Diary of the Dead

Technophobes and luddites, rejoice! You finally have a pretty good zombie movie to call your own. George A. Romero’s most recent film, “Diary of the Dead,” re-imagines the beginning of his zombie saga in the present day, where terrified victims are more likely to post videos of their accounts on YouTube than barricade themselves in a farmhouse. And while “Diary” is not the most terrifying of Romero’s films, it provides a strong and compelling commentary on human nature in the age of new web technology.

Although shot entirely with handheld cameras, “Diary” is presented as a polished film-within-a-film. Romero forgoes the hyperrealist tone of recent horror film “Cloverfield” and cult classic “The Blair Witch Project” by editing together shots from multiple sources such as cell phones and security cameras. Those who walked out of “Cloverfield” with a migraine have little to worry about here; the “shaky cam” elements are much more subdued. Romero also uses a musical score to help sell the scarier moments.

All good zombie films have an intriguing subtext, revealing more about human nature than the machinations of the various ghouls on display. In that respect “Diary” simply shines. Due to the frequent bouts of narration that sometimes border on the overdramatic, it is almost impossible to leave the theater without understanding Romero’s central theme: in a modern time of crisis, people are more likely to stop and stare than try to help.

This point is apt, and never more applicable than now, the era of YouTube, in which one man’s recorded misfortune becomes a complete stranger’s entertainment. In “Cloverfield,” the camera-wielding character often had no plausible reason to be filming, but Romero brings that decision to the forefront in “Diary.” At one point, the protagonist even stays behind in a zombie-infested hospital because he has to recharge his camera.

This extreme statement about the character’s priorities is offset by more subtle touches. Throughout the first half of the movie, for example, the filming protagonist’s face is kept in the shadows, effectively reducing his existence to little more than the lens of his camera.

But “Diary of the Dead” is not without flaws. Despite the vérité style of filmmaking, it is difficult to believe in these characters as flesh-and-blood humans because their roles are stereotypical—or, if you prefer, archetypical. You have the buxom blonde, the serious heroine, and the hard-drinking, philosophy-spouting professor. (And yes, he has an accent, so we know to take him extra seriously.)

This is the first of Romero’s zombie films in which the protagonists are upstaged by their flesh-eating co-stars. Only one character, a dynamite-hurling, deaf Amish man, truly pops off the screen. His scene, although too brief, is one of the most memorable in the film.

The structure of the movie also strangely lacks the sense of danger and immediacy that a zombie apocalypse usually warrants. It is essentially a road movie, and yet the destination—the home of the narrating heroine—is neither an exciting nor remote destination. They haphazardly change locations throughout the movie.

While this slip in pacing in no way breaks the movie, it is clear that Romero thrives on telling stories set in confined areas (see the aforementioned farmhouse from “Night of the Living Dead,” or the mall from “Dawn of the Dead,” or the underground army base from “Day of the Dead”). He has yet to master the structure of the road movie.

“Diary of the Dead” marks Romero’s return to the world of independent filmmaking, and this movie proves to be his most experimental yet. While not everything works quite right, and horror fans looking for more of the over-the-top gore of “Land of the Dead” will surely be disappointed, the film’s commentary is unquestionably relevant. The chilling final shot is likely to stay with you the next time you log on to YouTube.