Diary of the Dead

I came into this with low expectations. The predecessor, Land Of The Dead, was a passable but uninspired movie. Worse yet, this was not only another zombie movie from Romero, but using the dreaded found-footage subgenre. I don't believe in saying "I don't like [genre]"; I subscribe to Roger Ebert's belief that saying so is masquerading ignorance as taste, as the viewer just hasn't found the right movie yet from that genre. That being said, up until this point, I had yet to see a found-footage movie that I enjoyed, so Diary Of The Dead being that was a huge disadvantage. So I was absolutely shocked to discover that, not only did I enjoy this, all my issues with found-footage were allayed with this movie's script. The story is nothing really special, I will admit. It occurs at the beginning of the zombie apocalypse, seemingly time-shifting the events of Night Of The Living Dead to modern day thanks to an overheard TV broadcast that is identical to one in Night. Not sure that makes sense, but okay. Some college kids who are involved in the film program gather in an RV and try to find shelter somewhere. Most of them want to go home, but they do make some stops along the way, getting into different perilous situations along the way. Simple. Diary sits in a weird place between the more overt social commentary of the original Night/Dawn/Day trilogy, and the total lack of it in Land. Diary sort of, kind of makes commentary, but it's in drive-by mode. There's your standard "people are the real monsters" zombie movie stuff, and some light commentary on how toxic the grasp of technology can be. It isn't subtle or profound, but it is there, so I gotta give it some credit. It also is a large part of what makes the found-footage conceit work for me. My biggest issue with found-footage movies is that I don't believe someone would constantly hold up a camera in times of life-or-death struggle, or running from danger, or whatever crisis moment is happening. I had never seen a movie that adequately explains why some putz with a camcorder or a Go-Pro keeps filming in the middle of whatever disaster is happening. Diary actually gives purpose for that; Jason, the man behind the camera, is a wannabe filmmaker. He believes it is his solemn duty to document everything. The media is shown to be distorting the facts in Diary, and Jason thinks he has to show the truth, for history, and maybe to save someone's life. So pervasive is Jason's need to be the capturing lens of history that he can't put down the camera even in times of crisis, because the people must see the truth. When they make a stop at an encampment that still has internet access, he stops long enough to upload video, and gloats to his girlfriend about how many hits he's gotten. His egomania drives the found-footage framing, which isn't really found-footage. His girlfriend edits together his footage and adds narration and music, which gives even more context. It really worked for me to give the structure of the movie a reason for being. While the script isn't original -- in-fighting in the group, some survivors can't believe what's happening, groups or gangs becoming fiefdoms, the military out for themselves -- the movie has a good pace and it never gets boring. These are all college-aged kids, and it is literally the first few days of the disaster, so none of them have become hardened or skillful in survival. How quickly the world turns to chaos is probably a bit ridiculous, and some people seem to be awfully good shots for no reason, but I was always reminded that these kids are just that, kids, and they're stumbling their way through a global catastrophe, all the while enduring one of their own being a total asshole who won't stop shoving his camera in their faces to capture the moment. It's that element, carrying this guy who is choosing to be useless for the sake of an imaginary higher calling that gives the movie something different. Otherwise, it would just be "The Walking Dead: The College Years". Still a decent story, but the framing helps. One thing I can't excuse is the special effects. The zombie make-up is fine enough, but almost all the gore is CGI, and it has not aged well at all. I'm not sure it was even passable then, but now, it is painful to see "gore" not actually happen in the shot. There's a scene where a zombie's head gets cut in half from neck to top, and it's like watching a cut scene from an N64 game. I think this movie gets a lot more crap than it deserves. Is it as groundbreaking as Night or Dawn or Day? Does it have the pointed, intelligent social commentary of those three? Also no. But for what it is, judged on its own merits, I think it succeeds. It's nice to see a Romero movie that isn't the trilogy or Creepshow succeed. I actually like a found-footage movie now.