Diary of the Dead

I thought the film was okay but I know to myself it will never be my favorite out of the bunch. Though it was a documentary I didn't quite catch it as one or for the majority of the film. In here we have a film crew that made up of different characters: The director Jason (Joshua Close) who acts though he believes that if it didn't happen on camera, then it never happened at all. There's his girlfriend Debra (Michelle Morgan) who gets increasingly annoyed with his filming everybody, Tony (Shawn Roberts) who looks like he is prepared to beat Jason to death, and there's even the drunken film professor Maxwell (Scott Wentworth) who looks upon everything with a bemused attachment. What George Romero succeeds in doing as a writer is give us characters who aren't simple types and break those clichés to become increasingly unpredictable in their actions.

Which is one of Romero's strong attributes is that he gives us strong characters with females and minorities. He started doing this a long time ago with "Night Of The Living Dead," and it continues on with this one. The female character that comes across as the strongest here is Debra, played by Michelle Morgan. She is driven to get back to her family who are back at home, and she is not about to get sucked into watching things through a camera lens. Michelle gives the strongest performance in the movie, and she also narrates the movie within the movie, so you have a pretty good idea of what happens to her character. The group does run into a squad of African Americans who have taken over a small town and all its supplies, and who refuse to leave the town. This is because for once, they have power over something that they have never had before, and you could see it as a sort of revenge against the white man for all they have put their people through.

The movie does have its share of good scares, and has that same morbid humor that has been present in all of Romero's "Dead" movies. This does make this film relevant in a way even after four decades after the very first one. The last scene in the movie questions the audience directly as to if we as a race are really worth saving or not. That scene will stay with you long after the movie has ended because the characters have only started to learn how to exist in a post-zombie world (shades of 9/11 do abound here and there).

The suspense was there along with the blood and gore, it was giving to us in a fair dose though not quite on the same level as "Dawn" or "Day." Still, there are some good kills throughout, and the characters make good use of a scythe and a bow and arrow. Romero, after all these years, doesn't skimp on the good stuff. However, it still takes these characters way too long to figure out that the best way to defeat a zombie is to shoot it in the head. Aside from that I was slightly disappointed with this film or documentary. I'm thinking there may be room for another one Romero zombie yet, and there is hope to be had in that even if the world is still falling apart. I wouldn't mind seeing him do one more, but I hope it comes out before the apocalypse hits us.

Good evening. This is Tom with Channel 4 news. The stock market crashed as oil prices hit record highs. The unemployment rate ballooned nearly 10% the past month while crime keeps escalating at an alarming rate. Home equity plummetted, health care plans are becoming invalid, taxes rose, debt skyrocketed, and the soldier's death toll suffers its most jagged increase since the opening weeks of the war. But to heck with all that irrelevant junk, did you watch American Idol last night? Hahaha, that's some funny stuff!

My biggest problem with the latest Dead installment is the seesaw effect between the serious and the comical. Throw in so much cheese and corn, and it's hard to digest all of the social and political commentary. George makes some great points, some important profound statements, and then shows something totally absurd to spoil the moment. I didn't particularly care for that.
I've got some more issues with this one. The acting is pretty bad, but that didn't really bother me. Neither did the CGI. I hated the tone, or the mood of this entire story. George never really establishes a dark, gloomy, foreboding atmosphere. In my opinion, an adequate feel of desperation never settles in, I'm sorry to say.
I did love the idea of the homemade zombie documentary. Romero tries to bring a fresh element to the horror genre, and for that he should be commended. But the camera work was not too convincing. It rarely has a real feel. And I was shocked at how underdeveloped the characters are. Maybe this story is about people as a whole, but some closer connection with some individuals would have been nice.

Diary of the Dead starts strong, but quickly fizzles out in many aspects. There are some nice gore scenes, although it seemed to be lacking in that department a bit. It has some undeniably great pieces from the master, but are bogged down by chunks of disaster. I will say that I'm impressed with Romero's efforts at something original in the zombie saga. Hopefully his latest effort will grow on me.

Being a George Romero fan, of course I was very excited to see "Diary of the Dead". I didn't particularly care for his previous film; "Land of the Dead"(Romero's big budget outing) but hey, even great directors have their bad moments. With a very small budget, Romero's latest film seem to have captured the documentary style "gimmick" that have plagued other films. I never really cared for this style, I've always thought it was a one-hit wonder with "Blair Witch Project". Armed with a measly budget, can an acclaimed director pull off the dead end gimmick of a first person view? It almost feels blasphemous to give a critical review to a George Romero film, but amazon friends; Dave K and M have done it, Jenny, Main Man, M.B Cole and Chris Blackshere are on the middle ground while T-man loved this film. I'll give it a go. The issues with "Diary..." isn't all cosmetic, it was discipline.

The film is supposedly a documentary that is shot by a film student named Jason (Joshua Close) and narrated by his girlfriend Debra (Michelle Morgan). The film's main premise is that while they are in the woods with an alcoholic film professor (Scott Wentworth), the news of the dead coming back to life and feeding on the living breaks out. They pack up, gets in the RV and try to head home. In their journey, they encounter zombies, a militant group, zombies, a deaf amish, zombies, ex-national guardsmen, zombies, meet up with a friend, zombies...sounds repetitive doesn't it?

As with Romero's other films, "Diary of the Dead" contains a social commentary. No, it is not subtle at all; this message seemed to have taken the audience by its neck and kept on shaking until we passed out from boredom. It deals with the fact that because of the internet, more folks from all walks of life are reporting on current news and events, the more videos, the more the truth gets blurry until we don't know just what the truth is anymore. As usual, Romero uses the `undead' to make such a statement and fans are undoubtedly split on its preachy tone. The drunken film professor never runs out of alcohol and never runs out of insights about the past war and the philosophical aspects of mankind's inhumane actions seem to be a little out of place when he shoots a zombie with an arrow. There are also some attempts at satire with an deaf Amish but it seemed so cheap and incongruous. The SFX sometimes looked realistic, then at times looked very fake. It wasn't consistent in its delivery of the `undead'.

Romero also makes a bit of subtle coaching (he is the proclaimed zombie guru) to aspiring filmmakers when the characters discuss the workings of a horror flick; why is it women always loses their shoe, they trip over something, gets their clothes ripped to show a bit of skin? Then as a touch of irony a girl does trip, loses a shoe, gets her outfit ripped to show some breasts when she was being chased by a zombie. Romero also criticizes the more modern zombie flicks when he expresses that the `undead's' bones and joints are so brittle from decomposition that if they move fast, their `undead' bodies would break apart; therefore "moving slowly" or "shambling" is a necessity for all `undead' stars. (imagine that)

The problems in "Diary.." is that suspense is none-existent as the DV camera gimmick kills all attempts at such. The film also suffers quite a bit from the feeling that we've all seen it before, and we've seen it done better. The film also gets repetitive and their sense of purpose doesn't really provide any sense of credibility, which is further emphasized that the characters are so wooden and one-dimensional and the acting looks like they're reading the script out of the cue card. There is also a very annoying scene where Jason just kept on shooting his camera while a colleague was being chased by a zombie that displays his obsession with the documentary itself. This feeling of annoyance gives the character a very unlikable impression, much like the characters in "Cloverfield". It was quite annoying and nauseating to watch someone be so insensitive and at the same time dull. Perhaps this was an attempt (another commentary) to point out the indifference of everyday folks to the plight of their fellow men. Homelessness, poverty, etc.

My point to all this is while I agree that nobody mixes in social commentary with zombies as a vehicle better than George Romero; halfway through the film it was just too much and turned out so boring. This is a horror film and if and when I want to watch social preaching, I'll watch TV. The film is so darned predictable that as I expected, characters will make bad decisions, drive somewhere, they'd encounter zombies, narrowly escape, split into groups, then get trapped somehow and encounter zombies again. While I did expect the film to be full of cliché, I just wished Romero could have given it more thought in concentrating on giving thrills and chills (or even more gore) to cover it all up than stooping to a "commentary" about current society. Instead, the film is an overload of annoying scenes and an overkill of the same ol'stuff to cover up its very hollow execution. Body counts are aplenty but none of them were inventive, making the film very forgettable. It is not subtle at all with its message that in the end it just left a very bitter taste in my mouth. I really wanted to like this film and I doubt it will grow on me.

Die-hard fans will still praise and applaud this film just because it was made by George Romero; isn't it ironic that this film comments on the truth becoming jumbled when too many eyes are involved? Maybe it was the expectations and the hype that killed the film`s enjoyment?
RENTAL [2  Stars]

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 196 reviews  3.1 out of 5 stars