Diary of the Dead : Why do people love to trash this movie?

Why do people love to trash this movie?

It's great! This movie out Cloverfielded Cloverfield!

He can NOT be a part of me! Batman does NOT eat nachos!!

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Why do people love to trash this movie?

You shut up. It was excellent.

He can NOT be a part of me! Batman does NOT eat nachos!!

Re: Why do people love to trash this movie?

Let's pull back a bit and look at this movie. It's just... horrible. The ONLY character I gave a rat's ass about was Samuel. And that was because he was bad ass enough to take HIMSELF out AND a zombie with one blow to the head.

EVERY single other character in the movie I couldn't care if they lived or died. They were so obsessed with making their movie that they put their own life and the lives of their friends in danger THE WHOLE TIME! Too busy caring making a movie than they were about surviving long enough to make said movie.

I'm surprised nobody said "Oh, let so-n-so die. That will double our hits in the first 3 hours alone!"



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GxlMGlezX0

Re: Why do people love to trash this movie?

What Darkchia said.
I love the "of the Dead" series but this is by far the worst in the series and a huge disapointment imo.
I didnt care for the characters because they where all unbelievable/unlikable.
I mean ffs if "friends" of mine refused to help when under attack I would snap.

Ok the fact he wanted to document every thing I can understand, kinda like a couping mecanism(sp?) but i refuse to believe a groupe of people would just accept that there friends would just let them die if forced with the choice of filming/helping and only times they question it a "I have to document this" answer is enough.
I mean there where atleast 3 clear cases(the hospital attack where he choices to watch the zombie bite his friend, Debra´s house, outside the mansion) where Jason should have helped his friends but just stood around.

The story line was average at best and often didnt make sense.
Like when the "mummy" was showing them the Zombie pool and then disapears to run in side to turn into a zombie and then finds its way through a closed door and attacks them infront of the mansion.
It just seemed like every thing was pushed.
And dont get my started on the actors. For these kinds of movies I like when they mostly cast unknowns but you have to make sure they can actualy display believable emotions, if seen people in cleaning product commercials that could out act most of the people in this.

Also fyi i might be slightly biased since I almost never like the "blair witch" shooting style.

So yeah I think this is the worst of the series but apperantly most people dont agree with me since this has higher ratings then Day and Survival.

I just hope Romero can bring us a masterpice sometime soon

Re: Why do people love to trash this movie?

Did you seriously ask this question? Really?

Re: Why do people love to trash this movie?

What exactly did you think was great about this? I started getting bored about ten minutes in and it just went downhill from there. At least Cloverfield tried to pull off the the whole handheld video thing, and it succeeded for the most part. This movie was shot on film, so you never believed this was some sort of lost footage.

Romero is an old man who's definitely lost his touch. The script and directing is so inept it's really painful to watch. Using a bunch of annoying film school students as your protags was the first mistake. But nothing really happened in the movie, all you had was some really ponderous, pseudo-intellectual narration. The movie kind of plodded along like an old fashioned zombie.

A total waste of a good concept. Hang it up, George.

Re: Why do people love to trash this movie?

The problem I have with all Romero films after Dawn is that he always lets the moral of the story get in the way of good filmmaking.

God forbid he should take acting, editing, soundtrack, or general Mis-en-scene seriously he has a heavy handed lesson to teach us, dammit!

Re: Why do people love to trash this movie?

Please don't go there with the Cloverfield comparison. As someone who genuinely likes the movie a lot, you can compare it to something better than an overrated claptrap like Cloverfield. That's a "found footage" movie. This is a fakeumentary. If I were to compare it to anything I'd probably name 84 Charlie MoPic (look it up, it's the kind of movie that is much more in style to Diary).


My official blog: http://cinetarium.blogspot.com/

Re: Why do people love to trash this movie?

Cloverfield actually wasn't all that bad. Diary was okay for the most part, I felt for some of the characters but Jason became an idiot especially in the last scene. He promises Debra that he would stop recording, he goes by himself alone and gets himself hurt. Samuel was cool, but I liked the Professor, he was cool too.

"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit' me!" Hudson in Aliens.

Re: Why do people love to trash this movie?

This movie doesn't have $h!t on Cloverfield. This was like a bad Sci-Fi channel movie.

Re: Why do people love to trash this movie?

I would say, not even close to being "great".

Here's my breakdown on why this movie was, at most, mediocre:

Acting:
The actors were...meh. Passable. Not completely believable. I had a hard time believing in their fear, or their conflict--or whatever it was they were going through. It just didn't come off as real.

Script:
Laughable. And I'm not talking about the *rare* occasions where someone says something silly or smart-ass ("How do you know that's a state trooper?" "His hat...his stupid looking hat" was pretty cute). I'm talking about the cheesiness of it all. I was physically cringing at some of the stuff their professor said (and honestly, he was one of my favourite characters only because of his British accent), and Debra's narration.

In fact, the narration was almost worse than the cheesy lines. It felt like the film was apologizing for itself, for the mistakes or plot-holes or oddness that to be completely honest, I would have missed otherwise. Like adding the music, for instance. Music creates mood by, essentially, tapping into our subconscious. We don't really notice the back ground music all that much. But now that it's been mentioned that the music was added, it only distanced us from Debra's character more, because it made her look tasteless, passive.

Characters:
Don't even get me started.

Acting aside, the characters were just terribly written. Yes, I know that there will always be some kind of *beep* in any film, but for one, he has to be a believable *beep* For another, there has to be at least one character in the film the audience can relate to, or sympathize with (it's called catharsis, I believe).

Even characters that could be likeable were too one-dimensional to REALLY like them. Who was everyone's favourite character? Samuel the bad-ass Amish. But he was only in the film for one, 5 minutes? Ten? And we only liked him because he was bad-ass. We had a bit of an idea that he was kind, for helping the group. And that was it. Everyone else were either totally unlikeable or unreal or both.

Plot:
This had so much potential. First-person/eyewitness styles of story-telling can be extremely effective in the way that it totally makes the audience feel like they were there, that the film was, in fact, real. The social commentary was pretty good, although I think it was a bit exaggerated, and may be bordering on offensive.

However, it was just....urgh. Plot holes, things that didn't make sense. I'm not even just talking about factual errors (like the arrow/dry wall not having enough kinetic energy to pull a zombie kid off someone and then pin him to the wall and keep him there), because those can sometimes be forgiven if they added to the film. I'm talking about the blatantly obvious--like how zombies have a camera allergy and will completely avoid Jason (the least likeable character I've ever seen), who's totally immobile (that camera's huge), and go after his friends (whom he refuses to help, anyway). Or how the rich kid managed to keep his entire family, his one friend and all the staff "buried" in the pool for long enough, and they're just wandering aimlessly for however long they were in there--and magically learn how to climb out of the pool at the end.

Honestly, this movie had a lot of potential. And it just fell short. Completely.

Re: Why do people love to trash this movie?

"Honestly, this movie had a lot of potential. And it just fell short. Completely."


thats exactly what i thought when i saw this.it was just so poorly written it amazes me.you have a devoutly religious girl who obviously values life but shes packing heat? lmfao! come on! samuel was awesome, best part of the whole movie.that amish dude was gangsta!lol! the characters reaction to everything going on around them was just so unbelievable its laughable.

"Im gonna go get da paper,get da paper"

Re: Why do people love to trash this movie?

the honest answer is that, while this film is not nearly as good as Romero's first three Dead films, I prefer it to Land or Survival and it is plenty of fun if you just sit back and enjoy it. People criticize it because it did something entirely different from the rest of the series and some folks would prefer to have the same movie remade over and over for them ad nauseum rather than allow an artist to take a chance on moving in another direction

Re: Why do people love to trash this movie?

To say it out Cloverfielded Cloverfield is to miss the point of Cloverfield (still with me?). Diary of the Dead tries to be a found-footage/mockumentary but denies itself to be one before the end of the first reel. Sure, you're making a documentary about the zombie apocalypse. Makes sense. But wait...is that what they're actually doing? No, they're using the zombie apocalypse as a way to show how the media is corrupted and has desensitized people. Symbolism is great, but we don't have to have a voice-over tell us what the message is every 5 minutes.

Also, coming back to the Cloverfield comparison, Cloverfield actually nailed the found-footage approach. They stopped filming in places where they weren't allowed to, they overlapped their footage with a honeymoon tape filmed earlier, there is no foreshadowing during the party sequence, and most importantly, it doesn't cut back and forth between POVs as if it's been edited later (as in, after the monster destroyed the entire city and its' entire population).

Diary of the Dead is about a documentary, but originally it starts out as a student horror film. Because this is George Romero, we are treated with a nice little rant about how fast zombies suck and slow zombies create a much more chilling atmosphere (Zack Snyder and everyone at AMC disagrees, and so do I). It keeps cutting back and forth between POVs (even at points where it doesn't make any sense for there to be multiple people filming, and even if it did, how did the girl get the footage from all the cameras?) and has the balls to show a "dead battery" icon, which is how not a single camera in existence works.

Oh, and no, I will not touch the racial subtext. Nope.


George Romero is a senile old man who loves to crap on everything that's popular nowadays because A: it's cool (which destroys the social commentary in half his films, making him a hypocrite) and B: He did it first (which no, he didn't). I hated this film, as I did with all of his films, and I'll never fully understand why people love to worship this guy who doesn't even understand his own material. He's kind of like Alan Moore, he loves to *beep* on everything that has ties with his own work as well. Makes me feel bad for Zack Snyder, who seems to be getting it.

Re: Why do people love to trash this movie?

Eleven Year Later and I still love this movie. By far the most underrated of Romero's Dead films.

And the first time I ever saw Tatiana Maslany

You're from the future?Well that's brilliant!Do they still have sandwiches there?

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.
Top