George Romero talks "Diary of the Dead"

[dubq 0]

Here's what Romero says about Land in that interview (I'm typing this out fast so I apologize for any missed typos):

 

Q: Diary of the Dead comes relatively hot on the heels of Land of the Dead. What inspired such a speedy return to the subgenre? Is it a case of it being relatively easy to get financing for a "Dead" film or did you have an overriding artistic motivation?

 

GAR: Well, of course it's easier for me to get financing for a Dead film than it is for anything else, but basically I was running away from Land. Even though Universal let me make the movie I wanted to make - they weren't as interferring as I thought they might be - it was such a hardship and just a pain in the ass. I wanted to do something that would be fun again. I had an idea about the emerging media that's hooking us all into this multi-tentacled umbilical and I wanted to do something with it.

 

Q: What were the hardships on Land exactly?

 

GAR: It was too ambitious. The money we had on Land was about two-thirds the money they had to remake Dawn. Every day there'd be five shots we didn't get. Producer Peter Grunwald and I would be up all night after a shoot trying to figure out how to keep the integrity of the film while we didn't get this scene or that scene. All the way through it was a struggle so I just wanted to go back to something a bit more simple, with friends and colleagues that I knew got it. I was trying to recreate the environment we had during Night - and we did. It was wonderful. The cast was great, the crew was great,w e pulled it off and never went a day over schedule. It was great to be back in the saddle again. The problem with a big studio film is if you see a beautiful sunset and you wanna shoot it, you have to write a memo and say, "Am I allowed to shoot it?" Usually the response doesn't come back until the sunset's gone.

 

Then they go on to talk about the movie. There's one part, though, where they reference the jerkoffs who made Day 2 and Creepshow 3.. and apparently those same douchebags want to make a sequel to Knightriders...

 

Q: It was recently reported that the infamous Taurus Entertainment, the chuckleheads behind Creepshow 3 and Day of the Dead 2: Contagium have announced a sequel to your 1981 motorcycle-jousting epic Knightriders. Have you heard about this?

 

GAR: First of all, I don't know about it. I'd never heard anything about it until you just said it. Maybe I haven't been up on my IMDb or whatever the hell it is but I can't imagine doing a sequel to Knightriders. That was a very personal film. Maybe the most autobiographical one I've ever done. And to me, it 's a one shot. I just don't know where you'd go with that idea unless all you wanna do is a lot of fancy motorcycle stunts for the hell of it.

 

That really pisses me off about those fucks at Taurus. It's like they're following Romero's fucking resume and trying to ride his talent, his fucking art, to the bank. Good thing their flicks are all total fucking pieces of shit and probably make next to nothing.

 

Speaking of profits - Romero goes on to say that Dawn is the only story he gets royalties from. Everything else was owned by Laurel Entertainment - which he co-ran with Richard Rubenstein. Rubenstein got the rights when they split and apparently this dude sold everything off as a part of some package deal. *sigh*

[Gary Floyd 0]

The actual poster (first one was a fake)

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

*slips in praise for Slither just to piss Laz off*

I caught that, you prick! Slither was decent, but it wasn't the huge awesome "THIS IS AN AMAZING MOVIE BY HORROR FANS FOR REAL HORROR FANS" that it was made out to be. It was Night of the Creeps without the awesomeness. The casting was good, ditto the acting (as good as it should've been), but...meh. Not as good as it should've been.

 

As for Diary, I hope it's good. I didn't mind Land, though I'd say it's better than Day, but not nearly as fun as the Dawn remake, but this looks promising. That poster looks like the classic ones for Dawn and Day, so rock n' roll.

[RepoMan 0]

Anyone know a release date or at least a ballpark date.

[dubq 0]

Feb 15th in theatres for Diary.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Theatre listing.

[randomguy 0]

Day remake is direct to video. Aintitcool.com reviewed it - terrible.

[dubq 0]

Some cameos / "maybe" spoilers... Well, it's listed on IMDB's cast page... whatever, tagging it just incase:

 

Apparently Wes Craven, Guillermo Del Toro & Quentin Tarantino all make cameos as newscaster voiceovers.

[Youth N Asia 0]

Day remake is direct to video. Aintitcool.com reviewed it - terrible.

 

Good good. The Dawn remake made sense, there was something they could do with it...but Day? Really?

 

And fuck Nick Cannon

[Ravenbomb 0]

Day remake is direct to video. Aintitcool.com reviewed it - terrible.

 

Ha. Good. The trailer was terrible.

[RepoMan 0]

Day remake is direct to video. Aintitcool.com reviewed it - terrible.

 

Ha. Good. The trailer was terrible.

 

Yes, but they already had my $9 just because.

 

[cd213 0]

Last night I got a chance to preview the new film from George A. Romero. DIARY OF THE DEAD is the latest film in Romero's Dead series. Romero also had a Q & A after the movie. He is a very humble guy, as I have met him before. Romero was very funny and down to Earth. He talked about making the movie, and aired his thoughts on the latest fad of remakes in Hollywood. A great interview and Q & A, if I must say so. And now, on to my review.

 

DIARY OF THE DEAD is a prequal to the entire Dead series. This film shows the start of the epidemic. The movie is also shot in first person. There are going to be people that compare this to films like THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and THE LAST BROADCAST and even CLOVERFIELD. It has that shaky camera effect, but unlike the previous movies, it seems to go away after a while. It still happens through out the film, but the audience gets used to it very quickly.

The story of DIARY is about a group of friends that are making a horror film for a senior project. While they are filming, one of the crew members is listening to the radio and he hears the story of the dead coming back to life. After the rest of the small crew and cast listen to the radio broadcast they decide to leave and head home to check on their families. The group of about 6 people, including one teacher, jump in a winebago and travel through the countryside. As they are traveling they run into the undead (literally and figuritivly). One by one the group is picked off. As this is happening, the director of the homemade horror film has decided to film what is going on. When asked why he is doing this he replies, "So whoever is left will know what really went on."

Through out the film we see and hear news reports about what is going. The news reports are explaining the whole storie. The main character Jason, who is filming the movie, is posting his footage on MySpace. He wants the world to know the truth.

The movie was edited together by one of the other members of the group, Debra. Originally, Romero said, he didn't want music in the film as he wanted it to be more realistic, but decided to add it. The voiceover of Debra explains that she did this to make the audience scared, scared about what is going on.

Like all of Romero's other ghoul films, this one has a social commentary. The idea in this film is that technology has taken over our lives so much. We get news 24/7 from news channels on cable, on the radio and the internet.

The only thing that didn't really make sense in the movie is, if this was supposed to be taking place either before of even at the same time as NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, how come the technology in this film is so far ahead of NIGHT?

Overall, I enjoyed this movie. At first I thought it was okay at best, but the more I thought about it the more I liked this movie. I want to see it again once it officially comes to see how I really fell about it, but as of right now I give this movie 2 1/2 stars. I highly recommend this film for any true horror fan, and any fan of George A. Romero.

 

Here are a few pictures I took from the Q & A. The quality isn't that great, but I was using my cell phone to take them:

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Through out the film we see and hear news reports about what is going. The news reports are explaining the whole storie. The main character Jason, who is filming the movie, is posting his footage on MySpace. He wants the world to know the truth.

 

The first movie took place decades ago. Al Gore was just getting around to inventing the Internet back then. Otherwise, more power to Romero for being able to get his movies made.

[Swift Terror 0]

The only thing that didn't really make sense in the movie is, if this was supposed to be taking place either before of even at the same time as NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, how come the technology in this film is so far ahead of NIGHT?

 

 

Basically Romero didn't want to have the movie set in 1968 but rather in present day. Yet, he wanted the events of the movie to be at the start of when "there's no more room in hell" and the epidemic begins. It's nothing more than that, just having present day as the setting. Kind of like the people that remade "Dawn" choosing not to set that movie in 1978.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Clip

[Downhome 0]

I saw this earlier today, and I must say that it wasn't that great at all.

 

The horrible far outweighs the little good that's there.

 

I'd give it somewhere around a 6.5/10 or so, and that's being generous.

[Youth N Asia 0]

It hasn't played within a 100 miles of me since it's come out

[Coffin Surfer 0]

I really enjoed all the Romero Dead movies, even Day and Land, but this was embarrassing. The documentary gimmick was pretty pointless since the film is very cartoonish and cheesy in execution while the social commentary is heavy handed and nausating. Crap effects and zombies as well. Little zombie carnage and bad jump scares a plenty from a guy who always seemed above this sort of crap at even his worse. This was a made for Sci-Fi Channel level production in every aspect. Based off the interviews, my guess is Romero just wanted to have fun making a low budget movie and didn't really care if it was good or not.

[Jingus 0]

I agree, Diary was easily the least of Romero's zombie flicks. Had absolutely nothing new to do or say with the undead, and he didn't utilize the first-person gimmick nearly as well as Blair Witch, Cloverfield, or hell even Reno 911. The acting was all bush league, and the incredibly pretentious narration was just terrible.

 

That being said, it looked like a fucking masterpiece compared to the aforementioned Day of the Dead "remake". That was a goddamned worthless waste of time. Don't be fooled by Ving Rhames' name on the box, he's only in the movie for like two minutes.

[Gary Floyd 0]

I saw it Tuesday. I hated the narration, and the acting is pretty boring. That said, I did enjoy it, and it's better than most zombie movies that come out these days, though I agree it's the weakest of the series.

 

Still, any movie with

A deaf Amish Zombie killer

and a

Zombie Birthday Clown

can't be too bad. Also,

"See, I told you dead things are slow!"

 

On the "Day of the Dead" remake: It's horrible, and I'd like to imagine that never happened, though it's still better than "Day of the Dead 2."

[RedJed 0]

I actually really enjoyed the Diary flick, I thought it portrayed an interesting message with the media all over, everyone connected to this and that, etc. The acting wasn't completely phenominal by any means, but it wasnt any better or worse than, say, Cloverfield. I'll even go so far as to say I liked it much more than Land, but not nearly as much as the previous first three of the Dead series. I thought that some of the ways they branched different cameras and such into the film was creative enough, and I didn't see any real issues with effects and stuff, I thought that was all pretty well done.

 

And I am sure the intention wasn't to try to "branch" the other Dead films into this one much at all, in fact I don't think there was any sort of connection whatsoever to them. This is kind of like starting fresh in a way, assuming that there was never any "real" zombie outbreak ever, prior until it occured in the beginning of this film.

 

If we took all of our pre-notions of the other Dead films out of relating it to this one, I think it would hold up very much on its' own. Or if Romero had no part in this, I think it would be getting alot more praise also.

 

On another note, apparently they are making a sequal to the Dawn of the Dead remake, taking off right after the survivors come off the boat they left the vicinity from in the remake. I'll see if I can find news on it, I read about it somewhere last week.

[Jingus 0]

Still, any movie with

A deaf Amish Zombie killer

and a

Zombie Birthday Clown

can't be too bad. Also,

"See, I told you dead things are slow!"

Oh, it had some neato moments, sure. Also the swimming pool, and the acid, and the last shot. I just thought it didn't have nearly as much cool shit as the previous Dead films, and even recycled some of it, like the "zombie sits up, guts fall out" thing which Romero stole from himself.

 

On the "Day of the Dead" remake: It's horrible, and I'd like to imagine that never happened, though it's still better than "Day of the Dead 2."

I dunno. DofD2: Contagium was a bad movie, but at least it was trying to do something different from the usual clones and not just be Another Zombie Movie. Meanwhile the remake was just another zombie movie, and a spectacularly shitty one at that. Mena Suvari as a soldier, Vegetarian Zombie, come the fuck on.

 

I actually really enjoyed the Diary flick, I thought it portrayed an interesting message with the media all over, everyone connected to this and that, etc. The acting wasn't completely phenominal by any means, but it wasnt any better or worse than, say, Cloverfield.

See, I thought they just used the buzzwords for the internet and viral videos and such and never really had anything to say about it all. Well, aside from the narration, which was verbal Valium and godawful. And I'd disagree on the acting, I thought Cloverfield had several realistic characters who were just like people I'd known in real life. Meanwhile, Diary had film students, actors, and Texans who were nothing like the film students, actors, and Texans I've personally known. Plus, that World-Weary Drunken Professor guy, arrgh he was bad.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

I think the problem with saying nothing regarding the 'net and such might come from Romero not really understanding it. It's not even a knock on him, because you can't knock on one of, if not, the most iconic horror directors of the 20th century, but it is a generational thing, big-time. It'd be like when your grandparents ask you to hook up their brand-new TV set, DVD player, etc., and then ask all of these questions about it that actually have nothing to do with it.

 

That said...I still can't wait to see this.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Still, any movie with

A deaf Amish Zombie killer

and a

Zombie Birthday Clown

can't be too bad. Also,

"See, I told you dead things are slow!"

Oh, it had some neato moments, sure. Also the swimming pool, and the acid, and the last shot. I just thought it didn't have nearly as much cool shit as the previous Dead films, and even recycled some of it, like the "zombie sits up, guts fall out" thing which Romero stole from himself.

I'll agree on that, though again, I did like it. It's just the weakest of the series. I also liked getting to hear the newscast from "Night", as well as the moments you mentioned. I'll tell you one thing we do differ on: The drunk English Film Professor. I thought he was a riot. If there was any two characters that annoyed me, it was Debra (for her annoying narration-again, that was really unneccessary George) and Jason, though I think it's obvious that you are supposed to hate Jason.

 

I think that George should now just stop doing Zombie movies. At this point, It just feels like he's done all that he can with them. Try something new man.

[Jingus 0]

If anyone actually gave him a whole bunch of millions of dollars to make a serious zombie epic, with top-of-the-line production values and a really great cast and maybe a script from someone else, that could be something cool. Imagine a World of the Dead with a thousand zombie extras onscreen at once. Of course, Hollywood seems much more content to churn out crap like the Resident Evil sequels instead of actually funding the original artist who invented the whole genre.

[dubq 0]

On the "Day of the Dead" remake: It's horrible, and I'd like to imagine that never happened, though it's still better than "Day of the Dead 2."

I dunno. DofD2: Contagium was a bad movie, but at least it was trying to do something different from the usual clones and not just be Another Zombie Movie. Meanwhile the remake was just another zombie movie, and a spectacularly shitty one at that. Mena Suvari as a soldier, Vegetarian Zombie, come the fuck on.

 

Let's just call them even. Contagium had NO redeeming qualities. Romero zombies don't talk, nor did they originate from Tinkerbell.. what a pile. A serious pile!

 

[Ripper 0]

On the "Day of the Dead" remake: It's horrible, and I'd like to imagine that never happened, though it's still better than "Day of the Dead 2."

I dunno. DofD2: Contagium was a bad movie, but at least it was trying to do something different from the usual clones and not just be Another Zombie Movie. Meanwhile the remake was just another zombie movie, and a spectacularly shitty one at that. Mena Suvari as a soldier, Vegetarian Zombie, come the fuck on.

 

Let's just call them even. Contagium had NO redeeming qualities. Romero zombies don't talk, nor did they originate from Tinkerbell.. what a pile. A serious pile!

 

 

Dude...A zombie leaped up, somehow attached himself to the rook and moved at high speed to chase down and kill a woman in DOD. That shit was fucking horrible.

 

Contagium was bad too, but jesus...DOD was fucking HORRIBLE.

 

As for Diary, it wasn't horrible, it wasn't great either. The acting was pretty bad, the drunken professor, while awesome, was just too over the top cliche for me. I mean, I liked him just because the guy playing him made him likable. But he was a drunken professor, who happened to be hanging out with a group of students while they were filming a movie and happened to have been a former soldier with fantastic aim while drunk no less, and also HAPPENED to be one of the best shots with bow and arrow since Robin Hood and also was a skilled swordsman. Comeon.

 

Speaking of bad Zombie movies....Zombie Strippers....yeah.

[Jingus 0]

Oh no you di-n't. Zombie Strippers was fuckin' awesome.

[Ripper 0]

Oh, I di-n't. I liked it. It was so bad it was good. That is more than I can say for alot of Zombie movies.

 

And the shootout between jenna and the other stripper was awesome (I am sure you know what I mean).

 

It was a movie that knew it sucked and was proud of it.

[gWIL 0]

Contrary to almost everyone it seems, I really liked. I thought it had a nice vibe going for it, and I liked it a hell of a lot more than I liked Land. of Romero's movies I'd have to put it second behind only Dawn.