alexwebb32 A good found footage horror has two things: believable acting and a believable reason for why the characters are filming. While one can believe that someone experiencing a zombie apocalypse might want to film it (in fact, I found the premise pretty interesting), there's nothing believable about the way the characters behave in front of or behind the camera in this film.Every line feels rehearsed. The characters, especially the professor, are trying so hard to sound deep, but instead they all sound like pretentious and overly-dramatic people with no real emotions. You don't end up feeling anything for any of them, which is sad. If you don't like a horror film character, you should at least dislike them and have fun hoping for them to die. These characters just leave you indifferent. At least the zombies look okay.

FlashCallahan It was inevitable that the genius of Romero would jump on the bandwagon again. Land of the Dead was a step up, but I fear that the film was only financed and successful because of Wright's masterpiece released the year before.So obviously the once great director thought he could emulate another success with making this when Paranormal Activity was causing some tremendous ripples in Hollywood.Sadly, it's a step down from his other Zombie films, thanks to no tension, no cultural references, no sly pokes at consumerism, it's just a found footage film with zombies, hoping to sell lots of units because of the name.The cast are abysmal, apart from the camp college professor who adds nothing to the narrative but drink and spout his lines like he's a Shakespearean actor trying to find his motivation at the bottom of a bottle.So we follow the group, and they run into the walking dead on several occasions, but seeing that this is supposed to be set at the same time as the original NOTLD only adds to the confusion, with all the technology that is abound in the film.Bu there is one good scene involving acid, that makes the whole thing just about worth watching if you are a completest.Otherwise, stick with the original trilogy, they are groundbreaking.

tititito-83070 This film is definitively an improvement over your average found footage horror films. I mean, compared to terrible films like The Gallows or The Devil Inside this movie is a breath of fresh air. We all know and love George A. Romero and his amazing talent at making fun and interesting zombie films. His first trilogy of "The Dead" is amazing as well as his comeback in 2005 when Land of the Dead was released. In this film it is evident that he conserves the ability to create suspenseful moments and kill zombies in ingenious and gory manners. Unlike other directors, George A. Romero knows how to meddle emotions inside of a horror story, he does it in an effective fashion appealing to the humanity of the characters as well as the audience. The way a person seemed to narrate the story with very profound and interesting messages added a nostalgic tone to the film.What I dislike about this movie and why I think it is inferior to his previous work is because, the characters in this movie were not that interesting. Romero succeeds appealing to the humanity in them, but he fails to establish chemistry and connection between the characters. So when they save each other, it is not based on any conveyed compassion at all. There is also lousy writing, some of the actions the characters make just do not make sense following the narrative. It seemed at times that some scenes where just placed unnecessary to fulfill zombie movie clichés. Other actions or dialogue are just annoying.Despite the negatives, this is a fun zombie film. With good suspense, gore, emotions and a direct social critique at the end of the film

bowmanblue First of all, let me say that I am a huge George A Romero fan. I loved Night, Dawn and Day of the Dead and could even see quite a few positives in Land of the Dead.I'm writing this review of Diary of the Dead now because I've just watched the film a second time. After the first time I saw it, I wanted desperately to love it like I do with the rest of George's output. I didn't. So I just left it a few years and wondered whether I'd 'get it' the second time round. I didn't.This time George treats us to a 'mockumentary' of a zombie outbreak. The film is set at the same time as Night of the Living Dead was (albeit in a modern age), i.e. when the zombies were first starting to rise. The footage is all shot by some kids filming their own horror movie (which, if they'd got round to finishing it, would probably have been better than the actual film itself!). In short, it's basically 'Blair Witch with zombies.' Unfortunately, there are simply too many bad points to list, so I'll stick to just a few. First of all the movie tries to be clever and mention 'horror movie clichés' and then break them (ala Scream). However, in the next breath we're treated to the most stereotypical Englishman you've ever seen (how I wanted my fellow countryman to die quickly. Has George A Romero ever MET a real live Englishman?!).Then there's the narration. Or should I call it 'story-telling?' Seriously, it's so patronising that you might as well have large subtitles written in crayon, telling you what people are thinking. Actually, that's a lie. You, as the viewer, will have NO IDEA what people are thinking in Diary of the Dead. People do the most ridiculous things all the time. They frequently wander off on their own. They don't lock doors to stop zombies from following them and - worst of all - the people behind the camera NEVER actually help out those in front of it. Seriously, if your mate was getting chewed on by the undead, surely you may just put down the camera and help out?! Well, they don't. Never.The bottom line is that George is well off the mark with this one. Land of the Dead was no classic, but it had its merits and was generally a fun film. This one is just awful (sorry, George). It adds nothing to the genre and comes across as thinking it's way more clever than it actually is. This could well be the 'death of the dead.' It comes to something when the best part of your film features a small contribution from a kamikaze, mute Amish gentleman with a scythe. If it wasn't for that scene, I'd probably only give it the 2/10!http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/