I'll finally be getting to see it...

[Redman6565]

Careful, if you reach any further your arm might come out at the socket. ... It doesn't necessarily relate to the movie, more like it relates to me. You can 'get' their relationship in the movie throughout fully if you want, but you might not necessarily get it fully on the other hand as you might be distracted by other aspects - I for one, was focussing more on the first person aspect the first couple of times. There are countless movies where you appreciate aspects more because of a commentary, or a making of, or whatever. You can't be expected to get every single aspect from start to finish, across the breadth of the production, 100%. That's my thoughts on that... After watching this turd for the 5th time today the real relationship Deb has seems to be with the other guy rather than her boy friend. By the time they get to her parents house my point is very evident. *SPOILER* By the way, the scene at her parents home was another reason this was a bad movie. Talk about cheap poorly done scare tactics in a movie. When her little brother jumps on to her back I was wondering if my movie wasn't screwed and they threw in a zombie scene from the Day remake.

[Legion2213]

This film wasn't that bad, not as disappointing as Land anyway, maybe because I wasn't expecting too much after Land. I think that if I was in that group, I would've shot that Jason prick very early on though...what an idiot.

[Trin]

I think that if I was in that group, I would've shot that Jason prick very early on though...what an idiot. That would've improved the movie immensely. But Jason seemed to never be in danger. Not from the zombies or his friends. Does carrying a camera foul the zombie's ability to discern you as food?   Wouldn't it have been funny if the National Guard guys had been about to leave after stealing their canned food (which was silly) and everyone in the RV started saying, "Are you sure you don't want to steal the camera? Are you sure? Really, this thing is super-valuable. Oh, pleeeeease don't steal the camera."

[DubiousComforts]

But Jason seemed to never be in danger. Not from the zombies or his friends. Does carrying a camera foul the zombie's ability to discern you as food?   Then I suppose you missed the end when Jason's demise by a single zombie comes about because he's too busy futzing around with his camera. Apparently he was no more or less safe from danger than anyone else, not to mention his blatant idiocy was directly responsible for at least one other person getting bit. They argued about Jason having a camera plastered to his face in damn near every scene. Tell me, at what point did you get the hint that this character was not at all supposed to be likable?

[Trin]

And like every other aspect of this movie it was contrived and inconsistent.   Jason was killed by a zombie at the end to make a point. Not because he was in danger like everyone else. He simply wasn't. He got away with ridiculous acts of stupidity while he buddies died one after another around him. He died in the end because it suited the message, not realism or plot or good storytelling, or consistency. I felt like the characters hated Jason before the events began.

[DubiousComforts]

And like every other aspect of this movie it was contrived and inconsistent. You could label most any movie about reanimated dead bodies as being "contrived" and "inconsistent," but that won't make it fact.   The main character being offed by a fallen meteor in a movie full of flesh-eating living dead, for example, would be pretty contrived and inconsistent. But the main character being killed due to the stupidity of having a camera plastered to his face when safety is just a few feet away in a film that is highly critical of the media--that's anything but contrived and inconsistent. Did you ever hear of a 1968 movie called Night of the Living Dead? A lot of people absolutely hated that ending, too. I felt like the characters hated Jason before the events began. Which shows the characters have a prior history with each other. So what's the problem? Redman even picked up on the "real" (at least burgeoning) relationship being between Tony and Debra, and not Jason and Debra. Unless you only enjoy contrived Hollywood movies, why would that possibly be considered a liability?

[Trin]

You could label most any movie about reanimated dead bodies as being "contrived" and "inconsistent," but that won't make it fact. Aw, Dubious, I expected better from you!! So the fact that the movie has reanimated dead bodies excuses the other aspects of the plot that weren't plausible? *shakes head* A plot contrivance is an artificial or improbable character action or event introduced to set up or enable a plot twist. The ending of Diary was plot contrivance pure and simple. It was artificial in that it served the message not the plot. It was improbable in that no one would expect events to go that way without some ulterior motive. It was inconsistent in that it contrasted with the entire rest of the movie where events perhaps should've gone that way and didn't. In contrast, the ending of Night was pure horror genius. Was it contrived? No. The events were neither improbable nor did they rely on uncharacteristic or artificial actions. It made sense. The fact that it put an exclamation point on the message of Night is just icing on the cake. Was the plot crafted around the final scene? Yes. But the events led to a very logical conclusion. Which shows the characters have a prior history with each other. So what's the problem? The problem is that, as you point out, Jason repeatedly put his friends lives in danger with his camera centric antics. In what universe does that kind of behavior without anyone putting a stop to it?

[DubiousComforts]

Aw, Dubious, I expected better from you!! So the fact that the movie has reanimated dead bodies excuses the other aspects of the plot that weren't plausible? *shakes head* No, you misunderstood. I'm not giving any film a pass on logic simply because it's based on the premise of reanimated dead bodies. I meant something like this: I make a movie entitled Dawn of the Dead and place my characters in a mall surrounded by zombies because it stands to reason that any movie entitled Dawn of the Dead should automatically have a mall and zombies. So everyone is safe from the undead hordes while in the impregnable mall but then for no apparent reason, I have my characters spend the remainder of the movie trying to escape their obvious safe haven. That's a textbook definition of contrived and inconsistent. A plot contrivance is an artificial or improbable character action or event introduced to set up or enable a plot twist. The ending of Diary was plot contrivance pure and simple. It was artificial in that it served the message not the plot. It was improbable in that no one would expect events to go that way without some ulterior motive. It was inconsistent in that it contrasted with the entire rest of the movie where events perhaps should've gone that way and didn't. I disagree that it's improbable to have gone the way that it did. Contrived and inconsistent would have been Jason putting down the camera and joining everyone in the panic room, no? The problem is that, as you point out, Jason repeatedly put his friends lives in danger with his camera centric antics. In what universe does that kind of behavior without anyone putting a stop to it? In the all-too-common universe where people act routinely idiotic which others are eager to film--even without the crisis of living dead to magnify the blatant stupidity of the situation. You've never seen an episode of Jackass? I don't see how you can claim with a straight face that DIARY is inconsistent when the obvious theme to every Romero undead film is diverging viewpoints on how to handle the situation, to the point where people die because of it. Should that message be made even more obvious?

[clanglee]

I disagree that it's improbable to have gone the way that it did. Contrived and inconsistent would have been Jason putting down the camera and joining everyone in the panic room, no? No. Not really. He had access to the cameras around the house from the panic room and he could edit his film from there and still film the remaining survivors. Just like when he stayed with the camera when it was plugged in instead of following the action. I see what GAR was trying to say with the character's addiction to the camera, but (in the case of the panic room especially) it would have served the character better to go with the other people, because that is where th action is. It would have been well within Jason's personality to go to the panic room so he could work on his film.

[Trin]

No, you misunderstood. I'm not giving any film a pass on logic simply because it's based on the premise of reanimated dead bodies. I meant something like this: I make a movie entitled Dawn of the Dead and place my characters in a mall surrounded by zombies because it stands to reason that any movie entitled Dawn of the Dead should automatically have a mall and zombies. So everyone is safe from the undead hordes while in the impregnable mall but then for no apparent reason, I have my characters spend the remainder of the movie trying to escape their obvious safe haven. That's a textbook definition of contrived and inconsistent. Forgive me if I misunderstood. It sounds to me like you are talking about Dawn 2004 here. If so then I agree with you 100%. Dawn 2004 suffers perhaps the worst case of plot contrivance around. The only defense for it was that Dawn '04 was an action movie first with no pretense of being anything else. I disagree that it's improbable to have gone the way that it did. Contrived and inconsistent would have been Jason putting down the camera and joining everyone in the panic room, no? To add to what clanglee said - why would this be so inconsistent? Granted, he wouldn't have put down the camera. But he already made the decision to stay with the group when they fled to a secluded mansion away from the very action he was trying to film. He was already hiding from the problem. Why would he not go into the panic room?   Nonetheless, what I was referring to is the string of improbable events that led up to a zombie munching on Jason. They were in a secluded mansion that had so far never been the target of zombies - not even the ones on the premises - not even when there were a considerable number of humans present - not even when they rolled up in the RV and made tons of noise. Then all of a sudden there's a zombie swarm? And a zombie gets knocked unconscious then gets up and comes after them? Has that EVER happened before? No, I'm not buying that it was probable. The reality is that GAR had this beautiful and poignant scene in mind where Jason's death puts a nice exclamation point at the end of his message and he took great pains to force the story down a path to make that scene happen. The whole thing was so dripping with dramatic effect it's hard for me not to see it as contrived. The whole story led up to that point and without the message the story doesn't even make sense. In the all-too-common universe where people act routinely idiotic which others are eager to film--even without the crisis of living dead to magnify the blatant stupidity of the situation. You've never seen an episode of Jackass? If GAR's next movie is Night of the Living Dead as filmed by Steve-O then your observation makes perfect sense. But I'm gonna pass on seeing that movie because I'm really not that interested in seeing how a bunch of self-described idiots manage in a zombie outbreak. The crew in Diary was presented as being thoughtful and intelligent so I don't think comparing their decision making with the crew of Jackass is relevant. I don't see how you can claim with a straight face that DIARY is inconsistent when the obvious theme to every Romero undead film is diverging viewpoints on how to handle the situation, to the point where people die because of it. Should that message be made even more obvious? I agree. But then I never claimed that. I believe that Diary is inconsistent within itself. Zombies are sparse in highly populated areas and dense in rural ones. They show up at weird times - mainly to drive the plot to move the characters to the next location. They act oddly, changing their behavior midstream. The list of inconsistencies goes on and on.