveness of Shaun with nothing but garden implements and a cricket bat to fight the undead. The biggest problem by far though can be summed up in one word - 'Cloverfield'. This film will unfairly be compared to that other 'first person perspective' horror movie and it does suffer when held up against it. The shock value is gone and there's a distinct feeling of 'i've seen this before'. Romero likely kicked himself for not getting this film out first.

'Diary Of The Dead' is a fun, relatively short ride that is a welcome, though by far not the best, addition to the Romero/Zombie catalogue. If you've never 'got' Romero's humour in his other films give this one a miss, as this is the major saving grace of the film. Here's hoping Romero will give up the Zombies for a bit and try his hand at something else. Mummies anyone?

[Highly rated reviewer]

Disappointing

I'm a massive zombie/Romero fan, but I'm beginning to think that perhaps he isn't quite as great as I originally thought, and that he just got lucky with his first 2 films. I think this had potential to be good, and I think that it's so easy to make a decent zombie film, yet he screwed it up. The main bugbear is people simply not behaving in a realistic fashion in this situation.

e.g. 'Zombies are attacking everyone and we know that you have to get them in the head to kill them. Ooh, a lovely cache of weapons - what do we have here? Machinegun, ok...pistol...good...Oh I know, I'll take this bow and arrow. And maybe I'll get drunk while I'm at it'

Nuff said.

The myspace-esque social commentary stuff is also a bit last year and comes across quite overdone and contrived.

Unfairly criticised and incorrectly "viewed" by many.

I do find myself getting annoyed reading some of the criticsms of this film, many have completely missed the point of it. Don't get me wrong, it's not the greatest film ever made and it has its flaws but this is not a 'Zombie/gore' flick and was never intended to be. Naturally if that's what viewers wanted then naturally they'll be disappointed, and of course if that is what you are wanting with reading this - don't bother, just watch a Lucio Fulci movie or one of the recent 28 Days Later style remakes instead.

What's forgotten is that Romero in the classic sense is a 'Horror' director. He tells stories, but in a horror setting as opposed to a love/costume drama/war one. Many of his films are 'attempts' and don't always work but it's not his job to ultimately make eye-candy for teenagers. If that happens, great, if not...it doesn't, never mind. I get the impression he had a little bit of money available to him and decided to go for it - the fact that this film was not given a major studio release speaks volumes, the film was trying to be too intelligent (I note 'trying', as said I'm not saying it's the greatest film ever) and clearly it was decided to open it for a few days and then put it onto DVD.

Now, what's the point of the film? Really, that should be obvious to most. It's said at least twice by one of the actors 'If its not filmed, it's like it never happened right?' Again, I don't feel this is particularly deep, but I'm disappointed to see how many didn't seem to get it. The film is a polemic, a reasonably successful one, on the role of 'truth' in a society that is massively subjectivised by the media, including our own attempts via Utube/cameras/Internet etc. In this deluge of information the 'truth' gets lost. But of course (and this is perhaps for REAL zombie aficionados who realise it) what is the 'ultimate' truth? - death. The zombies, while still a representation of the oppressed, are essentially the expression of that truth. Instead of a nasty accident/disease/war etc the zombies on a fun level are that. Why the oppressed? Because they are our 'truths' that are denied in the massive 'soup' of information that is out there - actually as a tool of oppression and NOT as a democratic tool/process at all.

Again I'm amazed and annoyed that people also didn't see the deliberatly cliché characters. Yes, they are not greatly acted, but please, Romero is an intelligent man, I don't think 'Texaz-Chick' / 'Educated-Etonian-Brit' / 'Gritty-Earthy-New-Yorker'/'Spoilt US college brats' are intended to stand as 'real' people. They themselves act as stereotypes, acting as part of the whole stream of 'unreality' that the film explores and we buy hook-line and sinker.

Of course that is the other point, many have missed with the zombies. As representatives of the 'real', note how society collapses when it hits. Again, think of a disaster...earthquake/terrorism whatever Romero is reminding us (again I note, he is a classic 'Horror' director) of how quickly our 'civilised' world can fall apart if we fail to get a grip, and of course in a world where the truth is always/already divided, that can happen very easily...

As said, if you want entertaining gore flick, really (and I do mean this politely) then don't bother as you'll be disappointed. If however you're looking for something that explores our media saturated age then at least give it a try. Certainly in terms of style, I did find it genuinely creepy and genuinely exciting at times. Those that liked the tone of “Dawn of the Dead”, that feeling of “They’re out there” will know what I mean.

[Highly rated reviewer]

Why?

As with other reviewers, I share a respect, almost reverance for George A Romero.

Night, Dawn and Day of the dead were THE definitive zombie films, charting the start, middle and end of the human versus zombie war.

Land of the dead kind of went off the rails, saying that actually, the base was not the only place left, or was this supposed to be set between dawn and day?

Still, had some good gore, so okay.

Diary: zombie film done in Blair witch syle. Why?

A zombie attacks and people stand 3 feet away recording it rather than running like hell?

No zombie feasting?

I have seen many, many zombie films, and this is a low point.

Thing Michelangelo finishing the 'David' statue then trying to palm off his soiled mattress as art.

Oh, and Blair Witch SUCKED.

2 stars because I love zombie films. Watch 28 weeks instead.

[Highly rated reviewer]

Another Romero Dissapointment

It may be that the George Romero of the past, is just to hard an act to follow. Or it may be that his films don't have the impact that they once did. More likley that he has just become a bit crap.

Land of the Dead was, up until now, the worst Romero film. Watchable if only for the increasing look of desperation apparent on Dennis Hoppers face. Not acting, more a look of realisation of what he had signed up for. This film is little better.

Its filmed in a first person perspective in the vein of Blair Witch and Cloverfield, but without any of the realism or suspense of either. Because of this you don't get a feel of scale as in the other films. There's no feeling that the world is being overtaken by the undead, just that there might be a few badly dressed tramps possibly pottering around the place causing trouble.

Acting, dreadful...without exception. Dialogue....well it was never his strong point. Script....boring, if only they had fast forward in cinemas. Even the action sequences are lacking, with the actors now seemingly waiting for the shambling corpse chasing them to catch up so that they remain in shot!

I love Romeros films, but, and I hate to say it, maybe its time he put his directors chair away for good. Either that or he needs to completely re-think his approach. Theres just to many other films like this that do it so much better.

Breathtakingly bad

This is quite simply one of the WORST films ever made.

From creating one of the finest and most significant horror films of all time (Dawn of the Dead), Romero went to being merely interesting (Day of the Dead, Land of the Dead) to now being just a bit rubbish. A few visual flourishes aside (ever more inventive slayings to please the Fangoria crowd), this falls down at ever hurdle. The script is incredibly poor and the performances even more so. For the first 20 minutes or so you half expect the film to pull back self reflexively, and for the ineptitude to be shown as deliberate. But it doesn't. Where there are attempts at humour, the laughs are uneasy because you can't be sure if its intentional or not... it's that bad! It's cliche riddled - Romero's characters run headfirst into jeapordy time and time again as if Scream had never been made.

There's a potentially interesting idea here (the living dead phenomena unveiled through the lens of a student film maker) but Romero doesn't even grab the opportunity to make a virtue of his zero budget, instead he eschews an edgy Blair Witch/Cloverfield candid texture and just throws in a few clumsy out of focus and 'battery low' moments. And if you thought the polemic of Land of the Dead was heavy handed (American Imperialism and 9/11), you'll groan at his GCSE Media Studies discourse here.

Unbelievably bad, and difficult to believe that George Romero was responsible. He should have Alan Smithee'd it...

[Highly rated reviewer]

was this really directed by Romero?

Being a big fan of all four previous George Romero living dead movies(favorite being Dawn of the dead) this was an unbelievably dull letdown..

It's too talky and preachy with it's feeble and misguided attempts to assimilate some modern day relevancy.

And what is with the new fangled fad of shooting films through the illusion of using a hand held camera.

Cloverfield,REC and now this..

Basta!

enough is enough.

Plus really annoying characters,including the girl from the recent 'Damages' (BBC/HBO drama) who for inexplicable reasons even vexed me on that show.

Hard to believe that the great Romero directed this,

and for that matter I don't.

Surely a vicious and wicked swindle has been hatched.

[Highly rated reviewer]

diary of the dull

definnitely not the best Romero film i've ever seen, found the characters extremely annoying and frustrating, zombies looked pretty cool and the violence was as gratuitous as you would expect from this sort of movie - but it is definitely lacking in the excitement factor - was tempted to switch off about 2/3 of the way through... prepare to be disappointed.