jerralagbayani I didn't like as much of the story like some people may have but the reason I give this a 6/10 is the whole new direction they put the film in and the terrifying suspense. The filming was of the 'lost footage' type and consisted of good zombie action. This film always kept me at the edge of my seat and had those moments where you'd think you would get jump scared but wouldn't. It always kept the survival part from the first film but didn't succeed in a big plot. The plot was about a group of people which are finding some place to stay safe. This is as entertaining as maybe a filler in Z Nation maybe where they find the video camera or a DVD and is a great "watch maybe twice a year" film to sit down and just relax with your loved ones.

Realrockerhalloween Taking place the same night as the first film where a group of kids are shooting a short film for class when the dead rise and now search for their families as they document the events unfolding around them.Already a plot hole occurs where the time line doesn't match the technology and style if it were taking place during the sixties unless its a floating time line?While traveling they make one stupid decision after another that it makes you wonder how they survived so long. The narrator never puts his camera down, they hit a zombie on the road yet want to stop to see if he's alright and even get taken for a ride by rogue military officials who rob them.It leads to unintentionally humorful scenes even when its trying to be serious this robbing the script of any tension or menace a horror film should have.Just like I pointed out in land the music is overplayed to the point you want to pull your hair out of annoyance. Every few minutes it plays ominously only to cut to a conversation or a new location instead of a spooky surprise making it meaningless overall.The found footage was a fresh idea for the series, but the way it's shot doesn't work losing camera angles, the director holds the camera all day without breaks or developing carpal tunnel, who will be left to see it and shows his dead family.Romero gives it all his signature styles, but none so far have grasp the horror brilliance since day. It seems he hasn't lost his touch and gives it his all yet it feels incomplete.

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/

Fredrik Hamper The weirdest part of this whole production is that very little is done to make it seem authentic. Everything is just too precise - I can't think of how else to describe it. It never felt like I was watching amateur footage. There was no sense of error.Things that make it less authentic: Everyone can use a gun and hit a zombie in the head (first try).The emotional responses from everyone are predictable or nonchalant to a lot of what's happening. The amount of death, blood and chaos - how is it that nobody is hysterical or unable to speak? The Professor. His first line may as well have been, "I am an English person!".The DIY horror movie (that the students were filming in the beginning) is so outdated and lame (a killer mummy). This sort of thing might still appear on a high-school drama series but it reveals how out of touch the writer is.Well-framed death/gore. For example, the Amish guy plunging a scythe through the front of his own head to kill the zombie behind him (while facing the camera) only to turn and show the zombie behind him dying and falling to the ground. A more obvious example is the reporter in the beginning being bitten and the camera being knocked to conveniently frame her zombie-damage.It wasn't until the barn that I noticed there was a musical score. Subliminally, I think this is why early on it just felt like a regular movie.The dialogue (given the format) was horrible. People aren't this well-spoken in reality. I don't remember anything specific but the witty replies from the girlfriend (of the cameraman) just didn't work.The narration in which the girlfriend explained the importance of the footage and her personal take on it all, just seemed stupid. From the moment they meet she's in complete opposition to what he's doing - he obviously dies later on.I didn't finish watching the movie. I honestly hate to say this but I became bored and didn't care what happened to anyone.