Diary of the Dead (2007) User Reviews

The weakest of Romero's zombie movies

[krachtm · 6/10 · 19 August 2012]

I really dislike the whole "found footage" genre, and I wish it would finally die. Luckily, this movie doesn't quite fit 100% into that genre, but it's close enough that I got fairly annoyed. Diary of the Dead is basically about some film school kids documenting the beginning of the zombie apocalypse, and thus it's more of a fake documentary than anything else. Unlike some movies shot in this style, one of the main themes involves criticism of the obsessive need to document everything rather than actually participating. There are also some shots at censorship, social media, and the propaganda potential for the mainstream media.

Unfortunately, Diary of the Dead feels like a watered-down reboot of his classic franchise, modernized and targeted at teenagers, with the requisite group of stereotypical dumb ass characters found in every direct-to-video slasher movie. The social criticism is blatant and lacks subtlety, and Romero resorts to outright lecturing the audience. I generally agree with Romero, but I prefer his older movies. He's never been particularly subtle, but this is just too overt and generic for my taste. He comes off as having been inspired by soulless ripoffs of his own work.

It's one of Romero's worst movies, but that still makes it better than much of the crap that litters the horror landscape. Hopefully, if we get any more movies from Romero, they'll be as uncompromising and powerful as his earlier work, but it seems as though Romero has had some real problems getting funding. Watered-down, mainstream Romero is better than no Romero, but it's difficult to recommend. This may be a good introduction to his material for younger audiences, though.

Romero embraces the Youtube age and its' short attention span

[motsivad · 6/10 · 10 May 2008]

Diary Of The Dead is a film in which George A. Romero tackles the digital age, and the information barrage that it brings us. Rolling news, Youtube, Podcasts, Myspace are the media of choice for an era where information is global, instant and 24/7. It is in this climate that the 'Dead' franchise gets the Blair Witch Project. We follow a group of young film students who find themselves having to band together after the dead start returning to life. Seeing the magnitude of the event a few of the troupe take it upon themselves to record a document of their plight for survival. It is this 'life through a lens' that gives us Diary Of The Dead.

To expand on the cataclysmic events Romero uses footage from news channels, video blogs and web cams. The accessibility of the Internet mirrors the wildfire decline of humanity as the zombies take over and society collapses. However if there is one thing that defines this Internet era, it is short attention spans.

Sadly this pandering to the Youtube generation is what seems to sum up 'Diary'. The strength behind the previous 'Dead' movies was that the survivors were stationary and holed up (whether it be in a shopping mall or bunker). As such it was the banality of their existence that became even more unnerving than the zombie threat. In 'Diary' the action is kinetic and the editing very fast-paced, as if Romero is keen to hold the short attention span of a young audience that now lives off 1 minute video clips, and skim-read 'Wikipedia' articles. As such the characters never stay in the same place for more than 5 minutes, as the scene hopping goes into overdrive.

I'm sad to say that 'Diary' smacks of compromise. Romero inserts his typical biting social commentary, but it's often blunted by a desire to make the film palatable enough to younger generations and audiences. Trying to make reflective points about humanity when they're delivered by identikit good-looking young actors (who look more suited to being in 'The O.C') feels akin to having 'Hamlet' read out by Lindsay Lohan.

Also Romero's hand seems forced to add the checklist of 'teen' horror clichés.

'Gross Out' deaths- Check

Ditzy Blonde Girl- Check

Older 'world weary' authority figure- Check (The professor)

Zombie jumping out from side of frame- Check

Big scary mansion finale- Check

Despite its' flaws, 'Diary Of The Dead' is worth seeing simply for the glimmerings of Romero's post 9/11 views. Ironically, it is modern culture that not only embraces 'Diary' but also forces Romero to dumb down. 'Diary' is a flawed, experimental film from Romero, however a flawed Romero is far more challenging and interesting than 99% of the competition. An honorable 'miss' of a film that sees the master of zombie movies bound by the requirements of commercial success.

oh dear

[Painbow · 5/10 · 12 July 2008]

I have always admired the films of Romero and there can be no doubt that he is the godfather of zombie films. Alas, i think he should have finished his zombie career with day of the dead. Land of the dead certainly wasn't a bad film and this is far from the worst i've ever seen but the step down is none the less noticeable. The modern cinematic world owes a lot to Romero but it's clear that the modern cinematic world has moved on from him.

Lets start with the main problems(and ignore the million little ones):-

1. An idiot who keeps filming even when he or his friends are in danger (at no point does the brilliant idea of putting the camera down occur to him)

2. A narrator that appears to have edited the film so that it looks polished and yet who chooses to leave in the moments when the camera goes off or turns black

3. A narrator (and editor) who thinks incidental music should be added for tension (imagine those who filmed 9/11 doing the same and you will arrive at the same tasteless nature of this)

4. A narrator (and editor) who wishes for us to witness her rotting corpse family attack her (journalists may pretend to put journalistic integrity before emotional involvement but this is perverse)

5. An allegory for the war in Iraq (we aren't being given the full information etc) that needs to be endlessly repeated.

6. The notion that they needed to film everything to show the world the truth (like walking zombies wouldn't do it for most people)

7. Romero getting the opportunity to remind everyone that he thinks zombies should be slow (and reminding us again and again)

This isn't an absolutely awful film by any stretch but in relation to the history and reputation of Romero, it is alas.....somewhat of an embarrassment

Has Romero sunk so low?

[pyx · 1/10 · 8 July 2008]

What is it with the classic directors; Spielberg, Carpenter, and now Romero, that they seem to produce such abysmal drivel as they get older? Dennis Leary once joked that Elvis should have been killed young so that people only remembered him at his best. If that was true, then Romero should have joined him before this dross was made.

Like reality TV, these stupid home movie within a movie offerings are popular at the moment, probably because they're cheap to make. Blair Witch has a lot to answer for. If Cloverfield left you cold, this movie will give you rigor mortis, with its aimless plot, its set-piece action, and its massively, completely unimaginative, by the numbers encounters.

To say that the basic premise of this film is ridiculous, is a huge understatement - and I'm not talking about the zombies either! Even if you accept that the film is set in a world where zombies can exist, I simply refuse to accept that anyone would tolerate the lead character constantly filming instead of helping his friends to survive. In the real world, I think it would be a dead cert that one of his friends would either have fed him to a zombie, or at very least, smashed the hell out of his camera to re-engage him with the real world.

This is script writing at its laziest and least convincing.

If you're a fan of the genre this is worth checking out

[juneebuggy · 6/10 · 22 December 2014]

I liked this one quite a bit, more than I thought I would actually as I'd been expecting a fairly low budget/cheesefest of a movie. If you don't analyze anything too much this ends up being a fun ride though; following a group of collage film students who are shooting their own low budget horror film and inadvertently begin documenting the early days of a zombie apocalypse. It becomes a bit of a road trip movie with ravenous walking corpses at every stop and filmmaker "Jason" documenting first-person style the horrors they witness in an obsessive and unflinching manner. Even as his friends die he keeps filming.

The story is decent as are the special effects, I mean this ain't' no 'Walking Dead' and it is very much a B movie but the zombie kills are fun and unique; the melting head covered in acid comes to mind and the opening scene at the hospital is also really good.

Horror king George A Romero definitely has a style and as writer-director here, if you're a fan of the genre this is worth checking out. 10.13

Not Romero's Finest Hour!!!

[andell · 3/10 · 24 February 2008]

Sometimes, user comments on IMDb can be misleading! One comment recently suggested that this film is Romero returning to his roots, and suggested that this film ranks up there with the best of his 'dead' films. Respectfully, I disagree...very, VERY MUCH!

For those not familiar, the Dead trilogy went like this: 1- Night of the Living Dead: the dead return to life and terrorize the panicked individuals who have taken refuge in a rural home. 2- Dawn of the Dead: Romero's BEST, for those who don't know it; when society finds itself unable to contain the dead's movements, a small group hole up in a mall and find a small utopia in the commercial appeal after society's downfall. 3- Day of the Dead: Government, mostly at the prodding of the military forces, take refuge on Islands off the coast of the US, trying to find either an answer to take back the world (the military approach), or to live with the 'dead' (the scientific approach). 4- Land of the Dead: Society breaks down into colonies controlled by those who have the wealth and power to command military like forces and both the dead and the poor are subjected to abuse in these colonial like establishments.

As you can see, there was a progress to Romero's films- political commentary definitely was loaded in the films. For some reason however, Romero decided to make this film, which in a nut shell, is about a group of students who, while making a cheesy monster movie, find themselves in the middle of chaos and decide to document it. A la "The Blair Witch Project" (which is far superior!) and "Cloverfield."

One by one, most of the students are dispatched as they make their way across Pennsylvania in search of their families- though if you sit through the first five minutes of the film, the narrative tells you: a) the film is already over; and b) an effort to edit it in order to emphasize its fear factor has been made to 'wake you up.' The latter part is rather peculiar given that the film maker goes as far as to watch his friends being attacked by the dead, without helping them, in order to capture exactly what happened.

Does that seem parasitic? What is perhaps even more sickening is that the 'film maker' seems more concerned with 'hits' his video gets online than the well being of his friends, or that after he falls victim to an attacker, he's essentially regarded as a noble hero by one of the survivors.

I really didn't like this film, although it was clear that the crowds at the theater did enjoy some of the originality of the gore (in one scene, one of the dead is shocked with an EMP machine in a hospital, causing their eyes to explode, but not killing them). My advice: if you are tired of seeing shills that try to find the same pulse that the Blair Witch Project successfully exploited, or if you want to retain an idea that Romero's dead trilogy stands as a firm example of positive movie making, avoid this dud!

Astronomical Disappointment!!!

[tungfliker · 6/10 · 20 February 2008]

I just saw "Diary of the Dead" last weekend. I'm not saying I hated it, but I was very disappointed. I can appreciate the concept, but George really dropped the ball here. I think the main failure, is that this type of film (P.O.V.) is out of Romero's element. Given the right tools and scenario, George Romero is a master. But, the guy just isn't cut out for "Cloverfield" or "Blair Witch" type stuff. Another fault-too many characters, making half baked decisions, solely for the purpose of putting themselves, or companions, in danger. I really expected more from a filmmaker of this caliber. Also, the only character I REALLY liked, was the drunkard professor.

It's a damned shame, cause this was a pretty cool idea. Obviously not enough preproduction was done.

The DP does NOT know how to properly simulate P.O.V. shooting.

Having a music score was absurd! An equally eerie effect, could have been achieved using total silence combined with simple, unnerving sounds. Think of the scene in "Das Boot" where the U69 is lying on the bottom, and all that can be heard among the silence is a ticking stopwatch, drips of water, and the hull groaning.

Jason was such a self absorbed jackass, that NOBODY cares what he has to say, or what happens to him. Also, even an douche like Jason, will put the camera down to save his own ass. There should have been scenes (like when Tracy is being chased thru the woods, or the hospital) where Jason sits down the camera to help out. The camera could have recorded part of the image, or shadows, along with sound to keep the audience abreast of what's happening. Not seeing everything could have been used to create suspense, and give Jason a chance not to be such a schmuck.

Samuel was whacked far too soon. He was too interesting to kill off so fast. He shouldn't have been killed, until the heart attack guy was loose in the "Black Panther" compound. Plus, imagine the possibilities of Samuel and a deaf Black Panther, hitting it off thru sign language. This was such a wasted chance for interesting character development.

I think it's great that George wants to make a social comment, but Effin' A man-lighten up!

Spoiled, multi-millionaire kid is wearing the same grungy mummy costume for three days, after he's back home in a huge mansion, with a huge wardrobe? NOT! This is totally unbelievable! I know George wanted to have his mummy chase at the end. But, the guy's clothing could be dirty/disheveled enough from dragging around the undead, that it would have a mummy-like appearance. Thus, the sight gag would still work, and be a lot more realistic.

A 100 lb kid being thrown against, and pinned to the wall, off the floor, by an aluminum arrow? It defies the most basic physics! Nobody is buying it. The sister should have thrown him off her back, against the wall. Then he should have been shot with the arrow. And instead of staying pinned to the wall, after a second, the arrow should have snapped. The kid sliding to the floor, and leaving a skid mark of blood and brains, would have been a more shocking visual to boot.

Oh-and with the exception of about four cast members, the acting licked turds!

George Romero still has my utmost respect. But while a nice try, on this venture I give him a C minus. George-now that a sequel is in the works, PLEASE use better preproduction this time. And find a crew with the stones to tell you if something is a bad idea-instead of those who would blow smoke up your ass. I think those Canadians are afraid of offending the master....unlike us Yinzers, who regard George as "a nice guy to drink an Ahrn City with."

McCheesy's take on "Diary of the Dead"

[mr_popcorn · 3/10 · 6 May 2008]

Its very sad of me to say that this film is a big disappointment. I'm a big fan of Romero and his zombie films but this one is just rubbish.

What initially attracted me to this film is the basic fact that Romero is directing once again and he is going to take on an interesting genre (they call it "Spookumentary") The trailer looked awesome and I was like a little boy waiting for Santa Claus to arrive bearing this precious little gift called "Diary of the Dead". Hell, even the poster looked kickass.

Its like what the old folks say: The higher you get, the harder you fall. That's what I felt when I saw this film. I was so disappointed. George Romero is losing his touch.

The premise was interesting. A bunch of college students happens upon a zombie outbreak and they run for their lives. One of the students is holding a camera and the audience is in that camera, his point of view. You know, I'm gonna forgive the part where the students are like surgeons with very steady hands and it didn't really feel like it is a pseudo-documentary horror film.

But I cannot ever forget the film's very bad acting, continuity errors and unsympathetic characters. The message conveyed in the end is questionable too.

This girl in the end had this monologue about two drunk rednecks shooting zombies and she's like "A zombie girl gets shot in the head by two drunk hillbillies, is the world really worth saving? I don't know, you tell me".

It was a wtf moment for me. What is she so upset about? Those two guys just did the world some good by killing a human-eating zombie and she's going all emotional about it. If there ever was a zombie-rights organization, I bet you she will be the spokesperson.

And then there's this guy who rather wants to die recording zombies in camera and uploading it on MySpace than live. It will make you lol. Don't get me started with the girl who gets chased by a zombie and this guy is just standing there recording like a douchebag.

The girl is screaming her lungs out for help and this guy is just standing there like a complete total prick.

Overall, I'd say the appetizer was rather enjoyable, but the main entrée is just plain garbage. 1 star.

Something of a return to form.

[projectcyclops · 7/10 · 19 February 2008]

I just saw a screening in Glasgow last night and was really impressed. After seeing Land of the Dead I feared GAR was destined to make only studio controlled zombie films that sold out his previous works, but this is something of a return to form. The budget is tiny and the actors unknown (as is the case with his best films), but the special effects are top-notch and there is plenty of gore that's made even more unsettling as seen through the lens of a camcorder.

The 'Point Of View' technique is bound to generate concern over similarities to other films using the same style (Cloverfield for instance) but Diary is a very different kind of film and certainly not a 'rip-off', but rather a smaller scale movie doing it's own thing.

There's humour (some real laugh-out-loud moments), social commentary (perhaps a little heavy handed, but relevant and intelligent), suspense, gore and everything else we've come to expect from a Romero film but bundled-up into a new and fresher style by the old guy. It was really interesting to see him trying something new.

As a fan of the genre and of Romero's works I was ultimately relieved and impressed by Diary after entering the theatre a sceptic. This isn't his best film and some fans will no doubt be let down, but after seeing it myself I was happy to see him back on track.

Thanks George.

Very Disappointing

[crustysaltmerchant · 3/10 · 10 July 2008]

First let me get this out of the way, I am a huge Romero fan in fact I think the man is one of cinemas true greats. This film however is not one of his best. In fact it's pretty much one of the worst things he's ever made. The idea starts off good enough, a group of student filmmakers making a horror film hear about the dead rising and decide to travel home to be with their families. OK so far, they then decide to make a documentary of the whole thing so they can upload it on the internet to tell the world the truth. Starting to slide a bit. They all hitch up in a camper van with an English alcoholic professor and set off with the cameras glued to their faces and this is the film we see. Oh dear. Where did the camper van/motorhome come from?, why would they take the professor? Why did Romero think this would be a good idea? The cast is filled with all the college clichés you can think of. the jock, his glamorous girlfriend, the computer nerd, the weird girl (who thankfully blows her brains out early on) and so on. The film starts off slowly and doesn't really pick up any pace. Some of the deaths were quite inventive but compared to Dawn, Day and Land (I'm not bringing Night into it because that didn't really have many special FX) they were pretty poor and the gore count was ridiculously low. Some of the scenes were so unbelievable, I mean when would you just stand there and film your girlfriend being attacked by a zombie? I don't care how much you want to document things, it'd never happen! So far every one of George's zombie films have ended with a big massacre with the zombies biting and tearing and so on, this however has on of THE weakest endings of ANY horror film. EVER. They stock up and hide in a panic room the end. Oh dear God. I don't think I've ever been so disappointed in a film i was so looking forward to. Fans will point to the social satire and black humour that run through the film with all the subtlety of a combine harvester on ice as being it's saving grace but for a horror film, a zombie horror film, by the master of genre it is a very poor effort.

Romero's Return To His Roots

[mikeisawesome17 · 8/10 · 24 January 2008]

George A. Romero is one of those filmmakers who shouldn't need an introduction. If you're a horror fan at all, you should be intimately familiar with his Dead series by now, and if you're a movie fan at all, you should at least know Night Of The Living Dead and Dawn Of The Dead, the first and still the strongest entries in the genre. It's no hyperbole to say that Romero essentially invented the zombie movie, gave it the structures and tones that have relentlessly followed the genre through 40 years of movie history.

Diary Of The Dead, Romero's new movie and latest entry into the 5-part series, is a return to the form and feel of his original classic Night Of The Living Dead. The three movies in between (the classic Dawn, hit-or-miss Day and severely underrated Land) showed a world consumed by destruction and fear, already well past the point of no return in an unthinkable apocalypse. Diary takes us back to the beginning, taking place during the first few days of the attacks, documenting how a group of college students (and one drunken professor) cope with the crisis growing around them.

The hook of the movie is that what we're seeing is not presented in a typical film fashion, but instead as a series of homemade video clips made by the characters themselves. While shooting their own low-budget horror movie, the students are interrupted by the sudden, jarring realization that freshly dead bodies are coming back to life and attacking people. What follows is a documentation of their quick departure from their suddenly deserted campus and their long trip to home, safety and any sort of an answer.

If the plot description has you thinking of The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield, the comparison ends with the initial conceit of horror via home movies. There's no shaky-cam addled suspense here, and you won't ever feel motion sick. The camera's presence in the movie serves to give a heightened feeling of suspense and immediacy. Unlike most other zombie movies, there's no outside camera telling the story, letting us know where the zombies are and when they're coming. We follow the characters through the movie, and the threat of danger is always palpable, even when nothing on screen is particularly frightening. Hitchcock once said that surprise was a bomb going off under a table unexpectedly, while suspense was letting the audience know there is a bomb under the table while the characters remain unaware. Diary is a movie with thousands of bombs waiting under thousands of tables, waiting to explode every time the camera turns a new corner.

After Land Of The Dead, a great movie that felt buried beneath a huge budget and massive studio interference, it's great to see Romero returning to his indie roots. Diary is entirely his own movie, and he gets the tone perfect. The campy scares and the gross-out gore explosions are all present, and will delight fan boys to no end. (They sure got some big laughs out of me.) But what Romero does best is suddenly switch from fun to disturbing when you least expect it. The best moments of Diary come when the gory thrill ride comes screeching to a halt and everything suddenly becomes all too relatable, entirely too real. These are the moments that will stick with you after the gory brain-splatter effects have lost their novelty.

Diary isn't quite a perfect movie though. Occasionally the hand-held camera device becomes too distracting and begins to get in the way of the story. The movie takes too much time rationalizing why the characters decide to film the events, rather than trusting the audience to go along with the idea. At times it feels like the movie is apologizing for its own concept, which it definitely does not need to do. We don't need to know the details of why the movie is edited, or why music has been added. The explanations slow down the movie, and only highlight problems instead of fixing them. Also, the pace slows down quite a bit in the third act, which is when Romero movies usually jolt up to a fevered pitch. Stick it out though, because the movie's last sequence, and especially its last line of dialog, are worth the price of admission alone. This is most likely not the end of the Dead saga, but if it were, it could not have come to a more perfect conclusion than the jarring, horrific last shot Romero gives us.

I hate not seeing the end of a film.

[NukedaFridge · 14 April 2008]

I watch a lot of movies. Not that I'm an expert or anything but I have a pre-paid pass that means I can see as many movies I want at the cinema for a year.

And with that pass I watch everything. To the end.

I've seen a lot of terrible movies and a lot of good movies but Diary of the Dead was one of a very few that I have actually walked out on my own decision.

Being a George AR fan naturally I expected good things. Land of the Dead was enjoyable enough, I liked it. Bought it. I own all the others and I consider the original three to be horror masterpieces, but masterpiece this movie is not.

Plagued with dire acting, over-preachy inconsistent plot riddled with cringeworthy clichés, I could honestly find no good qualities watching this. Hated the characters(whiny, emotionless, clichéd, students) who just did not convince me that this was real at all. In fact the camera style, also similarly used in REC and Cloverfield is supposed to install a sense of realism but everything felt incredibly staged, from actors to scenarios and really detached me from the whole experience.

And with little action altogether(Judging from the 60mins I saw) it felt more like a film about a group of students pretty standard psychophysical debate set during a zombie invasion. In reality it should have been students trying to survive during a zombie invasion but with such a lack of emotion from every character it seemed like this was just a pretty average day.

All in all this is definitely one of the worst movies I've seen in recent years and has truly made me believe that George AR isn't just having a bad streak, but may be going completely senile.

However I may watch it if it ever comes my way, some people are giving it good ratings and now I want to see if it changes into a completely different movie after the 60th minute because the pile of pants I watched doesn't even deserve a vote or even a damn entry into IMDb for being such a half-assed, poor excuse for a film.

The Death of Death

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 12 December 2008]

While filming a horror movie of mummy in a forest, the students of the University of Pittsburgh Jason Creed (Joshua Close), Ridley Wilmot (Phillip Riccio), Francine Shane (Megan Park), Tony Ravelo (Shawn Roberts), Elliot Stone (Joe Dinicol), Mary Dexter (Tatiana Maslany), Elliot "Gordo" Thorson (Chris Violetti) and Tracy Thurman (Amy Lalonde) and their professor Andrew Maxwell (Scott Wentworth) hear on the TV news that the dead are awaking and walking. Ridley and Francine decide to leave the group, while Jason heads to the dormitory of his girlfriend Debra Monahan (Michelle Morgan). She does not succeed in contacting her family and they travel in Mary's van to the house of Debra's parents in Scranton, Pennsylvania. While driving her van, Mary sees a car accident and runs over a highway patrolman and three other zombies trying to escape from them. Later the religious Mary is depressed, questioning whether the victims where really dead, and tries to commit suicide, shooting herself with a pistol. Her friends bring her to a hospital where they realize that the dead are indeed awaking and walking and they need to fight to survive while traveling to house of Debra's parents.

I do not say that "Diary of the Dead" is disappointing, but indeed there is nothing new in this movie "à la The Blair Witch Project (or Cloverfield)". The story is a kind of "documentary" of George A. Romero's trilogy, with the cinema student Jason Creed shooting the movie with his handy camera. Unfortunately there is a total lack of credibility in this unreasonable character that keeps shooting his movie even in the most weird or dangerous situation for himself or for his group of friends. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): Not Available

Could the characters be more stupid?

[accerules · 4/10 · 30 June 2008]

I really like zombie movies and I've watched all the DEAD series, but this one was really stupid. With a zombie movie, we don't need introductions, we all know what to expect and that's okay!

We don't need a big scenario with zombie movies, we want actions, we want blood, we want explosions etc. We don't need to know how the characters feels, we don't give a ****! They are being chased by zombies, we kinda imagine what it fells like. There was too much useless dialogs.

Second thing, the whole idea of filming what happens is not a bad idea, but we sure don't need the whole movie to be filmed a ''handy cam style''. But after I watched this one, I told myself: Could they have made the characters more stupid? The are running for there lives, and the moron films the whole thing without helping his friends?? What kind a imbecile would react like that?

The specials effects were great, but we saw maybe 10 zombies getting the brain blown. And at the end, when they could have made a rampage, the movie ends. So when the movies finishes, we know nothing more than what they told us in the first few minutes. This movie felt like Clover field... VERY Disappointing....

Horrifying, not in a good way

[ZRambeau · 1/10 · 17 June 2008]

Short Background, I LOVE ZOMBIE FILMS.

not this one.

I was eager to throw on this "Groundbreaking" film. I was told that Romero had come up with a new and interesting twist to the world of the living dead. HE DID NOT.

Most Zombie films don't tote the biggest name actors or the highest budget. What they do have is a loyal cult following. George Romero especially. I watched this film with two other people, my cousin who is into ridiculous gore and lots of decapitations, my father who enjoys inventive twists and good dialog, and myself, i lie in between these two. We were all disappointed. There were barely any zombies. The characters were idiotic and unlikable. The use of the internet was somewhat inventive but turned out dumb because Romero overkilled the animosity it generated within the core characters. The acting was atrocious, understandable right? Zombie flicks love to use unknowns. At least in movies like flight of the living dead there was some comedy, about the only good thing other than the deaths. The dialog was idiotic at parts and border line Ayn Rand at others, the use of profuse philosophy creates an awkwardness in films, even more so when its not consistent. Having said all that, there was one part I did enjoy.

Another excellent film from Romero.

[opus-eighteen · 7/10 · 3 April 2009]

George A. Romero's recent films seem to have been rather divisive amongst fans. Actually, we could say that his zombie films have been divisive since 1985, because I have read a lot of negative comments about Day of the Dead—that might be attributed to its limited theatrical run, however. It never quite had the mainstream success that Dawn of the Dead received, despite being an equally good film.

Land of the Dead picked up where Day left off, developing the 'intelligent zombie' concept explored through Bub further. The divisiveness of Day of the Dead, then, is probably one of the main causes for Land of the Dead being equally divisive. The same theme is explored more prominently—and, being a fan of Day, I like that direction, making Land a worthy addition to the Romero canon for me.

Diary of the Dead regresses somewhat, not following the direction of Land of the Dead. Instead, it explores a similar point in the zombie invasion to the one that can be seen in Night of the Living Dead, before the zombies had become prominent enough to outnumber the living. That is why I found it surprising to see so many haters of Day and Land also disliking this film—it leaves the direction they disliked behind, and arguably contains more social commentary than any other Romero film. I cannot see what there is to dislike about this film, a few minor moments of melodrama aside (less than Night of the Living Dead, in response to that criticism!), and I would rank it as one of his better efforts.

If you haven't seen it, the premise is that a group of film students try to document their experiences at the beginning of this zombie outbreak, with the intention of uploading it to the internet to help any potential viewers whom will find inevitably themselves confronted by zombies. By seeing how others deal with them through the documentary, they will know how to handle the similar situations. In that sense, it almost seems altruistic.

However, I don't think Romero is completely sympathetic; throughout the film, Jason—the director with the idea of documenting everything—continually puts his documentary above the safety of his friends, making more of an effort to film everything around him than to help people by taking out zombies. What Romero is targeting with his criticism is DIY news reporting, and the notion that people would—through instinct—rather stop and watch people in distress than help them.

This film is far more in vain of Night of the Living Dead than the rest of the series in that the relationship between the characters is just as important as the zombie threat. That isn't to say that character relationships are not important in the other three—they are, but the zombie threat is given more prominence in most of them (Day of the Dead being a possible exception, putting them on an equal standing, a factor that works in its favour). The antagonism caused by Jason's insistence on filming rather than helping is a recurring theme, and it is clearly the most central tenet of Romero's social critique.

You may want to call me a rabid fan boy at this point, but I think this is an excellent film; entertaining, intelligent and relevant to modern culture, Romero proves that he is still the greatest director in the zombie genre. There are minor flaws here, but they do little to detract from the quality of the film. It might not be as good as Dawn of the Dead, but this is a very worthy addition to Romero's canon.

8.5/10.

Interesting script - Weak characters - Bad actors.

[ChojinZ · 4/10 · 12 April 2008]

First of all: I'm a huge fan of Romero's first three (quite disappointed with Land of the Dead) classic Dead movies, and have great respect and admiration for his work and the influence he and his movies have had on the entire horror movie genre. Along with Lucio Fulci and Dario Argento, Romero is without any doubt one of the most influential and important horror/splatter/zombie directors of all time. No question about it!

In Diary, Romero once again focuses on a few surviving people and the relationships between them, rather than the zombies and the gore. This is what has always made his movies great and powerful. In all his films, the zombies themselves work mostly as a reason to explain why a small group of very different people is suddenly forced to rely on, and help each other out, while the main focus is on the relationships between these people and the reactions and emotions that might erupt during such an extreme and interesting situation as a zombie outbreak.

While this formula is what has made his previous films interesting and entertaining, it is sadly what makes Diary of the Dead the exact opposite. And the reason for that are simply the actors. The main characters are all (except one) film school students, being just as shallow and cocky as every other cast of kids in any other "new" horror movie. The actors (all being young and unknown) seem quite inexperienced, and they all fail miserably to convince me, even for a second, that this is anything other than a bad student movie, trying desperately to be something more than it really is. And when ONE single interesting character (the mute Amish man armed with a scythe) is finally introduced, he sure doesn't stick around for very long.

A movie like this depends heavily on the actors, and when you seriously wish the entire cast would turn into zombies, just so they can shut up, the entire film, including the once great director, has failed.

The script itself, on the other hand, is actually quite good. There are some annoying things, like at the beginning when a couple of kids decides to leave school and go home and fortify themselves in a mansion, based solely on a radio broadcast, reporting about 6 cases of "strange zombie-like attacks". But over all it is an interesting script and I totally understand what Mr. Romero had in mind, and what he hoped to accomplish. Too bad the actors ruined it for him. A group of kids/students can also never be as interesting as a group of real grownups from different parts of society (as in Dawn of the Dead), and I really hope that Romero will leave the kids alone and once more focus on interesting characters, would he ever decide to do another movie (there are rumors of a Diary of the Dead part 2).

Better luck next time.

Are we worth saving? You tell me.

[lastliberal · 6/10 · 2 January 2009]

This was quite a creepy film for the most part - the scene at the hospital was really creepy: the location, the build up and the pay off were all great.

Romero does a good job of showing the savagery of man. I think his vision is that we are not much different than the zombies as our humanity declines. He is also showing that the media and the government cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

It is a movie about zombies, and it has the usual excitement. Not a lot of gore, and the girl doesn't get her clothes ripped off, but exciting nevertheless.

Romero is officially in his old age

[yogsottoth · 3/10 · 28 June 2008]

**Nothing in my comment will spoiler the movie more than it already was but still if you have issues with spoilers don't read the last paragraph**

Let me start by saying Romero is one of my favorite horror film makers since he gave me such a fright with his Dead trilogy when I was a kid, especially with Dawn of the Dead that I was unable to sleep without my dad keeping watch for months (poor guy). No one, I mean no one, ever frightened me like that again. Therefore I will always love and respect him, no matter what. But the truth be told, Diary of the Dead is such a lame and amateurish film that Land of the Dead which I didn't like very much, looks like a masterpiece compared to this.

You know the story, a couple of unlikable characters who are making a horror movie in the woods realize that there's an actual break-out going on in the world and they set off to find their families (more like to find one person's family in the group) and decide to film the whole thing while they're at it. And that's it... That's the whole story.

The rest is a sad portrait of Romero trying to fill in the blanks between his fantasy zombie-killing methods which are absolutely lame and stretched like shocking a zombie with a defibrillator, or breaking a bottle of strong acid on a zombie's head and while you don't even hurt a finger the zombie's skull melts in seconds. And don't even get me started on that stretched-as-hell clown zombie scene. It's so obvious that Romero only focused on realizing his fantasies and ideas he's been accumulating for years that he didn't give a flying f*** what the movie looked like.

However, Romero uses this lack-of-a-story aspect wisely and fills the whole vast space with his "and the message of this movie ladies and gentlemen..." card. It makes me really sad to think that he used to deliver these rightful messages quite subtle back in his day but now he simply blabbers trying to attack a different aspect of society this time: The Mass Media. He also makes use of the internet, the blogs and mobile phones as well as anything that records, probably in order to catch the attention of the youth audience. However, he's not only clearly displaying his absolute lack-of-info on all this technology but he also fails with delivering his "Media is bad" message.

All through the movie everyone is talking about "finding the truth the media hides" and they go as far as to make a movie to tell everyone this "truth" which is: "the zombies are real". This point of the movie was so absurd that I was shocked anyone could write such a senseless script let alone our beloved Romero. All our characters first hears the news from the radio, every section of the media repeatedly reports that "dead returning to life" which is quite a bold statement enough already for the first day but still, there's this whole "media is hiding the truth and we should uncover it" thing strained throughout the movie that it makes you want to scream "What's there to hide?! Everyone is dead already!" Also, exactly why our characters make a documentary and which survivor would waste their time watching something they've already been through is unclear. There are so many holes with this whole internet and documentary angle that I won't go any further.

Finally, lovable characters we are used to seeing in Romero's movies whom you root for, are gone. We have the cliché all-star team of slasher movies. None of them are believable or likable. Just check out the "hilarious" joke one of them makes upon seeing their very first zombie. Or the incredibly fast emotional recovery of the blonde girl who has just lost her boyfriend. The super-brave lead actress who don't think twice before frying a zombie in her first actual close-up encounter. How about the lead guy who never drops his camera like it's super-glued to his hands (This is the biggest, the most striking negative the movie has). And the wise professor who keeps on delivering poetic lines while you keep asking "What the hell is this guy doing here and what's with that hilarious set of bow and arrows?"

There are so many more things to say but I'll let you enjoy determining those on your own since there are plenty.

All in all, we friggin love you Romero, but this movie completely and utterly sucks.

Romero's Best Dead Since The Original

[Kashmirgrey · 6/10 · 1 April 2008]

Many will disagree with me here, but I found "Diary of the Dead" to be the best of Romero's "Dead" flicks since his original "Night of the Living Dead" classic. This time he nails it and the method in which he goes about filming in first person perspective is the most effective I have seen to date.

A group of film students and their professor, finding themselves thrust into a "dead are returning to life to feed on the flesh of the living" setting, hop in a motor home and head for their respective homes. With a couple of high-end video cameras, they decide to document their journey when it is discovered that the government is in concert with the media to cover up the truth of what is really happening in the world. Along the way, one by one, the group "deceases" in number falling victims to the horror in their midst.

Diary has some eerie scenes, jump-out-at-you scares, some kick-ass humor, and enough gore for you picky freaks out there that demand and thrive on red goo. Romero goes without the hokeyness of Dawn, Day, and Land this time and the result is impressive!

Romero's next to last film and, of course, people eat each other.

[justahunch-70549 · 5/10 · 17 June 2023]

I had no idea that this existed and I seem to be in the minority here as I didn't think it was too bad for what it is, though it's a bit polished for a George Romero film. Crude was usually his style. I don't recall liking the previous one, Land of the Dead, which seemed ridiculous, but it's been a while. I also have no idea if I've seen his final film, Survival of the Dead, as we've seen an awful lot of walking dead movies since he got this ball rolling in 1968. This has a dumb premise of some students, with cameras they won't let go of, filming a mummy movie when they hear about people dying and eating each other and seem so shocked and surprised. Don't these people ever go to the movies?! The acting's not bad here and there is some creativity, though yet another person running around filming everything is, as usual, beyond belief. Nothing special, but it held my attention.

TIFF screening

[Nemesis47 · 8/10 · 10 September 2007]

At first I was apprehensive about this new entry in Romero's Dead series, but that pretty much disappeared after the first scene. The fact that the film was shot all in subjective camera doesn't result in a gimmicky, incoherent mess, like, say, the Blair Witch, but is used intelligently and effectively.

The scares and effects were great, and the movie actually takes a rather complicated approach to the topic of today's media-saturated environment, rather than being a crude polemic.

My only complaint would be that the voice-over and dialogue were a little clunky at times, overexplaining things that could have been inferred without too much trouble. That's a minor problem though. Overall, a totally worthy entry in the series.

Unimpressive zombie flick,but still pretty good.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 7/10 · 3 June 2008]

A group of film students is in the woods shooting a low-budget zombie horror flick when the zombies start to rise with a hunger for human flesh.Next we see civilization fall apart as the zombie apocalypse is coming.Two of the group peel off and head back to a house they describe as a fortress and the rest sally forth in search of family aboard an RV.The students are also filming themselves trying to survive the end of the world."Diary of the Dead" is shot cinema-vérité style by our fledgling film crew caught up in the web of horror.There is a decent amount of gore and the acting by unknown cast is adequate,but the tone of the film is sometimes too preachy.If you are paying attention, assorted radio broadcasts are voiced by Romero fans such as Quentin Tarantino,Simon Pegg and Guillermo del Toro with a religious rant by Stephen King.7 out of 10.

I can't believe Romero put his name on this.

[adamcfreeman · 1/10 · 10 April 2012]

First of all, this film tried the already-proved-to-fail camcorder approach. Guess what! It failed. I have to give credit where it's due, because the lighting and scene construction were done pretty well.

Generally speaking, a film can please a large audience by combining excessive foul language with gratuitous drug use, sex, or violence, but this film doesn't have anything other than cursing.

Over the years, George Romero has been pivotal in the specific sub-sect of horror that focuses on the idea of a zombie apocalypse. I have come to enjoy a lot of Romero's works, and that's why this befuddles me. Night of the Living Dead was ground-breaking, and Diary of the Dead should have stayed dead.

A Monumental Disappointment

[kt3234-1 · 1/10 · 29 June 2009]

Diary of the Dead is the fifth, and hopefully last, installment in Romero's "Dead" series. This installment is such a disappointment, as it fails to live up or revive the forty year old series.

The biggest disappointment is the fact that this series does not follow the original continuity of the series. While that is not necessarily bad, it leaves a faithful viewer feeling cheated, as the classic B-movie feel is completely removed. The notion of a Venus satellite crashing on earth, releasing a gas that reanimates the dead, is entirely ludicrous, but it was somehow more acceptable than the ridiculous plot line in this film.

So, okay, this doesn't follow the storyline, alright. So what? Does it still keep it's satirical nature expected from the series? Night of the Living Dead took a deep look at racism, Dawn of the Dead was about consumerism, Day of the Dead was about how human beings can be more harmful and volatile than the savages they claim to be better than, and Land of the Dead featured humanity profiting off others and Randian social Darwinism. Diary of the Dead tries very hard to feature an ironic look at the media's treatment of disaster, but it ends up failing. The main character is completely masked from the audience, leading one to believe this was meant to somehow be ironic, but it seems like a cop-out, like the audience is just supposed to accept it.

The acting is universally terrible, and while that is expected from a Romero film, this one is just...bad. Really bad. Absolutely no emotion in any dialogue; everything falls flat in delivery.

An aesthetic thing about Romero's movies is the inclusion of elaborate killing sequences. In this film, however, nothing is particularly interesting, save for the one kill with the defibrillators. This is particularly disappointing, as one expects a Romero film to be particularly interesting. Nothing. Absolutely nothing interesting. It might actually have gotten a better score.

All in all, the biggest mark against this film is the ending. It fails to revive the series or end it on a high note. If you want a premium zombie film that actually means something, watch Romero's earlier films. You'll be glad you did.