Comments on: DVD Review: George A. Romero’s Diary of the Dead http://www.bloggernews.net/115822 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:59:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Eirinjas http://www.bloggernews.net/115822#comment-350745 Eirinjas Sat, 24 May 2008 08:00:17 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/115822#comment-350745 My problems with this review: For one, the acting was fine. Anyone expecting some show-boating performance by a Deniro wannabe should just go watch one of the many terrible performances Deniro has done in many of the terrible films he's been in the last 2+ decades. I mention this because he gets a pass just because he gave a few good performances in a few films in the 70's. Had he been in this film, the reviewer would have given a glowing review. Need I remind people that none of Romero's films have ever been blockbusters at the box-office, but instead gain a sustained cult following? One of his reasons for making this film was to establish a copyright that was profitable to him and his associates. He got screwed out of almost all profits on NOTLD, and he's had problems on most of the other films he's done as well when it came to budget restrictions, studio interferences, and such. Consider this: 'Day of the Dead' was panned when it was released. Long time fans hated it. Now, a good portion of his fanbase, and Romero himself, consider it to be the best of his 'Dead' films. I certainly do. It's concise, ir provides the social commentary with finesse, the gore with gusto, and it has a climactic ending that isn't as nihilistic as his other films. 'Land of the Dead' suffered the same criticisms that this reviewer gives 'Diary', and I find them almost wholly unfounded. I would suggest that the social commentary was layed on a little thick, and that more should have been done to focus on character and plot development. Having said that, most of the characters do fair well, the plot comes full circle in a reasonable way, the ending, while returning to the nihilism of his past films, does end succinctly. The actors in 'Diary' are more believable than the performances to be found in 'Dawn of the Dead', which I and others consider a classic, time-enduring film by Romero. Gaylen Ross, while not terrible, added little to 'Dawn'. If there's anything lacking, it's a more cohesive narrative for the actors to chew on. However, I think that has more to do with the director's desire to give the film a documentary feel. I don't know how I would compare this to 'Land', which I thought was great, but I don't think this deserves the low-rating the review gave it. I would've given it a 'B', where 'Day' would've been an 'a+', 'Dawn' an 'A', 'Night' an 'A', and 'Land' an 'A-', maybe a 'B+'. My problems with this review: For one, the acting was fine. Anyone expecting some show-boating performance by a Deniro wannabe should just go watch one of the many terrible performances Deniro has done in many of the terrible films he’s been in the last 2+ decades. I mention this because he gets a pass just because he gave a few good performances in a few films in the 70’s. Had he been in this film, the reviewer would have given a glowing review. Need I remind people that none of Romero’s films have ever been blockbusters at the box-office, but instead gain a sustained cult following? One of his reasons for making this film was to establish a copyright that was profitable to him and his associates. He got screwed out of almost all profits on NOTLD, and he’s had problems on most of the other films he’s done as well when it came to budget restrictions, studio interferences, and such.

Consider this: ‘Day of the Dead’ was panned when it was released. Long time fans hated it. Now, a good portion of his fanbase, and Romero himself, consider it to be the best of his ‘Dead’ films. I certainly do. It’s concise, ir provides the social commentary with finesse, the gore with gusto, and it has a climactic ending that isn’t as nihilistic as his other films. ‘Land of the Dead’ suffered the same criticisms that this reviewer gives ‘Diary’, and I find them almost wholly unfounded.

I would suggest that the social commentary was layed on a little thick, and that more should have been done to focus on character and plot development. Having said that, most of the characters do fair well, the plot comes full circle in a reasonable way, the ending, while returning to the nihilism of his past films, does end succinctly.

The actors in ‘Diary’ are more believable than the performances to be found in ‘Dawn of the Dead’, which I and others consider a classic, time-enduring film by Romero. Gaylen Ross, while not terrible, added little to ‘Dawn’. If there’s anything lacking, it’s a more cohesive narrative for the actors to chew on. However, I think that has more to do with the director’s desire to give the film a documentary feel.

I don’t know how I would compare this to ‘Land’, which I thought was great, but I don’t think this deserves the low-rating the review gave it. I would’ve given it a ‘B’, where ‘Day’ would’ve been an ‘a+’, ‘Dawn’ an ‘A’, ‘Night’ an ‘A’, and ‘Land’ an ‘A-’, maybe a ‘B+’.

]]>