A Diary Review...not mine, not positive

[Geophyrd]

http://nypress.com/blogx/display_blog.cfm?bid=26528382


DIARY OF THE DEAD

George A. Romero’s newest zombie movie is shot in shaky cam style and comprises of “footage” from a young filmmaker who accidentally winds up documenting the night that dead first begin to walk the Earth. Despite some solid freak out moments and Romero’s characterically bleak social satire, the movie constantly turns into a sub-Blair Witch Project. There’s enough shaky cam action to make gore junkies feel woozy, and the plot is more conventional than contemporary rejigglings of Romero’s original zombie narratives. Also, Romero seems to have ditched his original timetable: The first four zombie films, beginning with Night of the Living Dead and leading up to Land of the Dead, followed a chronological progression as the world came to grips with its debilitating plague. Setting the zombie epidemic in the YouTube world (the survivors download a news report of the infection off of the web) completely shatters the illusion of this terrifying universe.

[Human Rain]

So one mixed review there. Seems they were primarily dissappointed that the film strayed from the other four's universe. I expect to see several more reviews spring out from TIFF, so we'll just wait and see.

[livingdeadboy]

There’s enough shaky cam action to make gore junkies feel woozy


Hardly...28 Weeks Later was shaky, at least in this movie you could tell what the hell was going on. Now obviously the camera was never 100% stable, but it was nowhere near distracting or nausea inducing...during the gore scenes you still got great shots of it.

[DruNewp]

http://nypress.com/blogx/display_blog.cfm?bid=26528382


DIARY OF THE DEAD

George A. Romero’s newest zombie movie is shot in shaky cam style and comprises of “footage” from a young filmmaker who accidentally winds up documenting the night that dead first begin to walk the Earth. Despite some solid freak out moments and Romero’s characterically bleak social satire, the movie constantly turns into a sub-Blair Witch Project. There’s enough shaky cam action to make gore junkies feel woozy, and the plot is more conventional than contemporary rejigglings of Romero’s original zombie narratives. Also, Romero seems to have ditched his original timetable: The first four zombie films, beginning with Night of the Living Dead and leading up to Land of the Dead, followed a chronological progression as the world came to grips with its debilitating plague. Setting the zombie epidemic in the YouTube world (the survivors download a news report of the infection off of the web) completely shatters the illusion of this terrifying universe.

I love how this guy is complaining that Diary doesn't follow the order that Land ended off with. Who the **** is he? With Diary, GAR imagines what an outbreak would be like TODAY.

This break from the "order" doesn't shatter anything, as this guy states. At least not for me.

[Geophyrd]

is that GAR's 'break from his timeline' is being mentioned at all. Not for nuttin', but I don't believe the movies were ever meant to be chronological, even in terms of just a gimmick for the names (Night, Dawn, Day...LAND)

Besides you all, my fellow living dead geeks, who else really's likely to even notice? So here's my question. Fess up. Which one of us wrote that article?

[DjfunkmasterG]

All of the reviews I have read mention that the shaky cam isn't that bad, although every review I did read, except for Reese's, is pretty much kissing Romero's ass which really bothers me. I was hoping for an unbiased 3-4 paragraph review from someone that mentions the films technical merits and not more praise for a filmmaker that honestly let me down with Land of the Dead.

Is that too much to ask for?

In regards to this guy if the shaky cam is as bad as he says why isn't anyone else mentioning how bad it is... Although the fanboys who did review it may be playing down the amount of shaky cam in hopes of getting more people to see the film.

I guess from this point on I will just wait for the film to be released and make up my own mind. After the burn I still feel in regards to Land my expectations for this are still very low... heres hoping it ends being a grand slam.

[livingdeadboy]

After the burn I still feel in regards to Land my expectations for this are still very low... heres hoping it ends being a grand slam.

I know how you feel, I really was not a fan of Land, and did not have any high expectations to see the movie, but I thought it was a grand slam.

I've been thinking about it, and part of the reason I think I enjoyed this movie the most is because I had not seen a trailer or clip from the movie. So I had no idea what the hell kind of movie we were going to see.

I really hope the trailers they make for the film dont jade the overall expierence.

[Griff]

I believe there's a difference between 'shaky cam' and hand held. DIARY never resorts to deliberately shaking the camera for aesthetic purposes. Other than the occassional instance where the vision switches to a stationary camera, its all hand held so a bit of excess motion is inevitable. Our cameramen do attempt to frame their shots, however, due to the 'off the cuff' nature of the film, you get plenty of quick pans, crash zooms and running around as they try to capture events as they happen. Its unavoidable and if anyone is truly oversensitive to that kinda thing, then this Romero 'fanboy' suggests that perhaps its best if you don't see the movie, at least on the big screen. Either that or take some sea sickness pills.

Ulimately, you don't go white water rafting and complain that the boat ride was bumpy. Use your discretion.

[RJ_Sevin]

"Setting the zombie epidemic in the YouTube world (the survivors download a news report of the infection off of the web) completely shatters the illusion of this terrifying universe."

This is a foolish criticism.

Setting DIARY in the You-Tube generation makes perfect sense. It's how George has always worked. These are zeitgeist films, folks.

There is no continuity among the first four films. Each depicts the phenomenon in the decade in which the film was made. NIGHT takes place in 68. DAWN takes place in 78, yet we're told that the sh*t hit the fan three weeks ago, not a decade. And so on.

This isn't a flaw and it isn't a criticism. The modern technology on display in LAND isn't an anachronism, no more than is the 70s model helicopter in DAWN. These films are connected by a theme, a central premise - not a thread of continuity begun in 1968.

[DruNewp]

"Setting the zombie epidemic in the YouTube world (the survivors download a news report of the infection off of the web) completely shatters the illusion of this terrifying universe."

This is a foolish criticism.

Setting DIARY in the You-Tube generation makes perfect sense. It's how George has always worked. These are zeitgeist films, folks.

There is no continuity among the first four films. Each depicts the phenomenon in the decade in which the film was made. NIGHT takes place in 68. DAWN takes place in 78, yet we're told that the sh*t hit the fan three weeks ago, not a decade. And so on.

This isn't a flaw and it isn't a criticism. The modern technology on display in LAND isn't an anachronism, no more than is the 70s model helicopter in DAWN. These films are connected by a theme, a central premise - not a thread of continuity begun in 1968.

He meant continuity as far as how far along the epidemic is. Night - breakout. Dawn - breakout into full blown. Day - Full blown, civilization's just ended. Land - civilization as we know it is done, a new world.

Regardless, this guy's an idiot. He's faulting Romero for going back to the outbreak HE created.

[Cody]

I dont like the way htis is sounding

[Ivarr]

When you can tell from what the reviewer says that they don't "get it" in the first place... its not reaching far that they are not going to like the movie.

Good, bad or fantastic ... we know we are all gonna see it anyway ... so screw the reviews ... I just want to see the damn movie.