Diary of the Dead

senordingdong

This is probably the worst film I have ever seen in my life.

It is utterly pointless and serves no real purpose and did nothing for me other then display Romero as a has-been who won't stop living in the past.

Land of the Dead was dissapointing but still entertaining, this is just a waste of time.

Avoid at all costs.

Eirebear

Really? I went to see it yesterday and found it fairly harmless, although a little bit half baked.

senordingdong

Eirebear wrote: »

Really? I went to see it yesterday and found it fairly harmless, although a little bit half baked.

Harmless?
It was offensivley stupid.

Eirebear

lol, i can tell your disapointed....

Tusky

Empire gave it 4 stars and have it as film of the week. It was made on a shoestring budget. Im looking forward to it.

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/review.asp?FID=135364

senordingdong

Tusky wrote: »

Empire gave it 4 stars and have it as film of the week. It was made on a shoestring budget. Im looking forward to it.

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/review.asp?FID=135364

That might excuse effects or whatever, but it is seriously terrible.

Necronomicon

I'm really irritated at how not a single cinema down here appears to have gotten it. I personally loved Land of the Dead.

TerrorFirmer

Yeah, same as. I will tear my hair out if it doesn't get a release locally.

Not The Real Scarecrow

Is it better or worse than Land of the Dead?
Would normally be the type of movie I'd go see as am big horror fan, but have become a bit disillusioned with Romero.Land was crap, the only positive I could see to it was that it opened up a possibility of expandng on the world in future films.However I think the whole zombie thing is been over done, bring back some vampire movies or decent werewolf or possession flics.Roll on Lost Boys 2.

senordingdong

It made LOTD look like a masterpiece.

Eirebear

I dont think it can be compared to LOTD to be honest, its completely different.

One thing that did puzzle me though is the fact that the Zombies seemed to have lost all the intelligence they picked up in the first 4 films?

ixoy

Eirebear wrote: »

One thing that did puzzle me though is the fact that the Zombies seemed to have lost all the intelligence they picked up in the first 4 films?

Yes but chronologically isn't it set at the same time as "Night of the Living Dead" (as such)? I always got the impression that the zombies got more intelligent the longer they roamed the earth - so we saw more and more signs of it in Dusk/Day/Land.

FWIW, I thought this movie was reasonably enjoyable. The message was far too heavy-handed though, especially after the lovely way consumerism was handled in "Dawn". The whole bit where they kept re-iterating the need to record stuff reminded me of a Boards After Hours post: "pics or it didn't happen".

The acting is of course woeful but there's some humour in there (particularly liked the

Amish dynamite scene

). It's not saying anything clever, and "Cloverfield" managed to get out in the cinemas first with a better delivered message on media and first-person view.
Still worth a watch if you're a Romero fan though.

senordingdong

The 'camera man' kept saying that pit was important to record what was happening despite the fact they all agreed there would be no-one left to view the material. And no means to transmit it.
Then the ending parodying the start was ridiculous as the woman kept 'falling victim' to the things that she compained of at the start.
Likewise, Zombies constantly attacking their nearest and dearest friends, yer neither camer men could put down the camera to help their friends.
The acting was awful, the dialogue was diabolical, the message stupid and poorly delivered. Likewise the 'plot' was almost non existent and the film never really went anywhere.


...for a more detailed explanation on my opening post.

Vic Vinegar

senordingdong wrote: »

The 'camera man' kept saying that pit was important to record what was happening despite the fact they all agreed there would be no-one left to view the material. And no means to transmit it.
Then the ending parodying the start was ridiculous as the woman kept 'falling victim' to the things that she compained of at the start.
Likewise, Zombies constantly attacking their nearest and dearest friends, yer neither camer men could put down the camera to help their friends.
The acting was awful, the dialogue was diabolical, the message stupid and poorly delivered. Likewise the 'plot' was almost non existent and the film never really went anywhere.


...for a more detailed explanation on my opening post.

If you're gonna ruin the plot of most of the film you should put a spoiler warning there ffs!! :mad: 3,500 posts but no etiquette! unbelievable

faceman

I havent seen it yet but i will reserve judgement. Romero laces his films very cleverly with political undertones and im looking forward to see what he does with this one and how it compares to his first zmobie flick.

Although i have to admit i was disappointed with LotD.

senordingdong

mountain lips wrote: »

If you're gonna ruin the plot of most of the film you should put a spoiler warning there ffs!! :mad: 3,500 posts but no etiquette! unbelievable

There are no spoilers there.

Eirebear

ixoy wrote: »

Yes but chronologically isn't it set at the same time as "Night of the Living Dead" (as such)?

Thats right, i didnt actually realise that untill talking with someone about it last night

pixelburp

senordingdong wrote: »

There are no spoilers there.

I think you've spoiled the ending to a certain extent

Vic Vinegar

senordingdong wrote: »

There are no spoilers there.

Are you insane? I can't say what i want to say cos i'll be banned for sure.....

Eirebear

In Seniordingdongs defence i dont think he really has spoiled anything calm down everyone.
In reply to his comments though

The whole film is Romeros way of looking at Journalism, 24 hour rolling news channels and the general mass of (mis)information we are subjected to on a daily basis now.
If the "cameraman" was to get involved every time he saw a zombie attack he wouldnt be able to make his observations.
Journalists all over the world comment on poor kids, riots etc etc....you dont see them getting involved.

As for the survivors, who know what happened? Obviously 1 of two things happened, they escape from the panic room with the footage for the narrator to put together and show the world, or they die in there and the footage is discovered later. The general assumption that noone will survive is only made by the characters of the film due to the panic and pressure they are under.....someone ALWAYS survives

The Bored One

Definitely not fond of this movie. It doesn't come across as students making a documentary about the zombie rising, so much a student made movie about students making a documentary about a zombie uprising
It was partly the events, and partly the acting I think. Some of the stuff, like the Amish farmer, seemed about as B-movie as you get. If you're making a movie thats meant to be a cheesy zombie gore fest(a thing we have all taken guilty pleasure in) then these events are fine. If you are trying to make a movie thats meant to seem realistic, they just completely detract from it.
Similar thing with the acting. Everyone spent the whole time making melodramatic speeches or profound statements.
Im willing to accept that this was because they were "on camera" and people do tend to ham it up for that.
The problem was there were no contrasts for when they thought there weren't being orbserved, for when they would be acting normal. Or as normal-ish as you'll get in those circumstances.
Without some sort of contrast to the on camera behaviour, there's nothing to make it seem real.
If they'd put in just a bit of solid realistic contrast, could have worked out fine. But they didn't. so it didn't

tylerdurden94

Tusky wrote: »

Empire gave it 4 stars and have it as film of the week. It was made on a shoestring budget. Im looking forward to it.

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/review.asp?FID=135364

Empire Online must of been smoking crack when they went to see this easily one of the stupidest movies ever made, if Romero is suppose to be some super director why go and tare one of your movies and remake and think that its good!

I was so irrate after watching this movie when i have calmed down i will try and asses it properly.

Please people stay away from this...i cant even call it a "movie"

pixelburp

tylerdurden94 wrote: »

Empire Online must of been smoking crack when they went to see this easily one of the stupidest movies ever made, if Romero is suppose to be some super director why go and tare one of your movies and remake and think that its good!

I was so irrate after watching this movie when i have calmed down i will try and asses it properly.

Please people stay away from this...i cant even call it a "movie"

I hear what you're saying, but part of me wants to see it, purely out of blind curiosity. Romero is so revered and borderline worshipped in movie geek circles; something as bad as it appears to be must be a sight to behold

hoppo254

See this movie if you want to ruin your entire evening , it is possibly the worst film i have ever seen. The plot is terrible , the stupid attempts at comedy moments , the boring predictable cast , i could write for hours about how bad it is.

I actually dont have the words to express how angry i was leaving the cinema after this , i wanted to stay up all night watching good movies to get this out of my system.

Don't waste and hour and whatever of your life and this trash

senordingdong

Eirebear wrote: »

In Seniordingdongs defence i dont think he really has spoiled anything calm down everyone.
In reply to his comments though

The whole film is Romeros way of looking at Journalism, 24 hour rolling news channels and the general mass of (mis)information we are subjected to on a daily basis now.
If the "cameraman" was to get involved every time he saw a zombie attack he wouldnt be able to make his observations.
Journalists all over the world comment on poor kids, riots etc etc....you dont see them getting involved.

As for the survivors, who know what happened? Obviously 1 of two things happened, they escape from the panic room with the footage for the narrator to put together and show the world, or they die in there and the footage is discovered later. The general assumption that noone will survive is only made by the characters of the film due to the panic and pressure they are under.....someone ALWAYS survives

I appreciate the whole 'camera man can't get involved' thing but I feel he made a bollocks of it, it was like he couldn't seperate actual film making with an attempt at documentary making.
And his social commentary used to make sense...I mean throwing such social commentary into a zombie movie worked, but throwing zombies into a movie about social commentary doesn't.

And in regards to the survivors, if you want, you can leave it up to your own imagination what happened, but above all else, what was the point in documenting when there was no way to get your film to the now dead people who can't see it?

This movie made Cloverfield seem Osar worthy.