Diary of the Dead - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Diary of the Dead Reviews

Page 1 of 260
March 19, 2018
For this kind of low budget film, I can excuse a lot of things. But a veteran filmmaker and creator of his genre needs to A) produce a much better script than this, and B) have a better understanding of how the found-footage sub-genre really works. IMO this is the worst of Romero's films, including non-zombie fare and worse than the mainstream remakes. Almost Unwatchable.
½ February 23, 2018
It's pretty bad but I enjoy it. It's worth watching once a year.
November 14, 2017
I've never really understood why this movie was soo derided, and watching it a decade later, I'm more confused. It has aged nicely, and is even more in line to comment on today's climate of fake news and obsession with social media. It's actually one of Romero's better zombie flicks. Surprised at how much more I liked this from the last time I viewed it.
July 24, 2017
Romero takes another step at reinventing his own genre with taking the handheld found footage technique and applying to his film with great result. The chosen aesthetic works well with an immersive and engaging atmosphere. The only real issue is that the plot itself is nothing new or special and the cast list while holding their own, don't necessarily impress.
March 10, 2017
A great zombie film, that does the whole "am-cam" thing way better than most - and it was announced before Cloverfield, so it wasn't jumping on the bandwagon either. It's not as easy to love as his previous films, and probably suits the small screen better than a cinema, but its wonderful all the same.
Super Reviewer
January 28, 2017
Different to George's other Dead films, Just was poorly done and a disappointing ending, Having said that the whole hand held camera footage worked well in more places.
½ August 12, 2016
A solid and contemporary shift to Romero's template of his magnum opus. Just right for the times.

...Hoping the bizarre ways of these strange days will encourage Romero and other filmmakers of his ilk to make further installments in their franchises, and at least get SOMETHING good from all of this crap 2016 America finds itself in...
½ August 12, 2016
A solid and contemporary shift to Romero's template of his magnum opus. Just right for the times.

...Hoping the bizarre ways of these strange days will encourage Romero and other filmmakers of his ilk to make further installments in their franchises, and at least get SOMETHING good from all of this crap 2016 America finds itself in...
½ May 1, 2016
It's good to see the classic George A Romero dead zombies once again. This movie actually brings really nothing too new in the famous "Dead" series, but I did find the found footage style of the flick interesting and even creative. The acting is believable and there's buckets of good old zombie blood. Although,I did notice that some of the gore effects were obvious CGI, this movie is a good zombie flick, and also some satire and human society. Recommended !!
½ April 27, 2016
The only scary thing in this film is that the cast have apparently forged some sort of career in acting. It is quite possibly some of the worst acting I've seen in a 21st Century film. The story is regurgitated from many Zombie movies before. If they thought that making it a "found footage" film would give it a different angle, they were wrong, it just made it more annoying. Perhaps they did that because they were sick of telling the cast not to look directly into the camera.
½ January 15, 2016
I don't know if George A. Romero knows how cameras work, because the camera literally has clear audio even when the characters are having small conversations too far away for the camera to pick up anything. It's like everyone got a mic on them.

The one thing I notice in this movie that I never thought about before, is that every time there was a zombie attack, it's always caught on camera and just by the way it was perfectly shot in time for someone to come behind it to shoot or stab it. It would be a lot better if someone died or gets attacked off camera, because it would add a lot to this movie and keeps you guessing on when the next attack happens.

The acting was a bit off at times, the effect's are really dated, and the characters are a bunch of idiots.
August 26, 2015
Diary of the Dead has some suspenseful scenes of zombie action and gore, but they are short lived and far and few between. The majority of the film is dull, boring, and centers around uninteresting characters and unsubtle themes, which is very unusual for George Romero.
August 7, 2015
I would punch the cunt who made this film in the chin. Narating on every scene I have eye cunt face. I can see what's happening. also I've seen zombie film before you shit cunt. DO NOT WATCH THIS SHIT! fucking cunt
½ May 30, 2015
there are some spooky times but it's still the same old humans vs humans in a zombieworld shit.
April 22, 2015
Surprinsingly succesful, it takes zombies to a whole other level.
February 26, 2015
Another one for the true Zombie Lovers. The story is the same as all the rest and getting tiresome. I only rated it as high as I did for the fun of it being first person videoed. Romero is starting to look desperate.
February 14, 2015
There's been a plague of bad found footage horror films ever since "Diary of the Dead" was released in 2007 and in this instance, it's not only a bad zombie movie, it's a bad movie period. A team of film students witness the beginning of the zombie apocalypse. The media tries to cover it up so it's up to the YouTube generation to document the truth! Jason (Joshua Close), his girlfriend Debra (Michelle Morgan), their friends and their teacher Professor Maxwell (Scott Wentworth) go on the road looking for their families, while Jason documents the whole thing for the world to see.
As a found footage movie, this one drops the balls. The film opens with Jason's girlfriend telling us that she has finished the movie (I wonder why Jason didn't do it himself... could it be that something happens to him?). She informs the audience that she has edited together footage to create a documentary. She then proceeds to inform us that she's added dramatic music to set the mood and to hopefully, scare us. Are you asking me to buy that while watching the footage of your friends being eaten alive by the walking dead, you were so removed from the situation that you thought "you know what, if I put a musical sting right there, that would make this REALLY scary"? I know for the people watching the Dvd it's effective, but the film doesn't make sense in its own universe. The found footage/documentary angle isn't even consistent. I thought the idea was to have a single perspective to have us step into the characters' shoes and have things off camera be unseen until they jump right in front of him/her, but the movie cut to other cameras, such as cell phones, webcams and security cameras all the time. It breaks the illusion and the mood, something that is further hindered by the constant narration and the music.
Maybe the point of this movie is that people who document things should focus more on the footage and less on what they want the audience to feel, but I really don't think so. It just feels like the rants of an angry, incoherent old man. We are repeatedly reminded that our protagonist is infuriating his friends because he refuses to put down the camera. He films them when they are mourning the dead AND while they are being attacked. No wonder he is pissing them off. I never bought that the material he is seeing is so compelling that he is never willing to turn off the camera or put it down, even when people's lives are at stake.
George A. Romero can't even get this message of "you people should be ashamed of documenting the world instead of living it" right. In the film we are told explicitly that the news people are covering up the zombie apocalypse (don't explain how, it makes no sense). Not fifteen minutes later however, we get a message that then tells us that without the news, we're actually worse off because we now have thousands of people giving thousands of different reports on the internet and that the facts are being completely muddied up. Your guess is as good as mine as to what we're supposed to take away from this.
Alright, never mind all that. This is a zombie movie from the guy who created the genre. How does it hold up? Well, not very well. I can buy that the people in this world have never seen a zombie movie before, but do we have to assume that the director has never seen one either? This is the same plot as every other generic zombie movie. We get the people who are unable to accept that the dead are coming back to life, even though they witness it themselves. We get characters that struggle with the idea of "shoot them in the head" even when told explicitly to do so. We see the parents unwilling to accept that their children are now ghouls even though they are going around devouring the living and look like they're been rotting for days. Throw in the couple, where one of the members will get bitten and become infected so that the remaining person will have to insist "No, this time they won't change!" Don't forget the asshole military guys, because if you sign up for the army, all you care about when the shit hits the fan is stealing supplies and pushing people around. The protagonists, unlike the audience, are unable to detect people who act strangely and have surely been bitten by zombies and never think of doing things they would do normally like locking bathroom doors. Surprise surprise, this film also contains characters that are too stupid to take advantage of any situation in which a zombie has been temporarily been knocked down to finish them off, meaning that if a zombie is left with his brain intact at the end of a scene, it'll be back later to attack someone else. The movie goes out of its way to fit into this found footage format because without this shiny new gimmick "Diary of the Dead" would have been dismissed as total trash.
Let me just conclude with this: there is a scene where Jason is filming and a zombie walks past him in order to bite his friend that is inside the shot. Apparently holding a camera makes you invisible to zombies. Bullshit. Most insulting of all, the movie ends with a note of "look at what humanity has become, they are shooting zombies that used to be people and not feeling bad about it. Do we even deserve to be saved?" That, on top of all the finger wagging, the lame clichés and the messy story makes this a total disappointment for fans of the genre. (On Dvd, January 27, 2014)
February 13, 2015
Not as memorable as the others, but definitely a tense sequel to Romero's "Dead" series.
January 14, 2015
[1/14/15] "If you don't get it on camera, then it's like it never happened."
I think that statement resonates more with people now than it did at the time of George A Romero's "Diary of the Dead"--available in 2007 but was released in the U.S in 2008--with the many reported cases of alleged police brutality (we don't know for sure in some instances, hence why I said alleged) and the call for police officers to wear cameras. 'Diary' is what I would consider to be a "surpriser," a movie that you go in not expecting much and [after you finish watching] realize that you're content with what you thought would be a negative viewing experience. Following movies like: "Cloverfield," "REC," "Quarantine," "Paranormal Activity," etc; Romero takes the found-footage style, which for many has become overused and ineffective since it doesn't necessarily require sharp direction, and spices it up with a bit of social commentary that makes the film stand out despite it being considered one of Romero's weaker efforts. However, the only major con here is the lack of practical effects for the gore, yeah, I know, CGI is used for most of the kills, I'd say. And in some shots, it's not even good CGI--what a bummer! But don't let that deter you from watching it or even buying it, Romero is STILL a master of the zombie subgenre and proves that a lot of directors that want to direct a horror movie could learn a lot from him, even this one. Since George's "Night of the Living Dead", there has been a reoccurring theme that asks who's REALLY the zombie? Them (the dead) or us (the live ones), Romero asks that in a different way this time around. By making villains out of the people behind the cameras (an ironic nod, or maybe even a slight shot against Romero from himself?), there's a refreshing sense of hatred towards some of these characters. As honorable as their intentions are, some of the characters become a bit too obsessed with recording the world around down drop dead and resurrect instead of being a good friend who's putting the group before him or herself. It works, man, I'm telling you, I was NOT expecting to be as impressed as I am right now. And...this isn't even the director at his prime and he's still showing everyone that his techniques work.
December 5, 2014
Yes you need to suspend some disbelief and accept that in all these types of films you're going to have to just get over the idea that anyone would carry on filming. For a solid hour of this films it works, and actually pretty well. It's not Romero's best but like the other entries in his zombie canon it's a film of it's time and it does examine some interesting ideas about the proliferation of media in society. Plus there's a laugh out loud gag with a deaf Amish farmer exploding some zombies...what's not to like? Update... Wow I was generous when I first watched this, found it dull beyond belief second time around!
Page 1 of 260