Diary of the Dead reviews - Post them here!

[Neil]

Please post your Diary of the Dead reviews here...and ONLY reviews! Not conversations please as they will be removed... By all means rate it out of 5 as well via the poll. **IMPORTANT** - NO SPOILERS either please, other than within a 'spoiler tags' (ie: [spoiler]) to hide them.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Diary of the Dead - a review by DjfunkmasterG I walked into Diary of the Dead with very low expectations, but within the first 10 minutes those expectations started to rise, and with every second that went by I found myself mesmerized by this newest entry into the dead series. Diary abandons everything Romero started with Night and starts all brand new, bringing us the start of the phenomenon from the beginning. However, he makes sure he gives us little nods to the original film that started all, and it helps us remember why we love the zombie genre so much. The film follows students making their own little horror film when news comes in of the dead returning to life, every news report and story more horrific than the next and as the students become more scared with each new report. Some refuse to believe what is happening, and also refuse to accept the fact the world is coming to an end. Romero is in great form here, working with a much smaller budget and on a much smaller scale he keeps the film and its story within his grasp. He truly shows us why heis one of the true masters of horror. The nice thing about Diary is that the social commentary is not as much in your face as it was in the dreadful Land of the Dead, but it makes its appearance known, in the form of a very overzealous student filmmaker, who want to get everything to make sure people know the truth. The great thing about Diary is that the commentary is not so much about the youtube-ification of america, but how the media and government likes to spin what really happened. It is statement against the media of sorts and this is where I thought the true genius of the film kicked in. Using a younger cast Romero puts his liberal views on display, but not to sway you so much as to say the other side is always wrong, but to let you know that not everything you see on the news or media is real, and it is the guys with the vidcams who are really showing the world as it is...without the sugar coating or the fancy toppings. Some people complained that the narration was overwhelming at times, this is one of those times I felt the narration fit the overall tone of the film. It works to the proper advantage and it sucks the viewer in to the story and itmakes you feel like you are along for the ride. The two single best characters in this film have to be the brandy drunk professor and the deaf Amish man who helps the students seek temporary refuge. While I wish they could have expanded on the Amish character a bit more there was enough moments there that you could pretty fill in your own side story and see where it goes from there. Diary will definitely help fiction fans in that they will have plenty to write about in their own Diary world. Diary is a lot different that the previous dead films, Romero actually goes for less flesh eating and focuses on the story instead of the gore being the films only attraction like Land. However, for you gore fans, there is plenty on display that will have you talking for days... the interesting zombie kills will leave your jaw hanging and clapping for more. Diary does something Romero hasn't done since Dawn... it focuses strictly on the characters and the zombies remain a background item. There is never a long moment where the film lingers on the dead, because it isn't so much about the dead as it is about capturing the truth. However, the zombie mayhem is here and there and it keeps the pace of the story flowing. The suspense is top notch and when yu do venture into zombie infested areas, this is where edge of your seat entertainment begins. This has shown me the man has still got what it takes to make a great horror film. If I was to rank the films, Diary would come in right behind the original Dawn of the Dead, making it Romeros second best zombie movie ever. I think once you sit down this weekend to see it, you will agree the master has returned to true form. 7.5 out of 10

[Monrozombi]

I'm not going to go through a plot summary, those are easy to find. When i first heard George was going back to his roots, ala back to basics and taking us back to the first night, I was excited. I also thought, he's done this before and was thinking we were in for a NOTLD remake part 2. I was pleasentaly surprised when I heard of the premise of the film and the 1st person POV. Let me start off w/ the 1st person POV. Its not of the caliber of the Blairt Witch Project or even Cloverfield. The students don't spend a lot of time running with camera in hand. The film starts off using just a camera used for feature film and they pick up a smaller camera (not sure of the type, but you see them when people film documentaries from the last few years). I'm a fan of this POV when its done correctly. George uses a great mixture of the 2 cameras and throws in a few closed circuit feeds and cell phone cameras for good measure. For some people, this POV is problematic either due to motion sickness or just a dislike for the technique in general. I'd say if you get motion sickness very easily you should be ok, take a dramamine you should be fine. If you don't like the technique, i'd say give it a shot and don't let the POV be your deciding factor in liking or not liking the film. The characters are some of the better characters George has written in sometime. Dialouge, especially dialouge during stressful sequences has always been George's achilies heel. He can write great exposition and great dialouge for the antagonist of the film (see Capt. Rhoades). The students seem like real kids. There are a few instances of their dialouge seeming somewhat out of place during a few sequences, but other wise the dialouge helps the film. The film is seen through the eyes of Jason Creed the Sr. @ University of Pitt. Jason reminds me a lot of Heather from BWP. Now before you crucify him because of my comparison let me explain. he's a filmmaker and anyone above the age of 15 has a camera or camera phone and documents their life. Jason is the same way, he carries the camera to document the events because you never know what you find. He is a strong character but not infallible as well, he's human as are the rest of the characters. There isn't that one character that seems above average in terms of intelligence, skills or ability, I'd say you probably know somebody in your circle of friends like every one of the main characters. Gary said above that he'd rank this right under Dawn as George's 2nd best zombie film. While this film reeks of vintage Romero I don't think its reached that pinnacle yet. The film has great zombie performances, a strong cast but to me is lacking that antagonist that the earlier films had. So I did miss some of the banter between the goodies and the baddies, that dynamic was the biggest thing missing for me. THXLEO says that Romero is repeating himself, and I want to counter that but I can't seem to find the words to. I know how that sounds but I don't get the feeling that this is a repeat of NOTLD. NOTLD's characters and setting were perfect for 1968, 40 years later this is what would happen and I believe this is how people would react. I know a lot of the times I've seen Romero speak publicly he has said he'd like to go back and do this again differently so I know this film wasn't something he hastly rushed to do. Romero is a smart filmmaker, not because of the commentary his films provide but for the way he makes his films. He makes his films and tries to on his terms. The independent Romero of yesteryear is written all over DiaryOTD, so if you like Romero's early stuff but not so much the new stuff, I believe you'll enjoy this. I'd give it a 8.5/10

[joeharley666]

of that crapfeast "Land" I have always agreed with DJ about that film. To top off what went wrong with "Land" to me was the cheese factor(zombies becoming smart with thought process)PLEeeAaaSE AND ALSO THE LACK OF SUSPENSE.A HUGE DUD! NOT SO WITH "DIARY" this film made me believe in George once again. these zombies were not peronalized which I loved about this film, they were just flesh eating faceless ghouls...back to basics. the whole premise was an ingenious idea by ole George, HE IS back!!! I thought the kids did a fine job, very believable. That's what happens when George uses unknowns. I loved the fact this flick was not overdone with sensless action, the story told the story here. My only real complaints were the narration, but then again...it had it's place in certain parts of the film. Also.....I would have stuck with George's original idea of not going with a musical score or sound effects. It would have been more grittier to not have music, it would have parralleld with the hand-held. I hated the line that the Texas girl used when she killed the zombie(that was George's cheese) He does let himself get exposed once in awhile. Would have loved a little more confrontation scene's with other groups of alive human, but hey you can't have everything. This movie was oozing with Romero's touch. Bottomline, this is the movie he wanted to make! And that I wanted made! Wouldn't it be kinda kool maybe George to make a remake of "Dawn"? not scene for scene but something along those line like 3 weeks into the plague. I just he delivers like this one in his follow-up on "Diary" and hopefully just as effective. 81/2 stars out of 10

[DrSiN]

I'll also skip the summary of the movie and try to remain pretty spoiler free. Diary is a decent movie. Good, but not quite great. I'd place it 3rd overall with it just nudging out Day (Dawn, Night, Diary, Day and then way back Land). There was a lot to enjoy here and very little to dislike. The Good: The camera work well just worked. Not once did I find it annoying. Great care was taken to make the "he just set the camera down" scenes work. The effects where top notch and the overall story is pretty solid. The Deaf Amish guy was a perfect small comedy interlude in the middle of hell. Awesome! The in-jokes were great and I'm so happy GAR returned to making movies about people, not zombies. The So-So: With a single exception, this movie lacked any type of tension thanks to several missed opportunities. The barn, the dorm, the hospital... all could have been ratcheted up. That's not to say the movie was slow. Pacing was overall pretty good but here was a chance for it to be better. Most of the acting was fair to ok and the characters were a tad bit flat. Also, the final act is 50-50. Parts of it were great, parts, contrived and unbelievable. The Bad: 1. Absolute NO subtlety in the sub-text. This was also a problem in Land in that GAR used a brick to drive his point home. Well it must be his age. The "Interludes" while matching the style of a documentary were not needed and felt like him forcing his point on us. And they were not needed. Come on GAR, we don't need to be force fed the message. Let the movie speak for itself. 2. The Texan girl's on again off again accent. This didn't hurt the movie much but was pretty funny. 3. The girlfriend was 100% unbelievable. I think it was a combination of script and acting here. Overall, I'd give it a B - B+

[DeadCentral]

As a good Romero fan, being aware of the release date for Diary, I checked the web for theater time and place. Of course the nearest was down in Cambridge, a mere 49 mile trip into Boston. The opening of the film was interesting and what caught me off gaurd was the narration. The earliest scenes seemed uneventful but established our cast. A group of film students making their own mummy film. Odd broadcasts about rising dead on the radio & news..... Unlike the comparisons to CLOVERFIELD, these kids were using decent equipment and there were no grainy, fuzzy, shakey shots... 35 mm all the way, and it does remind you that you're watching a movie. As things take off we get some great special effects as would be expected in a Romero "DEAD" film, and some interesting deaths....very creative. The group is determined to get to Debra's home the female lead played by Michelle Morgan. We do see some familiar faces too "Tony", played by Shawn Roberts also appeared in LAND OF THE DEAD, along with Boyd Banks, many guest Newscaster voices and even ...shall I say, a cameo from ......naaah go see it. The film has a great pace and of course a political overtone, but not so much political as a look at the truth of our current state of mind as the information highway plugs along...detached & callus to tragedy until it bites you... and it bites many in DIARY...oh yes... MANY. Some notable scenes include the hospital, the Amish farmhouse and Ridley's (Philip Riccio) garden...My favorite line in the film happens there and it seems to Georges way of making a point...while Tracy (Amy Ciupak Lalonde) is being chased by a deceased member of their cast, Jason (Joshua Close) shouts " See...I told you dead things move slow!" which I took right away as a comment from George as a way to re-claim the genre he created. It was also established that ANYONE who dies will re-animate, and being bitten by one of these things will only speed the process. Over all, I was happy to drive the distance, slap down my $7.50 and go for a ride with this group. The cast was talented, the film was smart, the gore was tasty, and I left with a case of the creeps...what more could want from George Romero ??? 4 1/2 out of 5 !!

[gottgen]

I'm the one who gave it a "2." I have read some reviews, and some responses to those reviews, so I thought I'd give a little idea of where I'm coming from, first... I've been a George Romero zombie fan for as long as I can remember. I liked "Martin" as well, but didn't really care for "The Crazies." My ranking of Romero's zombie films would probably be Night, Day, Dawn and Land...though unlike many, I thought Land was a decent, fun flick. As for other films in the genre, I have run into very few that I didn't like on SOME level...good effects, novel ideas, endearing cheesiness...whatever. I was really disappointed in Diary. The shaky camera and voice-over weren't what I had problems with...I knew he was going that route and thought I understood what he was going for. Besides, the camera wasn't nearly as shaky or nausea-inducing as either Blair Witch or Cloverfield...pretty good, steady filming throughout. And, I think that could be some of what ruined believability for me. The acting was ridiculously over done. Most of these people weren't worthy of a high school musical, much less a Romero film. I kept wondering to myself what was going through George's mind..."Did he really think that line was delivered well?" "Was that really the best performance he could get outta that guy?" I didn't believe panic, I didn't believe anger, I KINDA believed the ones who were acting numb through most of the film. Also, I realize that over-acting and a bit of a cheese factor is normal for a Romero pic...it's all in FUN...but that is not at all what's going on in this movie. These guys make Jarlath Conroy and Terry Alexander look like Oscar-winners. Script-wise, the dialog was often clunky and preachy...especially the drunk professor. It seemed like every 15 minutes, the movie would pause so he could go on some diatribe about the futility of war or the effect of media on the public or some such...and some of the one-liners the kids spout are HORRIBLE. The effects were pretty good. Decent use of cgi bullet hits and such. Most of the zombie make-ups are pretty effective, as well; though they don't hold up very well in close up with digital quality. There's a nice, VERY nice, long effect involving a zombie's head while walking that perked me up for a bit. Several people have been defending the movie; blaming the acting and the script/dialog problems on a low budget?!? COMMON. Romero had next to NO budget on NOTLD and it was amazing. The only way that argument makes any sense is to assume that George got spoiled on bigger budgets and forgot how to do an indy film. He forgot how to cast no-name actors that can deliver lines believably? He forgot how to at least FEIGN some kind of subtext for his social commentary? I dunno. I don't want this to come off as me just ripping into George Romero. I just really think this is a sub-par movie, and I wanted to drive home exactly what I thought was wrong with it. If spoilers were allowed, I would go into more detail, but there you have it. I feel like people are defending it because it's Romero, and they're gonna cause a lot of people to spend their time and money on a disappointing film. =V=

[3pidemiC]

It's hard to believe that it's already been almost 3 years since Land of the Dead was released. It just seems a little strange to have a film created by George A Romero released so soon after the last one....wait...I'm doing it again. I need to distance myself from the Dead quadrilogy that I know and love so much. When I went into the theater to see his new film; Diary of the Dead I kept telling myself that it was not another sequel. The events that I was going to watch had nothing to do with his other films. I have to admit that it was hard, and at times I would make comparisons to his other zombie films. But when it's all said and done and I think back of my viewing of Diary, I feel somewhat refreshed at what I saw. This is because I knew that this was a new beginning. Diary was definitely a good film in my book. George really wanted to try something different and I feel that he succeeded on almost every level with this film. The film's main premise, being a sort of "documentary" film is really convincing with how it was put together. Yes, some of the dialogue was a little odd at times, but I think that it made it even more realistic because I know that people say some pretty stupid stuff when holding a camera. The pacing of this movie, I felt, was very well done. It really wasn't an action-packed, balls-to-the-wall film. It was slow, but in a good way. The story unfolded really well as you see the world start to slowly turn to **** as the zombie epidemic gets worse. The zombie makeup and the gore were also really well done. Every zombie looked and acted convincing. The zombie kills were nicely done and when it was done in CGI, it really wasn't all that noticeable. I find myself having a hard time decribing my feelings about this film. I remember when I wrote my review on Land (which I really liked), I really could describe it easily and make my feelings clear. But with Diary, it's hard to say how I feel about it. Maybe it's because I am recovering from a hangover right now, but I can at least clearly state that I really liked this movie! I apologize for how poorly-written this review was, I'll post a better one later. 4/5

[Yojimbo]

My wife and I were fortunate enough to catch a screening at which George A. Romero himself was there to give a short introduction prior to the start of the film. And like most of the posters here on this forum, GAR too did not like Land Of the Dead and in fact during his speech before the film he actually referred to it as his "Beyond Thunderdome" He also stated that this film was an intentional departure from the big budget studio film that was LAND and instead was a return to the guerilla roots that were responsible for NOLD. What can I say of Diary that has not already been more eloquently put by better writers than myself? Yeah, ok, it's not a perfect film, and yes has some issues -- though I like to think of them as primarily budgetary issues -- but by and large I would say that GAR has proven himself to still be relevant -- both artistically and socially --and has restaked his claim as being the master of his genre. The social commentary, the gore (albeit not as gory as DAWN, but nice and juicy in it's own right) the humor, the crafty editing, the use of a non-mainstream cast, George A. Romero has made a righteous zombie film and has proven that he still has his mojo. Somewhere inside this film, I detected GAR's commentary on "documentary films" and/or "reality shows" and that fact that everything you see on screen is a deliberate manipulation of the director. Just because something claims to be a portrayal of reality does not free itself from the agenda of the director. And this manipulation of "the truth" is not just practice of the cigarette smoking corporate/government types, but is the conceit of every person who has an agenda and wishes to present something to back that agenda up, be it zombies rising, or global warming, or pro-life dogma.

[bassman]

I just copied this from a ablog on my myspace page. It was sort of a review of all of Romero's films, so it picks up at the end with Diary... Okay...now we get to "Diary of the Dead". Forty years after making the original "Dead" film, Romero hits the rewind button. Instead of setting this film further into the outbreak, he decided to go back. A reboot, if you will. This film is on the first night the dead begin to rise only this time we're on the road with a group of college filmmakers that were making a mummy film in the woods. While filming this film(titled "The Death of Death"), the students hear of the dead returning to life and the director, Jason Creed, decides that this is his perfect opportunity to create a great movie/documentary. So the students set out in their Winnebago with camera in hand and to begin filming the crumbling of human civilization. Right from the beginning it's obvious that this is Romero's take on the current state of technology and news in the world. The film comments on how EVERYONE is a news reporter these days. Almost everyone has a digital camera on their phone and can record and share any small event that happens with a simple click of the internet. Even the very thing i'm doing now(blogging) is commented on. "It's too easy" one character states....and it is. But what happens when you get this world full of reporters, bloggers, etc that fill up the internet with this "news"? You get even MORE distorted views of what the truth really is. You get different opinions. Anyone remember that College Student that caused trouble at a seminar with John Kerry and the whole "DON'T TAZE ME BRO!" video popped up online? Just because that person with a camera only showed the portion of the security taking the student away and not the portion of the student causing trouble, everyone thought it was misuse of authority. And this stuff happens all the time. Even with news channels like CNN, MSNBC, and FOX NEWS. I recently saw an interview with Romero in which he states: "If Hitler were around today he would have it easy. He wouldn't have to go into town square and scream at the top of his lungs to a couple thousand people, he could go online, make a blog, and have millions of followers". Jason's camera becomes an apendage. He basically refuses to set the camera down in order to record as much of the diaster as possible and at times even fails to help his friends in peril. "If it's not on camera it's like it never happened, right?", one character says sarcastically to Jason. If someone were to view this film and fail to see how it's a mirror image of today's world....well....they need to open their eyes. The film goes on and touches upon MANY social issues that I couldn't possibly remember after only one viewing. This one is definitely one to rewatch. And as I sit and type this "review" I can't help but feel slightly frightened. "Am I reporting on the film the way it was intended?". "Did I really get the idea of the film correct or has it become something more in my mind?". "Would I actually be able to put that camera down or would I want the world to see how it all happened?". All these questions and more....but isn't that what a good film or piece of art is supposed to make you do? Think? They used to. These days the world of film is polluted with "horror" films such as "Hostel", "When a Stranger Calls", and numerous other cheap cash-ins that the teenagers seem to love so much. They can give you a fast and cheap scare, but do you continue to think about the film as days pass? No, because they're not relevent. This is what Romero does....he makes the horror hit home and stick with the viewer. This is why he has become a legend of a filmmaker and inspiration to so many filmmakers and artists in the world. So in the end, is "Diary of the Dead" worth seeing? First of all, it's only in limited release so there's only a few screens showing it in each state(I had to drive over 45 minutes to see it). Another thing to remember is that this film will obviously be compared to "Cloverfield" because they were released around the same time and have the same first person filming style, but this film was in production before anyone knew of Cloverfield and Cloverfield, while fun in a non-thinking sort of way, is nothing but a hollow shell compared to this film. The answer is YES...this film is worth seeing. If not in theater, defintely on DVD. This is what horror should be. REAL horror is hard to come by these days, and it looks pretty bad for the Eli Roth's(Hostel) and Zack Snyder's(Dawn remake) of the world when a 68 year old man is one of the very few that can truly make me scared.

[Harold W Brown]

As a huge Romero fan, I likened my experience of watching this film to the day I noticed my grandfather couldn't feed or dress himself anymore. It was heartbreakingly awful. The dialogue is too corny to work within the "documentary" presentation (or to be spouted successfully by the terrible cast). The look of the film is too polished to really sell the "found footage" gag, and the movie stops every ten minutes to try to re-justify the gimmick. There were some interesting things being attempted, and good for George for attempting to cover new ground, but the good stuff was just buried under a mountain of poor decisions. I wish I hadn't seen it.

[major jay]

Mere minutes into his latest exercise in politically-conscious cannibalism, an overtly serious voice alerts us that this is not a movie by the inimitable George A. Romero. It is, in fact, a sort of video assemblage culled from footage shot by Jason Creed (Josh Close), a young film student living and working in Pennsylvania. This makeshift eulogy is spoken by Creed's main squeeze Debra (Michelle Morgan) who serves as editor of Creed's posthumous opus, ingeniously titled The Death of Death. After the initial frames turn an immigrant family into a bunch of slow-moving flesh-chewers taped by a local newsman, the perspective shifts directly to Creed's camera as he shoots the zombie rampage that was meant to be his senior thesis for his professor (Scott Wentworth), a world-class alcoholic. As his star (Philip Riccio) takes off for his mansion with the sound girl, Creed and his crew start hearing broadcasts over the internet and the radio about the dead coming back to life: the death of death indeed. Though it takes place on the road, Diary's aesthetic is the most claustrophobic of the Living Dead cycle since the Night of the Living Dead, and it's certainly the most perceptive since Dawn of the Dead. Romero sets Creed and his crew in a Winnebago heading through the suburbs, dead towns, and top-tier estates of Pennsylvania's back country with Creed's camera documenting everything they go through. Every refuge of safety they encounter (hospital, Debra's home, an Amish farm) has been overrun by the rotting nibblers. Even a mansion, the hope of fiscal safe haven, becomes overrun with the zombies. What separates Diary from the rest of Romero's work is the lack of a military presence against the living dead. Almost every other film in the cycle offers the idea of an organized opposition to the epidemic: the sheriffs at the end of Night; the military in Dawn and Day; and the makeshift stronghold of the living in Land of the Dead. It seems apt that one of the first flesh-mongers the group encounters is a sheriff stumbling from a car accident. No one's fighting for civilization anymore, and the only notions of defense and survival arise from a renegade black militia, bunkered in a warehouse. Writing in Film Comment recently, the great Robin Wood traced the history of Romero's portrayal of black men in his zombie cycle as the only protagonists (and in Land's case, intelligent "villain") with any ingenuity to them. Though race is integral to each of his radical visions, the Living Dead cycle has a more drastic concern with American institutions: Night ate the American family; Dawn gobbled up consumerism; Day feasted on the American military; and Land chowed-down capitalism itself while toying with 9/11. With Diary, the gaze is strictly on the YouTuberation of our culture: a generation of slackjaws more happy to watch and take in the carnage than to do a damn thing about it. Creed says it most aptly, "If it's not on camera, it's like it never happened." Talking with a few film friends this past weekend, there seemed an inexplicable favoring of the gimmicky, yet startlingly successful, Cloverfield over Diary. While Cloverfield simply rewrites the genre in terms of perspective, Diary reconsiders not only its own cycle, but our entire way of life. Though Romero's critical eye is a bit broad and some of his metaphors are convoluted, Diary still strikes me as a unrelenting and audacious experience that owes more to DIY independence than to the horror genre. As it often is with Romero, pledging allegiance to anything becomes an act of acquiescence.

[ProfessorChaos]

this is gonna be pretty quick and simple: had to drive an hour and wait an extra week or two to see it, but it was worth every mile of driving and every second of waiting. ol' george has still got it! i'll concede that at times it felt like the film was shoving great big globs of its message down your throat with a jungle boot, but overall, romero has really redeemed himself from any negative impressions land left on me (which aren't as numerous as some other chaps', but still). as someone else has already said, diary is a very fresh look at the problem of the undead and collapse of society as we know it. this time much more is revealed about the rapid crumbling of the modern world and what sort of scenes would play out in living rooms, hospitals, dormitories, etc. parts to me felt as if there was an imbalance between message and pacing, but overall, i left the theater highly satisfied, and will most likely catch this one again with the gf (she had class earlier and once i found out it was playing, i bolted without even bothering to see if she wanted to go, really). and i'll be shelling out the bucks for a copy of my own as soon as it hits the shelves. here's a few things i especially liked, along with a few things i didn't: good:   1. taking the show on the road, so to speak, much like the original Dawn, with no clear destination, just kinda winging it, really sets up for a great atmosphere and mood....another adventure in the world where the dead are eating the living 2. plenty of nods to other romero films, from notld 68, 90, day, dawn, and the inclusion of a few actors from land. nothing like a stroll down memory lane. 3. the possibility of a direct sequel is giving me a real horrorshow feeling in my guttiwuts now i'm gonna have to go read the threads on the sequel rumors, as i've been saving them until after my viewing. not bad, but meh:   1. once they arrived at the dudes house who had the resident-evil style fortress/mansion, why didn't they bother to shut the iron gate?!?! were they expecting someone? 2. what the fu(k was up with hottie mcblondie chick bailing? was she heading to texas? gonna take a lot more fuel than what ya got to travel that far, babe. that's okay, you're still hot 3. at times i felt there were a few too many characters we were involved with, as i can't even recall half their names.... all in all, i'd give it an 8/10.... a few minor tweaks on the plot and it would've been nearly perfect...and if romero didn't think we need training wheels to get the idea he's trying to convey. (although i guess he's a smart dude and realizes the attention span of the average american these days) romero is still the o.g. when it comes to the undead...hands down. this movie's also got me psyched about the upcoming world war z flick!! EDIT: after a second viewing with the gf, i had to change my grading from a 9 to an 8, as she (a zombie noob, if you will) noticed the same "wtf" moments (like not locking the gate at ridley's place) that i did. still a kick-ass film overall.

[MoonSylver]

I just got back from seeing "Diary" a bit ago & my impression was: the man hasn't lost his touch. Without going into a rehash of the movie I will just give my impressions: 1. From the opening scene (which was great) I got a vibe very much like "Martin" or "The Crazies" if they'd been shot today. It felt very much like a true return to GAR's low budget indie form, & I dug it. 2.There have been some criticisms of the performances & the dialog. Both I found more than passable. Neither were lacking or disengaging, with one exception. There is a scene in the hospital where, after a couple of zombies are killed, there is a launch in a bit of a preachy monologue that felt a bit out of place, otherwise no complaints here. 3. I was a bit leery of how the "shot by the characters" technique would play would in a coherent or believable manor. My fears were unfounded. Other than a few ultra-quick pans (as the camera switches from one character to another) that were a bit overwhelming, the use of the technique & the way it was employed/edited was masterfully done & totally convincing. There was a BIT too much voice over work & slow motion montages of characters for my taste, but then again, if these WERE student film makers assembling this footage, that might be the very techniques they'd use, so in that context, I'd buy it. 4. Another comment I've heard was that "the message" was too "in your face" or that some felt they were being hit over the head with it, but I didn't feel that way at all. True "the message" is woven into nearly every moment of the movie, but to me THE MOVIE ITSELF IS THE MESSAGE. In "Land" the "message" did feel like it was handled in a bit of a ham handed fashion, but here I didn't feel like it at all. For me "the message" played out on several different levels, every thing from social commentary, to commentary on the main character (Jason) himself, to commentary on GAR's feelings about film making (& himself) 5. Speaking of "Land", comparisons are inevitable I suppose between the two (or any of the others in the series for that matter). I liked "Land", but felt that it was flawed. It was a very uneven movie. "Diary" didn't suffer from that, IMO. If it IS flawed, the flaws are less obvious IMO, & certainly no less that any of the the others in the series. 6. For me, one of the movies STRONGEST points is that it captures something that only "Dawn" ever did out of the entire series (which is one of the reasons that "Dawn" is arguably the strongest of the series to many), & that's the unraveling of society. In "Night" it's hinted at & we get a feel of it. In "Day" & "Land" it's already happened. But in "Diary", as in "Dawn" we are in the midst of the fall of civilization as it happens. Overall, I was very satisfied. Will it ever rate as classic as "the big 3"? Hard to say. I do feel however, that it's strong enough to stand right up there with them & fit right in. George has always said that he wanted to make movies ABOUT something, and with this one I'd say he succeeded admirably. In spades. Forget all the talk that he's lost it. This movie, to me definitely had his signature touch.

[cinezombi]

I made the longest trip to see a movie, probably in history. I saw Diary of the Dead in Mesquite, TX. Well, I guess I should tell you where I live first Savannah, Georgia. Diary of the Dead wasn’t playing in Savannah, and my wife and I were going to Texas Frightmare Weekend (the biggest Romero convention ever) and a 40th of Night AFI Screening (different story for a later time). We decided to see Diary on Wednesday in Dallas to make it a full Romero filled vacation. I could not believe how perfect the timing was, we drove all night into morning arriving at the AMC Mesquite 20 (Not knowing the Showtime) one minute before the 2:00 show. We went straight to the auditorium and as we walk in and made our way to the front of the auditorium, the light dim and the film cast upon the screen, making this 1200+ mile drive to see a movie the longest ever. (Well, at least for me). The first was Shaun of the Dead (Birmingham to Atlanta) it didn’t open in Birmingham, so we drove as Zombies to Atlanta arriving at the theater and plopping bloody money against the ticket window. (Again another story for another time) Okay Now My Review!!! Keep in mind I drove all night and half a day. And… It was still worth it. Romero has done it again. The master of all things undead, shoot them in the head, slow zombies kick ass, fast zombies suck ass. Well, you get my point! Diary of the Dead as you all know is shot in first person, hand held cam style. It is not to be compared to [REC] from Spain nor Cloverfield. Diary was finished way before when Cloverfield was a mystery trailer before Transformers. It is not to be compared with Blair Witch (which I still don’t get what the hype was about). I believe as Romero has said, He was going back to the indie/documentary style film he shot in 1968, Night of the Living Dead, to me that was what he did, just more modern. This is not Romero’s best work, but how could he ever top NOTLD? Sometimes your first is your best. The order after that was Dawn, Day, now Diary, then Land. I feel that Diary should have come before Land. Don’t get me wrong, I loved Land as well. (Go ahead and hate me, all you Land haters) In my opinion Land was the exact direction that all the other Dead films take you in, but Land was ahead of its time and a little to high of a budget. Diary to me fits right in between Day and Land, but the technology and theme of Diary was not yet there, when Land came out. What’s funny is that the two combined could not be more exact on the events that are going on around us today. I couldn’t help feel a little guilty while watching Diary. See, I feel I am one of the faults that Romero shows us in Diary. I am a blogger, vlogger, internet promoter, viral marketing addict (of sorts). I live by social networking and internet video. But my wife, friends, and now George tells me not to be so hard on myself. Because I do it for the greatest cause in the world, HORROR FILMS! ****Minor Spoiler**** (but I think you all know this) In Diary big Media crumbles. (Like it would) and what do you have left, Myspace and Youtube addicts, bloggers, vloggers, and podcasters armed with digital cameras, camcorders, webcams, microphones, laptop, I phones, desktops and wireless internet (well, at least until the power goes). The power of information would be in the hands of the millions of us, and some of us would standby the same as big media and watch as our family and friends die, just to get it on film. It is as; Jason says in the film, “If it doesn’t happen on Camera, it’s like it never happen.” I have heard a lot of things about Diary like it’s too preachy or it is nothing like the other films. In my opinion it is not too preachy. Romero has always blended horror with a message or a view about what was going on in the world. Diary is no different. The film is different in one way; it isn’t as gory as Dawn and Day. But, that isn’t a bad thing. Night wasn’t gory. (Well, for it’s time it wasn’t) Night still scares until this day, so compared to films today, it is not as gory. Halloween is another example, there is maybe a cup of blood in the whole film, but some people still say it is the scariest, bloodiest slasher film of all time. That is because the great Directors give the viewer the start and let them finish it in your own mind. That is what I think Diary does; don’t get me wrong it is bloodier than Night or Halloween (I don’t want to scare you). But it isn’t over the top like a lot of films, where it becomes cartoonish. The kills are very original in Diary from the clip that you seen on the web with the professor and the bow and arrow, to the Amish Man. Oh the Amish Guy, Awesome!!! That is all I am saying. You will just have to trust me the kills and FX were great, but if you can’t depend on good FX from Greg Nicotero, who can you trust? The other thing I have been hearing is that the characters aren’t likable or don’t make you care enough. I thought they were very likable. I felt for each one of them. As I said earlier, I compare parts of myself to Jason. I don’t know if it was just me, but in this film I could see, what I though was bits of Romero in each of the main characters. Especially; In Jason the documentary filmmaker that is making a horror film and then ending being known for zombies. Debra the strong and determined taking the lead type, but always caring about others before herself. The professor that has seen it all, he has faith in people but lost faith in the world long ago. There are a lot of different things like that in the film but maybe that is my opinion. Anyone that reads this I would love your opinion. I hope I haven’t given too much away. I am just passionate about Romero films, so I am sure a lot will feel my review a little bias. All in all I love the film and hope for a sequel as talked about. I really hope to find out what happens to the surviving characters in the next chapter of the Diary of the Dead.