|
|
|
|
|
|
George A. Romero's Diary of the Dead 
Actors : George A. Romero
Studio : The Weinstein Company
by The Weinstein Company
Release Date : 2008-05-20
Publisher : The Weinstein Company
Availability : Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Number of Items : 1
EAN : 0796019811736
UPC : 796019811736
Avg. Customer Rating: (based on 129 reviews)
List Price : $24.95
Our Price : $10.99
|
|
| |
|
Product Description |
|
From legendary frightmaster George A. Romero comes one of the most daring, hypnotic and absolutely vital horror films of the past decade (fangoria.com). Romero continues his influential Dead series, this time focusing on a terrified group of college film students who record the pandemic rise of flesh-eating zombies while struggling for their own survival. Intensely gruesome and relentlessly grisly fueled by the directors signature realistic special effects Diary of the Dead is must-see horror that is Romero at his finest (bloody-disgusting.com). |
| |
|
Americancivilwar.com |
|
George Romero has always come up with new ways of treating his zombies, and Diary of the Dead is no exception: Romero keeps his dead fresh, with an original approach to the undying subject. This one purports to be the video record of a group of young people who are shooting a low-budget horror movie when the terror strikes: corpses begin re-animating, intent on chewing the living. Our heroes trek across Pennsylvania, encountering the staggering zombies as they go. Other pieces of video are incorporated, which gives Romero a chance at some great set-pieces, including the brilliant opening sequence, a live local-TV feed that goes horribly, horribly wrong, and a home-video tape from a family birthday party, where the party clown turns out to be a dead ringer. All of Romero's Dead films are political, and this one's no exception, with a stark view of the way things are today; it doesn't offer the Hawksian heroics of the survivors in Dawn of the Dead or Land of the Dead for comfort, just a group of bickering, shocked youths. There's too much talk about the detachment of watching things through a lens, but in general this is a bracing, intelligent movie. Plus, there's some excellent splatter. --Robert Horton |
| |
|
| |
|
for a Romero fan this is a big disappointment |
i am such a fan of George a Romero it hurts me so to say it but this is not a good movie night dawn day even land are far better movies then this i love dawn of the dead its not only my favorite Romero film not only my favorite zombie flick but my favorite movie and this seems like a amateur trying to do what he did then for this day and age his understanding of "the net" only shows his age he is in his 70s and it shows but its not all on him (most but not all) the acting is horrible the teacher who has the wost accent the kid behind the camera is just bad the girl narrating gets on my nerves its really bad even the subtext is horribly done he beat you over the head with it some one could have come on and said "the media is bad we are the media we are bad" and got the same effect which is so surprising because he was so good in his other films i could go on for days but to make it short i can't recommend this for any one
now i gotta go watch dawn to get the bad taste out of my mouth |
| |
|
Diary of the Dead: A Legacy Lost |
George Romero's Night of the Living Dead gave birth to the zombie movie genre. With it he successfully managed to bring together the two unlikely bedfellows of gory horror and social critique to form a frightening movie about "us". Dawn of the Dead, with its incredible story, awesome special effects (thank you Tom Savini), and underlying satire of consumerism/materialism was without a doubt his masterpiece. Day of the Dead moved us to a much darker setting both literally and figuratively. The cavernous facility not only provided a gloomy and isolated place for the plot to unfold, but it reminded the viewer of the seemingly hopeless post-apocalyptic circumstances facing the survivors (Romero's way of making you feel in and a part of his world was astounding). In these first three movies Romero's excellence in storytelling and cinematography shined through in such a way as to ignite a whole new genre of movies, none of which could hold a candle to the originals. Now, I wish the story had ended there.
Nonetheless, many years after Day of the Dead debuted, Romero joined up with Universal Pictures to create an altogether respectable sequel. It wasn't bad but it wasn't great either. At the time I believed my expectations had been shattered more so by Universal's censor than Romero's inability to bring back the magic. The aftermath of the dead series, at that point, had been a lot of splatter-filled knock offs devoid of any substance (which became the stereotype for the genre), the thoughtful remake of Dawn of the Dead, and the wildly successful 28 Days Later - which wasn't even a zombie movie, but let's not get into that...in any case, it was reasonable to assume Romero's vision for this movie might be slightly affected by the offspring of his creation. Ultimately, I believed Land of the Dead did not reach its potential due to Universal's desire for "just another zombie flick" to ride the wave of the Dawn of the Dead remake - though one without too much gore and a certain amount of creative control for themselves. It crossed my mind then that I might have been wrong about Universal, that instead I might have been blinded by my personal respect for Romero. It wasn't until the latest addition to the series that I decided there was definitely room for argument on both sides of the debate.
I found out about Diary of the Dead from an internet website. I was excited when I read Romero was no longer attached to a studio, and as such would avoid any kind of leash upon his talent. On the other hand, I was seriously concerned about the abandonment of the objective camera. My two main reasons for this being: (1) Blairwitch's so-called greatness was bestowed upon it more so for its original and unique camera work than anything else, so without the "unique factor" Diary of the Dead was going to have to stand up on its own (2) Following along that line, the lack of an objective camera is severely limiting for a filmmaker who is trying to make a movie about the beginning of the end of the world. I did not discount it entirely, for I also thought that in spite of the many restrictions brought on by its camera style a clever filmmaker such as Romero could still make it work within the boundaries of its constraints. That is to say he could probably succeed in creating a certain type of zombie movie, a fine one even, but nothing similar to his previous works in either size or scope.
Then I saw the movie. Now, I don't pretend to know how that "certain type of zombie movie" would have looked, but like everyone else I would have known it if I had seen it. Instead, I was given a weak story with even weaker characters/actors placed within the context of a not so subtle subtext. The zombie special effects and CGI were extraordinary though few and far between, which left much to be desired in the way of actual undead content. In the end, the professor-archer combination and the short time spent with Samuel summed up the enjoyable parts of my viewing experience, while the underlying, yet overstated critique of the Media gave way under the weight its own embellishment and that of the aforementioned flaws. Thus, the movie is not only a woeful addition to the series, but it is a burden upon the reputation thereof and to that of the director who made it. And, unfortunately, this is how the story ends for George Romero. |
| |
|
Romero Does it again, but is lacking some luster. |
As an avid fan of George Romero I was overall pleased with this film. It had some good plot mechanics and over all was an enjoyable movie. Though as it progressed I felt that it didnt quite grasp the emotions for the characters as the other films had in the past. That is not to say that all of the the movie was bland in that department. Just at some moments with close friends dying off there wasnt quite the griefing as there should have been. Given that I dont even know how I would feel if put in their situation.
One other issue came to my attention. When watching a video from the 2007 Sundance on this film, some of the blood and effects were indeed CG. With more and more directors moving over to that area it is some what dissapointing to see that the stage blood and Real mechanics of a movie are fading. I would rather have non CG work done on these films. In my honest opinion.
With those asside I liked the movie. Another nice one from Romero. Back to the roots. |
| |
|
Diary Of A Dud |
I likes me my zombie flicks.Big budget,small budget,big screen or straight to dvd.I can find something good and entertaining in all of them. All I can say about this one is...yeah,it's got zombies in it.
I like the"Let's make it a documentary" idea,but I have yet to see it work in a movie.It does not work here either.A group of students are filming a movie in the woods.Upon hearing of the zombie outbreak,they set off in search of answers while filming it all.They run into zombies,groups of survivors and paramilitary looting squads.Bad acting,bad script and no characterization...this one has it all.But what sets it apart is how bored I was trying to watch this.Amazing amounts of boredom.It became a personal challenge for me to watch the entire movie.In fact,I could feel myself turning into a zombie while watching this.Blank facial expression and lot's of moaning and groaning....at the very least,I could feel my life force draining away.
I cant enjoy a movie if I dont care what is happening or who it is happening to.A very bad movie... but at least it had zombies in it. |
| |
|
a very good next chapter in the zombie saga |
George Romero brings us the 5th dead movie but this time he has gone back the start of how it all happened.
The story is about a group of film students trying to make a movie but soon they relies they are in the middle of the end of the world in the form of the dead coming back to life so they try to survie and film it as it happens.
The filming is done like Blair witch Cloverfield REC and it's remake this film have action blood and guts and in your face satire that we have become acustom to from the film makeing legend this is an improvement to Land of The Dead even though i enjoyed the last one it felt too mainstream, this one gose back to it's indpendent roots, so all in all a very good zombie movie fans of his films will not be disapointed the only pain the a** about this film is that it trying to be like Cloverfield Blair Witch and REC that type of filming just dose not work on a Geroge Romero film. |
| |
|
|
|
