User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 75 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 37 out of 75
  2. Negative: 25 out of 75

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Feb 1, 2013
    If George Romero had made this three or four years sooner, it may have still been relevant, but DIARY OF THE DEAD comes in way too late in the long line of "found footage" films that became popular in the 2000's. DIARY follows a group of college students as they document their first-hand account of the zombie apocalypse using a hand-held video camera. Unfortunately, Romero gets the format entirely wrong in every conceivable way. Instead of producing an ultra-realistic nightmare as we had seen in [REC] from the same year, he gives us a poorly-staged and utterly contrived zombie bore lead by unbelievable characters and lackluster special effects.

    In the first of many offenses, Romero allows his characters to edit their footage, which entails adding slow-motion effects, scene transitions, and even narration. The editor has even chosen to emphasize the scares using blaring sound effects! Romero's characters are given painfully unnatural dialog, which makes them come off as being bad actors rather than genuine people. The zombies are killed in a variety of glamorized ways that simply would not happen in a real-world survivor setting. Worst of all, the cartoon gore is comprised almost entirely by computerized effects! How does this, in any way, reflect reality? Why choose this format only to then go back and fictionalize the events? The only answer seems to lie in the editor's commentary, itself. Debra repeatedly stresses how it was impossible to discern fact from fiction with 400,000 spins on the truth available for download online. Perhaps this, too, is some elaborate prank being played by the filmmakers, calling back to the Wellesian War of the Worlds radio drama that Romero references as well? Even in that remote possibility, DIARY OF THE DEAD never displays enough intelligence to credit it as being a satire.

    DIARY OF THE DEAD shows an extreme disconnect between concept and execution. Romero may have entered this project with good intentions, but the result is truly horrifying.

    -Carl Manes
    I Like Horror Movies
  2. Jun 3, 2012
    this movie is good but problem is the camera works the main actor behind the camera documentary dead around him and watches his friend get bitten just stupid
  3. Mar 3, 2012
    It wasn't the odd choice to film this movie in a documentary-style narrative which was the sole let down, but rather the character development (or lack thereof) of the survivors. I honestly couldn't care less if they died which is not exactly expected of an audience when watching a horror flick as traditionally they should root for the good guys. The entire film was morbidly depressing and is definitely one of the weaker installments in George A. Romero's "Dead" series. Thankfully massive amounts of blood and gore weren't lacking. Phew! Expand
  4. Jun 18, 2011
    Another fantastic Romero made zombie movie, I like how it shows you about the survivors adapting and trying to cope with there new life with the dead, something that is rarely explored in zombie movies, and while it starts off making you think it's going to suck do to it being over dramatic, it quickly picks up the pace and becomes enjoyable, but there are still a few cheesy moments here and there, but this is still a fantastic movie, a must see for Romero fans. Expand
  5. May 1, 2011
    A terrible movie that represents what it is in of itself; a disaster. The acting is atrocious, the gore is all CGI and it ripped off the camcorder premise from The Blair Witch Project, as 5 billion other horror movies did also. A severe letdown for Romero fans.
  6. Katlyn
    Jan 4, 2010
    This movie is likely to be featured on sci fi.....and by no means is that a compliment....every bit of this movie felt cheap. Dawn of the Dead was brilliant but this is just lackluster at best.
  7. JC
    Aug 1, 2009
    Basically the first half hour of this movie was crap. but the next hour, was very entertaining after they had killed off most of the bad actors and actually got things going. the main thing hated about this movie were the characters themselves, many of them were very unlikeable but that's just my opinion. and whoever the actor was that played ridley should be the next Joker, he suits the role perfectly. if the movie was a bit longer and put some more emphasis on survivors against survivors, its would've been great, but alas, its didn't. Expand
  8. MichaelK
    Feb 2, 2009
    WOW. I am very open minded when it comes to movies, and love everything zombie, but dang, this movie is HORRIBLE. I don't care who made this, there are no redeeming factors. The director tried WAY to hard to make some social commentary and the acting was horrible. I could barely watch this to the end.
  9. MiKE
    Jan 22, 2009
    When you're watching this movie you get a feel, like its a low budget movie that was shoot in few weeks. Horror movies are suppose to be scary but this movie is a pure joke! AVOID at all costs!
  10. AlexC.
    Nov 6, 2008
    It has the premise to be good, but just ends up dull. the only reason i kept watching was because i'm not wasting £14, which romero did not earn. i step back from the glory days of the dead. What's more annoying is how some gave it five stars, convincing me to buy it!
  11. IanReyP.
    Oct 18, 2008
    No scare, no thrills. Fine, but was there a good story to compensate? Not even.
  12. J-me
    Oct 17, 2008
    This is a must see for Romero films. If you're looking for a modern day MTV style zombie rock-and-roll flick this might not be your cup ot tea. For me, this took me back to his earlier works (which I consider classic). The humor is there, the quiet social commentary is there (actually, not so quiet in this film), and of course, the gore is there. Many of these negative reviews are by people looking for this to be another film. (cmon people, Cloverfield? Really?) If you like Romero, you'll love this. Expand
  13. TarekM.
    Aug 16, 2008
    Not Romero's finest, but still a dazzling gore fest.
  14. EricM.
    Jul 3, 2008
    This movie was poorly produced and had a cheap, almost made-for-tv feel to it. The acting was lame also. I turned it off after 40 minutes. What happened to Romero?
  15. KrisW.
    Jun 23, 2008
    my girlfriend and i love really bad horror movies. even more so when zombies and a lot of gore are involved. but this takes the cake. this was so horribly done, she and i had a hard time finding a moment that we couldnt stop taking it seriously. yeah its a romero zombie film but they've now become so tiresome that its become hard to take it for even its entertainment value. and, was it just us, or did that well-endowed blonde somehow develop a southern accent halfway through the movie ?? the 1s person camera view was poorly put together. Cloverfield was so so much more worth seeing. Expand
  16. Vincenzo
    Jun 22, 2008
    This movie is terrible. I was at no point sold on anything the script was trying to say, forget the so called cultural criticism. Not one good line, not one good character... a few mediocre zombie kills at best. You'll have a better evening if you rent any of Romero's other flicks.
  17. AH
    Jun 21, 2008
    Is this a joke? This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life - painfully out of touch, horrendously acted - please stop thinking that George A. Romero was some kind of prolific visionary. He is a guy who liked gore and made a movie that people mistook for social commentary and now in trying to reproduce that reaction, he makes this CRAP. Horrible movie. A joke.
  18. BenjaminM.
    Jun 20, 2008
    This movie was vissually interesting, with a good pace, and realistic characters. the acting was not always great, but it was never bad enough to compromise the movie's integrity. It's message was clear, and though not entirely original was proven in an unussually relatable way.
  19. lcollins
    Jun 5, 2008
    Pay attention people. THIS is how you make a zombie film. The movie would get a 10, but unfortunately, the acting just isn't that brilliant.
  20. DannyS.
    Jun 1, 2008
    How could you George? The first peron Blair witch thing is played out! This is not your finest hour.
  21. Robin
    Jun 1, 2008
    Romero at his best. Classic filmmaking for a new world - while not letting go of social context and zombie gore. Makes you think, and makes you feel.
  22. TiernanS.
    May 29, 2008
    Fortunately, the first person camerawork is far steadier here than it was in films like 'Cloverfield,' 'The Blair Witch Project' and the last two 'Bourne' films. However, I have a nagging point to make. Why and how are the type of zombies portrayed in the vast majority of the countless zombie movies over the years so dangerous and deadly? They move as slow as a lawn mower on idle, and have no real cognitive functioning (hint:they're really stupid). "Oh no, a zombie is going to eat me, I don't know what to do?" Um, how about you just move a little to the left. Geez! This isn't a bad zombie flick. There's the prerequisite gore and mayhem and such. No one call pull this off better than Romero, but I have to wonder how he hasn't become bored with this genre at this point. Oh well! Expand
  23. MortenR.
    May 28, 2008
    This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen! Not only is it, not at any time, scary but it is also indescribable borring. I had expected a great "follow up" from the "Dawn of the dead" succes. The whole idea behind the movie is old¨, unoriginal, and definately big fiasco for the horror genre.
  24. MattB
    May 27, 2008
    In this genre, the first box you have to tick is to make the audience suspend it's disbelief and except as true the premises of the work of fiction. For me this lasted about 5 minutes. Dreadful acting (especially the leading lady), appalling dialogue and laughable plot structure make this the worst film I've seen in ages. The fact that Romero jumps on the hand held camera bandwagon sums it all up - Cloverfield, although not perfect, makes this look just what it is... rubbish. If you think this movie is good, then you are one of the many responsible for trash like this hitting the box office, and probably depriving new, original writing talent the resources they deserve. All Romero has done, is probably ruin the fledgling careers of quite a few young actors, but on this evidence, we should really thank him for that. Expand
  25. DrewF
    May 26, 2008
    Another solid entry in the landmark "Dead" series. Romero has never tried to be anything but blunt, yet his films always have something interesting to say about the social climate in which they are made. Characters are surprisingly appealing, given the format and past history in the 'cinema verite' genre. Worth a look.
  26. ChadS.
    May 25, 2008
    "Diary of the Dead" just might be the most shocking zombie picture yet in this filmmaker's oeuvre. Blood has nothing to do with it, or exposed guts. This latest tale of the undead by the guy who made little kids wet their pants at bijou matinees all across America back in 1968 with "Night of the Living Dead", delivers a horror film that's more about filmmaking than zombies. In particular, the decisions made in post-production are foregrounded. Debra(Michelle Morgan) finishes the film for Jason(Joshua Close). It's out of his hands. He doesn't get final cut. She does. If you think the voice-overs and the lyrical flashbacks of their deceased friends are hokey, remember that Debra is a college student, not Thelma Schoonmaker. Jason would hate what Debra did to his masterpiece. "Diary of the Dead", among other things, is shrewd about the subjects in a documentary film. It's not reality; it's movie reality, because the people in your non-fiction film are indeed acting; acting as if they're not aware of the cameras. And finally, in the final scene, this filmmaker brilliantly fesses up to the inherent immorality of staging pretend murders in grisly fashion for fun, in a roundabout fashion. He knows he's not subtle when it comes to depicting violent acts. He shows everything, albeit wittily. But Jason, the film's filmmaker within the film, makes the directorial choice to not point the camera at a transformed friend who's put down by friendly fire, during their stay at the hospital. Jason is like the filmmaker's alter ego, so the filmmaker experiments with his normal manner of shooting a scene, because he's Jason Creed, student filmmaker, not the guy who made "Dawn of the Dead". This film is so much more fun than Michael Haneke's "Funny Games", another film that tackled the complicity of filmmakers and audiences in pertaining to movie violence. Expand
  27. [Anonymous]
    May 23, 2008
    A very dull and generic film. if you are expecting this movie to bring something different to the zombie genre you will be very disappointed. the film follows the same pattern you have seen in hundreds of zombie movies before and the first person camera adds absolutely noting. the characters are very dull and lifeless and the professor character is unbelievably cliched. the movie has no tension, no scares and no decent action scenes. other reviewers may talk about it's "dramatic social criticism" but that means noting when the film itself is a tedious bore from start to finish. Expand
  28. intodeep
    May 20, 2008
    Don't go see [rec] thats a boring movie.....this is much better then that one.....i'll tell you now that the only part in [rec] that is "scary" is at the if you want to sit through a bunch of ppl saying "whats going on?" for a hour go see [rec]....but if you want a good horror movie full of scares see this one.
  29. ShawnS.
    May 19, 2008
    This film is easily an 8/10. It gets a 9 from me, to counteract some of the biggest morons like "Daniel C.." who gave it a 0 calling it one of the worst movies ever made. My advice to people like Daniel C. is to stay out of the genre, and grab his copy of "Joe Dirt" off of hi sshelf. As far as zombie movies go, IMO this one is the best since Romero's 1985 masterpiece "Day of the Dead" Decent zombie films are few and far between these days, despite the fact that there are at least 10 new zombie films released a week. George Romero is a master at this genre, and deserves the recognition as such. Without George Romero, there would be no zombie films. Films like this are a cut above the MTV generations poor excuse for a zombie filme, for example the 2008 remake of Day of the Dead. Officially, George A. Romero's Diary of the Dead gets an 8 out of 10 from me. Expand
  30. Cenobia
    May 11, 2008
    Terrible film. If you can actually sit through the first half without leaving you deserve an award. The acting is horrible and the shots are worse. They actually set up alternate camera shots by looking at the person holding the other camera. It is unbearable. There is maybe 45 minutes of actual movie here. The rest is just random news clips, and slow motion shots of what we've already seen. At one point they basically re-play an entire clip that had occurred seconds before. The voice over is just annoying, and they feel the need to spell things out for you multiple times. Redundancy is all this movie is good at. There aren't even any decent scares. Everything is easily anticipated, and pretty much every zombie kill ends the same way, so even watching the horrible actors die doesn't save this piece of trash. Avoid at all costs. If you want a good zombie flick re-watch one of the 28 days films. Expand
  31. JayH.
    May 8, 2008
    I like George Romero's film, I feel he is a skillful horror movie director. He is particularly good at delving into the characters personalities and delivering genuine chills. Well paced.
  32. NickK
    May 2, 2008
    I have always been a fan of George and zombie movies. But ever since Land of the Dead, now this, he has failed in my books. This movie, was completely different from what I imagined. What happened to the survival, barricading, and Armageddon. I never get tired of zombie movies like Dawn/Dawn remake, Day, Night, etc, stop wasting time making this crap.... please!
  33. JohnT.
    May 1, 2008
    WORST MOVIE EVER, what's even more sad is the average critic review gave it a 66 and the public gave it a ~6..0 it should not be anymore than a 0.
  34. LleeC.
    May 1, 2008
    horrible horrible excuse for a film. bad acting, bad diologue and bad direction . go see [rec] if you want a good zombie film this year
  35. AndyH.
    Apr 30, 2008
    A genius blend of dramatic social criticism and splatter. The first horror movie ever I rated 10/10.
  36. NickM.
    Apr 28, 2008
    Its got a new view on the zombie genre, with great supporting cast, such as the Amish man, and the people who run the outpost in the garage. decent story, but with the exception of the teacher, all of the main characters kind of sucked. I mean, generic guy, generic girl, generic nerd, generic jock, generic religious girl, generic slut, and generic funny guy. I mean, really, couldn't put some development on the starring roles. The teacher was a good character, with some creativity, but not enough to make up for the sucky college kids. Expand
  37. DanielC.
    Mar 11, 2008
    This is quite simply the worst movie ever made, from the shocking script, to the terrible acting and to the even worse directing, this film was an embarrassment. Its possibly the closest i have ever been to walking out of a cinema. People were laughing at bits that weren't meant to be funny and as for the English guy (who seemed to have just fallen out of a Shakespeare play) his 'Mornings and Mirrors' speech was possibly the biggest load of old rubbish i have ever heard. As for the part where the guy dressed as a mummy chases the girl into the woods, OH MY GOD..was that meant to be funny?!! Anyone who gives this film a good score must be one of the undead themselves, because no one in their right mind would actually enjoy this pile of nonsense... This film should have gone straight to DVD, actually no its so poor it should have gone straight to video, preferably betamax so no one ever has to sit through this ever again!!! Expand
  38. CharlesM.
    Mar 8, 2008
    How can the Amish guy make the film, he's not even in it for 10 minutes!! Sorry bout that but I think some people mustve seen a different movie. It's really not that great at all and other than the very heavy handed social commentary that Romero fans (of which I am one) always go on about, you wouldnt even know this was a Romero movie. It has a few good moments, notably a humerous part in which the speed of the undead is made fun of. An obvious nod at the modern sprinting zombies. I think Romero must approach his movies with a lot of ideas about what he wants to say, I just wish he'd make his first decent movie in 30 years. Or retire! Expand
  39. ArthurV.
    Feb 19, 2008
    This is another great example of reviewers losing the plot and reviewing the legacy of the filmmaker and other films of the genre and NOT reviewing the film in front of them. This film is one of th worst I've ever seen. The acting is absolutely terrible and drew many unintentional laughs throughout. The "social commentary" in the film is delivered with the subtlety of a sledgehammer and is best left to films that are not terribly written zombie flicks. A couple of the zombie deaths are noteworthy, though hardly worth the price of admission. How this got theatrical distribution is beyond me...this should've been straight-to-video all the way! Thanks to all the big-time mainstream reviewers who, as they did with their reviews of 'The Host' last year, proved their lack of relevance and out-of-touch-ness all the more by giving this movie ridiculously high grades. To those who have not yet put down money to see this film yet...I tell you this with the best of intentions...DON'T DO IT! Save your money, honestly you'd be better off burning it or eating least then it'd be put to better use! Expand
  40. NotaryDPO
    Feb 18, 2008
    All comments about the acting being week are true, but the unknowns in this film are actually better than the pros in Land of the Dead. This was pure fun. I wasn't too wild about Romero starting over, but Diary does it respectably.
  41. PaulL.
    Feb 18, 2008
    An excellent re-imagining of the dead saga
  42. GabrielL
    Feb 17, 2008
    I don't know how in the hell this movie got any good reviews. If it wasn't directed by Romero it would have been straight to DVD. The audience I was in laughed so much at the lame dialogue that you would have thought it was a comedy. There isn't a well acted character in the movie. The Amish guy everyone seems to love was only in the movie for five minutes, and is likable because he's the only character who doesn't say anything stupid. Any social commentary is delivered by obnoxious college dimwits or the drunk college professor (who got more unintentional laughs than anyone.) There are a few good zombie deaths and by-the-numbers scares...enough for three points...but otherwise, you should just rent the original Dawn of the Dead, or Slither if you want something newer. Seriously though, watch Slither, it's awesome...and don't waste your delicious brain on this crapfest. Expand
  43. MarcD.
    Feb 16, 2008
    I saw the film with a sold-out crew of hard zombie/Romero fanatics at the Nuart in LA tonight (Feb 15). George Romero, a classy, kind dude that I've never before heard address a group, spoke humbly to his fans and gave the night a certain charm. It was interesting seeing this movie just a few weeks after seeing "Cloverfield." This trend of telling a story through recovered (or simply uploaded) footage from handheld cameras which began most recently with "Blair Witch" has now become a bit trite, but as Romero mentioned before the show, he had no idea where to take his franchise after "Land of the Dead," and this was an interesting perspective/lens witch which to further explore his zombie chronicles. There was a bit too much narration exploring the proliferation of blogs, uploaded stories, and the decentralization of the media. But the actual story is fresh and often very funny. The Amish guy (as you see referenced in many of the above reviews) absolutely makes the film. Incredible. I don't want to spoil any more details - if you're the target audience (yes, you know who you are), just see it. The acting is solid, though the pace needed a bit more jump. The commentary at the end of the movie was a little pessimistic for my taste, but if you're a fan of Romero or the Zombie genre, it's a no-brainer - oops! Expand
  44. Equality7-2521
    Feb 14, 2008
    I watched it last night at the Egyptian Theatre on Hollywood Blvd (Feb 13th). Before YOU! ha ha. The great George Romero was in attendance. he introduced the film and afterwards participated in an interview with John Landis. What a great night! Oh, about the film! On par with all his other zombie flicks. My fave is still 1978's Dawn of the Dead. I think this one is much better than his recent Land of the Dead. And of course people will compare it to Cloverfield or Redacted. It's as good as Redacted. Better than Cloverfield. I'll be watching this one again next week. Expand

Generally favorable reviews - based on 29 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 29
  2. Negative: 0 out of 29
  1. Compared with other first-person motion-sickness horror pictures like "The Blair Witch Project" and "Cloverfield," George A. Romero’s Diary of the Dead is weak tea, yet there’s enough social commentary (and innovative splatter) to acidulate the brew--to remind you that Romero, even behind the curve, makes other genre filmmakers look like fraidy-cats.
  2. This "Living Dead" exercise delivers far less monstrosity and a great deal of pomposity, not to mention dull characters who aren't nearly as lively as those dead guys.
  3. Reviewed by: Eddie Cockrell
    Gripping, intimate genre triumph.