Badmovies.org Forum

HOLY COW, did you see this movie?  Did anyone on the forum see this movie?

I finished it late last night and wrote a quick review/commentary, but my connection crapped out and I couldn't get it to post . . .

I have seen tons of zombie movies.  Many of them just plain awful, most mediocre, and a very few that were really good.  I have seen all of Romero's offerings except for parts of DAY OF THE DEAD.  But I really think he may have topped out with this one.  This is an incredible, heartbreakingly good zombie film.

Imagine a group of college students who are out making a movie  when the zombie outbreak begins.  Their director, an earnest film student named Jason, begins filming the horrific events around them, and also downloading raw video feeds from all over the world as the zombie invasion goes into full swing.  He and his fellow students are trying to get home, trying to find shelter, trying to do anything that will keep them alive, and he keeps on filming right up till the bitter end.

I don't want to give too many spoilers, but watch for the  hospital scene and for Deborah's homecoming.  This was an incredible movie experience, and the ending is just  raw and painful to watch.  Romero hit it out of the park with this one.  You need to check it out!

I've thought about blindly buying this since I've liked Romero's other zombie flicks, but the idea behind this one just worries me...but since you're so enthusiastic about it, I may pick it up!

My daughter saw this at the theater and said it was really excellent. Will be renting this one soon.

I love zombie movies.  Is this only new?  I haven't heard of it before.  I like Romero's stuff so I'm prepared to buy it sight unseen if the price is good.

It just played here ONE WEEKEND ONLY at the local indy cinema and I was going to go see it, as usual I got busy doing something and forgot. Now I'm going to have to get it on DVD.

it just came out on DVD this week, and it is worth owning.

Here is a review I wrote of the film when I caught it in the theater a couple of months back.  I had posted it on here, in the BAD movies section but am unable to find the link at this time.  Here is the review from my own personal archives with a good bit of profanity edited out.


Diary Of The Dead


"Dead Doctor, Dead Nurse....Makes Sense"

There are few films I've seen as many times as George Romero's Night Of The Living Dead and his 70s zombie masterpiece, Dawn Of The Dead. Anyone who knows me knows that I almost worship the ground that Romero walks on. His zombie films have never been only about the dead getting up and terrorizing the living; they have always contained a healthy dose of social commentary. Night highlighted the 60s racial struggle between the blacks and whites. Dawn was at it's core about the class struggle in Amercia in the 70s.

Day Of The Dead has always been for me, his first true misstep. The film has gotten better for me over uncountable viewings but it just doesn't hold the passion nor subtext of Romero's previous entries into his Dead series of films. I think he tried to put in a message in there somewhere. Possibly something about the evil of the military? The evil of isolationism as a country? Hell if I know.

20 years go by and Romero decides to jump back into the Dead films as Hollywood seemed to have a thing for zombie films at the time. The end result was Land Of The Dead, a film that I had been looking forward to since the late 90s when I had a chance to read the script (at the time titled Twilight Of The Dead). The film, while not as good as Night or Dawn, was pretty damn decent. I could have done without the side story about the arsenal on wheels titled Dead Reckoning and would have liked more of a focus on the zombies, but the film still worked. Romero went back to his roots and added a huge amount of subtext here. Zombies are terrorists, the leader of Fiddler's Green is the equivalent of George W. Bush, etc.

Now, just a few years later, Romero is back with another Dead film. But, wait....it's not really a Dead film. Romero has made it very clear that the film is not a sequel by any means. No, this film is Romero's way of going back and starting a new series of zombie films. It's his way of recreating what he did so damn well in the past.

The film FINALLY started playing in my area over the weekend. I caught a matinée of the film yesterday. So, how did it hold up? Was it good? Is Romero back on the top of his game?

Let me answer those before I go into a review:

1. Not too well.
2. No, not really.
3.  :bluesad:

Romero decided against a normal shooting style with Diary Of The Dead. Instead he opted for a first person point of view. At least one character is filming within the film at any given time and what you are actually watching is their footage. See, this would have been a fantastic idea years ago if there hadn't already been films such as Blair Witch Project, The Last Broadcast, Cloverfield, REC, etc. Romero doesn't do as well at this type of approach as the other films listed did. The problem is that it doesn't feel like footage, it feels like a normal film. If the film had actually looked like footage from a regular video camera and the shooting was a bit shaky rather than an occasional jerk here and there, the film would have had a much more sincere feel to it.

Anyway, the plot follows a college student named Jason who is trying to shoot a mummy film with a bunch of classmates for his drunken professor. While in the woods, they hear reports on the radio that the dead are returning back to life and attacking the living. The decide all to hop in their Winnebago and head back to their respective homes all around Pennsylvania.

The bad luck of the crew takes them to a vacated hospital filled with the dead, homes filled with dead family members and in the one humorous scene, an Amish farm owned by the deaf "Samuel" who is one of the best characters I've seen in a Romero film.

I guess I should talk about the one thing that makes zombie films so interesting - the zombies! These are the normal Romero zombies. They shamble, they don't run, and they certainly aren't capable of rational thought as those in Land Of The Dead were. I do have to say that the makeup work here is superb. This is the best that zombies have ever looked in a Romero film. Also, Romero really thought of some unique ways for the zombies to be killed off. All of this being said, the big downfall here is that most of the FX are CGI. Nothing p**ses me off more than seeing CGI where a well skilled FX artist could have used some plaster or latex. I know that Romero was on a budget here but the film could have benefited from having Tom Savini do the effects here or having Nicotero or Berger on set.

Romero must have decided with this film that he needed some more subtext, which I respect, honestly I do. I only wish that his message here would have been much better than what it actually is. There are actually two messages in this film.

1. Media is everywhere. People use Myspace and the internet/cell phones/TV to find out information.

2. When the world ends, blacks will become militant.

Ok, let me go at these one at a time. As for the first one, no s**t Sherlock. People use the internet? People have cell phones!? Jesus Christ, I could not have figured that out for myself! See, the idea of the characters using the internet and other technology for information is a great concept and is believable. I give Romero that. One must consider that when Romero made Night back in '68, people had the radio and TV and that was it. Also, it took information a long time to travel in from area to area while now it is instant. My problem with the technology idea is that Romero shoves it down your throat over and over. He beats the idea to death.

Now, the second point was that the blacks will become militant as soon as they get their chance. I know that Romero is a liberal, so this one seems kind of out of place for me. There is a section of the film where the group of college kids meet up with a militant group of blacks in a small town. They have looted everything in the town and said that they aren't leaving now that "Everyone without suntans are out of town". WTF? Seriously?

The best parts of this film are the portions that really don't have anything to do with the core story. The film opens with a news report that was downloaded from the internet which shows one of the initial zombie attacks which took place in a large city, presumably New York City. It's haunting and set a great mood for the beginning of the film, which the film itself ultimately kills. Then, there is some "found" footage placed in the film of a young girl's birthday party. She's screaming as she is afraid of the clown. Everyone else is happy and having a good time. The father honks the clown's nose and the entire nose falls off, at which point the clown rips out the father's throat. Then, the ending is absolutely haunting but is something that we've seen before, mainly in Dawn Of The Dead.

Basically the film is mediocre at best. It looks like something that would have been a direct to DVD feature, not something worth seeing in a theater. The film itself is peppered with great moments but they are too damn few and far between. I recommend only seeing it if you are a fan of the other films and like me, you are a Romero completest. Otherwise, rent it or stay away completely.

Why have you let me down so Romero? Why?

Man, that's harsh!!  I was still absorbing the whole film when I wrote my comments, but even after a couple of days' reflection I still think it was fantastic.  Of course, I have seen so many truly AWFUL zombie films that anything even halfway decent probably looks better than it really is!

With all the CGI and makeup effects available now, zombie movies have no reason to be crappy. 

In spite of me loving Romero's stuff, I still take exception to the ending of Land of The Dead.  It wasn't right.  He should have tried harder.

I wanted to see this during its theatrical run, but it only played in one local theater and it was gone after a week.  So I bought the DVD yesterday (along with RAMBO) and watched about half of it (I got pulled away to do something else, but I'll finish it tonight).  I thought the first half was pretty good.  It's definitely more restrained and less cartoonish than DAWN OF THE DEAD or DAY OF THE DEAD, and not nearly as grim and creepy as NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.  I'm looking forward to seeing the second half tonight.

My real problem with the film is that I have waited so long for a new Dead film from Romero.  I enjoyed Land Of The Dead but it honestly didn't feel like a Romero zombie film.

That being said, Diary felt like a Romero film but a mediocre one.  I highly enjoyed parts of it but as a whole, it was a mess.  Too many random themes being thrown around and not enough real substance or Romero magic.  I have a feeling it'll get a bit better with more viewings and I do still plan to pick it up on DVD at some point.

Well, I watched the second half of the movie last night and I must say I was somewhat disappointed.  The first half seemed to be building up to something big, but the movie never really got there.  Romero was definitely trying to send a message (actually, several messages) to his audience, but I think he got too caught up in that stuff and didn't concentrate enough on tension, terror, or even plain old fun.  His earlier zombie movies were just as preachy . . . but he used a lot more humor and excitement to make his preachings easier to swallow in those earlier movies.  I'm not prepared to say DIARY OF THE DEAD is a bad movie . . . it's actually pretty decent . . . but don't expect a typical Romero zombie romp when you watch it.

DIARY OF THE DEAD (2007) - Good Zombie film. They follow some film students from the Pittsburg and you get some great opening moments of zombies coming off gurneys. We get to go return to the good old day and those nice slow zombies of the past in this flick. The group sticks together trying to find family and such while one of the members documents everything and loads the images on the internet while fleeing zombies. The shakey camera thing was annoying, but not as bad as CLOVERFIELD. One by one they go down and run into militant groups along the way. Also Romero does what make the original so good with the social aspect of it all. The gore is also there and plentiful. The film got a little tedious for me even if they go a bit deeper with the dialogue than most zombie films. Mostly due to the annoying actors, but what's a good horror film without annoying characters?

(7 Out Of 10 Stars) Cinematography threw me off a bit, but maybe that's the new look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MdqNr0gN4Y

I can't talk about it in much detail, it's been a while, but the only serious flaw I found was the bad dialogue. Romero handled the first person storytelling quite well, without unnecesary motion sickness inducing moments, and the story was interesting. Yeah, it's episodic and has no real closure, but that somehow makes it more believable.

I'm in agreement with Skaboi, although I might not be so harsh.

It almost seemed like there were two movies. The first was Romero attempting social commentary, which is Romero all over. The problem is that Romero has never been one for subtlety, and here it's rammed down your throat by fumbling fingers. I love the first three films (yes, including Day of the Dead), but Romero just does not have the artistic depth to pull it off. Did you ever see Bruiser? That's a bad movie.

Second, there's the gore movie, which Diary of the Dead really went for. How can you not enjoy the acid-eating-brain scene?

Sadly, the characters are not well drawn, and the plotting is poor (as well as the dialogue).

I enjoyed it, but it's a bad movie. It's probably to the negative that this came out so soon after Cloverfield, which showed you can do a tightly constructed story from a first-person narrative. Don't get me wrong, there are some good points in the movie, but it could have (and has been) done so much better.

I saw this earlier and as I was watching it, I kept thinking, "This movie is lacking something".  I couldn't put my finger on it until I read this by Burgo:


Burgo hit the nail on the head.
I wanted hardcore terror, tension and fun and didn't get it.
Several of the characters were very annoying and some scenes, like the one with the blonde from Texas who takes off in the motorhome at the end, made me shake my head in disbelief.
She acted so nonchalant...like the zombies were no big deal.

And the main guy with the camera...
If he had been with me in a situation like that, I'd have grabbed both cameras and slammed them on the ground as hard as I could.
The f***ing living dead are walking around and you want to film them!?
Oh hell no!

The main chick who narrates the film got on my nerves.
She looked like an Eliza Dushku clone and talked way too much.
By the end of the film, I fantasized that one of the other characters would tie her up and put a piece of duct tape over her mouth.

What a disappointment.
I rate this film 2 out of 4 stars.   :thumbdown:

The Movie Was Nothing But Irritating Characters , Nonsense , And Botched Up Political Propaganda

Heh, I just rented this after seeing it last year at the Melbourne International Film Festival.

I really enjoyed it but it was messy.  Bad dialogue and some iffy acting from largely newcomers mainly made it messy, as mentioned.

I also feel Romero holding back and I do agree with Burgo's assessment of the second half: I expected more, and wanted it to build somewhere great, but it never did.

Still I have quite a lot of respect for this film, especially from a filmmaking perspective: It's Romero back to his independent film roots, which meant he had more wiggle room to do it how he wanted.  It also had some good ideas in it: the handling of the first person as an 'edited film' was a nice departure from the no cut 'as is' style of Cloverfield.

Still there were some terrible lines in this film, and I can't help but feel it could have been tidied up alot.  That and he was trying a bit too hard to go the political angle, which seemed forced and not as natural as when he spoke earlier in the festival [which I was lucky enough to attend.]

Still, I came out of the screening with a big smile on my face.  I enjoyed it much better than Land of the Dead [which wasn't bad, but just didn't have as much soul as the earlier outings] but then again I enjoyed Day of the Dead, so maybe my perceptions are a bit off.

So overall I give it my thumbs up!   :thumbup:

I gotta agree with a lot of the others, I liked the first half of it (except for certain silly parts) but overall the characters and dialogue were just weak.  Good example: Blondie, who's boyfriend just didn't too long ago, asking the black gang if she can keep the lip balm, you know, cause a girl's gotta look good, even in a crisis.  (sigh)

And what is UP with Romero and his seeming disdain for the military?  Okay, fine, I buy that during a major disaster like this some National Guardsmen would go rouge and decide to rob people in order to survive, but why in the HELL would they take off yelling and firing their guns in the air like idiots?  You'd THINK they'd want to conserve their ammo considering the situation.

Then there's the clip at the end, another of Romero's "Whack you over the head with the MESSAGE"  moments.

And does anyone else besides me find it odd that with the government somehow controlling the TV and radio, that they weren't able to know out the ISP providers in town? 

Also, as someone who's actually EDITED clips of film on a Mac with Final Cut, I didn't know you could upload clips from a camera, edit, convert, and save them all within about five minutes.  Must be a REAL fast computer they've got there...