While filming a horror movie of mummy in a forest, the students and their professor of the University of Pittsburgh hear on the TV the news that the dead are awaking and walking. Ridley and Francine decide to leave the group, while Jason heads to the dormitory of his girlfriend Debra Monahan. She does not succeed in contacting her family and they travel in Mary’s van to the house of Debra’s parents in Scranton, Pennsylvania. While driving her van, Mary sees a car accident and runs over a highway patrolman and three other zombies trying to escape from them. Later the religious Mary is depressed, questioning whether the victims where really dead, and tries to commit suicide, shooting herself with a pistol. Her friends take her to a hospital where they realize that the dead are indeed awaking and walking and they need to fight to survive while traveling to Debra’s parents house.

Also Known As: Diário dos Mortos, La chronique des morts de George A. Romero, George A. Romero's Diary of the Dead, Holtak naplója, Дневники мертвецов, Dnevnik živih mrtvaca, Land of the Dead 2, Deník mrtvých Czech, Chroniques des morts-vivants, Întorsi dintre morti, George A. Romero: La invasión de los muertos, The Death of Death, Diary of the Dead: Kroniki zywych trupów, Mirusiuju dienoraštis, Diary of the dead - Chroniques des morts-vivants, El diario de los muertos, To imerologio ton nekron, Το ημερολόγιο των νεκρών, La invasión de los muertos, Daiari obu za Deddo, Le cronache dei morti viventi, Diary of the Dead, Ölülerin günlüğü, Дневникът на мъртвите

Leave a Reply

No Comments

  • susan-hope
    susan hope

    George A Romero, in my opinion is without a doubt one of the finest directors of his time. His ‘Dead’ series is my favourite film franchise of all time. So, as you’d expect, I awaited eagerly for the DVD release of this title (I’m 16, so the cinema wasn’t an option.) I sat down and watched. And what did I watch? Some of the WORST acting I have ever laid eyes upon on a film with this much hype. I don’t know what it was, whether the despicable lead characters and their unrealistic behaviour or the ‘comedy’ elements that weren’t funny but it just didn’t work. It pains me to say it, it honestly does but this entry was by far the worst of them all. Romero’s previous films in the series always display a subtle and effective message about the social/political or moral attitudes of our society, but ‘Diary…’s message is clunky and uncomfortably obvious about the YouTube and MySpace phenomenon. Overall, a total let down, made even worse by the sheer awesomeness of the previous instalment’s. I’ve tried to be constructive with my criticisms here, but even Romero’s reputation is struggling to save this one here. I just hope there is another one, to save the reputation of the Series. 3/10 P:(

  • sig-caligola-caruso
    sig caligola caruso

    I cannot believe this came from the same man that brought us Night, Dawn & Day of the Dead…What a boring, emotionless waste of time…I LOVE Romero and was really unhappy with Land of the Dead, but compared to Diary, that was a classic! The acting came was extraordinarily bad…NO ONE was scared even thought everything in the world was in chaos…it was actually painful for me to sit thought this! I have been the biggest supporter of Romero and his films…and I’m not even comparing this one to the others…how could you? Have you ever rented a horror film that was really low-budget and made for like 50K and you accept the terrible acting and bad effects…well this was the same exact thing, only this one wasn’t any fun….I cannot express what a letdown this movie was…I really never leave comments but I was really looking forward to this…what a waste.

  • hana-radovic
    hana radovic

    While filming a horror movie of mummy in a forest, the students of the University of Pittsburgh Jason Creed (Joshua Close), Ridley Wilmot (Phillip Riccio), Francine Shane (Megan Park), Tony Ravelo (Shawn Roberts), Elliot Stone (Joe Dinicol), Mary Dexter (Tatiana Maslany), Elliot “Gordo” Thorson (Chris Violetti) and Tracy Thurman (Amy Lalonde) and their professor Andrew Maxwell (Scott Wentworth) hear on the TV news that the dead are awaking and walking. Ridley and Francine decide to leave the group, while Jason heads to the dormitory of his girlfriend Debra Monahan (Michelle Morgan). She does not succeed in contacting her family and they travel in Mary’s van to the house of Debra’s parents in Scranton, Pennsylvania. While driving her van, Mary sees a car accident and runs over a highway patrolman and three other zombies trying to escape from them. Later the religious Mary is depressed, questioning whether the victims where really dead, and tries to commit suicide, shooting herself with a pistol. Her friends bring her to a hospital where they realize that the dead are indeed awaking and walking and they need to fight to survive while traveling to house of Debra’s parents.I do not say that “Diary of the Dead” is disappointing, but indeed there is nothing new in this movie “à la The Blair Witch Project (or Cloverfield)”. The story is a kind of “documentary” of George A. Romero’s trilogy, with the cinema student Jason Creed shooting the movie with his handy camera. Unfortunately there is a total lack of credibility in this unreasonable character that keeps shooting his movie even in the most weird or dangerous situation for himself or for his group of friends. My vote is six.Title (Brazil): Not Available

  • katherine-ruiz
    katherine ruiz

    I liked this one quite a bit, more than I thought I would actually as I’d been expecting a fairly low budget/cheesefest of a movie. If you don’t analyze anything too much this ends up being a fun ride though; following a group of collage film students who are shooting their own low budget horror film and inadvertently begin documenting the early days of a zombie apocalypse. It becomes a bit of a road trip movie with ravenous walking corpses at every stop and filmmaker “Jason” documenting first-person style the horrors they witness in an obsessive and unflinching manner. Even as his friends die he keeps filming.The story is decent as are the special effects, I mean this ain’t’ no ‘Walking Dead’ and it is very much a B movie but the zombie kills are fun and unique; the melting head covered in acid comes to mind and the opening scene at the hospital is also really good.Horror king George A Romero definitely has a style and as writer-director here, if you’re a fan of the genre this is worth checking out. 10.13

  • susana-malzer
    susana malzer

    Following 2005’s release of Land of the Dead, Diary of the Dead marks George A. Romero’s immediate return to the subject of zombies. George A. Romero’s Diary of the Dead tells the story of a group of young film students on location in the woods, filming their own horror film. This mix and matched group of twenty-somethings are accompanied by their disillusioned, alcoholic teacher with an understated flair for theatrics. While working on their film school thesis, consisting of a mummy chasing a buxom blond in a white dress, they become witness to a ghoulish outbreak. The young director, Jason, makes the immediate decision to film the events for posterity. He records the ensuing Armageddon as he slowly sinks into a whirlwind of obsession that precludes concerns for safety. This film is a daring re-imagining of Romero’s own Night of the Living Dead and the initial zombie outbreak that results in the undead apocalypse of Romero’s “Dead” series.Unlike Cloverfield, this movie is not presented as “found footage”, instead it is a finished student film that was uploaded to the Internet. Being that Diary of the Dead is what became of the student film-within-a-film “The Death of Death”, this gives the director and editor in Romero free reign to be as pretentious as he likes. He deftly mixes the medium of the digital age by showing everything from Youtube clips to mini-camera footage to Myspace clips to newscasts – ostensibly downloaded from the Internet for use in the film within the film. Romero has always been an economic editor with a knack for getting dynamic information across with as little cutting as possible and this multi-media Internet approach allows him to cover the spectrum of the digital medium. Romero, the director, has a painter’s eye for compositions and can still set up a “boo!” scare with the best of them, however Diary of the Dead is not necessarily a scary film. It is an extremely horrifying film. The intercutting montages of the news and footage of zombie attacks create a terrifying tapestry of a world gone mad – as well as eerily mirroring events in our world today. So much information comes to us in the brief clips and snippets culled from the Internet that it borders on information overload.Romero paces the film perfectly. He speeds it up with moments of suspense with splashes of action or gore. When needing a break, Romero slows the film down with character moments involving Jason and Debra and their on-going debate about the propriety of recording these events. There are many ways to examine this film as I find myself wanting to see a subtext of criticism of the media for the desensitization of our society’s attitudes towards violence. I’m not sure how to look at the film as yet, but I can see that my perception of it might shift drastically with subsequent viewings. There are also multiple ways to enjoy the film as pure entertainment as this film had some of the best zombie killings I’ve ever seen in a horror film. Some were implausible, and some were improbable, but there were some creative kills involving sharp objects and zombies and a few other things. There’s something amazing that happens when a scythe and a zombie make like the four tongued red beaver. You have to see it to know what I’m talking about. The gore is fairly understated, but well used throughout. The most foreboding elements of the film are not the gore effects or even the death scenes, but the overall mood and atmosphere. There is a dark apocalyptic feeling that hangs over the film like a shadow. I find that the more I think about the juxtaposition of news, personal footage and the student film, that the more Diary of the Dead opens up for me. I’m always a sucker for films that lend themselves to interpretation and Diary of the Dead is no exception. It’s easily the most innovative use of the medium since Oliver Stone’s Natural Born Killers.The film takes itself deadly serious at times while at other moments planting it’s rotting tongue squarely in cheek. There are some funny little character moments in the verbal exchanges between the film students. There are also some fall down, nearly slapstick level, humor at other moments. These moments approach the level of a wink into the camera to remind us that there is a certain level of fun to it all. Even though some might criticize the film for taking itself too seriously, Romero firmly acknowledges the stuffiness of the subject matter and reminds us that this is just a movie after all and so let’s have fun with it.Streebo rates George A. Romero’s Diary of the Dead a 10 out of 10 screams on the Scream-o-meter. It is the first masterpiece of 2008.

  • debora-assuncao
    debora assuncao

    I just got back from the world premiere of Diary Of the Dead at the TIFF and all I have to say is that it was Fantastic!!! I truly believe he made this film the way he wanted it, with no big headed Hollywood studio types to interfere with his vision.Everything from the filming, phenomenal cast, soundtrack, and yes fellow horror fans the gore. It isn’t an over the top gore fest but there are appropriate amounts and interesting kill scenes. Follow this recipeIngredients: Throw in bits of social satire of a world gone or going wrong right now, a brilliant cast and crew, top notch attention to detail and mix with equal part zombies and what you have is a complete George A Romero feast.Best thing about the above recipe is that it will never spoil as I will not spoil with any details of the storyline….just go see it if you get a chance to.

  • gloria-oscar-bueno
    gloria oscar bueno

    First of all, this film tried the already-proved-to-fail camcorder approach. Guess what! It failed. I have to give credit where it’s due, because the lighting and scene construction were done pretty well.Generally speaking, a film can please a large audience by combining excessive foul language with gratuitous drug use, sex, or violence, but this film doesn’t have anything other than cursing.Over the years, George Romero has been pivotal in the specific sub-sect of horror that focuses on the idea of a zombie apocalypse. I have come to enjoy a lot of Romero’s works, and that’s why this befuddles me. Night of the Living Dead was ground-breaking, and Diary of the Dead should have stayed dead.

  • lic-javier-aranda
    lic javier aranda

    Diary of the Dead is the fifth, and hopefully last, installment in Romero’s “Dead” series. This installment is such a disappointment, as it fails to live up or revive the forty year old series.The biggest disappointment is the fact that this series does not follow the original continuity of the series. While that is not necessarily bad, it leaves a faithful viewer feeling cheated, as the classic B-movie feel is completely removed. The notion of a Venus satellite crashing on earth, releasing a gas that reanimates the dead, is entirely ludicrous, but it was somehow more acceptable than the ridiculous plot line in this film.So, okay, this doesn’t follow the storyline, alright. So what? Does it still keep it’s satirical nature expected from the series? Night of the Living Dead took a deep look at racism, Dawn of the Dead was about consumerism, Day of the Dead was about how human beings can be more harmful and volatile than the savages they claim to be better than, and Land of the Dead featured humanity profiting off others and Randian social Darwinism. Diary of the Dead tries very hard to feature an ironic look at the media’s treatment of disaster, but it ends up failing. The main character is completely masked from the audience, leading one to believe this was meant to somehow be ironic, but it seems like a cop-out, like the audience is just supposed to accept it.The acting is universally terrible, and while that is expected from a Romero film, this one is just…bad. Really bad. Absolutely no emotion in any dialogue; everything falls flat in delivery.An aesthetic thing about Romero’s movies is the inclusion of elaborate killing sequences. In this film, however, nothing is particularly interesting, save for the one kill with the defibrillators. This is particularly disappointing, as one expects a Romero film to be particularly interesting. Nothing. Absolutely nothing interesting. It might actually have gotten a better score.All in all, the biggest mark against this film is the ending. It fails to revive the series or end it on a high note. If you want a premium zombie film that actually means something, watch Romero’s earlier films. You’ll be glad you did.

  • kalupso-emmanouel
    kalupso emmanouel

    I just saw a screening in Glasgow last night and was really impressed. After seeing Land of the Dead I feared GAR was destined to make only studio controlled zombie films that sold out his previous works, but this is something of a return to form. The budget is tiny and the actors unknown (as is the case with his best films), but the special effects are top-notch and there is plenty of gore that’s made even more unsettling as seen through the lens of a camcorder.The ‘Point Of View’ technique is bound to generate concern over similarities to other films using the same style (Cloverfield for instance) but Diary is a very different kind of film and certainly not a ‘rip-off’, but rather a smaller scale movie doing it’s own thing.There’s humour (some real laugh-out-loud moments), social commentary (perhaps a little heavy handed, but relevant and intelligent), suspense, gore and everything else we’ve come to expect from a Romero film but bundled-up into a new and fresher style by the old guy. It was really interesting to see him trying something new.As a fan of the genre and of Romero’s works I was ultimately relieved and impressed by Diary after entering the theatre a sceptic. This isn’t his best film and some fans will no doubt be let down, but after seeing it myself I was happy to see him back on track.Thanks George.

  • g-lukacs-otto
    g lukacs otto

    At first I was apprehensive about this new entry in Romero’s Dead series, but that pretty much disappeared after the first scene. The fact that the film was shot all in subjective camera doesn’t result in a gimmicky, incoherent mess, like, say, the Blair Witch, but is used intelligently and effectively.The scares and effects were great, and the movie actually takes a rather complicated approach to the topic of today’s media-saturated environment, rather than being a crude polemic.My only complaint would be that the voice-over and dialogue were a little clunky at times, overexplaining things that could have been inferred without too much trouble. That’s a minor problem though. Overall, a totally worthy entry in the series.

  • andrija-antic
    andrija antic

    I really like zombie movies and I’ve watched all the DEAD series, but this one was really stupid. With a zombie movie, we don’t need introductions, we all know what to expect and that’s okay!We don’t need a big scenario with zombie movies, we want actions, we want blood, we want explosions etc. We don’t need to know how the characters feels, we don’t give a ****! They are being chased by zombies, we kinda imagine what it fells like. There was too much useless dialogs. Second thing, the whole idea of filming what happens is not a bad idea, but we sure don’t need the whole movie to be filmed a ”handy cam style”. But after I watched this one, I told myself: Could they have made the characters more stupid? The are running for there lives, and the moron films the whole thing without helping his friends?? What kind a imbecile would react like that? The specials effects were great, but we saw maybe 10 zombies getting the brain blown. And at the end, when they could have made a rampage, the movie ends. So when the movies finishes, we know nothing more than what they told us in the first few minutes. This movie felt like Clover field… VERY Disappointing….

  • rafal-namyslo
    rafal namyslo

    Alright, well I’ll start right off the bat with, I loved this movie. I will bore you with a synopsis of the movie, cause you can read the plot somewhere else, and I am pretty sure most of you know the plot already. Instead of the movie starting off with saying “George A. Romero’s DIARY OF THE DEAD”, it begins as a fully cut together documentary about what these students went through for the first few days of the outbreak. The movie has narration, and is told through a variety of cameras, security cameras, self phones, news footage…this makes for an already very interesting watch. The movie starts out with a great opening scene which grabs you right from the get go, and already you can tell that this is not some Blair Witch knock off. Comparisons to Blair Witch will be thrown right out the window. In DIARY the camera acts as a character in the film, a lot of time I forgot I was watching a documentary esquire movie, and thought I was just watching a film. Instead of shaky cameras, off the cuff improv dialogue, we get a full more theatrical sort of experience. We still watch the whole movie through the POV of the cameras, and this never changes…which leads to some terrifying scenes. I have never found zombie movies scary, but this was quite a creepy film in parts. Most notably the “Hospital Scene”, talk about a perfect creep fest…great location, great build up…great pay off.From the get go, I can assume that this will be a movie that either fans or going to love or hate. It’s very much the Romero world; there are little nods to Night and Day. But the overall feeling is something new all to itself, obviously one can compare it to Night, but even that would be a very loose comparison. What really makes this movie work is what you don’t see. The film is not a zombie gore fest by any means, not by comparison to Land anyways (But don’t worry, DIARY still holds a great deal of signature Romero moments that had the audience up and cheering). There are no huge crowds of zombies roaming around, they are here and there and they still very much are a threat, but still not the scariest. Radio reports and peoples actions really up the paranoia level of the movie, and make it a scarier experience. This is by far the scariest Romero Dead film of the series; it holds a great sense of dread with it. In the negative department, of which I have very few complaints, I think some of delivery of lines where a little camp. And the staging of a couple scenes definitely played cheesy in a few parts where it should have been serious. Also, there were only a couple CGI moments that took me out of the movie (don’t worry, there is no priest zombie in the movie, the CGI is very subtle). But all these complaints are few and far between each other. All together, DIARY was a very impressive achievement for Mr. Romero, and I hope this film sees the light of day soon, cause I know I can’t wait to see it again. I think the social commentary in this movie played stronger and better then it did in the other films. This was a nice touch; it really added to the overall experience, it brought a sense of reality to the whole concept…more so then the other films in my opinion. In conclusion, Romero fans won’t be disappointed, the film has his dark humor and great zombie moments laced through out the film. And people looking for more then just cheap thrills, should also leave the theater feeling satisfied.

  • grigorii-arkhipenko
    grigorii arkhipenko

    George A. Romero is one of those filmmakers who shouldn’t need an introduction. If you’re a horror fan at all, you should be intimately familiar with his Dead series by now, and if you’re a movie fan at all, you should at least know Night Of The Living Dead and Dawn Of The Dead, the first and still the strongest entries in the genre. It’s no hyperbole to say that Romero essentially invented the zombie movie, gave it the structures and tones that have relentlessly followed the genre through 40 years of movie history.Diary Of The Dead, Romero’s new movie and latest entry into the 5-part series, is a return to the form and feel of his original classic Night Of The Living Dead. The three movies in between (the classic Dawn, hit-or-miss Day and severely underrated Land) showed a world consumed by destruction and fear, already well past the point of no return in an unthinkable apocalypse. Diary takes us back to the beginning, taking place during the first few days of the attacks, documenting how a group of college students (and one drunken professor) cope with the crisis growing around them.The hook of the movie is that what we’re seeing is not presented in a typical film fashion, but instead as a series of homemade video clips made by the characters themselves. While shooting their own low-budget horror movie, the students are interrupted by the sudden, jarring realization that freshly dead bodies are coming back to life and attacking people. What follows is a documentation of their quick departure from their suddenly deserted campus and their long trip to home, safety and any sort of an answer.If the plot description has you thinking of The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield, the comparison ends with the initial conceit of horror via home movies. There’s no shaky-cam addled suspense here, and you won’t ever feel motion sick. The camera’s presence in the movie serves to give a heightened feeling of suspense and immediacy. Unlike most other zombie movies, there’s no outside camera telling the story, letting us know where the zombies are and when they’re coming. We follow the characters through the movie, and the threat of danger is always palpable, even when nothing on screen is particularly frightening. Hitchcock once said that surprise was a bomb going off under a table unexpectedly, while suspense was letting the audience know there is a bomb under the table while the characters remain unaware. Diary is a movie with thousands of bombs waiting under thousands of tables, waiting to explode every time the camera turns a new corner.After Land Of The Dead, a great movie that felt buried beneath a huge budget and massive studio interference, it’s great to see Romero returning to his indie roots. Diary is entirely his own movie, and he gets the tone perfect. The campy scares and the gross-out gore explosions are all present, and will delight fan boys to no end. (They sure got some big laughs out of me.) But what Romero does best is suddenly switch from fun to disturbing when you least expect it. The best moments of Diary come when the gory thrill ride comes screeching to a halt and everything suddenly becomes all too relatable, entirely too real. These are the moments that will stick with you after the gory brain-splatter effects have lost their novelty.Diary isn’t quite a perfect movie though. Occasionally the hand-held camera device becomes too distracting and begins to get in the way of the story. The movie takes too much time rationalizing why the characters decide to film the events, rather than trusting the audience to go along with the idea. At times it feels like the movie is apologizing for its own concept, which it definitely does not need to do. We don’t need to know the details of why the movie is edited, or why music has been added. The explanations slow down the movie, and only highlight problems instead of fixing them. Also, the pace slows down quite a bit in the third act, which is when Romero movies usually jolt up to a fevered pitch. Stick it out though, because the movie’s last sequence, and especially its last line of dialog, are worth the price of admission alone. This is most likely not the end of the Dead saga, but if it were, it could not have come to a more perfect conclusion than the jarring, horrific last shot Romero gives us.

  • josep-de-bustamante
    josep de bustamante

    I really dislike the whole “found footage” genre, and I wish it would finally die. Luckily, this movie doesn’t quite fit 100% into that genre, but it’s close enough that I got fairly annoyed. Diary of the Dead is basically about some film school kids documenting the beginning of the zombie apocalypse, and thus it’s more of a fake documentary than anything else. Unlike some movies shot in this style, one of the main themes involves criticism of the obsessive need to document everything rather than actually participating. There are also some shots at censorship, social media, and the propaganda potential for the mainstream media.Unfortunately, Diary of the Dead feels like a watered-down reboot of his classic franchise, modernized and targeted at teenagers, with the requisite group of stereotypical dumb ass characters found in every direct-to-video slasher movie. The social criticism is blatant and lacks subtlety, and Romero resorts to outright lecturing the audience. I generally agree with Romero, but I prefer his older movies. He’s never been particularly subtle, but this is just too overt and generic for my taste. He comes off as having been inspired by soulless ripoffs of his own work.It’s one of Romero’s worst movies, but that still makes it better than much of the crap that litters the horror landscape. Hopefully, if we get any more movies from Romero, they’ll be as uncompromising and powerful as his earlier work, but it seems as though Romero has had some real problems getting funding. Watered-down, mainstream Romero is better than no Romero, but it’s difficult to recommend. This may be a good introduction to his material for younger audiences, though.

  • gregorios-petrogiannes
    gregorios petrogiannes

    First of all: I’m a huge fan of Romero’s first three (quite disappointed with Land of the Dead) classic Dead movies, and have great respect and admiration for his work and the influence he and his movies have had on the entire horror movie genre. Along with Lucio Fulci and Dario Argento, Romero is without any doubt one of the most influential and important horror/splatter/zombie directors of all time. No question about it!In Diary, Romero once again focuses on a few surviving people and the relationships between them, rather than the zombies and the gore. This is what has always made his movies great and powerful. In all his films, the zombies themselves work mostly as a reason to explain why a small group of very different people is suddenly forced to rely on, and help each other out, while the main focus is on the relationships between these people and the reactions and emotions that might erupt during such an extreme and interesting situation as a zombie outbreak.While this formula is what has made his previous films interesting and entertaining, it is sadly what makes Diary of the Dead the exact opposite. And the reason for that are simply the actors. The main characters are all (except one) film school students, being just as shallow and cocky as every other cast of kids in any other “new” horror movie. The actors (all being young and unknown) seem quite inexperienced, and they all fail miserably to convince me, even for a second, that this is anything other than a bad student movie, trying desperately to be something more than it really is. And when ONE single interesting character (the mute Amish man armed with a scythe) is finally introduced, he sure doesn’t stick around for very long.A movie like this depends heavily on the actors, and when you seriously wish the entire cast would turn into zombies, just so they can shut up, the entire film, including the once great director, has failed.The script itself, on the other hand, is actually quite good. There are some annoying things, like at the beginning when a couple of kids decides to leave school and go home and fortify themselves in a mansion, based solely on a radio broadcast, reporting about 6 cases of “strange zombie-like attacks”. But over all it is an interesting script and I totally understand what Mr. Romero had in mind, and what he hoped to accomplish. Too bad the actors ruined it for him. A group of kids/students can also never be as interesting as a group of real grownups from different parts of society (as in Dawn of the Dead), and I really hope that Romero will leave the kids alone and once more focus on interesting characters, would he ever decide to do another movie (there are rumors of a Diary of the Dead part 2).Better luck next time.

  • odintsova-maiia-petrovna
    odintsova maiia petrovna

    Some people are falling for the method in how they represented the story but to me it seemed like they couldn’t decide if that’s the way they wanted to tell it or not. The premise is that it’s a video that one of the characters edited together from all the footage they got. However, half of it is edited as if a pro edited the film yet they retain all the little blips of the camera cutting off – they really blip all right. If they stuck to one format they would’ve done all right.Now for the characters it’s the usual do the dumbest thing you could think of at the moment most of the time. How many times do characters need to hear to shoot them in the head to learn it? How many rounds of ammo do they use on a 5 on one zombie situation when any kind of the blow to the head would do? Wait, instead of a blow to the head how about an even more difficult task of a defibrillator to the head just to show special effects? Nothing matches up either. They learn that someone is bitten and they take a good 30 minutes to go into the house? Also, how preachy is this thing? They’re zombies yet throughout the entire movie they go on about how they’re killing people and how bad they feel. This and that. How many times did someone say they didn’t want the gun because “it’s too easy”? Then a freaking bow and arrow? Come on.This movie had potential but just went plain stupid. The only reason to watch this is for the 5 minutes or so with the Amish guy.

  • nelson-martins
    nelson martins

    First let me get this out of the way, I am a huge Romero fan in fact I think the man is one of cinemas true greats. This film however is not one of his best. In fact it’s pretty much one of the worst things he’s ever made. The idea starts off good enough, a group of student filmmakers making a horror film hear about the dead rising and decide to travel home to be with their families. OK so far, they then decide to make a documentary of the whole thing so they can upload it on the internet to tell the world the truth. Starting to slide a bit. They all hitch up in a camper van with an English alcoholic professor and set off with the cameras glued to their faces and this is the film we see. Oh dear. Where did the camper van/motorhome come from?, why would they take the professor? Why did Romero think this would be a good idea? The cast is filled with all the college clichés you can think of. the jock, his glamorous girlfriend, the computer nerd, the weird girl (who thankfully blows her brains out early on) and so on. The film starts off slowly and doesn’t really pick up any pace. Some of the deaths were quite inventive but compared to Dawn, Day and Land (I’m not bringing Night into it because that didn’t really have many special FX) they were pretty poor and the gore count was ridiculously low. Some of the scenes were so unbelievable, I mean when would you just stand there and film your girlfriend being attacked by a zombie? I don’t care how much you want to document things, it’d never happen! So far every one of George’s zombie films have ended with a big massacre with the zombies biting and tearing and so on, this however has on of THE weakest endings of ANY horror film. EVER. They stock up and hide in a panic room the end. Oh dear God. I don’t think I’ve ever been so disappointed in a film i was so looking forward to. Fans will point to the social satire and black humour that run through the film with all the subtlety of a combine harvester on ice as being it’s saving grace but for a horror film, a zombie horror film, by the master of genre it is a very poor effort.

  • matthew-allen
    matthew allen

    Its very sad of me to say that this film is a big disappointment. I’m a big fan of Romero and his zombie films but this one is just rubbish.What initially attracted me to this film is the basic fact that Romero is directing once again and he is going to take on an interesting genre (they call it “Spookumentary”) The trailer looked awesome and I was like a little boy waiting for Santa Claus to arrive bearing this precious little gift called “Diary of the Dead”. Hell, even the poster looked kickass.Its like what the old folks say: The higher you get, the harder you fall. That’s what I felt when I saw this film. I was so disappointed. George Romero is losing his touch.The premise was interesting. A bunch of college students happens upon a zombie outbreak and they run for their lives. One of the students is holding a camera and the audience is in that camera, his point of view. You know, I’m gonna forgive the part where the students are like surgeons with very steady hands and it didn’t really feel like it is a pseudo-documentary horror film.But I cannot ever forget the film’s very bad acting, continuity errors and unsympathetic characters. The message conveyed in the end is questionable too.This girl in the end had this monologue about two drunk rednecks shooting zombies and she’s like “A zombie girl gets shot in the head by two drunk hillbillies, is the world really worth saving? I don’t know, you tell me”.It was a wtf moment for me. What is she so upset about? Those two guys just did the world some good by killing a human-eating zombie and she’s going all emotional about it. If there ever was a zombie-rights organization, I bet you she will be the spokesperson.And then there’s this guy who rather wants to die recording zombies in camera and uploading it on MySpace than live. It will make you lol. Don’t get me started with the girl who gets chased by a zombie and this guy is just standing there recording like a douchebag.The girl is screaming her lungs out for help and this guy is just standing there like a complete total prick.Overall, I’d say the appetizer was rather enjoyable, but the main entrée is just plain garbage. 1 star.

  • elizabeth-fernandez
    elizabeth fernandez

    Short Background, I LOVE ZOMBIE FILMS.not this one.I was eager to throw on this “Groundbreaking” film. I was told that Romero had come up with a new and interesting twist to the world of the living dead. HE DID NOT.Most Zombie films don’t tote the biggest name actors or the highest budget. What they do have is a loyal cult following. George Romero especially. I watched this film with two other people, my cousin who is into ridiculous gore and lots of decapitations, my father who enjoys inventive twists and good dialog, and myself, i lie in between these two. We were all disappointed. There were barely any zombies. The characters were idiotic and unlikable. The use of the internet was somewhat inventive but turned out dumb because Romero overkilled the animosity it generated within the core characters. The acting was atrocious, understandable right? Zombie flicks love to use unknowns. At least in movies like flight of the living dead there was some comedy, about the only good thing other than the deaths. The dialog was idiotic at parts and border line Ayn Rand at others, the use of profuse philosophy creates an awkwardness in films, even more so when its not consistent. Having said all that, there was one part I did enjoy.

  • pauli-seppala-lehtonen
    pauli seppala lehtonen

    I just saw “Diary of the Dead” last weekend. I’m not saying I hated it, but I was very disappointed. I can appreciate the concept, but George really dropped the ball here. I think the main failure, is that this type of film (P.O.V.) is out of Romero’s element. Given the right tools and scenario, George Romero is a master. But, the guy just isn’t cut out for “Cloverfield” or “Blair Witch” type stuff. Another fault-too many characters, making half baked decisions, solely for the purpose of putting themselves, or companions, in danger. I really expected more from a filmmaker of this caliber. Also, the only character I REALLY liked, was the drunkard professor.It’s a damned shame, cause this was a pretty cool idea. Obviously not enough preproduction was done.The DP does NOT know how to properly simulate P.O.V. shooting.Having a music score was absurd! An equally eerie effect, could have been achieved using total silence combined with simple, unnerving sounds. Think of the scene in “Das Boot” where the U69 is lying on the bottom, and all that can be heard among the silence is a ticking stopwatch, drips of water, and the hull groaning.Jason was such a self absorbed jackass, that NOBODY cares what he has to say, or what happens to him. Also, even an douche like Jason, will put the camera down to save his own ass. There should have been scenes (like when Tracy is being chased thru the woods, or the hospital) where Jason sits down the camera to help out. The camera could have recorded part of the image, or shadows, along with sound to keep the audience abreast of what’s happening. Not seeing everything could have been used to create suspense, and give Jason a chance not to be such a schmuck.Samuel was whacked far too soon. He was too interesting to kill off so fast. He shouldn’t have been killed, until the heart attack guy was loose in the “Black Panther” compound. Plus, imagine the possibilities of Samuel and a deaf Black Panther, hitting it off thru sign language. This was such a wasted chance for interesting character development.I think it’s great that George wants to make a social comment, but Effin’ A man-lighten up! Spoiled, multi-millionaire kid is wearing the same grungy mummy costume for three days, after he’s back home in a huge mansion, with a huge wardrobe? NOT! This is totally unbelievable! I know George wanted to have his mummy chase at the end. But, the guy’s clothing could be dirty/disheveled enough from dragging around the undead, that it would have a mummy-like appearance. Thus, the sight gag would still work, and be a lot more realistic.A 100 lb kid being thrown against, and pinned to the wall, off the floor, by an aluminum arrow? It defies the most basic physics! Nobody is buying it. The sister should have thrown him off her back, against the wall. Then he should have been shot with the arrow. And instead of staying pinned to the wall, after a second, the arrow should have snapped. The kid sliding to the floor, and leaving a skid mark of blood and brains, would have been a more shocking visual to boot.Oh-and with the exception of about four cast members, the acting licked turds! George Romero still has my utmost respect. But while a nice try, on this venture I give him a C minus. George-now that a sequel is in the works, PLEASE use better preproduction this time. And find a crew with the stones to tell you if something is a bad idea-instead of those who would blow smoke up your ass. I think those Canadians are afraid of offending the master….unlike us Yinzers, who regard George as “a nice guy to drink an Ahrn City with.”

  • solomiia-ilchenko
    solomiia ilchenko

    **Nothing in my comment will spoiler the movie more than it already was but still if you have issues with spoilers don’t read the last paragraph**Let me start by saying Romero is one of my favorite horror film makers since he gave me such a fright with his Dead trilogy when I was a kid, especially with Dawn of the Dead that I was unable to sleep without my dad keeping watch for months (poor guy). No one, I mean no one, ever frightened me like that again. Therefore I will always love and respect him, no matter what. But the truth be told, Diary of the Dead is such a lame and amateurish film that Land of the Dead which I didn’t like very much, looks like a masterpiece compared to this.You know the story, a couple of unlikable characters who are making a horror movie in the woods realize that there’s an actual break-out going on in the world and they set off to find their families (more like to find one person’s family in the group) and decide to film the whole thing while they’re at it. And that’s it… That’s the whole story. The rest is a sad portrait of Romero trying to fill in the blanks between his fantasy zombie-killing methods which are absolutely lame and stretched like shocking a zombie with a defibrillator, or breaking a bottle of strong acid on a zombie’s head and while you don’t even hurt a finger the zombie’s skull melts in seconds. And don’t even get me started on that stretched-as-hell clown zombie scene. It’s so obvious that Romero only focused on realizing his fantasies and ideas he’s been accumulating for years that he didn’t give a flying f*** what the movie looked like. However, Romero uses this lack-of-a-story aspect wisely and fills the whole vast space with his “and the message of this movie ladies and gentlemen…” card. It makes me really sad to think that he used to deliver these rightful messages quite subtle back in his day but now he simply blabbers trying to attack a different aspect of society this time: The Mass Media. He also makes use of the internet, the blogs and mobile phones as well as anything that records, probably in order to catch the attention of the youth audience. However, he’s not only clearly displaying his absolute lack-of-info on all this technology but he also fails with delivering his “Media is bad” message. All through the movie everyone is talking about “finding the truth the media hides” and they go as far as to make a movie to tell everyone this “truth” which is: “the zombies are real”. This point of the movie was so absurd that I was shocked anyone could write such a senseless script let alone our beloved Romero. All our characters first hears the news from the radio, every section of the media repeatedly reports that “dead returning to life” which is quite a bold statement enough already for the first day but still, there’s this whole “media is hiding the truth and we should uncover it” thing strained throughout the movie that it makes you want to scream “What’s there to hide?! Everyone is dead already!” Also, exactly why our characters make a documentary and which survivor would waste their time watching something they’ve already been through is unclear. There are so many holes with this whole internet and documentary angle that I won’t go any further.Finally, lovable characters we are used to seeing in Romero’s movies whom you root for, are gone. We have the cliché all-star team of slasher movies. None of them are believable or likable. Just check out the “hilarious” joke one of them makes upon seeing their very first zombie. Or the incredibly fast emotional recovery of the blonde girl who has just lost her boyfriend. The super-brave lead actress who don’t think twice before frying a zombie in her first actual close-up encounter. How about the lead guy who never drops his camera like it’s super-glued to his hands (This is the biggest, the most striking negative the movie has). And the wise professor who keeps on delivering poetic lines while you keep asking “What the hell is this guy doing here and what’s with that hilarious set of bow and arrows?”There are so many more things to say but I’ll let you enjoy determining those on your own since there are plenty.All in all, we friggin love you Romero, but this movie completely and utterly sucks.

  • matthew-conner
    matthew conner

    Sometimes, user comments on IMDb can be misleading! One comment recently suggested that this film is Romero returning to his roots, and suggested that this film ranks up there with the best of his ‘dead’ films. Respectfully, I disagree…very, VERY MUCH!For those not familiar, the Dead trilogy went like this: 1- Night of the Living Dead: the dead return to life and terrorize the panicked individuals who have taken refuge in a rural home. 2- Dawn of the Dead: Romero’s BEST, for those who don’t know it; when society finds itself unable to contain the dead’s movements, a small group hole up in a mall and find a small utopia in the commercial appeal after society’s downfall. 3- Day of the Dead: Government, mostly at the prodding of the military forces, take refuge on Islands off the coast of the US, trying to find either an answer to take back the world (the military approach), or to live with the ‘dead’ (the scientific approach). 4- Land of the Dead: Society breaks down into colonies controlled by those who have the wealth and power to command military like forces and both the dead and the poor are subjected to abuse in these colonial like establishments.As you can see, there was a progress to Romero’s films- political commentary definitely was loaded in the films. For some reason however, Romero decided to make this film, which in a nut shell, is about a group of students who, while making a cheesy monster movie, find themselves in the middle of chaos and decide to document it. A la “The Blair Witch Project” (which is far superior!) and “Cloverfield.”One by one, most of the students are dispatched as they make their way across Pennsylvania in search of their families- though if you sit through the first five minutes of the film, the narrative tells you: a) the film is already over; and b) an effort to edit it in order to emphasize its fear factor has been made to ‘wake you up.’ The latter part is rather peculiar given that the film maker goes as far as to watch his friends being attacked by the dead, without helping them, in order to capture exactly what happened.Does that seem parasitic? What is perhaps even more sickening is that the ‘film maker’ seems more concerned with ‘hits’ his video gets online than the well being of his friends, or that after he falls victim to an attacker, he’s essentially regarded as a noble hero by one of the survivors.I really didn’t like this film, although it was clear that the crowds at the theater did enjoy some of the originality of the gore (in one scene, one of the dead is shocked with an EMP machine in a hospital, causing their eyes to explode, but not killing them). My advice: if you are tired of seeing shills that try to find the same pulse that the Blair Witch Project successfully exploited, or if you want to retain an idea that Romero’s dead trilogy stands as a firm example of positive movie making, avoid this dud!

  • gimgyeongsug

    What is it with the classic directors; Spielberg, Carpenter, and now Romero, that they seem to produce such abysmal drivel as they get older? Dennis Leary once joked that Elvis should have been killed young so that people only remembered him at his best. If that was true, then Romero should have joined him before this dross was made.Like reality TV, these stupid home movie within a movie offerings are popular at the moment, probably because they’re cheap to make. Blair Witch has a lot to answer for. If Cloverfield left you cold, this movie will give you rigor mortis, with its aimless plot, its set-piece action, and its massively, completely unimaginative, by the numbers encounters.To say that the basic premise of this film is ridiculous, is a huge understatement – and I’m not talking about the zombies either! Even if you accept that the film is set in a world where zombies can exist, I simply refuse to accept that anyone would tolerate the lead character constantly filming instead of helping his friends to survive. In the real world, I think it would be a dead cert that one of his friends would either have fed him to a zombie, or at very least, smashed the hell out of his camera to re-engage him with the real world.This is script writing at its laziest and least convincing.

  • baranov-parfen-bogdanovich
    baranov parfen bogdanovich

    I have always admired the films of Romero and there can be no doubt that he is the godfather of zombie films. Alas, i think he should have finished his zombie career with day of the dead. Land of the dead certainly wasn’t a bad film and this is far from the worst i’ve ever seen but the step down is none the less noticeable. The modern cinematic world owes a lot to Romero but it’s clear that the modern cinematic world has moved on from him.Lets start with the main problems(and ignore the million little ones):-1. An idiot who keeps filming even when he or his friends are in danger (at no point does the brilliant idea of putting the camera down occur to him) 2. A narrator that appears to have edited the film so that it looks polished and yet who chooses to leave in the moments when the camera goes off or turns black 3. A narrator (and editor) who thinks incidental music should be added for tension (imagine those who filmed 9/11 doing the same and you will arrive at the same tasteless nature of this) 4. A narrator (and editor) who wishes for us to witness her rotting corpse family attack her (journalists may pretend to put journalistic integrity before emotional involvement but this is perverse) 5. An allegory for the war in Iraq (we aren’t being given the full information etc) that needs to be endlessly repeated.6. The notion that they needed to film everything to show the world the truth (like walking zombies wouldn’t do it for most people) 7. Romero getting the opportunity to remind everyone that he thinks zombies should be slow (and reminding us again and again) This isn’t an absolutely awful film by any stretch but in relation to the history and reputation of Romero, it is alas…..somewhat of an embarrassment

  • nicolas-leroy
    nicolas leroy

    Diary Of The Dead is a film in which George A. Romero tackles the digital age, and the information barrage that it brings us. Rolling news, Youtube, Podcasts, Myspace are the media of choice for an era where information is global, instant and 24/7. It is in this climate that the ‘Dead’ franchise gets the Blair Witch Project. We follow a group of young film students who find themselves having to band together after the dead start returning to life. Seeing the magnitude of the event a few of the troupe take it upon themselves to record a document of their plight for survival. It is this ‘life through a lens’ that gives us Diary Of The Dead.To expand on the cataclysmic events Romero uses footage from news channels, video blogs and web cams. The accessibility of the Internet mirrors the wildfire decline of humanity as the zombies take over and society collapses. However if there is one thing that defines this Internet era, it is short attention spans.Sadly this pandering to the Youtube generation is what seems to sum up ‘Diary’. The strength behind the previous ‘Dead’ movies was that the survivors were stationary and holed up (whether it be in a shopping mall or bunker). As such it was the banality of their existence that became even more unnerving than the zombie threat. In ‘Diary’ the action is kinetic and the editing very fast-paced, as if Romero is keen to hold the short attention span of a young audience that now lives off 1 minute video clips, and skim-read ‘Wikipedia’ articles. As such the characters never stay in the same place for more than 5 minutes, as the scene hopping goes into overdrive. I’m sad to say that ‘Diary’ smacks of compromise. Romero inserts his typical biting social commentary, but it’s often blunted by a desire to make the film palatable enough to younger generations and audiences. Trying to make reflective points about humanity when they’re delivered by identikit good-looking young actors (who look more suited to being in ‘The O.C’) feels akin to having ‘Hamlet’ read out by Lindsay Lohan.Also Romero’s hand seems forced to add the checklist of ‘teen’ horror clichés.’Gross Out’ deaths- CheckDitzy Blonde Girl- CheckOlder ‘world weary’ authority figure- Check (The professor)Zombie jumping out from side of frame- CheckBig scary mansion finale- CheckDespite its’ flaws, ‘Diary Of The Dead’ is worth seeing simply for the glimmerings of Romero’s post 9/11 views. Ironically, it is modern culture that not only embraces ‘Diary’ but also forces Romero to dumb down. ‘Diary’ is a flawed, experimental film from Romero, however a flawed Romero is far more challenging and interesting than 99% of the competition. An honorable ‘miss’ of a film that sees the master of zombie movies bound by the requirements of commercial success.