People are voting emotionally.

A Brilliant Conflict

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

It was inevitable that the genius of Romero would jump on the bandwagon again. Land of the Dead was a step up, but I fear that the film was only financed and successful because of Wright's masterpiece released the year before.So obviously the once great director thought he could emulate another success with making this when Paranormal Activity was causing some tremendous ripples in Hollywood.Sadly, it's a step down from his other Zombie films, thanks to no tension, no cultural references, no sly pokes at consumerism, it's just a found footage film with zombies, hoping to sell lots of units because of the name.The cast are abysmal, apart from the camp college professor who adds nothing to the narrative but drink and spout his lines like he's a Shakespearean actor trying to find his motivation at the bottom of a bottle.So we follow the group, and they run into the walking dead on several occasions, but seeing that this is supposed to be set at the same time as the original NOTLD only adds to the confusion, with all the technology that is abound in the film.Bu there is one good scene involving acid, that makes the whole thing just about worth watching if you are a completest.Otherwise, stick with the original trilogy, they are groundbreaking.

Diary of the Dead is better than the big budget Land of the Dead where some fancy Hollywood types tried to move in and buy some street cred by going to work for the indie master. Romero went back to basics with this one, employing some more unknown talent and moving away from a "big budget" looking movie. In this one, a character documents his group's escape from a zombie epidemic on a digital camera. There are flashes of brilliance from the original Dead trilogy here and there, but the cinema verite-shaky camera tactic hasn't worked well since the Blair Witch Project. Please tell me we're nearing the end of that trend.Mostly, there's just not a whole lot to say here that hasn't already been said before. Sure, it made a lot of sense to try this in 2007. Zombies were super hot at that time, leading up to the last seven years of The Walking Dead on AMC. I may check this one out again if it ever pops up on cable, but it'll never take the place of the classics.

I don't understand why this movie enjoys such a vast following with cameos from the greats of horror. This movie was so poorly acted. We made fun of it the entire time thinking it would eventually get better.The pace of the movie is slow. Not in a "slow burn" way, just in a way where we spent the whole time wondering if it was a joke. The main character, Deborah, was either written so poorly as to be completely unconvincing, or just acted terribly. We expect a lot from our zombie films, especially from someone as prestigious as Mr. Romero, but this was just so upsettingly bad. The very end of the film has the best moment in it, and I won't describe it so it doesn't ruin anything for someone who might still want to give this one a go, but it is too little too late. In my opinion it's not a good use of your time.

The weirdest part of this whole production is that very little is done to make it seem authentic. Everything is just too precise - I can't think of how else to describe it. It never felt like I was watching amateur footage. There was no sense of error.Things that make it less authentic: Everyone can use a gun and hit a zombie in the head (first try).The emotional responses from everyone are predictable or nonchalant to a lot of what's happening. The amount of death, blood and chaos - how is it that nobody is hysterical or unable to speak? The Professor. His first line may as well have been, "I am an English person!".The DIY horror movie (that the students were filming in the beginning) is so outdated and lame (a killer mummy). This sort of thing might still appear on a high-school drama series but it reveals how out of touch the writer is.Well-framed death/gore. For example, the Amish guy plunging a scythe through the front of his own head to kill the zombie behind him (while facing the camera) only to turn and show the zombie behind him dying and falling to the ground. A more obvious example is the reporter in the beginning being bitten and the camera being knocked to conveniently frame her zombie-damage.It wasn't until the barn that I noticed there was a musical score. Subliminally, I think this is why early on it just felt like a regular movie.The dialogue (given the format) was horrible. People aren't this well-spoken in reality. I don't remember anything specific but the witty replies from the girlfriend (of the cameraman) just didn't work.The narration in which the girlfriend explained the importance of the footage and her personal take on it all, just seemed stupid. From the moment they meet she's in complete opposition to what he's doing - he obviously dies later on.I didn't finish watching the movie. I honestly hate to say this but I became bored and didn't care what happened to anyone.