Negative Reviews questions

[sirjacktorrance]

Ok.now there´s a bunch of reviews on the net and there´s a lot that are not positive.most of them by the non romero fans or not genre reviewers.but in some of the mixed reviews there´s complains.it would be nice that the people who have seen the movie write his toughts about this. there´s a list of flaws tht the movie seems to have:

-the narrator: that seems to be the biggest mistake in the film.the BD review says that it could be a better movie without tha debra voice .

-The CGI:everybody says it´s ok,but others said that in the headshots are noticeable.that´s a biggest problem for me(the biggest problem of land too)a zombie movie it´s not credible with CGI blood.it´s a shame that they do it again.i hope this time it´s not that bad even because this is supposed to be a realistic take on zombie apocalypse.

-the humor:some reviews makes me wondering if this is a parody.they said there´s lots of jokes and “funny bites”i not want this to be a “evil dead 2”or “dead alive”i want my serious zombie movie,without parody.

-The number of zombies: theres people who said that there´s a worrying lack of zombies.it´s ok that it´s the first night but..even in NOTLD there´s scenes with crowds of dead things....it´s really that bad?

-The acting:it´s being said that there´s a lot of amateurishm in the acting by the unknown actors.it´s really a problem?

-the script: some reviews says that there´s so much stupid lines.there´s also complains about overexplanation of things and that the movie it´s “too talky”.At the end of the screening some people discuss if the bad lines was deliberated or no.

-The originality of the plot: some says that there´s enough “outbreak” zombie movies and the story of diary don´t add nothing new.there´s also a complain about the dissapointting ending.there´s another lack of climax??

-the budget :there´s complains about how low are the production values.it´s ok that it´s a POV movie but it´s feels like a amateur film?

[livingdeadboy]

- The Narration

The narration in the movie is fine, I don't remember feeling that it was distracting at any point. She offers her opinions and thoughts on certain things here and there in the movie, its not a non-stop narration.

- The CGI

-As mentioned in my review, there were a couple times (Only a couple) where the CGI headshots were noticeable, But it was no worse than any other CG headshot in any other movie. A lot of the time, the CG was a subtle and used only to enhance a few effects. I thought the CG in this movie was way better than it was in Land.

- The Humor

It was not a parody, some of the violence in the film was typical Romero "fun violence" where its meant to get an obvious giggle out of the audience. Obviously there was some humor in the movie, it was like Dawn '78, that kind of camp humor in a few scenes.

- The Zombies

There is a decent amount of zombies for the type of film it is, there are no huge crowds of zombies, you see whatever the cameras are seeing. The amount of zombies works in context with the film.

- The Acting

Okay, it wasn't the best acting in the world...but in my opinion the other dead films didn't have fantastic acting in them. So it didn't seem out of place by any means.

- The Script

See the above answer, all of the Dead films, let a lone any movie seems to have lines that just don't work.

- The Originality

This is all just my opinion like all of the above answers, but it was original enough to keep it interesting...yeah the outbreak thing has been done to death...but this one did it the best. And I thought the ending was just perfect the way it is, the movie said what it needed too.

- The Budget

It didn't feel amateurish at all, thats all I can really say about it, I thought the production value was great in the movie.

All in all, I personally think a zombie film can only be so good. And this was a welcome change of pace, I didn't say it was perfect, but it was pretty damn good and definitely gets a top spot on my fav. movies of 2007 list.

[sirjacktorrance]

- The Zombies

There is a decent amount of zombies for the type of film it is, there are no huge crowds of zombies, you see whatever the cameras are seeing. The amount of zombies works in context with the film.

-.

no huge crowds,ok but comparing to night of the living dead? more or less. thankx for the answers dude!:)
if someone has his opinios about this write what you think please!!

[Griff]

no huge crowds,ok but comparing to night of the living dead? more or less. thankx for the answers dude!:)

NIGHT is kinda different in that it is set at one location at which the dead seems to be drawn to so that you get a gradual increase in numbers over the course of the film until, finally, the place is overrun with the bastards.

DIARY takes place on the road. We visit (mostly abandoned) hospitals, farmhouses, warehouses, homesteads and spend some time in and around the wilderness as these kids and their professor travel cross country in search of answers. As such we get a small taste of zombies in each scenario, ranging from the odd one or two to more than a handful. At one point in the film, there's a few shots that suggest the numbers are growing and the narrators wonders if the cycle will ever stop.

About the narration. For the most part, the footage plays out unaided but occassionally, usually between scenes, our narrator will editorialize on her specific experiences or on the phenomenon in general as a montage of images fills the screen. The thing is, while this is presented as documentary footage, Romero does everything he can to make it a theatrical experience with the requisite narrative thrust behind it. What we're seeing isn't presented as random found footage, ala BLAIR WITCH, but rather a deliberate weaving of imagery, edited together by one of those responsible for the captured video: our narrator. She even admits at times to employing certain cinematic tricks, like the occassional use of music, to enhance her work.

Similarly, the dialogue, while quite naturalistic, still exhibits Romero's flair for spoken prose. Maybe this is where the acting criticisms stem from. There's an elegance to it that those who don't have an ear for that kinda thing might find stilted at times. Their loss. People don't endless quote Romero movies for nuthin. Its always given to us straight so there's no Tarantino-esque bullsh*t to worry about.

[DruNewp]

-the humor:some reviews makes me wondering if this is a parody.they said there´s lots of jokes and “funny bites”i not want this to be a “evil dead 2”or “dead alive”i want my serious zombie movie,without parody.


-the budget :there´s complains about how low are the production values.it´s ok that it´s a POV movie but it´s feels like a amateur film?

Just gonna address these two points for now -

As far as humor goes - Romero has always used humor in his film, ESPECIALLY in Dawn of the Dead. Have you forgotten? Thats what makes it so brilliant. I don't think you have to worry about Romero making a parody of the zombie genre, since he created it.

And as far as budget goes - Romero wanted this to be independent, without constraints from big budget studios. He's happy with the outcome, so why don't you at least wait until ya see the damn thing to give YOUR review and not everyone elses!

[coma]

I could care less about how many negative reviews it may get. I happen to like GAr's style. I ve like all of his films and I feel I understand what he's trying to say. He's never let me down and 99 percent of the world could hate it and I could still love it. And when people, in reviews, compare anything of Gars to YAwn 04 I want to show them my weenie:)

[sirjacktorrance]

Just gonna address these two points for now -

As far as humor goes - Romero has always used humor in his film, ESPECIALLY in Dawn of the Dead. Have you forgotten? Thats what makes it so brilliant. I don't think you have to worry about Romero making a parody of the zombie genre, since he created it.

And as far as budget goes - Romero wanted this to be independent, without constraints from big budget studios. He's happy with the outcome, so why don't you at least wait until ya see the damn thing to give YOUR review and not everyone elses!

i am no saying that the movie it´s bad or good.i am questioning the reviewers their opinion to that negative reviews that i read on the net.i like the romero humor,but some reviewers seems to sys that we have a parody of the genre here.i don´t like parodies.that´s all.

[Wildey]

If critics hate it, it must be good, very good ! ;)

[sirjacktorrance]

im afraid that every new review released its worse....:(:(:(

[MikePizzoff]

DIARY takes place on the road. We visit (mostly abandoned) hospitals, farmhouses, warehouses, homesteads and spend some time in and around the wilderness as these kids and their professor travel cross country in search of answers. As such we get a small taste of zombies in each scenario, ranging from the odd one or two to more than a handful. At one point in the film, there's a few shots that suggest the numbers are growing and the narrators wonders if the cycle will ever stop.


This makes me want to see the movie even more. How did those of you that are on these forums come about seeing it? Any word on theatrical release? Don't respond to that, actually, I'll just find it on my own. (don't need a "Search feature" flame from Hellsing) :D

[Griff]

There were 3 screenings of DIARY at the Toronto International Film Festival and a couple of us were lucky enough to attend the first screeening, the world premiere, with Romero and gang present.

[MikePizzoff]

There were 3 screenings of DIARY at the Toronto International Film Festival and a couple of us were lucky enough to attend the first screeening, the world premiere, with Romero and gang present.

Lucky bastids. Anybody get lucky enough to meet Georgie boy?

[C5NOTLD]

I could care less about how many negative reviews it may get. :)

"You are never as good as your best review and never as bad as your worst review."

Reviews are the last thing I look at when it comes to horror films.