It's never coming to Des Moines, is it?

This movie was bad. And it made me sad. I'm all for the "found footage" gimmick, but these actors couldn't pull it off. That and more. Just hugely dissappointing.

Easily the worst of the Romero Dead films, but still worth watching. The CGI was a HUGE minus for me though.

Is the cgi worse than LAND?

I agree. I was hoping that Diary would've been better just so that Land wouldn't be the last film that Romero would be remembered by.

Diary makes Land look flippin' brilliant.

I wouldn't say the CGI is any worse than Land (but it is obvious in some scenes). It's probably on par with Land. When I saw Diary in theaters I remember there being noticeable CGI blood squirts, and then also the

I'll be one of the film's defenders.

I read a negative review way back on AICN and that turned me off of seeing this. Then I saw the trailer, and it had some pretty bad acting in it and I was further disappointed. But somewhere between then and now I started feeling more interested, and when I found out there was a K-Mart 2-pack of this and the new NotLD DVD, I figured I'd give it a shot, because I was planning to shell out $15 to $20 for the new NotLD anyway.

I think since my expectations were so low and skeptical (I was really bracing to dislike it), I actually got more out of it. I took the weak dialogue in stride and enjoyed mainly the kills and, I suppose to an extent the direction. Say what you will, but I felt the zombie kills were inspired and highly entertaining, regardless of the use of CGI.

My main complaints were of course that the narration really pounded the viewer over the head with the message, and there were more than a handful of dopey acting or bad joke moments. I'd love to see someone do a fan-edit and fix these problems (I think it'd be pretty easy).

Night and Dawn are clearly the best, and I like Day, but Diary is definitely better than Land in my book. There were a few elements of Land that I liked (mainly Dennis Hopper and Asia Argento), but I felt Land was far more stale, uninspired, and forgettable. I think had Land had better casting, it could have been passable, but it wouldn't have been as enjoyable as Diary. It's no classic, but I was entertained.

I look forward to seeing it. I usually love the movies where this is no in between. Prob will check it out this weekend.

I blind bought the movie and came in with low expectations.

Obviously with Romero "Dead" films, it's hard to come in NOT comparing it to the previous films. I knew off the bat this one wouldn't be as good as the films previous to it, but I did enjoy the opening sequence. At the same time it gave me a false sense that Romero was going to hit the ground running throughout the rest of the film.

I actually enjoyed the "found footage" film style and the CGI (though overly done) effects didn't bother me at all.

Most of my problems with the film was with the characters as well as the pacing. The characters were very forgettable and though it is a horror movie, I found characters I liked/cared for in all the previous "Dead" films (Yes, even "Land"). With this one, I just saw the entire cast as dumb bait though I have to now admit the Professor was pretty sweet. The Amish man "Samuel" made me laugh as well.

The pacing wasn't too great either. As I mentioned, the opening had me sense that this was just going to be Romero hitting the ground running, that this would be a balls out film. It ended up being as others have mentioned, a message being beat over our heads over and over. There were many moments where the "message" was actually handled well and other times I rolled my eyes ("We have the power...."). On top of all that it honestly felt a LOT longer than a 90 minute films. We spend so much time hearing Jason's friends telling him to put down the camera, we sort of just zone out. It got to the point I was just waiting for another cool zombie moment to happen and those became far and few between.

I wouldn't say it's terrible. I've seen a lot of worse horror movies this year (ala "Automaton Transfusion"). Not comparing it to Romero's other work, the movie on it's own just doesn't stay with you and ends up sort of being forgettable minus a few choice moments. It'll be staying in my collection, but it won't be the first "Dead" movie I reach for.

I think it would have worked a lot better without the narration and if it was presented as "actual" uploaded web episodes via the web instead of a movie.

The most interesting characters to me were the Amish guy and the Black national Guard guy with his group, I would have rather have seen a focus on them.

Realized I posted this in the DVD thread, doh!

I enjoyed this quite a bit. The message behind the movie could have been more subtle but it worked. For a zombie movie at least it's exploring new ground and rather inventive for the genre.

Also, being a native of Pennsylvania it was awesome to hear nods to Scranton and Danville of all places. However some of the geography was wrong. Granted they don't tell you how long the footage was but to drive form Pittsburgh to Scranton would take at least 5 hours. And the drive from Scranton to West Virginia is way over 80 miles lol. 80 miles wouldn't even get you to Philly or NY. I checked google maps and it's more like 400 miles.

Ugh, man I messed up big time with this one. What a shame too, it looked like it had potential but it was just so plain and tired. There was absolutely no suspense or anything to care about in this film.

I will give it one thing though, the final half hour to 45 minutes were pretty cool but unfortunately it didn't save the film for me.

You would think Romero not getting any younger would think after 40 years since the first one he would do the fans of the series a favor and settle what happens to mankind does he get wiped out or does he wipe out the zombies? And why can't he get the team that did the FX in the 1st three movies instead of using cgi?

this was not a good movie, by Romero standards or anyone else's. the actors were horrible and complete caricatures, the infused social commentary was laughable and really shows that Romero does not have a grip on what's going on today or at least how to make a good movie today. he really is a fossil of a forgone era and his mentality is still in that era. had this been made in the 70's, then maybe it would have been a little better, but since this is made today i found the story and contrivances to social awareness out of place.

there were some decent effects, but the acting, dialogue, and story really was sub-par and not very good at all.

Coulda not said it better myself.

Put me in the disappointed pile as well. Man...I barely made it through. The wife only made it through the first 30 minutes and she usually loves these types of flicks. The acting was really bad and the whole "documenting the events" angle was pretty unconvincing, especially during the attack scenes (ie. people now putting down the camera's to aid their friends).

I enjoyed the heck out of this movie. I really thought it would suck but I really liked it. I loved the pacing and the constant change of scenery in this film. Just when you think the people are gonna stay put something happens or some shit hits the fan and off they go to the next zombie-infested destination.
10000000 times better than Cloverfield.

I watched this last night and thought it could have made a decent hour long Masters of Horror episode. At an hour 45 it dragged.

Or the movie could have focused on the Amish guy. It was like Dwight Shrute's cousin in a horror film.

The movie would've been fucking amazing if it focused on the deaf Amish guy, the drunk bow-and-arrow welding professor and the nerdy guy in the glasses going around kicking zombie ass.

I hated this movie. It's so far the only movie in this century that I would rate ZERO STARS. The actors are horriable and I hope they never act in another movie again.
If a teenager had made this movie I would think. The kid did a nice job and has a future since in this movie he rips off many horror movies , but shows he knows his stuff. But coming from a 70ish Romero! Time to hang it up.
At least they improved on the make-up from LAND OF THE DEAD.
And the movie had one scene that was as good as in any of the DEAD series. And that's the scene where they hit the zombie on the head with acid and his head starts to melt.

But isn't this movie only about 90 minutes?

Its actually about 95 minutes long. (And it IS rated R)
Cloverfield is only about 70 minutes not including credits.

I love the original trilogy. I didn't like 'Land', but I hated 'Diary'.

Which means...?

With all the talk of trilogies in the DK threads, Romero's dead movies can no longer be referred to as such. He's up to flick 5, ruining the original trilogy IMO.