(Flesh Eater)

02/17/08 07:00 PM

Diary of the Dead

I got a chance to check this one out yesterday. It's in limited release, and playing at only one theatre within a 100 mile radius of where I live. Overall I thought it was pretty damn good! There were a few creepy moments, and for the most part the acting felt natural. If there was one thing I didn't like though, is how sometimes the characters talk about the point the movie is trying to make, rather than just making it. It also has one of the coolest Amish characters I've ever seen (you'll see what I mean). If you get a chance, check it out. Those who weren't a fan of LAND OF THE DEAD may just find what they were missing in this one.

(Living Dead)

02/17/08 07:35 PM

Re: Diary of the Dead

Been waiting for someone to chime in on this. The critics seem split on this one. I'm may get a chance to see it this week if things work out.

Quote:

sometimes the characters talk about the point the movie is trying to make, rather than just making it

Have heard that other places as well, although I'm alot more psyched about this film's plot vs. LAND OF THE DEAD's smart zombies.

(Living Dead)

02/18/08 04:35 AM

Re: Diary of the Dead

I found it funny the decades later ingenius idea of Romero was "Smart Zombies", was that not Russo's vision all along that made them split up and make different sequels in the first place? (had ROTLD been less comical it still would have been frightening as shit).

I'd love to get stoked for this film but I really feel the first person handycam crap is not something I want to see a lot of.. Blair witch- it's new, Clover-field -it's fun but I feel sick... DOTD? I just don't think I could handle more.

(Flesh Eater)

02/18/08 08:04 AM

Re: Diary of the Dead

Actually, the biggest difference between Diary and the other two films you mentioned, is that with Diary it's actually shot by a student who's first and foremost priority is to document the events. With Cloverfield (which I have not seen, only speculating) and Blair Witch, it was survival first, shoot second. Here, it's shoot first, survival second. Therefore there is no shaky cam. No blurry out of focused shots. When his friends are in trouble, he doesn't put down the camera to help. Instead he keeps a steady shot of what's going on.

(Flesh Eater)

02/23/08 10:40 PM

Re: Diary of the Dead

I live in the middle of nowhere so it's hard to tell how long I'll have to wait to see this movie. I don't really want to download it but if the wait is extremely long I'm afraid I will. Either way I'll buy it the day the dvd is released, good or bad...

(Recently Deceased)

02/24/08 06:59 PM

Re: Diary of the Dead

I was able to see this opening weekend; it is nice to have the Starz Film Center here in Denver. Between that and the four Landmark theaters here, we get to see most every art/independent film that opens.

I dug this movie, and as it continues to sink in I like it more and more. I love what George is saying about the media and I really dig seeing people on the move and trying to function. My favorite part of all zombie films is not the zombies, rather the way human beings relate to each other and how society falls apart, and Diary of the Dead is all about that!

(Living Dead)

07/15/08 07:16 AM

Re: Diary of the Dead

I thought this film was bad.

BAD!
BAD!
BAD!
BAD!
BAD!

Oh how the mighty have fallen.

(Flesh Eater)

07/15/08 11:14 AM

Re: Diary of the Dead

I bought it from a used bin, cheap. I thought it was fair at best, nothing new to see here. Not up to par with what I expected from G.R. Some of the worst acting I have seen in a long time. However, I also bought Left for Dead, a horror-western. OMG, that film REALLY sucked. So in comparison I actually enjoyed Diary. heh

(Flesh Eater)

07/15/08 02:08 PM

Re: Diary of the Dead

I can totally see why you guys think the movie is bad, but you've got to keep the film's shoestring budget and independent status in mind. The acting is bad, but I've seen much worse. The special effects are mediocre, but I've seen much worse. The story isn't all that enveloping, but once again I've seen much worse.

I think Diary Of The Dead is a shining example of what it's supposed to be, and for a cheap ass independent horror film I think it's pretty solid. I know it isn't Romero's best, but it isn't his worst either. IMO Diary Of The Dead accomplished what Romero set out to do, and after viewing the film several times I still think it's a solid movie overall. It's nothing great, but it's not completely forgettable. I think if Romero was able to make Diary Of The Dead with the budget he had for Land Of The Dead it would've been epic. We'll never know for sure, but my hat's off to George for releasing a movie that he had a good time directing. Good for him...

(Living Dead)

07/15/08 10:05 PM

Re: Diary of the Dead

Quote:

I think if Romero was able to make Diary Of The Dead with the budget he had for Land Of The Dead it would've been epic. We'll never know for sure, but my hat's off to George for releasing a movie that he had a good time directing. Good for him...

Land was bad also IMO. So with a big budget he fails. With his usual low budget he fails. G.R. has lost his touch. He has for some time IMO. I hope I don't offend anyone who likes the film but I just feel that Nobody with give this film a second thought. If this was the same movie only called Uwe boll's Diary of the Dead, people would be screaming how bad it was. Sorry I just feel that horror fans can't help but want to like whatever George puts out. I use to. But after these past two dead films I jus can't do it anymore.

(Flesh Eater)

07/16/08 01:11 AM

Re: Diary of the Dead

Quote:

Quote:

I think if Romero was able to make Diary Of The Dead with the budget he had for Land Of The Dead it would've been epic. We'll never know for sure, but my hat's off to George for releasing a movie that he had a good time directing. Good for him...

Land was bad also IMO. So with a big budget he fails. With his usual low budget he fails. G.R. has lost his touch. He has for some time IMO. I hope I don't offend anyone who likes the film but I just feel that Nobody with give this film a second thought. If this was the same movie only called Uwe boll's Diary of the Dead, people would be screaming how bad it was. Sorry I just feel that horror fans can't help but want to like whatever George puts out. I use to. But after these past two dead films I jus can't do it anymore.

I'm going to have to ask that you kindly refrain from using George's name in the same context as Uwe Boll. That's fucking blashemy. While LOTD and Diary are both lackluster when compared to certain films they're both head and shoulders above ANYTHING that Uwe Boll has ever or will ever do. Land Of The Dead being a failure is just an opinion that hold as well my friend. While you may not like it, the film was far from a failure. Land Of The Dead grossed somewhere in the neighborhood of 46 million dollars. That's hardly a failure no matter how you look at it.

One thing that George has going for him is that he's got not one, but two timeless classics under his belt. The fact that he continues to work in the twilight years of his life is pretty fascinating as well. IMO Romero is among pretty prestigious company in the world of horror cinema. He is an icon...

(Flesh Eater)

07/16/08 03:53 AM

Re: Diary of the Dead

Sorry, but one sentence in my last post was supposed to read "Land Of The Dead being a failure is just an opinion that you hold as well my friend."

For some reason I couldn't edit the post...

(Living Dead)

07/16/08 07:51 AM

Re: Diary of the Dead

Quote:

I'm going to have to ask that you kindly refrain from using George's name in the same context as Uwe Boll. That's fucking blashemy. While LOTD and Diary are both lackluster when compared to certain films they're both head and shoulders above ANYTHING that Uwe Boll has ever or will ever do. Land Of The Dead being a failure is just an opinion that hold as well my friend. While you may not like it, the film was far from a failure. Land Of The Dead grossed somewhere in the neighborhood of 46 million dollars. That's hardly a failure no matter how you look at it.

One thing that George has going for him is that he's got not one, but two timeless classics under his belt. The fact that he continues to work in the twilight years of his life is pretty fascinating as well. IMO Romero is among pretty prestigious company in the world of horror cinema. He is an icon...

I'm not really trying to say that George is not a better director then Uwe. He is. Just for the fact that he has NOTLD, DOTD, Martin, Creepshow, and to a lesser extent Day of the Dead.

But when you look at Diary of the Dead and Land of the Dead and compare them with those films, I'm sorry, It's not the same guy. Somthing has happend. He has lost his touch. And Diary really is in the Uwe Boll area of classic crap IMO.

And yes Land did fairly well. It was a very anticipated film by us Dead fans. But it Failed in my opinion as a dead film. It was not even close to his original works and was not even as good as the Night or Dawn remakes.

Again I say it's because these two films have George Romero's name on them that they get such a big pass. I know that opinions and tastes are different and it's all up to the viewer but I don't think there is any way that horror fans will be talking about Diary of the Dead a few years from now. Land may still get some love. Not sure how, screaming zombie gas attendents suck. But there seems to be a small cult following for that film. But I still say it's because of the George name on a Dead film.

(Living Dead)

07/16/08 01:32 PM

Re: Diary of the Dead

When I watched Diary of the Dead I felt that there was something missing. I think I may have replied to a thread about diary before (but I don't remember so I am doing it again). It felt empty and it didn't feel like a Romero movie. I may need to watch it again (the more I type this, the more it feels like I've already said these same things.)

I enjoyed Land and would rate Land a notch above Diary. Or course, it could be because of the over-saturation of zombie films lately that cause me to have these feelings. In any case, I can watch Night, Dawn and Day over and over again and I can't see myself doing that with Diary.

(Flesh Eater)

07/16/08 01:35 PM

Re: Diary of the Dead

@ Jaws: There was actually a lot of talk about a Land Of The Dead sequel for the European marketplace, and as we speak a Diary Of The Dead sequel is in the works. It's a possiblility that neither of these films will ever see the light of day, and only time will tell otherwise.

Maybe it is because one of the greatest horror directors of all time is attached to these movies that they're aniticipated by people in certain circles. To be honest, it's all the reason I need. Every single person can't be pleased by any particular movie, and this discussion we're having proves that beyond the shadow of doubt. You're convinced that Land Of The Dead and Diary Of The Dead are terrible movies, but I cannot EVER be convinced that either are terrible. While they may not be the epic films that Romero fans wished for they remain decent offerings nontheless.

There aren't many directors who can stake claim to one of the most influential films ever made, and remain working for over 40 years. George has had a few misses in his time, but he's also put out some high quality material. NOTLD, Martin, The Crazies, DawnOTD, Creepshow, DayOTHD, Bruiser, LandOTD and DiaryOTD vary between timeless classic and watchable offering IMO, and these films alone cement Romero as not only a great horror director by definition, but a fan favorite as well.

Romero has earned the right to work on any project that he wishes, and I'll anticipate each one.

The man remains an icon in every sense of the word...

(Voodoo Master)

07/28/08 07:06 PM

Re: Diary of the Dead

I did not care for Diary of the Dead AT ALL...
IMHO it was pretty much all flaws with nothing going for it: lame plot, bad acting, pointless clich� dialogues, characters I didn't give a wet fart about, a cheap-ass direct-to-video look and feel, one uninteresting situation after the other...

I said plenty of bad things about Land of the Dead, but I must say it's kinda grown on me a little... Still a massively disapointing and deeply flawed flick, but compared to Diary it's a friggin' masterpiece!!

Now that I think about it, Dairy did have one thing going for it: an all-too-brief titty shot of former Scream Channel hostess Amy Lalonde (major props to whoever invented the frame-by-frame button on DVD player remotes).

(Living Dead)

07/31/08 03:22 PM

Re: Diary of the Dead

I thought it was pretty lame. NOTLD '68 was made on a fraction of the budget ($114,000 compared to 2 million) and that is one of the best horror films ever made. Romero should have chopped this one down to and made into a Masters of Horror episode.

(Flesh Eater)

07/31/08 09:14 PM

Re: Diary of the Dead

$114,000 in the late 60's would probably be the equivalent of at least a couple million now. Inflation is a son of a "shut yo mouth". I'm just talkin' about inflation...

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.2