Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Nigel P There's something faintly ludicrous about the opening shots of this 'found footage' entrance into George A Romero's entry into his 'Living Dead' series. A live news broadcast is interrupted when corpses in the background come back to half-life and start attacking those around them. To me, found footage works best when you don't see too much – the characters on screen reacting to something out of the audience's vision works very well in that style. Fully made-up zombies fit better into a more stylised, 'professionally filmed' scenario.Things don't improve hugely when we meet a film crew, including actors playing actors playing both in front of, and behind the camera. 'Hilarity' ensures when two cast members 'have to pee', leaving the rest to view on the news reports how the dead are coming back to life. Amongst the teens, we have a uproariously well-spoken elderly ham Andrew Maxwell (Scott Wentworth) who clearly feels he's demeaning himself by appearing in the film being made. Whispering, identical horny youngsters, someone (Jason – played by Joshua Close) who films *everything* despite being repeatedly asked not to, posturing, wall-to-wall expletives – all the staples of a teen horror, and by Romero's standards, BAD. Apart from anything else, the advantages and unique qualities of the archive formula are simply not used here. The 'story' doesn't need to be told in this way, and is just a gimmick. Could it be Romero was seeking financial success by attempting to attract the youth demographic? It is explained at the beginning that, to make events more frightening, the young film-makers have added incidental music to events – and yet failed to edit out moments when (as is always the way in these things) the cameras start to fail and cut off.Anyway, as events fail to progress, I am gagging for some cadaverous zombie to limp in and violently dismember people. When they eventually turn up, they are half-hearted, under-made-up and easily dispatched. The alleged good guys remain personality-free, rather a growing band of posers 'doing what they gotta do'. How did Romero allow this to be made? To spend so much time with these people and for not one of them to effect any kind of personality for the duration is one thing, but when the undead action is as scarce as it is here, it makes for a hugely dull experience.Happily, the next in the series 'Survival of the Dead (2009)' is a huge improvement on this.

Leofwine_draca DIARY OF THE DEAD is another zombie movie from genre founder George A. Romero, this time combining the found footage and zombie genres into a supposedly fresh and original product. What it turns out to be is a crushing disappointment in every respect, especially so given that Romero himself invented the modern zombie genre pretty much single-handedly.DIARY OF THE DEAD isn't just a bad film; it's a bad film even by found footage standards. It's not the first found footage zombie film I've seen, and I can report that the same year's Spanish zombie flick REC is about a hundred times better than this movie. What we get here is a cheap, slapdash, and completely boring zombie story as a bunch of uninteresting characters wander around a world which is quickly being taken over by the undead.This film looks and feels cheap throughout and Greg Nicotero's zombie effects are surprisingly cheesy looking, which I guess comes down to budget again. The script is awful, merely attempting to reheat former themes (us vs. them, the breakdown of society, there's even a militant black guy) instead of delivering anything new. The attempted scare scenes are anything but frightening and the story is so predictable that everything that happens is signposted way in advance. Of the cast, the worst actress gets the lead role, with the likable Tatiana Maslany hidden way down in the cast list. DIARY OF THE DEAD is a complete bore and it's difficult to credit this to the man behind the classic DEAD trilogy.

SaberRider85 The Zombies which rated this movie after DOTD remake or other "action" zombie movie/TV series viewpoints just don't get the point. Romero isn't after entertainment in this movie. This is a very metaphysical movie. Why filming this in handcam style? Because it is said in the movie several times that nothing happens if it hasn't been filmed. This is a philosophical discourse at least since Jean Baudrilard (spiritual father of the Matrix movies). Who in the new internet-television civilization believes anything if it hasn't been filmed and is been watched on youtube or television? This movie is compressed themes which Romero handled over his previous films in 95min runtime. Romero fans who actually have put a thought on Romeros films will very much appreciate it. It feels like his previous filmthemes put all together with a new theme which I described above and actually asks an uncomfortable question. If you grew up with Walking Dead, World War Z or Dawn of the Dead remake don't waste your time...

DamianThorn So, over the past few years just about everybody in Hollywood has jumped on the "found footage" band wagon. This is George Romero's effort to get on board with the rest of the crowd. What none of the film makers on the band wagon have bothered to realize is that the dam thing has no wheels and it was never really going anywhere.There have been a few decent entries into the genre, they can occasionally be worth watching but in my experience that's very rarely the case. That said...maybe there was potential with Diary of the Dead. I would go so far as to say I can see what Romero was trying to do but ultimately, he missed the mark entirely. The acting is sub par, the story slower than a snail race and the special effects are just downright terrible. The latter is due to Tom Savini not being involved as head of special effects and not creating the signature gore that Romero's movies have become so famous for. If I remember correctly even Romero himself later admitted he knew going ahead without Savini was a mistake.Even if Savini had been present, sadly I still doubt this movie would be worthwhile. I could enter into a lot of theorizing as to what Romero could have done that would have made this better but the bottom line is the film is just below average. It's far to derivative of other found footage movies and so unworthy of even having Romero's name on it to bother thinking it could have been better. Okay, it's not the worst movie in history but it really is just a total disappointment for a horror fan and for a Romero fan. Do yourself a favor and just skip this one.