Diary Of The Dead

[poliphilo]

Romero made two- perhaps three- of the greatest horror movies. Night of the Living Dead revived the genre. Dawn of the Dead is a huge, outrageous, deliriously funny masterpiece. Day of the Dead (about which critics differ) is almost unbearably tense. The next entry- Land of the Dead- which saw him working with a proper Hollywood budget and star actors- is a bit of a let down. In the latest in the series- Diary of the Dead- he returns to his gonzo, low-budget roots with a movie that purports to have been stitched together by a bunch of students on the run. He's not ahead of the pack any more- and he's borrowing other people's ideas rather than innovating (Blair Witch got there first) but he's still the master. Diary has the clunk factor that was always a part of the Romero aesthetic- and the preachy voice-over gets to be a pain- but it's nimble, it's scary, it has it moments of great grue- and while it's not on the level of the initial trilogy, it's a worthy afterthought.

Comments

[ryanstrong.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I agree completely. Also, it's good to see a bit more of Romero's (admittedly thin) social commentary after the totally overblown Land of the Dead.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I don't think Romero's much good with actors- and good ones are wasted on him. Likewise big budgets. He proved with Night of the Living Dead that you can change cinema history with what is next door to being a home movie. The closer he clings to his beginnings the more I like him.