Let Me In review

Time to talk remakes again I suppose. That dirty little word that's uttered anytime people in the film community want to discuss what appears to be wrong with the American system. I guess we'll just overlook the highly unimpressive Asian remake of the Coen brothers "Blood Simple"or the fact that the Italian's were doing worse things in the 70's and 80's by ripping off whole movies and retitling them. Ok, soap box moment over... my feverish annoyance at this idea that we're the only country to remake things tends to always put me in a bad mood. Even more so when they write off pieces of work that are actually very, very good before they come out because 'it's an American remake'.

"Let the Right One In" is regarded as a modern classic in the geek community and somewhat in the film community. Is it as the Washington Post put it "the best vampire movie ever"? I can't truly say. It's a great story, but personally I don't think it's a great movie. It's really, really damn good, but there's more than a few things that I wasn't completely taken with where I can't fall in love with it. Matt Reeves' remake on the other hand does have that quality and I am shocked. Granted I was interested/skeptical to see what Reeves had planned and after reading his thoughts a few months back I was even more interested, but I still had my doubts about things. However pretty much from the minute the film starts it's clear that he's aiming to make something different. It does tie well into it's book source, but also take a few cues from the original film. It's not playing the "Psycho" game where everything is just as it was, but there is that subtle safety net that's there if needed from time to time.

The entire movie really hinges on two things; the performances and relationship between Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and Abby (Chole Moretz). There honestly is nothing for Reeves and co. to fall back on. The adult characters (Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas) are in VERY much supporting roles and the true, blue horror movie elements are secondary at best. Happily it all works though. Their chemistry and performances are golden and actually work to make you believe it. From there it's simply making everything move in a slow, but strong pace of building that relationship and shaping the world around it. Owen is mercilessly bullied at school, his parents are going through a rough divorce and it's clear on both sides things are far from getting better. In effect Owen is an anti-social outcast. Abby moves in during the night with her father (Jenkins) and slowly build what becames a friendship and then possibly more. Again a lot lays on their shoulders and when they get closer on Reeves' (who also wrote the screenplay).

It's easy to pull vampire-human romance with attractive teens or twenty-somethings. Granted "Twilight" hasn't been able to do it in three movies, but for people with at least half a creative thought in their head it's simple. When it's kids around twelve or so... not so much. With kids romance or general strong feels aren't really about arriving at sex. Let's face it once you hit a certain point that does become even if subconscious or way removed from your up front feelings, an unavoidable thought concept. And as the relationship progresses so does the sexual build up. But with kids it's not nearly that far up the ladder. For them kissing and maybe light groping could be the 'end game'. Unless of course if the kid is a straight hormone charged freakazoid. They play off the advanced relationship with much of the same quiet subtly they place on everything else in the film. For them it's not about a bunch of big moments, but tons of fucking great small ones.

Composer and Oscar winner Michael Giacchino ('Star Trek' and 'Up') delivers what I think is one of his best, but most subtle pieces of work yet. His musical score plays up the slow creepiness of the picture along with the emotion and then gives us some fantastic operatic thrusts to send it all home in the more intense segments. Something else that Matt Reeves had stated in an interview was that he was visually inspired by 70's and 80's Spielbergia where films like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "E.T." and "Poltergeist" took place. Those little places in middle America that were like advanced, living forms of Norman Rockwell paintings. It's photographed beautifully and with a film grain that often even gives it an 80's appearance. It's an atmosphere that so few horror films and thrillers kind of lack and can honestly only help your picture.

Fuck it, I'll say that yeah I do love this version a bit more than the original. It's similar to my love of "Sorcerer" over "The Wages of Fear". Both are great, but I get way more engrossed with Friedkin's remake than the original film. I still feel the best remake probably is "The Departed". The original Hong Kong film "Infernal Affairs" remains an example of the type of H.K. action film I don't like; where it's over edited to such a point to where the biggest scenes resemble trailers rather than an actual movie. As far was this goes though it's probably too soon to tell, but it's among the best I've seen. As a American horror picture it is the way I feel we ought to be heading. We've proven that we can have fun still and be bloody, but it's so rare that we can produce strong, dramatic horror anymore. We're afraid of the slow burn horror so we simply don't make it anymore. Granted audience also choose not to see them also... ummm... I wonder could there be a connection?

Now while I'm writing this on Monday morning I'm already aware of the film's box office results. Personally I was rooting for David Fincher's "The Social Network" and it performed as I would have imagined. Congrats to them and Sony on that and for making at this point the most engrossing and entertaining film I've seen this year. Seriously before that the best film I'd seen was "Exit Through the Gift Shop" and that came out in March. Seven months and even the closest film to it wasn't nearly able to top it. However I was looking for "Let Me In" to perform a lot better. I imagine it didn't because people didn't see the original, but might not have wanted to support a remake. "Twilight" has honestly fucked up chances for good vampire stories to come along and do well. And also because the trailers are angled at... I'll say it... idiots. Overture did for this what Focus Features did for "The American". They lied. This IS NOT a straight or kind of straight horror film. It's a drama with horror elements. They lied because they wanted that horror fan money and sadly it seems they didn't get it. I guess now I have to wonder what might have been if they did release a slow moving, dramatic and methodical ad campaign instead. Landing at #8 your opening weekend is rough. It's hard to bounce back and considering "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" was at #4 and couldn't do, I'm sure this won't either. There's not a lot of convincing I can give to see the movie that hasn't already been stated so I figure readers that have the interest will do it on their own accord. But... even though films like "Paranormal Activity 2" and "Saw VII" and "My Soul to Take" by Wes Craven are a little ways off... I can almost assure you that by missing this you will be missing the most impressive horror film of the season.

Surprisingly writing this review sort of depressed me by the end. Yet another bitter finale to a great piece of work.

2-N-1 reviews (The Wolfman and Brooklyn's Finest)

"BROOKLYN'S FINEST"

TV has nearly killed the gritty joy of cop stories and it sucks. Seriously almost every channel this season has got at least three cop or cop-like shows starting up. Shockingly enough some will succeed even given the high market flooding of the genre. Interestingly enough though is that film wise it's all kind of slowed down. It almost seems like the people still making the occasional cop picture are the ones that have made a name for themselves for doing so. One such person is director Antonie Fuqua of 'Training Day' and 'Shooter' fame. His newest crime opus "Brooklyn's Finest" isn't as strong, but it is an engrossing and entertaining crime yarn all the same.

The film follows three cops, all different very people and working completely unrelated cases. There's Don Cheadle, a cop who's been undercover for what seems to be a year plus with rough gangsters and is tired of it. He wants out and he wants the promotion and desk job he was promised. The wish might be granted, but first he must sell out Casanova; an old friend played by Wesley Snipes. This might be easy, but the two have a history and Casanova saved his life once so there's all those... emotions. Then there's Ethan Hawke who works vice squad doing drug busts. His house is infested with dangerous mold that's slowly effecting his pregnant wife. Furthermore said house is tiny and with two more kids on the way plus the four others... well you can figure that out. So he hatching a plan to take drug money and buy a new house. Lastly there is Richard Gere who is retiring. He's a burn out and alcoholic with no impressive police history, but has done nothing wrong. However slowly he begins to see what he could do to redeem himself in a certain light.

All these actors perform magnificently and Fuqua directs with a much quieter and steadier eye than in many of his past works. The film is as gritty as his others, but is less about crime and all that and more about these people and their lives. Hawke delivers another hot blooded performance that's believable and convincing to his argument as to why he SHOULD take the drug money. His performance sticks out the most, but Cheadle and Gere's also work on a more subtle level. All these character could warrant their own solo pictures and perhaps someone should write a crime film that dwells more how cops view the upside down nature of the law, but together in one film it works too.

"THE WOLFMAN"

I missed Universal's big remake of their monster classic that came out in February and I kind of still wish I had left it missed. Directed by Joe Johnston ('Jumanji' and 'Jurassic Park III'), 'The Wolfman' is hands down one of the worst films of the year and a piss poor attempt at reviving the great genre of gothic horror. First off Benicio Del Toro shouldn't have played the lead Lawrence. Del Toro is a terrific actor, but this is his worst performance that ranges from being boring to being just plain ridiculous. Then we have Anthony Hopkins as his rather insane father who works hard to chew up the scenery like a lion. In fact the only cast members that did work for the film were Emily Blunt and Hugo Weaving, but it feels like they end up having little to nothing to really do in the film.

It's even more disappointing when Lawrence turns into the wolfman and we're treated to some ok-ish CGI transformations, some cheap looking kills and then a horrible looking wolfman suit that's either lit wrong or was just made poorly. I find both odd considering this was done by legendary makeup artist Rick Baker. I won't even go into the big finale of the movie which seems like something out of a Stephen Sommers film, but shot with less flair.

Johnston has also been like a pick me up director with little style. He can do things well enough and sometimes above average (like 'October Sky'), but then there's stuff like this and it makes you wonder how he gets work. I think here he was aiming for Sam Raimi style oddly enough, but lacks the creativity, humor and madness that Raimi has to pull it off.

Splice review

What is happening in the cinema world right now is fucking awesome. Despite all the massive, massive amounts of crap being tossed out there and the usual junk food pictures there is people at work attempting to revive the science fiction and horror genres. Some of these people you know like Oscar nominated filmmaker Neil Blomkamp of "District 9" or Duncan Jones of "Moon". However some have been hard at work attempting to bring us smart and original ideas for a while. People like Vincenzo Natali. Natali created "Cube" in the late 90's; a Kafka-like psychological science fiction picture about people trapped in a giant cubic puzzle. After that he somewhat disappeared only really popping up once more on my radar for his directed piecein "Paris Je T'aime" which was among my favorites. All the while he was cracking the story that would eventually become "Splice".

Is it really horror? Not by the conventional thought of stuff jumping out and all that, but instead something very, VERY close to his and executive producer Guillermo Del Toro's feelings on horror, science and monsters. Del Toro is well known for of course the "Hellboy" films and "Pan's Labyrinth" however people tend to forget his bizarre vampire tale "Cronos" (which is getting the Criterion treatment soon), the war ghost story "The Devil's Backbone" or his homage to Universal movie monster favorite "The Mummy", his mega roach monster film "Mimic". Aside from that the man is a fucking Cronenberg junkie and obviously Natali is as well; something very evident here.

What the film is really about is Clive (Adrian Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley), a rock star bioengineering team who have cracked DNA splicing and want to step it up a notch. So they do. From dealing with animal DNA, to tossing in some human DNA and the result is Dren. Clive fears what they've created and often speaks of destroying it however Elsa continuously reminds him of all that they could learn from her and eventually come to possibly love their creation. Dren is genetically a dozen different animals which allows from some fun and mildly tense sequences of discovery involved them dealing with her. But like most mad scientist creations something goes pretty wrong. Dren ages quickly and within a few months she appears to be in her mid twenties. She's tired of being cooped up in basements, labs and barns and wants out and that's the last thing Elsa or Clive want. Also as time progresses more and more is learned about her genetics as well as subtle hints about one of the character's childhood. For me much of what happens near the end of the second act play strongly into the things we are never told about this character's past and family life and why they might act the way they do.

"Splice" then uses it's final act to go for the gut and go out there. Creepily out there with stuff you've definitely not seen in modern horror. My friends we have entered Cronenberg-land. It's a wonderful place full of bizarre, skin crawling things that play more into ideas and morals and less into just straight gore. In fact there isn't much gore in the film at all, but it does warrent it's R-rating. I dare not spoil anything major and really do ask people to give this a shot, especially if you profess to like sci-fi movies or horror movies. Nowadays we mainly get remakes, torture porn or straight forward gore pictures. It's rare to find original, intelligent, disturbing horror pieces that don't need to relay on half-assed tricks to get viewers. Granted A LOT of people will probably not like this film, but that's honestly because they've promoted this to seem very much like a basic horror film and that's what they want to see. Those viewers are the reason we have so many damn "Saw" films in the world. No taste for the truly bizarre and disturbing, just for mindless gore and stupid traps. Let me just say that Cronenberg's "The Brood" is smarter and creepier than any of the "Saw" pictures.

I know I could repeat that last bit over and over again till my fingers bleed, but it's the truth and honestly I know this film won't to be major success. It's too strange for mainstream audiences that want movies like lunch meat. They want simplicity, easy understanding and whatever is the flavor of the month aka funny zombie movies. Being a horror fan it does piss me off to high heavens, but fuck all I can do about it. All I can say is that "Splice" goes to places few horror movies go to anymore and has fun with it. It's not a heavy-handed morality tale of why you shouldn't play God and it's not a brainless monster movie. It's "Frankenstein" mixed with "Cronos" with a scoop of "Dead Ringers".

A Nightmare on Elm Street review

I maintain that I'm not someone who believes nothing ever could or should be remade. Somethings definitely don't ever need to be touched because there's little to nothing that could be brought to them to improve what's already there; but then some I would say... ehh... if you've got some goods and with technology and skill levels higher now than back then why not. In that lovely line up and late seventies and early eighties horror icons Freddy Kruger graduated and won the respect of his fellow classmates by being Most Creative, Most Charismatic and Class Clown. Sadly he loss athletic awards to that jockey Jason Voorhees, but he never let that keep him down. Being who he was is partly what made the 'Nightmare' franchise what it was. You had a different type of killer that could get you in the worst possible way, in your sleep and sooner or later you would have to face him.

However with all the sequels and "Freddy vs. Jason", he loss almost all that villainous terror and became like a weird game show host. He was just there to dance around, make jokes and kill the teenage contestants. Albeit in a creative manner, thus the idea of remaking "A Nightmare on Elm Street" would (for me at least) fall into that why not spot. But the key to remaking this is to return that horror to the character, what he did, what he was before he died and to get us into the lives of these kids. That's why the first one (and a couple of the sequels) worked. Instead we get 90 minutes of almost complete CW movie of the week B.S..

I'm not a hater of Bay's Platinum Dunes company either mind you. In fact I still enjoy both their remakes of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Friday the 13th". Both of those spent a lot of time attempting to not rest into the originals they were set after, but tried to play it a different way while giving fans what they generally wanted. In fact they've never remade something that was sacred (and no the whole remake of 'Rosemary's Baby' and 'The Birds' isn't true) so even if I hated the movie (like 'The Amityville Horror' or this) it never bugged me too much. However they did fuck this up. But let's dwell on the few positives first. Jackie Earle Harley was the fan choice for Kruger and he was a damn good one. There actually is a point where I was 100% on board during the movie because of the way he played Kruger. The mannerisms, the voice, the cock-eyed glances, those worked to a tee. He brings some of that classic Freddy humor, but strangely a bit darker and with more kick.

There's also a portion of the movie in which it does turn into a horror, mystery picture and it kind of works. The flashbacks to the pre-school work in a subtlety creepy fashion and generally the film is very handsome looking. As are most P.D. pictures. Now let me see... what else...ummmmm that's it! Pretty much everything else sucks! The opening of the film (which you've seen on the second trailer I believe) is more like a parody to a Freddy movie than anything else, most of the 'teen' actors are awful and seeing them attempting to seem sleep deprived or emotional or just anything other than slightly wide eyed versions of characters we've seen on CW shows is almost funny at times. Hey some ARE from CW shows! Generally look for the people who look impossibly pretty in the film and that's them. I'm also getting pretty fucking tired of Steve Jablonsky's scores in P.D. films because IT'S THE SAME DAMN THING EVERY MOVIE! I'm not saying get a new composer, I'm just saying hold a gun to someones head and tell Steve to make music that isn't just loud clangs and electric bangs.

Now... another thing P.D. is known for is picking up directors who are from roughly the same background Bay was from until Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer gave him his break with "Bad Boys". So here we have nearly legendary music video director Samuel Bayer making a pretty generic attempt at horror. Seriously with his lengthy background I expected far more dream sequences and even the ones we got we're completely great (although two did do the trick). His recreating of classic scenes from the first movie was also something of a shitty move, because he either played it straight (as in the body bag being pulled down the hallway) and shot it almost beat for beat or try to amp it up the scenes with CGI (like the one of him coming out of the wall) and all I think is SUCK.

Honestly there isn't a lot more to say about the film; none of kids have real personalities or do or say anything interesting. It's all part of moving ahead with this almost interesting story that for a little while isn't bad and then gets boring and repetitive as the deaths are all pretty much the same, the vibe and characters all feel the same and at the end you really didn't give a shit if the new Nancy (who reminds me of something Tim Burton once drew) defeats Freddy and 'saves' the other kids. In fact by the end you don't really want to do anything except leave the theater hoping you're next outing to a horror film won't suck anywhere near as much as this did.

The Crazies review

George A. Romero's 1970's "The Crazies" is not a classic. Never let anyone tell you otherwise. What it is however is a good solid horror flick that's a bit differed from his 'Dead' series and one of the few non-franchise Romero pictures that is pretty good. The strength of the film was in its ability to shock and give away some cool, schlocky images. So the idea of someone remaking that movie works in my book because it's an adaptable story to any time period where paranoia and savage violence can run a muck. 2010's remake of "The Crazies" works for me. And it works because it's a basic, clear cut genre picture that we've seen, but it's style and attention to never becoming a CGI heavy, full blown zombie picture is admirable.

This is and isn't a zombie picture. They look like zombies... some of them... and they kill, but do not eat people, they're just crazy and homicidal. Our small band of townsfolk lead my Timothy Olyphant ('Deadwood' and 'Hitman') and Radha Mitchell ('Phone Booth' and 'Silent Hill') is attempting to get out the hellish town and make it to the city to let people know what's going on. However in their way is the crazed townies, a virus that may have infected all of them and the U.S. military who has a plan to contain the virus by killing everything in the town. Again nothing Earth shatteringly new about this plot or it's set ups and yet I can get into it. I think it's just because it plays out like an old school horror picture with a few new tricks.

We don't get a bunch of CGI hordes of crazies running around town, we get a much more enclosed, up close and personal kind of horror picture. It's photographic grain and lighting gives it a more independent feel (like the original) and there is still a great deal of light and dark humor to counteract the violence and tense sequences. Joe Anderson who plays the deputy and who may have been infected from minutes one (not a spoiler by the way, it's very much known from about twenty minutes in) steals a number of scenes by playing the crazed, somewhat funny and dangerous redneck. Olyphant hit a moment within the final act for me where I imagined him playing John Conner for a 'Terminator' film and thought it'd be fucking perfect, as he's got that leading man stride, but hasn't hit the real road yet. And Radha Mitchell gets quite into her scenes as the town doctor who's pregnant and still wanting to cling onto the life she wanted to. However in truth she isn't given a whole hell of a lot to do in the film, which is a shame.

Zombie movies are fully back with a vengeance and now that they are... I kind of want them dead again. "The Crazies" is close to being one, but not quite and in many ways I wish they would've continued with movie without them even really changing too much physically and just being crazy ass, nut jobs that cause violence. The shocking imagery interestingly enough still works really well in the film despite it all being stuff we've seen, but I think it really just has to do with the way things are done and the look and feel of the picture. "The Crazies" is a solid B-horror picture that's a fun watch, but nothing more.

Saw VI review

This time around I'm going attempt no jokes about the pain characters have inflicted upon themselves to the pain of watching this movie or it's predecessors. No because at this point that feeling is quite well known. This time around I'm just going to flat out say how I feel about "Saw VI" and I feel that it is slightly better then I expected while still being a giant hunk of shit. I find that rather impressive. From the trailers to the lackluster poster campaign this year I kept thinking that this was it, this was the crappiest one of them all (which I'm not yet denying). However I was wrong to think that it would look as cheap as it did in the trailers. While the overall production design isn't too impressive, the look and feel in "Saw VI" looks as if some money did go into it and showed up on screen. I'm not sure how much these films cost to make (I'm aware it's not very expensive though), but it looks like an effort to put forth. Now let's stop the pussy-footing around and get to the real business.

The reason this film flat out sucks is primarily the same reason most of them suck. Because it tries to provide the illusion of an intelligent horror/crime thriller by presenting the thought that throughout everyone of the movies there were clues leading us to the next film, when in fact all it is, is giving characters open ended reasons for doing things and then filling in the blanks in the sequel to provide the facade of plot depth. "Saw VI" is on par with the crappiness of "Saw IV" so yeah it's definitely one of the worst in the series in my eyes and that's because it's so damn boring. This is the sixth film and we know the structure and as it turns out theres enough meat heads out there that are willing to pay money to see the same junk over and over again. Because let's not kid ourselves these movies are all the same with the sole difference being who's in it and how are they going to die.

The traps in this film are as lame as they looks on the advertisements sans maybe two which weren't too bad. The Hoffman as Jigsaw plot working as a "Dexter" type killer cop scenario is still really dumb and finally has some headway although by the end it's not enough to close the file and hopefully end this junk. There are countless flashbacks that seem to last twenty minutes apiece and just for kicks let's discuss the social commentary within the film. Now this part actually shows a degree of intelligence. The main 'victim' here is a health insurance company head who has a formula which let's him decide who should and shouldn't be covered. During one of the flashbacks Tobin Bell's character John Kramer (or Jigsaw) is attempting to convince him to cover his experimental surgery. Things go south and thus you want the scumbag to get his. Very topical for a "Saw" movie to rip into a figure head from the newspaper. Unfortunately it excuses nothing.

This 85 minute shit pile is simply the same 86 minute shit pile from last year just with more flies circling it. For those of you who like wussy horror and I do consider this wussy horror since it can only rely on mediocre gore for scares then this will probably make you as happy as the other "Saw" films did. It's made for it's existing fan basis that thinks this is fun and everybody else simply has to endure it. For me "Saw" isn't campy enough for me to overlook how crappy it all is and how little sense it makes. Jason might be able to pull that off, but I suspect Jigsaw will never be able to do that. It might involve the creators attempting to be different instead of regurgitating the same pretentious film year after year with the goal of making stupid things appear smart and maybe scary.

"Saw VI" * out of ****

A Nightmare on Elm Street remake has it's teaser debut!

I get strangely excited for these sort of things. Which some might call blasphemes, but I do. I get excited because I guess I grew up too late and in the age of 'Scream' where the slasher genre was dying and Wes Craven wanted to try and bring it back using a mix of horror and humor. As I got older I went back and watched several of the classic & not-so-classic 70's and 80's slasher pictures with John Carpenter's "Halloween" being the best to me, but character wise I loved Freddy Kruger. I loved the creative concept behind "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and Kruger and in many ways I still think it's Craven's best film.
That said while also watching it now-a-days... it hasn't aged well. There are still scenes that invoke tension and a quick jolt of fear, but now it's known for being the birth of Freddy. Wes Craven has spoke out against the idea of any remake of this film and while to some I'm sure that's like God himself telling you directly to repent, I see it as just talk coming from the same man who brought us 'Cursed', 'Vampire in Brooklyn', 'Scream 3', 'The People Under the Stairs', 'Shocker' and worst of all 'The Hills Have Eyes 2' (both for directing the original sequel and co-writing the remake's sequel). In fact I do somewhat wonder how he got to be considered such a horror-master.

In any case producer Michael Bay said to hell with it (as I'm sure he often does) and went for it anyway with veteran music video director Samuel Bayer at the helm and "Watchmen" and "Little Children" star Jackie Earle Haley as Kruger (a spirited choice).

I like the trailer. I like what they appear to be doing with it although I would've liked to have seen less re-made scenes from the original and a few more dream set pieces as Bayer's past works show those should be exceptional. I'm not a complete hater of Platinum Dunes either. I think they've had a lot of failures (i.e. 'The Unborn', 'The Amityville Horror' and 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning' [which is still better then any of the original sequels]), but when they work, they're quite fun. Plus Bay's concept of taking no-name film makers and giving them their big break is admirable. Hopefully we'll see more as time roles on and it'll sweeten the pot as it were. Haley as Kruger seems like a great pick and hopefully they'll be aiming more for scares than for laughs as the 'Nightmare...' sequels eventually went for.

Romero's Survival of the Dead is good?

Being the horror fan I am I can still remember my pure fury at George A. Romero's "Diary of the Dead". For those of you who never saw it and love his famous 'Dead' series including 'Night of the Living Dead', 'Dawn of the Dead', 'Day of the Dead' and 'Land of the Dead', 'Diary of the Dead' is the one that deserves nothing less then to be blown out of a cannon and stomped on by fourth graders who wouldn't even find that shit scary. I was even a fan of 'Land of the Dead', it had problems, but it was fun. So the whole idea of 'Survival of the Dead' or really any other 'Dead' made Romero movie didn't have be too excited.

However right now in Austin, TX (the capital of all things I seem to find cool) Fantastic Fest is going on and Romero's new flick was screened. And according to Ain't it Cool News reporter Quint, it's quite an improvement. I'll post the link below and say that Quint seems to think the same as I did about 'Diary...' and says this one does in fact work, although it's not his best work. He also reminds us that just because Romero IS a legendary horror filmmaker, his career has had ups and a whole lot of downs. Check out the review.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42514