Diary of the Dead

I want this film to last two more hours. I can easily imagine it as a great TV series. This time, George A. Romero admirably freshens up his old formulas. While in his previous Land of the Dead, he just comfortably stayed in the eighties, here he successfully adapted to current trends and took the concept further than the guys who made Cloverfield. The only fly in the ointment is the occasionally dumb dialogue (the character of the professor). Otherwise it’s a great horror flick based on unpredictability and intelligent editing. However, it is more enjoyable for dedicated film buffs than for fans of popcorn entertainment. (2008-09-27)

A favorite tool of young filmmakers, the hand-held camera, was also in the hands of an old warrior who once again showed that he could still keep up with the times. Romero may be repeating himself, but he is still able to say some things about contemporary society, including all its modern advances in the form of the all-powerful media, the Internet, and other means of communication that shorten distances with the same vigor. Even the much-debated "I film everything I see," which can be the subject of long arguments among viewers, surprisingly still held up in the end. The protagonists don't just hold the camera in their hands willy-nilly, but they have their reasons for doing so, and Romero skillfully coaxes this out of the traditional filmmaking disciplines. The character motivations work, and the road movie with the requisite "roadies" does too, so rather than being a horror movie about zombies, this film is more like a suspense thriller where the living dead have casually appeared and people need to escape from them. In the end, it's too bad that it lags a bit in suspense and fear (both the characters and the viewer), but that is amply compensated by the delicious "gore," which often left me wondering how the hell the old man does it. 4 ½. (2008-09-23)

If the ratio of very funny moments (Ode to Joy!) to the downright embarrassing ones wasn't so balanced, I wouldn't hesitate with a higher rating. (2008-07-13)

This new style looks good on Romero. A zombie film through the lens of cheap found footage, but with such great editing, plot unpredictability and stylistic dimension that the result is almost unique and fascinating. A very disturbing, cinematically entertaining and substantively complex study of global chaos through a band of determined survivors, perhaps a better adaptation of World War Z than Forster's. 80% (2016-04-13)

Big disappointment, something I didn’t expect after so many positive reactions; it is way behind [REC]. The handheld camera here lacks any meaning, it doesn’t contribute anything to the story and the film often feels it was shot in an ordinary way. The fear never has a chance to get a grip, when not even the characters are scared for most of the story, what can the viewers do? And the worst is that Diary of the Dead bored me, which is a very bad sign for a zombie flick. Those few moments when we get to see a zombie are OK, but the chatty filler between them is lethal (I’m exaggerating perhaps, but it is lifeless). This film is certainly slightly above-par, but I think that in a week I will only remember one jump-scare at most, and that’s why I’m rating it with “only” three stars, when compared with [REC] and Cloverfield, Diary of the Dead is the weakest in terms of tension and entertainment. (2008-04-24)