When you film a diary...
Added 10/26/2009
A homemade movie is a beautiful thing. What starts out as a simple project can quickly turn into something bigger, especially when a virus hits the United States and starts bringing people back from the dead.
Welcome to George Romero's DIARY OF THE DEAD.
Set in Pennsylvania and following a group of University of Pittsburgh students, DIARY OF THE DEAD chronicles a group of survivor's journey from beginning to end. Starting in the woods during a senior project film project, the group is quickly distracted after Elliot--the braniac--tells everyone that they `need to hear this.'
`This' happens to be the reports that the dead are coming back to life.
After the mummy (the `monster' of the movie) and his girlfriend leave the scene, the rest of the group quickly decide to leave. Mary--who's woman in command of a good-sized camp trailer--begins to take them back home, but not before something strange becomes apparent. When a burned-beyond-recognition cop stumbles from the scene of an accident and into traffic, Mary quickly stops the camper, then pushes past him and onto the main road.
She runs over three people--three `dead' people.
Traumatized beyond belief, they pull over on the side of the road, only to have Mary attempt an act of suicide.
In a desperate rush to save their friend, the group flees to the hospital.
It soon becomes apparent that this isn't all a hoax when they find the hospital abandoned of people.
As a fan of Romero's original DEAD trilogy (consisting of Night of the Living Dead, Dawn and Day of the Dead,) as well as the fourth installment LAND, I was more than willing to watch this unique and fifth installment, although I will admit to being a bit wary about it being shot in a handheld/over-the-shoulder-camera angle. I was quickly able to get past this insecurity though, as the film is shot with stability and without a lot of rough running and tilting. The main thing I liked about the movie was the fact that it was shot like it was--from the perspective of a few college men and women with a camera.
Now, although I enjoyed this movie, I did have a few quirks with it.
-- In the beginning, Deborah (the main narrator of the `film') mentions that she's `edited the footage' and `added music' in an attempt to scare the viewer. Why, I ask, would someone attempt (or want) to do this when they're running from the end of the world? It begs to question the motive of the film, and the footage we as the viewers see. Did we see the end of the world from the perspective of a few college students, or were we hoaxed with some elaborate special affects--CGI and trick camera angles meant to confuse the viewer. We also have to take into consideration that, if they WERE really in the end of the world, and the internet WAS failing, how did they upload it to the internet, if they even did? Did the group survive and eventually upload the video after the United States became stable, or did another survivor find their footage, then view it as we the audience did? I can only assume that this `fault' (if you would even call it that) was Romero's way of making us question the film. Like Night and its racial undertones, Dawn and its commercial abstraction, and Day and its confusion with the military, I can only assume that Diary was meant to symbolize the media and how we can't always believe what we see on TV.
-- There were points during the movie--particularly when the Texan woman took off in the camper--that seemed unrealistic. During the point in which the group is attacked, then rescued by a group of survivors holing up in a warehouse, Deborah demands for the leader to give them food while a gun is being shoved in her face. The fact that any person in their right mind would do this is beyond me. Given the way the group originally attacked Elliot and knocked him down to the ground, it surprised me that the warehouse survivors would so easily give into helpless stranger's demands. As also mentioned above, the blonde-haired Texan woman took off in the camper for no apparent or logical reason near the end of the movie. I can understand why someone would suddenly take off on a whim like she did (from fear, confusion or panic,) but up until that point, she seemed extremely stable, especially after having to kill her boyfriend. Deborah experienced the same kind of character development problems. Her whole family was murdered in front of her eyes, yet she only seems slightly disturbed and says, `Thank you?' I screamed and bawled my eyes out when I thought my cat was hit by a car a few months back--I can't imagine just sitting there like I'd just been punched in the gut after my whole family was killed.
-- Character development was also faintly sparse throughout the movie. While some characters developed extremely well (Deborah, despite her blunt emotions, and the professor, despite his quiet demeanor,) the majority of them remained the same and two-dimensional. Jake seemed to care about nothing more than filming, even going so far as to leave the group in order to keep filming, the Texan woman isn't traumatized by her boyfriend's death and takes off without warning, and the professor's only real point is to say the occasional insightful thing, and be a complete badass with a bow.
Despite my three major points with the movie, I can say that I enjoyed DIARY OF THE DEAD more than any other movie I've tried to watch recently. The tension keeps you going, the action is done in traditional Romero style, and the metaphorical undertones spruced throughout the story make you question the intent of the film.
Although I can't say that Diary has taken its spot as my favorite (or second or third favorite) zombie movie, I have to place it in my top ten. It kept me entertained--I don't see why it can't why it wouldn't keep another Romero fan on the edge of their seats.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Quinessential Romero? YES!
Added 10/23/2009
I have been spending a few hours reading these reviews (mainly out of boredom, because I already own the Blu-Ray of this movie), and I'm very amused and perplexed by the mix of what Romero fans think. Personally, I love this movie, and I would like to address some of the objections other Romero fans have given, and why I choose to forgive these (admitted) shortcomings.
1) THE ACTING IS TERRIBLE! Yes, yes it is. But so was all the acting in NOTLD (with the sole exception of Ben), Dawn was cheesey (and meant to be), Day was a bit overdramatic. In other words, at least in mine eyes, there's nothing new here. This *IS* classic Romero!
2) THE MESSAGE IS TOO IN-YOUR-FACE! Granted, Romero's style in this one (narration instead of showing) does seem more heavy-handed than in previous films, but that doesn't change the fact that the commentary (although *slightly* more subtle) has always been there, too. Furthermore, when Romero was making movies in the 60's and 70's, audiences were content with things going unexplained, and didn't need things spilled out for them. Audiences *today*, however, were raised on MTV. Look at movies (just in general) from the 60's versus today: There were a PLETHORA of films that ended with semi-cliffhangers, inviting the view to create his or her own ending. If a film does that today, then audiences would *DEMAND* a sequel, as if they are REFUSING to think for themselves. Romero isn't doing the in-your-face for those of us who have been watching and loving movies for 30+ years, they're doing it for the teens and young adults who are used to having their hands held and having everything TOLD to them.
3) THE PLOT IS TOO THIN! Well . . . got me on that one.
4) NOT ENOUGH GORE! Got me on this one, too. But Romero has a very good reason for it: The camera is being HELD. If someone is getting ripped apart by zombies, he is NOT going to stand by and film it, knowing he's standing next to a swarm of zombies.
5) THAT DARN CAMERA GUY JUST KEEPS FILMING!!! This one I find the most amusing objection, and here's why: You are SUPPOSED to hate this guy! You are SUPPOSED to be angry that he's still filming while his friend is being chased, and isn't lifting a finger to help. Why? Consider his real-world counterpart: You can find footage of the African witch burnings online. Just search for it (but be warned, it's VERY graphic and disturbing -- don't blame me if you lose your lunch -- you HAVE been warned), and then think: Someone stood by and did NOTHING while several people were SLOWLY cooked to death, his shiny camera lens glistening in the flicker of the flames. But for some reason, I have YET to hear anyone express criticism for this individual -- a REAL individual who filmed REAL suffering. Romero is DEMANDING that you DO, and is making that statement with this film.
Is this Romero's masterpiece? No. I'd say that was Dawn or Day (toss-up in my book). But it's a movie that has some genuine heart, despite its plot inconsistancies and other flaws. I have been watching Romero movies for nearly twenty-five years, so I wasn't aware of how deep they could be until I matured into an adult, but in my mind the whole "I can't shoot him! He's my DAD!" aspect of zombies never really hit home until I watched this one, despite the tenement scene from Dawn.
Diary of the Dead is a VERY quinessential Romero film, and I proudly own the Blu-Ray of this movie, along with my Blu-Rays of his other Dead movies. Try watching it again: This is one that WILL grow on you, even if that means nothing more than changing it from a 1-star film to a 2. My official rating: 3 & 1/2 stars.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Watchable, but not particularly innovative
Added 10/16/2009
Diary of the Dead falls in a category of disappointing, not because it is a bad movie, but because it's a zombie movie from the father of zombie movies, George Romero. Had this movie been directed by an up and comer instead of someone who hadn't created, and in some ways defined, the zombie movie, it probably would have been better received.
To the movie itself, the best way to describe it is a modern day version of a cross between blair witch and night of the living dead. The entire thing is filmed by film students, one in particular, and the rest is the usual zombie moments. The first encounters with zombies (let me look at that guy with confusion...until he gets close enough to bite and that person becomes the first casualty), the gory deaths, and of course the sad moment of killing a friend/loved one right after they turn into a zombie. Though the story is pretty generic, there are some very unique deaths, and the "zombie fish tank" was something I haven't seen before.
Overall I think its worthy of a seeing, though its not a journey I particularly want to take again. Maybe his next zombie movie will get him back to more original territory.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Good Shi-
Added 10/3/2009
Cant complain. Its very low budget and excellent for being that. Only downfall was... for a total zombie apocolypse there werent very many zombies in the movie. Whats the explanation for that?
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
silly stuff
Added 9/22/2009
This is a silly movie. Its a lot of fun, and if you like comedy horror is a must. Love it when the Amish guy kills self and zombie, wish he made it.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
