Available only at Blockbuster, and now on sale used at many Blockbuster location's 2 for $20 bargain bin, Diary of the Dead is George Romero's most effective zombie movie since the original Dawn of the Dead.
It tries the look like a documentary, which would have worked if it weren't for the fact that everything seems so scripted. The actors never talk over each other, many of the zombie attacks (and gory zombie deaths) that come off as forced, and the general level of ridiculousness the film reaches for is at times too much even for a zombie movie.
That's the bad news.
The good news is the characters are often quite likable, the script is relatively unpredictable, and the message of the movie truly resonates with our modern, Youtube (and Pornhub) infused times. Diary of the Dead is at it's absolute best when the on screen characters have their mouth's firmly shut as they are watch tv, check Youtube, or listen to the radio, focused on finding out how badly the world is doing. The news they find on the budding zombie apocalypse is extremely well done in terms of both tone and believability, with a few of the bits recorded by Gulliermo Del Toro, Simon Pegg, and Stephen King.
These parts of the film were genuinely effective, and more than make up for it's weaker moments. If the World War Z film ever materializes, I hope that it's just like the "media" segments of Diary of the Dead, except fleshed out with real documentary style "acting" and big budget special effects.
As it stands, if you like zombie movies, you should see Diary of the Dead. I know I'll watch it again someday, maybe even soon. It doesn't have that consistent sense of dread, of cold, gripping terror that both the Dawn film's offered. However, what Diary of the Dead offers is so totally different from the Dawn films, it almost seems unfair to compare them. Besides, I already own two version of Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead. Those stories, as great as they are, have been told enough.
If on merits of it's originality alone, Diary of the Dead deserves to exist, flaws and all. Along with Shaun of the Dead and Fido, it's stands as one of the few zombie films of the past few years which doesn't feel like a rehash or a retelling of a previous film. Lets just hope the relative financial failure of those last two movies doesn't put the kibosh on the continuing evolution of zombies in Hollywood.
Land of the dead was OOF!
As a HUGE fan of Romero's this movie would of been SO much better had it not had the perspective of the protagonists. It's a shame because it does has some good elements to it as well as a few winks and nods to zombie cliches. While worth watching it could of been more without the perspective gimmick.
Here's hoping Romero keeps on trucking with more because even though it's my least favorite movie of his in the zombie series, it's still better than most of the schlock being put out by others.
I thought the actors were horrible and near the end of the movie in the mansion I felt like I was watching a shitty home made movie. Like how many zombies did we actually get to see, 15? Some parts, expressing the whole pandemic with people on the net/TV was pretty cool but other than that.....
It was a neat twist to zombie movies with the whole documentary hand held camera angle with something new but I thought it was poorly executed and came across as extremely cheap.
As y0j1mbo said it's not as bad as some zombie movies but I expected MUCH more from Romero.
I hated some of the characters, and how incredibly stupid some of them were, especially the main protagonist holding the camera. But in the end, it was entertaining, I love pretty much anything with zombies.
Loved the concept. Hated the characters. They made it as obvious as possible that they were acting so that I had no empathy with any of them. The Amish farmer, though... Hoo-ee. Screw the kids, go watch it for Samuel's glorious five minutes of screen time. Totally worth the price of admission right there.
The thing that really surprised me was the near complete lack of zombies in the film. Aside from the spontaneous flash mob-esque horde at the end, there was only one damn time you even saw more than maybe half a dozen grouped up at once. You're telling me that a large group of survivors like this couldn't dispatch one or two stragglers?
On the positive side, at least they were shamblers in this film. Not a single damn runner to be seen. Just classic groaning brain munchers. This pleased me.
Just like in Cloverfield, if the actors in Diary of the Dead...
1) Didn't look like actors
2) Didn't act like actors
then this movie would have been a whole lot better.
It's not even that they were actors did their jobs poorly, it's that this is a movie that doesn't call for acting. It calls for being the subject of a documentary, something that actually can be achieved in a fictional film, if in the right hands.
It sounds silly, but if Robert Altman had directed this movie, if the actors were allowed to ad lib, to talk over each other, do all the things real people would do in the situation they were in, then this could have been the best zombie movie to come out since the original Dawn of the Dead.
That's what I'm hoping World War Z will be like. A huge budget, epic zombie movie done the way Altman would have done it.
what is an oxymoron by the way
Still good to see he can come up with new ways to kill zombies. Acid dumped on the head is brilliant.
@holmes: it might more documentary-like than diary. not sure though, since i didn't finish watching it. not because it wasn't good, 'cause it was (what i got to see from it), but because of lack of time.
give it a shot ;)