"You're stuttering, Mr. Creed. Don't try to speak, just shoot."
After spending twenty years revolutionizing the horror/zombie genre with the original Dead trilogy, George Romero made a second trilogy in the span of about five years, beginning with 2004's Land Of The Dead. While the results weren't nearly as successful this time around, Diary Of The Dead makes for an interesting, if somewhat mishandled look at the zombie apocalypse during the YouTube era.
Each of Romero's previous Dead films tackled major social issues reflecting the times in which they were made. Night (1968) addresses race relations, Dawn (1978) consumerism and urban decay, Day (1985) unchecked militarism and Land (2005) the War on Terror and invasion of Iraq. While each of those films were sequels to the previous, building upon each other to eventually show a world living a full generation after the outbreak, Diary reboots the series, returning to the woods of western Pennsylvania where Romero shot Night Of The Living Dead 40 years earlier. The film is presented as a documentary compiled by a group of film students from the University of Pittsburgh, who's film shoot is interrupted by the zombie outbreak. They then use the film equipment to chronicle their own attempts to reach family members in Scranton and document the collapse of American society.
Released about a month after Cloverfield (and made for about a tenth of the budget), Diary Of The Dead shares the obvious similarity of being viewed entirely through the eyes of characters wielding cameras. But where Cloverfield was a much more visceral, jarring experience, Romero attempts to evoke the feeling of making an actual film with Diary. The characters have two cameras running for most of the film to account for cuts between perspective and the film even goes so far as to show characters editing in stock footage that the viewer saw five minutes earlier. While certainly more measured and less action-packed than Cloverfield, Romero gives his characters plausible reasons for keeping the cameras going and skillfully allows for things like editing and perspective changes, ultimately making the film feel more like a conventional movie and less like a crazed first person shooter.
As in all of his previous Dead films (with the exception of Land), Romero went for a relatively unknown cast for this film. And as one might expect, the acting is a bit spotty. While most of the film is shot by Jason Creed (played by Joshua Close), who is ostensibly the leader of the group, the protagonist ends up being his girlfriend Debra (played by Michelle Morgan), who spends the most time in front of the camera and is clearly built to be the anchor for the audience. Morgan reminded me of a plainer Eliza Dushku, and her acting (along with everyone elses) suffers early on from some pretty stilted dialogue and ham-fisted exposition. By the end, however, I was pretty on board with her as the heroine and felt that she played a pretty good balance of vulnerable and badass. Several of the other characters were pretty whiny and annoying, but the major saving grace for me ended up being Scott Wentworth as Andrew Maxwell, the film professor advising them on their shoot. Wentworth digs so deep into cliche with his performance (knowingly I think), portraying Maxwell as a permanently soused, hyper-articulated British academic, that he emerges on the other side as an extremely enjoyable, dare I say layered character. Romero clearly had some affection for the character as well, throwing him most of the badass lines (like the one at the top of the page) and letting him rock a bow and arrow toward the end of the film.
Ultimately, while I enjoyed watching the film, I'd have to tie it with Land for the worst of the Dead films. What ultimately sinks this movie is the fact that Romero, despite trying really hard, just seems very out of touch with the material he's wants to address. All the sequences of the characters uploading things to YouTube and shooting stuff with their camera phones feel forced and weirdly inauthentic. I get what he's going for and it's certainly a worthy, interesting goal, but this film really needed to be made by someone about half of Romero's age. That being said, the man's still got it when it comes to old school zombie action. The make-up and effects look great, relying more on practical effects than CGI (although, I don't think anything will ever warm me to CG bullet hits, they just look silly) and he squeezes in some pretty neat zombie kills. Keep an eye out for the scene where an deaf Amish farmer goes at 'em with a big ass sickle. It's about as awesome as it sounds.
UP NEXT: Denzel Washington as a post-apocalyptic samurai in The Book Of Eli. Haven't watched it yet, but here's hoping.
Each of Romero's previous Dead films tackled major social issues reflecting the times in which they were made. Night (1968) addresses race relations, Dawn (1978) consumerism and urban decay, Day (1985) unchecked militarism and Land (2005) the War on Terror and invasion of Iraq. While each of those films were sequels to the previous, building upon each other to eventually show a world living a full generation after the outbreak, Diary reboots the series, returning to the woods of western Pennsylvania where Romero shot Night Of The Living Dead 40 years earlier. The film is presented as a documentary compiled by a group of film students from the University of Pittsburgh, who's film shoot is interrupted by the zombie outbreak. They then use the film equipment to chronicle their own attempts to reach family members in Scranton and document the collapse of American society.
Released about a month after Cloverfield (and made for about a tenth of the budget), Diary Of The Dead shares the obvious similarity of being viewed entirely through the eyes of characters wielding cameras. But where Cloverfield was a much more visceral, jarring experience, Romero attempts to evoke the feeling of making an actual film with Diary. The characters have two cameras running for most of the film to account for cuts between perspective and the film even goes so far as to show characters editing in stock footage that the viewer saw five minutes earlier. While certainly more measured and less action-packed than Cloverfield, Romero gives his characters plausible reasons for keeping the cameras going and skillfully allows for things like editing and perspective changes, ultimately making the film feel more like a conventional movie and less like a crazed first person shooter.
As in all of his previous Dead films (with the exception of Land), Romero went for a relatively unknown cast for this film. And as one might expect, the acting is a bit spotty. While most of the film is shot by Jason Creed (played by Joshua Close), who is ostensibly the leader of the group, the protagonist ends up being his girlfriend Debra (played by Michelle Morgan), who spends the most time in front of the camera and is clearly built to be the anchor for the audience. Morgan reminded me of a plainer Eliza Dushku, and her acting (along with everyone elses) suffers early on from some pretty stilted dialogue and ham-fisted exposition. By the end, however, I was pretty on board with her as the heroine and felt that she played a pretty good balance of vulnerable and badass. Several of the other characters were pretty whiny and annoying, but the major saving grace for me ended up being Scott Wentworth as Andrew Maxwell, the film professor advising them on their shoot. Wentworth digs so deep into cliche with his performance (knowingly I think), portraying Maxwell as a permanently soused, hyper-articulated British academic, that he emerges on the other side as an extremely enjoyable, dare I say layered character. Romero clearly had some affection for the character as well, throwing him most of the badass lines (like the one at the top of the page) and letting him rock a bow and arrow toward the end of the film.
Ultimately, while I enjoyed watching the film, I'd have to tie it with Land for the worst of the Dead films. What ultimately sinks this movie is the fact that Romero, despite trying really hard, just seems very out of touch with the material he's wants to address. All the sequences of the characters uploading things to YouTube and shooting stuff with their camera phones feel forced and weirdly inauthentic. I get what he's going for and it's certainly a worthy, interesting goal, but this film really needed to be made by someone about half of Romero's age. That being said, the man's still got it when it comes to old school zombie action. The make-up and effects look great, relying more on practical effects than CGI (although, I don't think anything will ever warm me to CG bullet hits, they just look silly) and he squeezes in some pretty neat zombie kills. Keep an eye out for the scene where an deaf Amish farmer goes at 'em with a big ass sickle. It's about as awesome as it sounds.
UP NEXT: Denzel Washington as a post-apocalyptic samurai in The Book Of Eli. Haven't watched it yet, but here's hoping.
No comments:
Post a Comment