"Diary of the Dead"
I know I have been behind. I always try to formulate these reviews in my head before I type them.
Probably over think them. That's probably why they are so bad. That actually makes a lot of sense. That's probably why anything I write lately turns out crappy. I didn't used to have to think about it. It just poured out of my pen onto the paper. Now I wind up starring at the screen not writing anything. I have tried. Maybe I should write it then type it. Anyway so not the point.
My problem with "Land of the Dead," and this was always at the back of my mind, is how over produced it was. Which is such an odd thing. Well I actually have other problems, the more and more I watch it the more and more Big Daddy bugs me. It would have been perfectly fine without the whole, you are killing my kind attitude of Big Daddy. Not to mention I will never understand how he was able in his rotting mind figure out that the men in the tower sent out Dead Reckoning to raid his home. He's a zombie!!! Possibly without this even the vengeful zombie angle would have been more feasible. But let's not get into a debate about the problems in the film. Over all there were many things in it I did like, so I'll say I liked it.
But this post isn't about that film. It's about the latest George Romero film "Diary of the Dead."
When I heard the concept I thought it would be interesting. A group of college kids making a film find themselves in the middle of a zombie epidemic and decide to document it. Hey they have cameras and aren't afraid to shoot! It might be interesting to see what Romero will do with the whole camera held by a character fad. I was slightly annoyed at it being set at the beginning of the epidemic or plague. I ave said before that I find that highly annoying. I would love to see another try at people living with the epidemic instead of the initial survival. This is just because I'm impatient and just want them to get on with it.
So I got the film watched it and I did enjoy it. It's much more enjoyable than the recent "Day of the Dead" Piece of filth. I judge films sometimes on re-watchablility, "Day" didn't have this at all. I don't know If I'll ever watch it again. "Diary" I could definitely watch again and again. There were some really good performances in there. There were some bad ones two. That blond girl from Texas springs to mind. I found her annoying and not at all believable as the character. Her performance was bad high school play at best. I hate when it seems like a person has merely memorized their lines and is just saying them on camera in such a way that shows they have no idea who their character is supposed to be.
The movie itself as I mentioned is about a group of kids making a film. It is a Mummy movie. This is where one of the characters, playing the mummy tries to run as his character and the director says, "Dead things don't move fast." To me this is a direct knock at recent Zombie movies most of which contain fast zombies. No fast zombies here. Dead things don't move fast because they can't. They are rotting corpses. I have to wonder if Romero started over because in his previous zombie verse the zombies were evolving to be smart. A theme they practically bludgeoned us with in the "Day" re-make. Perhaps he took a lot of flack on that or didn't like it himself? Anyway, the zombies were not fast or smart in this film. They hear a newscast and head back to college to seek safety and wind up on the road in a Winnebago. I liked the idea that they were mobile. This allowed for so many more opportunities to run into other survivors some good and some bad. Of course their journey was meant to take them all to their homes. Of course home isn't what they hoped for.
So in conclusion, I liked the film.
Probably over think them. That's probably why they are so bad. That actually makes a lot of sense. That's probably why anything I write lately turns out crappy. I didn't used to have to think about it. It just poured out of my pen onto the paper. Now I wind up starring at the screen not writing anything. I have tried. Maybe I should write it then type it. Anyway so not the point.
My problem with "Land of the Dead," and this was always at the back of my mind, is how over produced it was. Which is such an odd thing. Well I actually have other problems, the more and more I watch it the more and more Big Daddy bugs me. It would have been perfectly fine without the whole, you are killing my kind attitude of Big Daddy. Not to mention I will never understand how he was able in his rotting mind figure out that the men in the tower sent out Dead Reckoning to raid his home. He's a zombie!!! Possibly without this even the vengeful zombie angle would have been more feasible. But let's not get into a debate about the problems in the film. Over all there were many things in it I did like, so I'll say I liked it.
But this post isn't about that film. It's about the latest George Romero film "Diary of the Dead."
When I heard the concept I thought it would be interesting. A group of college kids making a film find themselves in the middle of a zombie epidemic and decide to document it. Hey they have cameras and aren't afraid to shoot! It might be interesting to see what Romero will do with the whole camera held by a character fad. I was slightly annoyed at it being set at the beginning of the epidemic or plague. I ave said before that I find that highly annoying. I would love to see another try at people living with the epidemic instead of the initial survival. This is just because I'm impatient and just want them to get on with it.
So I got the film watched it and I did enjoy it. It's much more enjoyable than the recent "Day of the Dead" Piece of filth. I judge films sometimes on re-watchablility, "Day" didn't have this at all. I don't know If I'll ever watch it again. "Diary" I could definitely watch again and again. There were some really good performances in there. There were some bad ones two. That blond girl from Texas springs to mind. I found her annoying and not at all believable as the character. Her performance was bad high school play at best. I hate when it seems like a person has merely memorized their lines and is just saying them on camera in such a way that shows they have no idea who their character is supposed to be.
The movie itself as I mentioned is about a group of kids making a film. It is a Mummy movie. This is where one of the characters, playing the mummy tries to run as his character and the director says, "Dead things don't move fast." To me this is a direct knock at recent Zombie movies most of which contain fast zombies. No fast zombies here. Dead things don't move fast because they can't. They are rotting corpses. I have to wonder if Romero started over because in his previous zombie verse the zombies were evolving to be smart. A theme they practically bludgeoned us with in the "Day" re-make. Perhaps he took a lot of flack on that or didn't like it himself? Anyway, the zombies were not fast or smart in this film. They hear a newscast and head back to college to seek safety and wind up on the road in a Winnebago. I liked the idea that they were mobile. This allowed for so many more opportunities to run into other survivors some good and some bad. Of course their journey was meant to take them all to their homes. Of course home isn't what they hoped for.
So in conclusion, I liked the film.
posted by whitechoclatespacegg @ 7:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home