Diary of the Dead

[Dukefrukem]

:cool:

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/3458/1201050159674sn5.jpg

[MadMan]

Damn that poster is really cool, but Duke I think you should spoiler it or something because its stretching out the entire thread.

I honestly can't wait to see this film. It better freakin' come to my area. Or else.

[ledfloyd]

there is a great article in the current film comment about this. the writer calls it his best zombie film yet.

[D_Davis]

I really want this to be good.

[[ETM]]

Zomberfield?

[Dukefrukem]

;28291']Zomberfield?

yup.

And Im guessing it will have the same ending too. :rolleyes:

jk

:pritch:

[D_Davis]

I bet Romero was upset that this didn't come out before Cloverfield. I'm pretty sure he's been working on this for a while now.

[number8]

I bet Romero was upset that this didn't come out before Cloverfield. I'm pretty sure he's been working on this for a while now.

Romero's been at this project for at least 2 years, while Abrams and co only thought it up last summer (they shot and released the trailer to build a buzz before they even had a script written). In fact, DotD premiered last September in Toronto, but it'll still be labeled a Cloverfield rip-off. Just because.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, it's unfortunate that it'll look like a ripoff. I'm curious to see what they'll do with it. This idea has more potential then Cloverfield on paper. It'll be tough to match though.

[jenniferofthejungle]

What a stupid tagline.

[[ETM]]

I don't think the target audiences will care if it resembles Cloverfield or not. However popular, zombie films are a niche with its own rules.

[number8]

Yeah, it's unfortunate that it'll look like a ripoff. I'm curious to see what they'll do with it. This idea has more potential then Cloverfield on paper. It'll be tough to match though.

Well, it's more ambitious than Cloverfield at least. The latter used the technique for stylistic purposes, but Romero chose it as a social commentary. So we'll see.

[Raiders]

I apparently don't know enough about this film. Why will it be considered a Cloverfield knock-off? The filming style? I mean, it is still a zombie attack and not a large mutant lizard/alien attack, right?

[Ezee E]

Well, it's more ambitious than Cloverfield at least. The latter used the technique for stylistic purposes, but Romero chose it as a social commentary. So we'll see.
Hopefully its more subtle then Dawn of the Dead. We don't need something like, "The Zombies. They watch it, and then more watch it, and they become zombies... TO THE COMPUTER HOST."

[[ETM]]

What's this, an epidemic?!

[•REC] trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkXmvsSsKUg

[number8]

I apparently don't know enough about this film. Why will it be considered a Cloverfield knock-off?

Because it's a "found" first person POV horror movie most people haven't heard of released wide a month after Cloverfield.

[MadMan]

Hopefully its more subtle then Dawn of the Dead. We don't need something like, "The Zombies. They watch it, and then more watch it, and they become zombies... TO THE COMPUTER HOST."Sometimes subtle is overrated. Dawn of the Dead(1978) is one of teh greatest horror films ever made.

Also if we're really being techinical and everything both Diary Of the Dead and Cloverfield are really riping off The Blair Witch Project, which in turn is ripping off some other film in terms of the whole "mockmentary/its some horrific event being viewed only from the POV of a video camera." But that's all a moot point.

[D_Davis]

but Romero chose it as a social commentary. So we'll see.

Hopefully this social "commentary" isn't as lame as a poor black zombie killing a rich white man by dousing him with gasoline and lighting him on fire. I also hope the word "jihad" isn't muttered, once.

Somethings I can never un-see. The horror...the horror...

Old wounds never really heal.

[number8]

Also if we're really being techinical and everything both Diary Of the Dead and Cloverfield are really riping off The Blair Witch Project, which in turn is ripping off some other film in terms of the whole "mockmentary/its some horrific event being viewed only from the POV of a video camera." But that's all a moot point.

No one's saying it's ripping anything off. It's not about ripoffs, it's about release dates and trend-setting.

[MadMan]

No one's saying it's ripping anything off. It's not about ripoffs, it's about release dates and trend-setting.I was responding to your post about how some will call Diary of the Dead a rip off of Cloverfield (unfairly). I know no one else around here said it was ripping off other films and such.

[Rowland]

Hopefully this social "commentary" isn't as lame as a poor black zombie killing a rich white man by dousing him with gasoline and lighting him on fire. I also hope the word "jihad" isn't muttered, once.For realz.

[Ezee E]

Hopefully this social "commentary" isn't as lame as a poor black zombie killing a rich white man by dousing him with gasoline and lighting him on fire. I also hope the word "jihad" isn't muttered, once.

Somethings I can never un-see. The horror...the horror...

Old wounds never really heal.
I'm all outta rep, but cheers for this.

[MadMan]

Hopefully this social "commentary" isn't as lame as a poor black zombie killing a rich white man by dousing him with gasoline and lighting him on fire. I also hope the word "jihad" isn't muttered, once.

Somethings I can never un-see. The horror...the horror...

Old wounds never really heal.Let me guess: Land of the Dead? :P I still haven't seen that one or Day of the Dead. Its about damn time I do.

PS: That scene you described sounds utterly hilarious.

[Raiders]

Maybe Romero ought to fund a theatrical release for The Asylum's Monster to deflect the Cloverfield comparisons to his film.

[Morris Schæffer]

I'm not really Romero's biggest fan. I think that because his films are also about ideas and themes, they certainly transcend the horror genre in a way, but on a visual level, I really find him hit and miss. Some would call his films gritty, but I'm saying "kinda ugly." Night of the Living Dead in particular never really transcends its low-budget origins - something that can still be expected from a low-budget product - and the sense of terror never truly escalated for me. Still, perhaps zombies are inherently unfrightening to me due to the comedic way in which they stagger and moan.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm not really Romero's biggest fan. I think that because his films are also about ideas and themes, they certainly transcend the horror genre in a way, but on a visual level, I really find him hit and miss. Some would call his films gritty, but I'm saying "kinda ugly." Night of the Living Dead in particular never really transcends its low-budget origins - something that can still be expected from a low-budget product - and the sense of terror never truly escalated for me. Still, perhaps zombies are inherently unfrightening to me due to the comedic way in which they stagger and moan.

His three original films are brilliant and give a wonderful sense of survival horror at apocalyptic times, but each film a little less brilliant as time went on. Land of the Dead completely strayed away from his original ideas, except vaguely resembling Bob in Day of the Dead, but Land was received very poorly throughout the Romero fan base which is why I am not expecting much from Diary of the Dead. It can't be worse than Land.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/weinstein/diaryofthedead/trailer1/)

As has been said already, this looks like the Deep Impact to Cloverfield's Armageddon. That's a shame.

[D_Davis]

Maybe Romero ought to fund a theatrical release for The Asylum's Monster to deflect the Cloverfield comparisons to his film.

Brilliant!

[dreamdead]

As has been said already, this looks like the Deep Impact to Cloverfield's Armageddon. That's a shame.

I don't know. Jeremiah Kipp over at Slant responded positively to it, so I'm hopeful that the film will actually work. I'd like to see Romero rebound after a less than stellar Land (imo, of course)...

[Rowland]

I don't know. Jeremiah Kipp over at Slant responded positively to it, so I'm hopeful that the film will actually work. I'd like to see Romero rebound after a less than stellar Land (imo, of course)...If anything, it seems that people disappointed by Land like Diary a lot more, and vice versa.

[megladon8]

I can't say it looks too great, but I'll definitely see it.

The dialogue seems horrendous, but it's not like that's unexpected with Romero - dialogue has never really been his forté.

[Sven]

This looks great.

[MadMan]

The trailer had a nice creepy quality to it. Its now pretty much a given that I will be seeing this film, be it on the big screen or on DVD if it doesn't come where I live.

[lovejuice]

can i skip this movie and wait for the giant lizard vs zombies?

[Dead & Messed Up]

Speaking as a Romero fanboy, this movie looks lame. Every movie he's made post-Creepshow has diluted his legacy, and this does not look like it's breaking the trend.

May be sacrilege, but I'd rather the guy just stopped making movies.

[Dukefrukem]

Speaking as a Romero fanboy, this movie looks lame. Every movie he's made post-Creepshow has diluted his legacy, and this does not look like it's breaking the trend.

May be sacrilege, but I'd rather the guy just stopped making movies.

There's a great interview in the latest issue of Rue Morgue talking about how he got 3/4th the money to do Land than the remake of Dawn. ANd when he was shooting Land he was very behind schedule and couldnt get most of the shots in he wanted. He said that didn't happen during the shooting of Diary and theres even talks of a sequel already.

[ledfloyd]

i'd agree with you DAMU. but i've read alot of great things on this film and i think it's going to be his first great one post creepshow. i thought land was good but not even close to great. day i still can't get past the horrific acting.

[Dukefrukem]

i'd agree with you DAMU. but i've read alot of great things on this film and i think it's going to be his first great one post creepshow. i thought land was good but not even close to great. day i still can't get past the horrific acting.

of the zombies? me neither.

[Bosco B Thug]

It was a pleasant surprise watching this and realizing the film's not working under the conceit of

raw "found footage" like Cloverfield and The Blair Witch Project but is in fact edited; a mockumentary; narrative footage, but spliced with video from an assortment of video imaging devices; part "zombie movie," part "non-fiction essay film" by way of an undergrad student trying her best at Chris Marker's account of the Zombie Apocalypse.

The film is at times clumsy and goofy, and in the end it doesn't quite build to a satisfying whole, but it does cohere, miraculously, even while Romero pulls out all the stops to cram in all his musings about the contemporary world in this one film, and at times it's really inspired and effective. Political impudence is yoked under one single line, social dynamics withheld in a single scene, critiques of characters communicated through one single set-piece... it's pretty deft. And even with the handheld camera schtick, Romero finds ingenious ways to offer us striking, expressionistic imagery, like in one surreal scene where

Jason's horror movie is brought to life, with the cute blonde finally getting her incongruous, old-fashioned virginal white dress ripped off.

The last scene of the film is also rather evocatively Marker-esque in its narratively unconnected particularity. It's hard to know what to make of it, because for one, it's, on the surface, rather mundane nihilism that's straight out of his previous four 'Dead' movies. But it works better when

you see it less as Romero saying "My, humans are quite the transgressive creatures" for his 5th time, but as "the last thing Jason uploaded" - it asks us what horrors (as a culture characterized by progressive information dissemination, but for some reason not by true progress) are we so determined to expose ourselves to in order to feel "plugged in" to the world around us.

[number8]

Yeah, his dissection of the horror film genre in this was pretty great. It was a lot more original than I had expected.

[Bosco B Thug]

The film's really dense. I didn't know what the film was doing in that scene

where Jason just bitterly films Trixie (?) get chased by Ridley.

I'm still not sure how all the film's intriguing components (social surveillance, genre dissection, etc.) fit, but I think they somehow do in the end. I think you were actually getting somewhere in your review when you said Romero might just be a pessimist who hates everything. He definitely wants to take a jab at pretty much every mentality.

And I'm not sure how well the film integrates the zombie action and then the discourse, but yeah, I don't think I'd be up to asking the film to give up that lovable sick bastard Amish guy.

Oh yeah, can you explain to me

that scene where Jason is in Debra's dormitory? How does that fit into the events of filming in the woods and on? Did I miss something?

[number8]

that scene where Jason is in Debra's dormitory? How does that fit into the events of filming in the woods and on? Did I miss something?

Deb wasn't at the shoot, remember? They said they don't work well together. That's why the other dude was doing the make up when it was supposed to be her. They went to the dorm to check on her.

[Bosco B Thug]

Deb wasn't at the shoot, remember? They said they don't work well together. That's why the other dude was doing the make up when it was supposed to be her. They went to the dorm to check on her.
Ah, okay, thanks. Didn't catch that she wasn't at the shoot for some reason.

[origami_mustache]

I really want this to be good.

Same here...I've heard good things (crosses fingers)

too bad Cloverfield kind of took the wind out of the sails stylistically.

[KK2.0]

;28430']What's this, an epidemic?!

[•REC] trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkXmvsSsKUg

Imo this looks better than Diary and it also premiered before it, but since it's a Spanish flick most people won't notice.

[origami_mustache]

Imo this looks better than Diary and it also premiered before it, but since it's a Spanish flick most people won't notice.

It's not surprising that a lot of these films are coming out at the same time. Youtube sprung up about 3 years ago, shortly before or around the time many of these films probably began pre-production, not to mention the inevitable cycle of trends in any business enterprise.

[KK2.0]

But Blair Witch came out much earlier than You Tube!!

[megladon8]

Is there a trailer or anything for Monster on the net?

I can't find anything about it, other than reviews saying it's horrendous.

[origami_mustache]

But Blair Witch came out much earlier than You Tube!!

I don't mean to say Youtube is the lone inspiration, but I think it has definitely contributed to the the amateur aesthetic being a more appealing and viable venture.

[KK2.0]

I don't mean to say Youtube is the lone inspiration, but I think it has definitely contributed to the the amateur aesthetic being a more appealing and viable venture.

the appealing factor is a bit questionable, i've always hear stories of people bitchin at the exit about how amateurish the film looked, or how they felt ripped off.

btw, i still need to watch Cloverfield.

[origami_mustache]

the appealing factor is a bit questionable, i've always hear stories of people bitchin at the exit about how amateurish the film looked, or how they felt ripped off.

btw, i still need to watch Cloverfield.

I mean more appealing in comparison to before the proliferation of amateur videos on the internet. Before that there was even less of a market for it obviously.

[megladon8]

Before I post my review, I must say that this movie has one of the best lines ever written. I haven't heard something so "high school student trying to sound 'deep'" since Crash...

"It used to be us versus us. But now it's us versus them. Only they...are us."

[balmakboor]

Robin Wood's Film Comment "review" can be read here:

http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/jf08/deaddiary.htm

He is, I feel, a bit too dismissive about Land of the Dead. While it is a bit too generic of an action film, it does have two of my favorite moments in the series. Early on, we first see a major character and (due to some facial disfiguration) we aren't sure if he is or isn't a zombie. Later, a character is the first in the series to elect to become a zombie rather than be shot in the head. "I want to see how the other half live."

This willingness to become a zombie interestingly turns to desire in Fido.

[megladon8]

Diary of the Dead

a review by Braden Adam


First it was racism. Then consumerism. A few years later it was the military. Twenty years after that it was the greedy businessmen who run the world. Now the “Living Dead” return, and the new target in their socially conscious sights is us – that is to say, those of us who thrive on the new direction the media has taken with the advent of the internet. Some have called us “Generation Y”, and it’s becoming more apparent every time a new viral video makes waves the world over that the “Y” stands for “YouTube”. George Romero has focused his ever-critical eye on this new trend of recording everything we see, sharing even the most personal experiences with complete strangers on the web, often in an effort to achieve as high a number of “hits” as possible.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/dotd1.jpg

It’s obvious from seeing Diary of the Dead that Romero is at least a little bit disturbed by what these recent trends could be leading to. It’s not just the creepy voyeurism that this is both bringing out and nurturing in people, but it’s also the fact that people frequently put themselves in harm’s way just to get some good footage. Look at Jackass, and all the countless copy-cats it has spawned. Watching people get hurt has become a genre of film unto itself, so why not take that to the next level? Why not have people being brutally killed and eaten by armies of reanimated corpses?

In typical Romero fashion, this latest entry into the popular zombie series shows a small group of people as they try to survive amidst the beginning of a zombie outbreak. This is the third entry in Romero’s five-film series which shows the beginning of this cataclysmic event, and Diary of the Dead attempts to make it more personal than ever, as it is filmed using hand-held cameras, from the first-person perspective of some college-age filmmakers who become obsessed with chronicling the decline of society during this horrifying time. Romero tries to add realism to a situation which is decidedly unreal, and at points he succeeds – the film has some downright scary moments. In fact, it’s the first time I’ve been scared by zombies in quite a while, since they’ve become so commonplace in popular film and culture.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/dotd2.jpg

Knowing Romero’s track record, maybe it’s a little much to expect “good” dialogue – he has never written anything which was less than heavy-handed, and given the fact that he’s been making films that way for over 40 years now, that must be exactly what he wants. But it’s hard to forgive Diary of the Dead’s stilted, unnatural writing when it’s supposed to be like a reality-TV version of a zombie movie. If these are supposed to be real people, why do they talk to each other so awkwardly? Why are there still such clichéd characters, like the old, jaded intellectual who spouts out obscure literary references at the drop of a hat, and the nerd who knows all there is to know about technology and computers but couldn’t socialize to save his life? These generalized characters may work in the context of Romero’s other - more cinematic - films, but here it only serves to remove the viewer from the events of the film. There is some really terrible dialogue here, which often borders on unintentional comedy. At one point in the film, one of the young filmmakers relates the zombie attacks to humanity’s constant state of war, by saying “it used to be us versus us. Now it’s us versus them…only they, are us.” It sounds like something one would read in a high school philosophy paper, and is a reflection of how the film never reaches past a superficial depth.

The comparisons to Cloverfield are inevitable, since both films take fantastic situations and put the viewers in the shoes of those directly affected by the events. But for all its flaws, Cloverfield used this documentary style much more effectively, since (as I reflect on it more) it had no pretenses about giving the audience a “message” - a giant monster attacks New York City, and a group of people struggle to survive the chaos. By writing dialogue with relevance and commentary, Romero shot himself in the foot and betrayed his original concept of giving that “ground level” look at events.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/dotd3.jpg

However, these problems do not totally destroy Diary of the Dead. It’s greatly superior to Land of the Dead, which just got too big with its scope and character roster. Romero obviously works more effectively with a smaller cast and overall size of film, and by the end of Diary of the Dead we can see that he’s still the master of close-quarters combat with the living dead; there are two sequences involving the characters trying to barricade themselves indoors and away from the zombie hordes, and these are the closest Romero has come so far to recreating the tension which was so prevalent in Night of the Living Dead.

Diary of the Dead is better than most of the zombie fare to come out lately, especially since 99% of it is straight-to-video. It’s not a horror masterpiece (and I’m still eagerly awaiting Romero’s one last shining moment before retirement) but it briefly re-instilled my fear of zombies taking over the world, so that must count for something.

[Spinal]

Diary of the Dead is a meta-zombie film. Let me explain. For years, movie zombies have tried to eat human brains. This film attempts to simulate the experience directly by inflicting the viewer with brain damage.

How can a film so insistent on explaining its own logic at every opportunity be so illogical?

How can a film so desperate to be technologically hip feel so behind the times?

How can a film so devoted to first-person perspective feel so impersonal?

An embarrassment.

[Spinal]

I am shocked that people like this.

[Ezee E]

Tomorrow I'll be getting this.

[origami_mustache]

I am shocked that people like this.

Yeah it sucked pretty bad...probably the most most heavy handed of the series, overwrought with on the nose dialogue and voice over that points out what Romero is already making abundantly clear. I also cannot fully agree with his view of humanity crumbling under the chaos and being more vicious towards one another than the zombies are. I think Romero's films are all pretty overrated aside from perhaps Night of the Living Dead.

[balmakboor]

Yeah it sucked pretty bad...probably the most most heavy handed of the series, overwrought with on the nose dialogue and voice over that points out what Romero is already making abundantly clear. I also cannot fully agree with his view of humanity crumbling under the chaos and being more vicious towards one another than the zombies are. I think Romero's films are all pretty overrated aside from perhaps Night of the Living Dead.

Some people are just too smart for their own good. Sure, Romero overstates things, but it seems to me mostly out of frustration on his part. I'm amazed by how much of the commentary in films like Dawn (especially), Day, and Land goes completely missed by most people. He obviously wants to be heard and understood and I don't blame him for saying, "Damn. I'm going to keep raising my voice until even average Joe hears me." I've come to accept and expect this in his work and the only time in Diary that I felt he overstated something was having the line about something not really happening if a camera isn't present being said twice when once was enough.

Diary is my favorite Romero film visually. I think the concept and the resulting visuals worked insanely well. I thought the execution was superior to Redacted (which I like very much) and there is so much similarity in the messages of both films that they play like companion pieces. I wouldn't be surprised if De Palma and Romero had taken a vacation and written the scripts together.

Yes, Romero's take on humanity is bleak and grim. The ending of Diary, creepy and visually unforgettable, is especially pessimistic, or is it? I think the acting in Diary is great, the best in any Romero film by far. I really liked the characters and found a lot of hope for the future in them. I think the question posed in the final scene is answered very much in the affirmative by the entire film that preceeded it.

The game Romero has been playing with his female leads also comes nicely full circle in Diary. Night featured a catatonically worthless woman. The woman grew much stronger in Dawn. The woman had grown to the point of turning Day into very much a woman's picture as nicely pointed out by Robin Wood. This progress pretty much got lost with Land and Asia Argento, but in Diary it reaches an interesting conclusion of sorts. The strong woman of Day and a parody of the woman from Night are both here. And the woman from Night hops into the Winnebago and exits the picture leaving the woman from Day still in the picture.

[origami_mustache]

I will agree with that it's his best film technically and visually and probably even his most ambitious. Diary of the Dead certainly had some of the more entertaining and unique ways of killing the zombies.

[Spinal]

I think the acting in Diary is great, the best in any Romero film by far.

:eek:

The acting in this film is abyssmal. That professor who speaks like he is performing at the Royal Shakespeare Company? Oy. Don't mess with Texas? Ugh. I also thought that the commentary on the influence of Youtube, the internet and handheld cameras was relentless and tiresome. Romero is way late to the game. There's nothing this film says that hasn't been said with more effectiveness by films like New Nightmare, Scream, The Blair Witch Project and even Cloverfield. And I loved Land of the Dead. But the stuff that has been sly and witty in the past is just overblown and weak here. And there's no tension at all. Every scene is utterly predictable from the moment they walk through the door. And Romero isn't even good at creating his film's central conceit. The camerawork is too steady, too orchestrated, too lacking in spontaneity.

[origami_mustache]

And Romero isn't even good at creating his film's central conceit. The camerawork is too steady, too orchestrated, too lacking in spontaneity.

Yep, everything here is far too artificial to resonate...Romero just comes across as out of touch. I don't understand why he goes through the trouble to make things more realistic with the security cameras, internet, and amateur aesthetic, but in the same breathe continues to dress his zombies up in zany attire.

[balmakboor]

:eek:

The acting in this film is abyssmal. That professor who speaks like he is performing at the Royal Shakespeare Company? Oy. Don't mess with Texas? Ugh. I also thought that the commentary on the influence of Youtube, the internet and handheld cameras was relentless and tiresome. Romero is way late to the game. There's nothing this film says that hasn't been said with more effectiveness by films like New Nightmare, Scream, The Blair Witch Project and even Cloverfield. And I loved Land of the Dead. But the stuff that has been sly and witty in the past is just overblown and weak here. And there's no tension at all. Every scene is utterly predictable from the moment they walk through the door. And Romero isn't even good at creating his film's central conceit. The camerawork is too steady, too orchestrated, too lacking in spontaneity.

I guess I disagree with everything you said, except one thing. I too love Land of the Dead. I thought the camerawork was perfect especially given the fact that, just as in Redacted, the cameraman is a trained filmmaker. If anything, it was too sloppy, but I forgave it given the situation. I've had professors who talked just like the one in the film and I can imagine behaving in the same matter of fact way in such an apocalyptic situation. He reminds me of the professor in the movie Slacker. But, how your description of his performance equates with bad acting totally escapes me.

Would you describe Anthony Mann of being too late in the Western game? The western had been around a lot longer for him than this just forming simulated cinema verite/footage found on the Internet genre.

[Morris Schæffer]

I didn't like it either although I was probably too tired to notice anything illogical. Mostly the second half bored me out of my skull. What a stupendously drab looking movie too although Romero has never really been able to transcend the low-budget origin of his movies. Day of the Dead, some cool gore notwithstanding, looked dreadful as well with crap acting all over the place courtesy of some "thesps" who look like they might fail a casting session for the A-Team.

[Spinal]

I've had professors who talked just like the one in the film and I can imagine behaving in the same matter of fact way in such an apocalyptic situation. He reminds me of the professor in the movie Slacker. But, how your description of his performance equates with bad acting totally escapes me.


It's hammy and clichéd. Perhaps the writing is part of the problem, but it's a thoroughly silly character.

[origami_mustache]

It's hammy and clichéd. Perhaps the writing is part of the problem, but it's a thoroughly silly character.

Has Romero made a film without hammy clichés?

[Spinal]

Has Romero made a film without hammy clichés?

Perhaps not, but I think of something like Dennis Hopper in Land of the Dead and there's just so much more wit and energy involved. The acting performances in this film are uniformly shallow, lazy and uninspired.

[Skitch]

I have a hard time appreciating a Romero film until its at least a decade or two old. Does that make him ahead of his time, or do I just have a nastalgic memory?

[origami_mustache]

I have a hard time appreciating a Romero film until its at least a decade or two old. Does that make him ahead of his time, or do I just have a nastalgic memory?


Just gives his films an excuse to be so campy.

[Bosco B Thug]

Diary of the Dead is a meta-zombie film. Let me explain. For years, movie zombies have tried to eat human brains. This film attempts to simulate the experience directly by inflicting the viewer with brain damage.

How can a film so insistent on explaining its own logic at every opportunity be so illogical?

How can a film so desperate to be technologically hip feel so behind the times?

How can a film so devoted to first-person perspective feel so impersonal?

An embarrassment. I actually wouldn't argue too much with all 3 of your "Hows." I certainly sensed the amateur acting and a general sense of "old fogeyness" from Romero, and I think the general low-budgetness and a general indie gung-ho that went into this project (as well as the weird cinematographic artificiality that he picked up with 'Land') contributes to some general dramatic awkwardness... and I could've done without the professor character too... so the film does have problems... but I dunno, otherwise, I thought it was artfully made, rides strongly on its allegorical construction, and was as spookily perceptive as it set out to be. I'd need to watch it again to say specifically what I found good about it, but I can say say that I think "impersonal" is an appropriate attribute, it has an admirable scope (goes from a militaristic black stronghold to its surreal final act in the manor), is more challenging and cryptic than just its high concept makes it out to be, and thus has far more to offer than Cloverfield (which I've grown to increasingly dislike in memory).


Just gives his films an excuse to be so campy. Ouch. Campy but perceptive!

[Spinal]

What makes the final act surreal? It seemed pretty standard to me.

[Bosco B Thug]

What makes the final act surreal? It seemed pretty standard to me.
Ummm... I'm thinking I just said it, you know, as one of those things. But to try a bit, well, the general re-narrowing of the scope. The return to a more personal and revealing look at the main director guy and his weird personality issues. The set-piece of the safe castle (with surveillance cameras) not actually being safe with the friend acting really weird and we're not sure why. The swimming pool.

[Spinal]

Ummm... I'm thinking I just said it, you know, as one of those things. But to try a bit, well, the general re-narrowing of the scope. The return to a more personal and revealing look at the main director guy and his weird personality issues. The set-piece of the safe castle (with surveillance cameras) not actually being safe with the friend acting really weird and we're not sure why. The swimming pool.

I'm gonna give you partial credit for the swimming pool. Definitely the most effective imagery in the entire film. Too bad we only got a couple quick glances.

[megladon8]

Watched it again a couple of nights ago.

I still feel the same as I did the first time in the theatre - it's heavily flawed, mostly due to horrendous acting, typically wooden Romero dialogue, and a lack of likable characters.

However, it's also leaps and bounds ahead of Land of the Dead because it pulls the scope back a bit, to what Romero was really good at with Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead - giving us a cast of just a few people who are experiencing this along with us, the viewers, as the zombie outbreak just begins.

I think it had some incredible visuals, some as iconic as those found in the first two installments of the series. The zombies floating in the pool, the police officer stumbling away from the crash, the female nurse in the hospital who gets her head zapped with the defibrulator - some great zombie moments, and Romero remains the king of making the living dead scary rather than just being cannon fodder.

It also had some great humor. The shot of the Amish man holding up the sign that says "My name is (forget his name). Hello." while debris falls in front of him - that was a great moment.

All in all, it's a solid zombie film, and I'm glad Romero brought himself back from the mess that was Land of the Dead.

[Ezee E]

Spinal basically says my thoughts on this one.

What a lazily put together movie. Its new concept is practically a draw-the-numbers set up that I expect to see in a video game with its simplicity. The only good thing about it are some good zombie kills and the Amish man.

[MadMan]

I saw this last month. My thoughts:

Oh and Diary of the Dead is far better than I thought it would be. While it was weak in some aspects, and it does fail to really dive more into its commentary on the media, the film is still will made. Romero still proves he has more to offer, and in fact this film is one of his scariest efforts, with some really good jumpscare moments and a lot of gore.
While this film features his weakest bunch of characters some of them are still halfway decent, such as the school professor who has experience with war and loves the booze, and the hot chick who did the film's narriation. What's really interesting is that the film as presented gives you a love hate relationship with the main character, who feels obligated to film what is going on even though at times he really should be helping out his fellow mates in surviving the horrifying things going on, and of course killing some zombies.
Overall, "Diary" shows that Romero still has the goods. It works as a reboot of sorts, with the characters not having any knowledge of zombie films, and it shows the apocalypse unfolding before their eyes. However I do think in a way this film may fit into the "Dead" series timeline between "Dawn," and some elements appear to be leading into "Land," the only film in the series I haven't seen yet. I give it a strong 83, and I don't feel its really generous at all.

[origami_mustache]

is more challenging and cryptic than just its high concept makes it out to be, and thus has far more to offer than Cloverfield (which I've grown to increasingly dislike in memory).


I dunno...to me Cloverfield feels like a masterpiece in comparison.

[balmakboor]

I decided to sit down and write up my thoughts:

I. RETREAT AND ADVANCE
From the beginning, George Romero’s Living Dead movies have been at once mesmerizing, tantalizing, and oddly frustrating. One always has the sense that, beneath the surface shock/horror level, they are making a statement about . . . what, exactly? What do the Living Dead represent? Our culture, what we used to think of as our civilization, human life itself in all its confusions and unsatisfactoriness? All of the above? When you try to pin it down, something always gets in the way, refuses to fit, resists the meanings we try to impose. Of one thing we may be sure: the films are not about “punishment for sin.” Romero’s universe is certainly not a Christian one (the occasional religious references are always negative). Rather, we have an accidental universe, an unholy mess, an experiment not even from the familiar mad scientist but from some strange, blind, confused demiurge that didn’t know what it was doing but, in its blind fumblings, produced a species that may be responsible for the death of all life on this planet within the next few hundred years. There are signs that the fifth of Romero’s Living Dead movies may also be the last (though he has always surprised us, and perhaps himself): it has the feel and appearance of a summation, opening (like the original film) with the first “undead” returning to life, ending on a direct, desperate challenge to the audience, as if demanding our own summation.

Looking back over the five films, one is struck by an inherent contradiction: one cannot believe that they were planned as a sequence, each having its own individual characteristics (there are no carry-overs from one film to the next). Yet the more one reflects upon them the more one is struck by an inherent logic in the overall structure, a logic confirmed by the remarkable new film: the first four in the series cover and demolish, systematically, the central structures of what we still call our civilization, establishing Romero as the most radical of all horror directors.

Night of the Living Dead: The nuclear family (the basis of our culture): the warring brother and sister of the opening, the miserable, squabbling parents and child, the “young couple” (the future nuclear family) of the midsection. All are killed and eaten, the centerpiece being the little girl stabbing her mother to death with a builder’s trowel, then devouring her father. The zombies—the living dead, dead but still living—are established here as our past; the films are about the impossibility of escaping from it.

Dawn of the Dead: Consumerism, on which our culture’s economy depends: free riches in the shopping mall. It will always be the most popular of the series because it’s the least disturbing—consumerism is a relatively superficial aspect of our world. It’s also the only film in which the couple (but not the romantic couple, not another nuclear family) are permitted to escape, even if the escape is to nowhere. (The tropical island refuge of Day is clearly coded as a wish-fulfillment fantasy.)

Day of the Dead: The military—our guardians and defenders—revealed as utterly useless and objectionable, their particularly obnoxious captain literally torn apart by the zombies.

Land of the Dead: Capitalism itself, with the brilliant casting of Dennis Hopper as its supreme embodiment, Easy Rider maturing into its most monstrous tycoon.

Diary of the Dead: Both a return to origins (the first zombies, an entirely new and different starting point, but again with the nuclear family as the origin) and an advance, with young and fresh new actors as the student film crew protagonists. A second substructure uniting the series has proved of equal consistency: the role of black characters.

Night of the Living Dead: The central figure, the “outsider” hero with no apparent family ties, the sole character who survives the zombies (only to be gunned down by the rednecks).

Dawn of the Dead: The most intelligent, responsible, and aware of the three male characters, allowed to escape with the woman.

Day of the Dead: Essentially (of the five) the “woman’s picture,” but Romero’s female protagonist is linked strongly to her black lover.

Land of the Dead: Tantalizingly, the hint Romero gives us of the black zombie who (alone) appears to be developing an embryonic awareness and capacity for thought. Rashly, I had assumed that if there were to be another Living Dead movie he or his counterpart would be the central figure. Was Romero defeated by the obvious problems of spontaneously developing thinking zombies? But instead we have...

Diary of the Dead: The group of organized and intelligent blacks who seem closest to controlling and surviving the seemingly uncontrollable situation. If there is, after all, a sixth film, will they be central to it?

[balmakboor]

Continued:

The privileged position of the black characters (in all the films) relies on two features, one logical, the other not: as blacks they are outsiders, with a history of oppression, cruelty, and marginalization; they are also, in Romero’s movies, unattached, free of the constraints and demands of the nuclear family; they are also always and only male. This gives them a freedom of vision and action from which the white characters are barred, though the total absence of black women makes their future somewhat problematic.

Most seem to agree that Land is the weakest of the first four films (Hopper and the black zombie apart, its characters are not very interesting, and too much of the first half merely repeats the now-familiar slaughter). Diary, though it lacks the controlled and compressed intensity of Night and the bright colors and energy of Dawn, may prove to be the series’ supreme achievement, Romero’s most inclusive statement. Its premise is brilliant. In a gambit of characteristic aplomb, Romero establishes that he has no responsibility for the film we are watching: the opening segment has been downloaded from the Internet, and what follows is the work of a group of film students from the University of Pittsburgh, and in particular of an aspiring young filmmaker called Jason Creed (Josh Close), introduced directing his own student horror movie in which a mummy pursues a young woman through the woods at night. When the first news of the zombie attacks comes in, Jason is quite ready to leap at the opportunity to make the abrupt transition to a “reality” movie. We are not permitted to see Jason clearly until well into the film, as he is wielding the handheld camera, blocking his face; his film’s title is not Diary of the Dead but The Death of Death.

Romero’s decision to attribute his film to a group of students is a masterstroke. The handheld camera continuously underlines the sense of the instability of a world in which nothing is reliable, anyone may turn out to be a zombie. Detached (at least partly) from the nuclear family, looking ahead to a still undefined future, with a certain freedom of choice, the young people are the ideal protagonists for a Romero movie. Even in the midst of the pervasive horrors, the constant reminders of the handheld camera, the youthful spontaneity and emotional openness of the group, also combine to give the film a surprising freshness and exhilaration that’s lacking in the previous films (and especially in Land), while the group’s relative innocence gives the film an unexpected and touching poignancy.

Whatever Romero had in mind when he began, his ambitions, the seriousness of his commitment, have developed and revealed themselves well beyond the expectations we bring to a genre movie. For the record, Diary is the first of his films that has made me cry, no doubt partly because the characters, with their youthful energy and thirst for life, remind me of the students in my graduate film studies courses: they may not be facing zombies but they will also be struggling to survive within a relentlessly disintegrating culture. Romero never idealizes his young people. Jason’s motivation, for example, is repeatedly called into question, notably by Debra (Michelle Morgan): is his determination to continue filming through all the horrors callously self-serving, or justified by an authentic desire to establish truth? Both seem present, but Debra’s final acceptance of him, and her desire to continue his work after his death, acknowledge a degree of integrity.



II. STRUCTURE: A ROAD MOVIE WITH FIVE STOPS The film’s opening segment—news footage downloaded by Debra from the Internet—shows the first case of the dead coming back as zombies: a nuclear family in which the father has committed suicide after killing his wife and son, inverting the central episode of Night in which a young girl kills and eats her parents. The ensuing action, beginning haphazardly with a panicky journey of uncertain destination, inevitably takes the form of return to the illusory safety of family homes. Debra sums it up: “You spend so much time resenting your parents . . . but as soon as the shit hits the fan, the only place you want to go is home.”

Diary of the Dead is Romero’s first “road movie,” the last of the five Living Dead films being in strongest possible contrast with the claustrophobic first (in which the continually warring characters are trapped by the zombies in a single house). Its essential progress (a journey with constantly diminishing returns) is from the open road to Debra’s final descent into the mansion’s panic room, from which we know she will never emerge. Three of the five stops are for help, security, and shelter, none of which materialize: the hospital where they take Mary (Tatiana Maslany) after her attempted suicide, and the two homes (Debra’s, Ridley’s) where they hope to find safety. All prove illusory: Mary, the gentlest and youngest of the group, shoots herself because, as the driver of the group’s camper van, she has killed three people who may not all have been zombies. She dies, becomes a zombie, and has to be executed. Debra’s parents are already zombies, and Ridley (Philip Riccio), unbeknownst to the group, has already been bitten, and hence may die and become one at any moment. And we must remember that family members, when they die, don’t merely become zombies, they eat each other: a neat Romero-esque definition of nuclear family relationships.

The other two stops/episodes (the Amish farmer, the militant black group) are stumbled upon accidentally and provide temporary, transient help. The sequence of the confrontation with the black group is especially intriguing as it significantly develops the roles of blacks in the previous films. In contrast to the pervasive hysteria and chaos, they are organized, and the film suggests that what has made this possible is their marginalization within the white world. As their leader tells Debra, “For the first time in our lives, we got the power—because everyone else left.” Debra’s strength impresses him: he tells her “I think you’re a lot like me.” One has the sense that their mutual respect could point ahead to a new development of Romero’s pervasive interest in black characters, if we are to have further installments…

I wish Romero had ended his film with the withdrawal of Debra, Professor Maxwell (Scott Wentworth), and Tony Ravello (the other surviving student) into the panic room, with Mary’s promise that “I’m going to finish his movie. There’s got to be more.” It expresses the bleak hope that Jason’s film may be of value if anyone survives the zombies—an assertion one can take as Romero’s hint of a possible sixth film.

I don’t understand the brief postscript, introduced by Debra as “the last film Jason shot.” Its central image is certainly among the most appalling ever produced within fictional cinema, but the perpetrators of the desecration it depicts are a couple of irrelevant rednecks who played no part in the film. Debra’s question (“Are we worth saving? You tell me”) has already been answered by the film with a resounding “Yes!” insofar as it applies to the characters—the students—within the narrative, and to Debra’s own assertion. I confess to bewilderment…

The original Night of the Living Dead was welcomed or repudiated as a schlock horror film; Diary will probably be welcomed as an art-house movie. But what’s in a name? Let us salute a great and audacious filmmaker…

(Okay, not my thoughts really -- they're Robin Wood's -- but I wish they were mine.)

[origami_mustache]

haha I knew I had seen that in Film comment...it is a good little article despite the fact that I only really like 2/5 films.

[balmakboor]

haha I knew I had seen that in Film comment...it is a good little article despite the fact that I only really like 2/5 films.

Yeh, I've read and enjoyed all of his writing on Romero over the years. The professor in Diary actually reminded me of Wood and I know that Romero knows Wood is one of his biggest fans.

[Spinal]

From the beginning, George Romero’s Living Dead movies have been at once mesmerizing, tantalizing, and oddly frustrating. One always has the sense that, beneath the surface shock/horror level, they are making a statement about . . . what, exactly? What do the Living Dead represent? Our culture, what we used to think of as our civilization, human life itself in all its confusions and unsatisfactoriness? All of the above? When you try to pin it down, something always gets in the way, refuses to fit, resists the meanings we try to impose.

This is an excellent description of the way these films work.

As for the most recent film, the article is better at defending the scenario than it is the execution. It seems to describe a film that should have been, rather than the paltry effort we actually got.

Good read though.