Diary of the Dead [Blu-ray]

Luckily I rented this dvd rather the brought it, which meant I could hastily send it back and never have to glare at it thinking "that's money i'll never see again!"

So where do I start on how bad it was? The poor acting? The terrible dialogue? The ripping off of several over far better films. Comne on George, if people really were witnessing the end of the earth as we knew it with corpses trying to eat people, wouldn't we be a little bit more upset? Take one example, one of the characters is bitten and then dies. His girlfriend does not appear particularly bothered.

Cloverfield was not superb, but it did convey well the true horror of interruption to mundane life in the form of a horrific event and how it affects people. Every reaction was accounted for: shock, horror, tears and even humour as a coping mechanism. Diary of the Dead was a few annoying brats running around, not feeling too bad about what was happening and no sense of doom, gloom and not scary in the least.

I like all the other ....of The Dead films, but this was dreadful. You have been warned!

I saw Diary of the Dead at the cinema and I have to say I am very impressed with the result. Whereas other more recent Zombie movies have gone for action-packed thrills(The Dawn of the Dead remake)and silly martial arts (Resident Evil 1-3), Director George A. Romero shows them all how its done. 'Diary' is pitched in the same vein as the recent Cloverfield movie, showing events unfold through the lense of a hand-held digital camera, showing the film's characters emoting to a largely unseen cameraman whilst trying to extricate themselves from danger and seek sanctuary.

I urge everyone with a passing interest in Zombie movies or in the work of George A. Romero to head out to the multi-plex and show support for this film, it needs your support. Mr Romero deliberately shot it on a low budget (only $5 million), and at the moment it is not experiencing a huge amount of success in its domestic market. In the US, after the Weinstein Company secured a deal to distribute the film (to much fanfare), they have buried it on only 47 screens, making it struggle to make a profit. It deserves to be seen and has a surprising amount of depth for a low-budget piece. It has a lot to say about the modern day nature of human beings becoming increasingly more voyeuristic, and disassociated from the true horrors which are taking place, by viewing and recording everything through the shifting focus of a video camera. "Just let me get that on film, thats looks great!".

Its at least as involving as Cloverfield and features some very inspiring moments. The opening of the film sees the director illustrating his chagrin at modern zombie movies' habit of showing zombies being able to run at full speed whilst displaying huge strength and agility. George is right! zombies are the dead, and dead things rot! He also has his key participants (as film students) making a low budget 'Mummy Movie', only for the increasingly insane student director to later on stage an actual reconstruction of this scene as one of his female friends is chased by an actual monster.

The only criticism to be levelled at this film would be that, in the final act of the picture George's characters (the surviving film students) become more allegories for what He wants to say as a director, instead of perhaps behaving in a more realistic way if, hypothetically speaking, this kind of apocalyptic event actually took place. Why for example do the survivors take no interest at all in fortifying the abandoned manor house compound in which they find themselves? With all the undead wandering around, keen for their warm flesh, why do they not bother to even close the front gate and lock the doors of the mansion??!! However, this is a minor quibble in an all-round engaging picture, and intelligent social commentary.

There is an excellent collection of documentaries on Disc 2; including a detailed 90 minute documentary revisiting the making of the Original Night of the Living Dead in all its low-budget glory. Also included are clippets of a George A.Romero Q & A from 2007, behind the scenes recordings of the guest speakers who read out news reports during the movie, and the usual deleted scenes. A worthwhile cinematic experience and essential DVD purchase. Excellent!

First of all, let me say that I am a huge George A Romero fan. I loved Night, Dawn and Day of the Dead and could even see quite a few positives in Land of the Dead.

I'm writing this review of Diary of the Dead now because I've just watched the film a second time. After the first time I saw it, I wanted desperately to love it like I do with the rest of George's output. I didn't. So I just left it a few years and wondered whether I'd `get it' the second time round. I didn't.

This time George treats us to a `mockumentary' of a zombie outbreak. The film is set at the same time as Night of the Living Dead was (albeit in a modern age), i.e. when the zombies were first starting to rise. The footage is all shot by some kids filming their own horror movie (which, if they'd got round to finishing it, would probably have been better than the actual film itself!). In short, it's basically `Blair Witch with zombies.'

Unfortunately, there are simply too many bad points to list, so I'll stick to just a few. First of all the movie tries to be clever and mention `horror movie clichés' and then break them (ala Scream). However, in the next breath we're treated to the most stereotypical Englishman you've ever seen (how I wanted my fellow countryman to die quickly. Has George A Romero ever MET a real live Englishman?!).

Then there's the narration. Or should I call it `story-telling?' Seriously, it's so patronising that you might as well have large subtitles written in crayon, telling you what people are thinking. Actually, that's a lie. You, as the viewer, will have NO IDEA what people are thinking in Diary of the Dead. People do the most ridiculous things all the time. They frequently wander off on their own. They don't lock doors to stop zombies from following them and - worst of all - the people behind the camera NEVER actually help out those in front of it. Seriously, if your mate was getting chewed on by the undead, surely you may just put down the camera and help out?! Well, they don't. Never.

The bottom line is that George is well off the mark with this one. Land of the Dead was no classic, but it had its merits and was generally a fun film. This one is just awful (sorry, George). It adds nothing to the genre and comes across as thinking it's way more clever than it actually is. This could well be the `death of the dead.'

It comes to something when the best part of your film features a small contribution from a kamikaze, mute Amish gentleman with a scythe. If it wasn't for that scene, I'd probably only give it the one star!