Diary Of The Dead - The living dead would probably make a better film

First of all, let me say that I am a huge George A Romero fan. I loved 'Night, Dawn and Day of the Dead.' Each one contained quite a bit of 'social commentary' on the society of the times ('Day of the Dead' was about the dangers of science - in case you missed it - don't worry, that installment wasn't as 'socially aware' as the others!).  I could even see quite a few positives in 'Land of the Dead.' Sure, like 'Day' it wasn't that 'up' on the social commentary and felt more in line with the 'Resident Evil' films of the time, but it was still great fun and contained a fair few memorable moments.

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, as opposed to the racially-tense sixties), 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' franchise). 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!

4/10 Dumb and Dumber would probably appreciate this film