The Zombie Diaries (2006) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
126 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
Great Concept, Terrible Everything Else
elgilbro26 January 2009
The premise of the movie is great. After a zombie epidemic, various video diaries are recovered. These video diaries tell the tales of survival of 3 groups of people whose stories eventually interweave.

Sadly, the acting is terrible. The best acting is done by the zombies. The special effects and makeup appear to have been done by students venturing into their first foray into gore. The best makeup/special effect is the clouded contacts and anybody with 20 dollars and Wal-Mart nearby can pull that off. Some zombies look downright comical, almost as if they are wearing cheap Halloween costumes.

This movie has some of the comedy that has come to be expected in the genre, but it's not intentional. In one scene, a shot from about 20 yards away with a rifle takes about two seconds before the zombies head is (poorly) blown apart.

The camera work is terrible. There is no sense of a "diary" in any of the 3 scenarios. Just groups filming their goings on and there's too much of a random feeling to it. And not random in the good way. More like "Why in the world would they be filming THIS?" There should have been more asides and narrating from the cameramen. Instead of having a sense of "this is a diary that recorded their struggles for whoever may find it", you had more of a sense of "this is a bad class project done by middle school children". The dialogue is forced. Whether it was written or improvised, it smacked of trying too hard to "act", and this totally destroyed the feel of "this is real people reacting to real events".

There are about 3 scenes that could have been very powerful. One of them has been done in almost every zombie movie before and the main difference this time around was the age of the "victim". The other two scenes were more confusing than anything. There's a difference between leaving things opened for interpretation and just totally dropping the ball.

All in all, I was very disappointed. A great concept was ruined.
52 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I have seen them all, this was the worst
tarincarpenter15 December 2008
Being a child of the 80's I grew up on horror, everything from Freddy to Pinhead (and of course my favorite, Jason). I remember being 7 years old and watching Dawn of the Dead, it freaked me out, I had nightmares for weeks, even seeing it when I was 25 it still freaked me out. After that I became a zombie freak, Night of the living dead, Dawn of the dead, Day of the dead, Return of the living dead and more recently the 28 films became some of my favorites. Seeing the trailer for this film I thought it looked great, I knew it was a low budget film but this didn't bother me, seeing that some of my favorite films are low budget "b" films. When I saw it in the store I grabbed it and payed $14 (even though i usually buy used films much cheaper) for it seeing that I was already interested in the film and it was attractively packaged. That night I put it in kicked back with a beer and anticipated some awesome zombie fun. Boy was I wrong, this film was simply horrible, the acting was poor the story was non-existent and the quality was straight garbage, seemingly an attempt at a blairwitch type video camera affect and a total copy of the concept off diary of the dead (which wasn't great but is eons better than this), but with no plot. This film is unworthy of even existing, I own over 600 films and and love everything from evil dead to good fellas, night of the comet to American beauty and I can honestly tell you that i feel like destroying this film because it is a disgrace to my collection, avoid it at all cost!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
86 out of 121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Absolutely dreadful.. and that's not an exaggeration.
capcanuk13 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this film this evening, and I am in shock. I am very well-known for "liking everything". Hell, I loved the remake of War of the Worlds, and am a complete fan of everything M. Knight Shyamalan, if that gives you any idea.

But this film was SO bad, all I can say is: keep any and all sharp objects safely out of reach while watching this movie... because trust me, you will definitely want to slash your wrists before its painful 80 minutes are up. Honestly, the entire film should be part of the "deleted scenes" extras on the DVD!

Dreadful acting, a completely pointless story, with a thoroughly disgusting Saw/Hostel-like sub-plot, and the ever-so-popular "Blair Zombie Project" hysterical epileptic camera.

The only spoiler I will give you regarding the story is the following: in the end, the zombies all die of starvation... because there isn't one single person in the film with a brain worth eating.

This film deserves a lower rating than IMDb allows.
41 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worst movie ever made
Goldman_in_LA24 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Calling this a movie is being kind. I can't remember seeing a worse movie. It's just some guys who got a cheap video camera (didn't even get a good camera, just some camcorder at Target), got their friends and made a "movie" (can't call it a film since it's not one).

Little tip for you folks out there who think you can make a movie that people will want to see: Get real actors. When you shoot it on video and get really bad wannabe actors, it looks like a porno (without the actual porn).

How anyone in their right mind could have been entertained by this terrible garbage is a mystery.

Stay away from this one. It's easily the worst movie ever made.
18 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Truly awful film.
halliwelleddie14 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Once again, much like reviews for 'The Signal', I am completely baffled by the rave reviews this film has received. Please don't make the same mistake I did and be drawn in by the eye-catching (and very misleading) cover art. None of it takes place at any point in the film.

80 minute film with 'Zombies' in title features what must be all of 10 minutes screen time of zombies altogether. The rest is just mindless driving / running / and pointless, awkward dialogue.

I'm a huge zombie movie fan - but I never thought I would despise a film so much as to go out of my way to urge people NOT to watch it. 'The Zombie Diaries' proved me wrong. It is dreadful.

The film focuses on a few different groups of idiots who are scattered around the British countryside just as some kind of 'unexplained virus' hits all major cities. All groups appear to have absolutely no common sense.

This first becomes apparent when the first group of 'survivors' encounter a zombie in a farmhouse they were supposed to be staying in. Rather than fight off one zombie in a relatively secure house, they run blindly into a dark forest where they encounter even more undead.

Then, in complete darkness, in the middle of a forest where they've encountered zombies, they decide to stop and make a fire. This kind of clown-shoe logic ripples through the rest of the film.

We cut to a completely different group of survivors looking for supplies in an abandoned town. This and many more overlong scenes involving this group has absolutely no relevance to the rest of the film.

The Zombie Diaries is basically made up of scenes that defy common sense in order to try and drum up tension. Cue countless shots of people walking round darkened corridors, barns, stairways, woods etc with only the camera light guiding the way. The first time this is done it is quite suspenseful – by the 5th time it happens, all suspense is lost and you are simply left watching a tactless idiot take 10 minutes to walk down a hallway and open a door.

Cut to yet another completely different group of survivors.

They've secured a farmhouse and guns, yet there are countless scenes where, in pitch darkness, everyone simply stands on the field outside the house blindly firing at zombies ambling towards them. Once they drag this out for another fifteen minutes or so, a noise is heard from inside a darkened barn (surprise, surprise), cue yet another dragged-out 'let's investigate with just the camera light to guide us' scene.

The final chapter tries to make a statement about us being the real monsters, not the zombies – by then I'd grown so bored that I applauded the deaths of the remaining survivors and cursed the gods that this moment had not arrived sooner.
46 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I didn't even know what the hell was going on
larawoolley30 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not a big fan of zombie films (I much prefer slasher, gore and demonic possession type films), so maybe that has something to do with why I didn't enjoy it; that said, nothing really seemed to happen in the film. I wasn't entirely sure of what was going on - possibly down to bad writing and poor planning. The acting was mostly terrible; the only thing I really enjoyed was watching a fellow Welsmhman acting, but that enjoyment was more to do with the novelty factor of association rather than being a positive point in the film. Considering that it's a zombie film, there was a seemingly distinct lack of zombies. The film should have been called 'The Diaries' or 'The Zombie Diaries With Not Many Zombies' (well you get the point). The film didn't frighten me, it didn't engage me, I couldn't warm to the characters (apart from that mentioned above), the acting wasn't great and there wasn't much tension or suspense at all. Luckily I didn't buy the film; it was shown on the horror channel as part of their evolution of the zombie film series. I'm surprised I watched it all the way to the end; but unfortunately the ending opens up more questions than it answers - to be honest that doesn't really come as much of a surprise, given that I didn't fully know what was going on anyway. I wouldn't recommend anyone to watch this, even those who are zombie film enthusiasts.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Never Have Zombies Been This Boring
SnacksForAll25 November 2008
In this age of the zombie renaissance (which seems to be giving way to a revitalized interest in vampires, thanks to TWILIGHT...yawn), we seem to be surrounded by all things undead. No mystery there: thanks to the spread of information on the internet in the late 90s and, soon after, the film 28 DAYS LATER, common moviegoers finally caught on that there was more to horror than lame slasher flicks featuring an endless succession of bemasked murderers.

They rediscovered the works of Romero and others, and found that there was something about the zombie sub-genre that spoke to our deepest nightmares: a fear of society, its inhabitants, and its collapse. This seemed especially relevant in the post-9/11 era. Watch news coverage of the zombie crisis in George Romero's NIGHT and DAWN and try not to think about that terrifying, fateful day in September, 2001.

What remains a mystery, however, is that almost no one --during the Romero heyday of zombies or their 21st Century 'renaissance'-- got it right. In this reviewer's opinion, there are about seven, yes, SEVEN films that have truly realized the full potential and promise of the undead theme, and sadly, two of them are remakes and two are semi-satirical send-ups of the genre.

So I shouldn't be too surprised in the disappointing and wasted effort that is THE ZOMBIE DIARIES. I'd heard a lot of good internet buzz about it, so I decided it was worth the three dollar rental. I knew there was a problem when I had to turn it off about halfway into the film. Was it too gory, too intense, too scary? Not in the slightest. Though I returned a day later to finish DIARIES, my opinion of the film on my first attempt hadn't changed.

What could have been an interesting premise --a zombie outbreak documented by several camera-toting groups in the English countryside--falls flat on its face before the opening credits have even finished. We're treated to an anti-climactic interview about a nasty plague sweeping Asia at the beginning of the film, which marks the only occasion I can recall that a movie loses its momentum within a few minutes of the opening titles. Even worse is the stiff, pompous cast we're forced to contend with. Not one of the cast members convincingly sells any urgency, not to mention the fact that the dead are returning to life and the country has been plunged into total chaos.

The narrative and script are seemingly aimless; we're bored quickly by the pretty scenery of the countryside, where (occasionally) non-threatening zombies show up and stumble about. DIARIES loses itself in an insular and uninteresting world -- what's going on in the cities? What about TV and Radio news reports, which in the other films (like NIGHT, DAWN) proved the most stirring and memorable moments? I understand small productions like this have budgetary constraints to consider, but the filmmakers missed an all-too important cue in not giving their boring little universe some scope. What should conjure feelings of isolation in the audience only makes us lose interest before the second act has even arrived.

The zombies themselves are shambling Romero knock-offs, and not well-done, either. The special effects used to create the monsters are professional enough, but rubber stamped with all the "ooh" and "aah" trademarks any college film student hopes to afford. "Look, the zombies have white contact lenses! How creepy!" Aside from the fact that these ghouls are among the least scary I have seen in a long while, the reactions the characters have to them are even less convincing. A group of survivors seem to have no fear confronting a cadre of marauding flesh eaters in one shot, but are ostensibly paralyzed at the appearance of a single ghoul the next. Also, though agonizingly slow, these zombies seem to have no problem sneaking up on adrenaline-pumped humans in wide open grazing fields. Go figure.

The ending of THE ZOMBIE DIARIES is a feeble attempt at throwing the audience a curve ball, and while I won't give anything away, the film's conclusion is completely tacked on, and frankly, a cheap shot that seems at once out of place and mundane.

DIARIES is just one example (in a LONG list of books, graphic novels, films, video games and other media) of why the zombie resurgence failed. Few of these works seems to have had the guts to break away from the "rules" laid out by the "...of the Dead" films, ultimately to the artistic detriment of each.

Due in part to these reasons, THE ZOMBIE DIARIES fails in originality, and succeeds in not much else. One wonders how good a zombie film this MIGHT have been.
74 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not at all very good.
Jan Strydom29 April 2009
The thing that annoyed me about this film was the shaky camera movements, it was tolerable at first but became a nuisance after a while, the storyline is very confusing, it even at times felt like there was no storyline, because the characters were never really developed enough for me to care about any of them, they actually bugged the living hell out of me, it also never really built up any suspense, at least not for me, because given the fact that I didn't care for any of the characters the film just bored me, plainly put.

I'll admit that I'm not really a fan of the zombie genre, but I have watched a few of them, and a lot of them are ten times better than this film, so for a non fan of the genre I would actually go for Romero's dead films before I'd consider seeing this again.

3 out of 10.
36 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Zombie Diaries
Scarecrow-8816 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I think Zombie Diaries proves how both the genre and cam-corder "shot live" format are running out of steam. Three stories shot on a video camera by three different operators. The real threat of the film is a sadistic bastard named Goke, and, in an odd decision, the zombies are actually an afterthought compared to him. Goke seems like a reasonable chap until he opens fire on those who accept him in their group. The way directors Michael Bartlett and Kevin Gates arrange the stories rather bugged me, truth be told, because they had opened the film with a young news crew heading outside London into the country to film an interview piece, and then completely abandon them. We are introduced to two other groups, a trio entering a desolate, wind-swept village in search of food and supplies, and this unstable collection of bickering people attempting to fend off an endless number of zombies, trying to hold their area outside a forest which keeps producing them. Goke is a member of the latter group and his unpredictable behavior becomes more and more a questionable liability, until an outburst reveals the monster that he truly is. The trio leaving the village have put together a make-shift radio but as we soon realize there are few places to go where you can sit still very long. The lingering question is what happened to the news crew..we get a glimpse into the kind of psychotic Goke is when the camera man(..of the third story)discovers her bound and nude. Their story remains absent so long that when we finally learn about what happened to them, it's impact is lost.

Regarding the camera operators who shoot EVERYTHING..I question how someone could put shooting footage ahead of saving their own skin. Particularly in regards to the trio, where the directors wish to throttle the viewer with a startling development and the use of the camera(..just to capture a murder to someone shooting his supposed trip to freedom from a group of zombies chasing him through the forest)becomes so obvious in forwarding the plot, that the realism they're going for is lost. In other words, the camera is used to show the operator's jovial face as he heads towards who he believes to be survivors who can assist's so orchestrated, you see it coming and therefore it becomes nothing more than a trick. I think the directors were very ambitious in trying to tackle three stories at once, when one would've sufficed. I think back to George Romero's Diary of the Dead, where we follow one group's journey and what confronts them along the way. In having three stories, you never get to know any of the characters that well. They become little more than people shooting zombies with camera operators concerned with getting every minute detail in the shot. There are attempts to provide a human side to them( character is bitten, dies, and the camera operator lifts a family photo from his pocket, placing it up to the screen for us to feel pity), little tidbits here and there. Bartlett and Gates insist on showcasing Goke as a menacing thug not to be trusted. There are some gory moments, but I think most zombie fanatics will find this flick to be quite disappointing..besides a scene where a stomach is open with guts sprawled out, and the occasional decomposing body, much of the action has humans shooting the heads of the zombies with minor blood spray. I wasn't impressed at all with many scenes where a gun shoots a zombie(..or innocent victim due to "unfriendly fire")in the was never quite convincing, certainly not when compared to Savini's work. As you'd expect, the camera(..from all three operators)shakes and jiggles, with zombies never quite in focus( sequence, within a dark house, shot using a night-light, as the news crew attempt to escape, you can barely make out anything).

I think if the filmmakers had stuck with the crew as they come in contact with their hostile forces, both human and undead, then this could've been quite a success. Alas, so many characters come and go with the initial people we started out with utilized poorly. The finale with the soldiers seems forced and unnecessary.
21 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Get Ready for a Miserable Ride
artpf29 September 2013
From the very first frame you will be amazed at how completely bad this movie is.

It starts with a ridiculous scene of a family celebrating the birthday of their kid. The dad mentions that they've been told not to venture out. There is no lighting. They hear a noise. Why they would go out in the middle of the night to see what the noise is is beyond credibility.

Then there is a scream in the house. The wife runs back. Well, this is the start. It's ridiculous.

Then it cuts to the military and it gets a wee bit better, except everybody is using a video camera to record all this stuff. Dumb. Why is everyone camera crazy? And when bad things happen, why are the crazy camera guys still filming instead of running?

Makes no sense.

The military scene degrades and the whole film becomes a big mess.

Is it really so hard to write a script that is even marginally believable? Or at least one that makes some logical sense once you suspend belief?

And I love how in these handy cam films no one ever runs out of batteries, despite using flood lights on their cameras throughout!

The entire movie goes like this -- zombie engagement. Lull for discussion about avoiding zombies. Zombie engagement. Lull for talking about zombie engagement.

There is no real plot. And considering the zombies barely move and the military has a seemingly endless supply of ammo, why any one is worries is up for question.

These zombies are like wooden display statues!

The film allegedly cost a million to make. Where did the money go? It looks like a 70K movie.

Stay away at all costs.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This is Terrible
catfishman18 April 2013
This did the one thing I never forgive a movie for doing: it bored me. Slow, bad acting and a complete waste of time. I don't know why this was even released and what the writer, director and producers were thinking. Did they watch it before they released it? And if they did, what about this crap-fest made them think it was ready to be released? Heck, I love bad movies but not this one. I can't even say it's so bad it's good - it's just bad.

The only good reviews on here must be cast and crew members and perhaps their friends and family. Oh... And I see they made a sequel. Well, cased on this crappy movie, I know I won't watch it.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Save your precious time and cash for a movie which deserves it.
Krome27 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This is a movie so irredeemably lousy, the only reason I feel inspired to put up a review is to try and save somebody else the time and cash which could be better spent on something more worthy.

Feeble acting, weak "plot" and scene after scene of watching unsympathetic characters doing things which make you shout, "you just wouldn't do that"! at the screen - it's an endless, joyless piece of junk.

As a student film done by teenagers, this would be fine. As something made by adults, it is an insult to its audience. I won't repeat all the points made by the other reviews - but simply add another voice to the chorus saying:

5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Weak on every possible front.
astoler25 September 2012
Totally amateurish movie, and it shows in every aspect. I won't give spoilers but simply discuss the cinematic merit.

1. Soundtrack - no such thing. Most often people are just talking without any soundtrack. Soundtracks are important in horror films. Sometimes there are sounds but they don't qualify as music.

2. Acting - weak.

3. Lighting - Terrible. Sometimes the face of the actor looks totally white and shiny due to lighting being aimed right into their faces.

4. Makeup effects - weak, low budget.

5. Camera work - unskilled, probably hand held.

6. Extras - no use of extras. Just a few actors (budget again).

7. Zombies - again to the low budget effects couldn't be done so when zombies attack you will see almost only darkness.

8. Plot - another zombie movie...

Its not even "cult bad", its just bad due to poor execution and a waste of time.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
God Awful! Not worth free rental even.
barr_chel3 February 2012
The worst zombie movie ever created.... Horrible, I wish i had the courage to gouge my retinas out, had I not passed out from boredom. The first 5 minutes of the movie started out OK, then it just went to boring Hell from then on, needless to say, I did not finish the movie- I thought it more productive to register to a movie website and write my first review on a movie to WARN anyone thinking of renting this waste of a production they call a horror movie.

Special effects? What is that? I've seen better zombie make-up on kids during Halloween. Plot? Halfway through the movie, I was still clueless on what the plot was. Had I anything nice to say about this movie- is that England has beautiful gardens.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Terrible low-budget film. Avoid at all cost !
jocedeg30 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
When you have a good script, you can rise over the limitations of a small budget. That's not the case with this piece of junk. They could not afford good actors, the bad make-up effects are hidden by the poor image quality (intentionally poor image quality, but still...) and the script does a 360 at the end, branching to a cringe inducing subplot about a couple of serial killers that does nothing to move the so-called script forward.

It's hard to believe that this movie is praised by some horror website when there's so much good stuff around, like the brilliant "REC".

I can't believe I wasted my time on this piece of junk !
35 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Unwatchable junk
mrush29 March 2009
As I've said before I'm a cheapskate and I'll pretty much watch anything I rent but even I couldn't endure this piece of junk.I've seen some terrible zombie films in my years of watching horror films and this was one of the worst of the bunch.

The film is supposedly camera footage shot by different groups that chronicle their tribulations after London is overrun by walking dead.It mostly ended up being a film that featured a lot of bad actors standing or sitting around trying to emote the horror of fighting off zombies while talking into a shaky camera,ala "Blair Witch",while not being even close to as good as "Blair Witch".

After one moist eyed snotty nosed young man likened his situation to the people in the World Trade Towers on September 11,2001 I'd had quite enough and ejected the DVD from my player as quickly as I could.

Nothing really good to say about this crap-fest....the acting as horrible,the script was lame,even if it was ad-libbed it was still bad stuff.Special effects non-existent,they mainly consisted of newspapers blowing around in the streets.The zombies were those half-ass done kind with just some pale makeup smeared and there and some blood dashed on here and there.Long camera shots of a dead spider on a counter and rain splashing in a puddle were also counted as special effects I assume.Apparently the special effects budget was shot in the opening scenes where a handful of soldiers wearing gear that looked like it was from WWII ran around for a few minutes taking cover behind objects as they moved toward some buildings as though they expected the zombies to shoot at them! Right then I knew this was gonna be a puke of a movie.

No hordes of zombies here,just a few here and there milling around,usually standing in a group waiting for their cue to fall when someone shoots a gun their way.Then the camera holder walks up and shows us the zombie laying there with a splatter pattern of brains and blood fanned out from the head all over the ground looking as though the zombie was shot up through the head from under the chin while laying there.Bleeck!At least get the basic physics right! Don't waste a second on this mess.It's unwatchable.I gave it a 1 and I really wish this website would add some negative numbers to the ratings scale.

What happened to the good old days when people shot homemade porno when they got some camera equipment instead of their own horror movie?
41 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
"The Most Realistic Zombie Film Ever Made"? I Don't Think So...
TrueOrFalse488 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
In the early part of the 21st century, an unknown virus began spreading amongst the populace. Within weeks of the initial outbreak, the virus had engulfed the entire planet: from the smallest rural communities to the greatest cities. Soon the earth was infested with a new threat - the undead. Three video diaries explore the dystopian world that was left behind - charting the early days of the plague, through to the last days of the apocalypse.


Don't let the name fool you. "The Zombie Diaries" is not really a zombie movie. Basically, the zombies are kept in the background and don't really pose a threat throughout the whole movie. They show up every so (not) often and stumble around. That's about it. The rest of the film is full of pointless dialogue and a terrible "Hostel" like subplot that doesn't really make any sense, is totally unnecessary and has absolutely nothing to do with zombies.

I liked the hand-held camera idea but it's not as well done as in "The Blair Witch Project" or "REC". I also liked how all three video diaries are connected with each other...but that's all I liked about the movie.

The acting is awful...really, really bad. The writers make it impossible to care about any of the characters because there is zero character development - the characters themselves could have been zombies and it wouldn't have made any difference. They still would have been mindless idiots.

All-in-all, I was very disappointed with this movie and it does not deserve the good reviews it's getting.

4/10. (I'm being generous.)
20 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Really disappointing!
bcansevgisi19 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Just watched the movie and I was really disappointed. The movie focuses on three different groups of people and tell their stories through three different camcorders (one for each group). Never understood why people travel with camcorders and have them on the whole time, mostly shooting the countryside and occasional zombies attacking them in a deadly outbreak. The shaky camera style made the film hard to follow and didn't show most of the action. Moreover, the zombies attacked mostly night-time, so all I got was shouting. I felt sad for the characters who were caught and possibly eaten by the slowest moving zombies of all time. The acting was awful as well. So, avoid watching it and don't be fooled by the DVD cover.

The film however made me thinking about buying a farm in rural England. It is so peaceful, even in a zombie invasion.
27 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Another Garbage Made with Hand-Held Camera
Claudio Carvalho21 August 2011
I am a great fan of zombies' films and I usually like most of them. Unfortunately, "The Zombies Diaries" is another garbage made with hand- held camera.

The film is divided in three chapters and the first one (Diary 1 – The Outbreak) is promising. When a virus originating from Asia threatens England, four Londoners independent journalists make a documentary. When they drive to the countryside to interview Mr. West that owns a farm, there is an outbreak in London and they discover that they are under siege of zombies.

The story is interrupted and jumps to Diary 2 – The Scavengers and Diary 3 – The Survivors, with people searching supplies and shooting zombies to survive. None of the segments has conclusion and they are boring and confused. The worst is that it is filmed with hand held camera.

This film has just been released in Brazil on DVD and my suggestion is if you want to see a zombie film, see "The Night of the Living Dead" or any other film that will be better than watching this terrible film. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "Zumbis – Os Mensageiros do Apocalipse" ("Zombies – The Messengers of the Apocalypse")
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
My "movie senses" have been permanently damaged!
dreadur9 February 2009
There were quotes on the cover saying stuff like "...the best zombie movie ever made!". There is no way in hell anyone (drugged, insane, undead etc), could state such at thing after seeing this "movie". Talk about false advertisement.

I love a good horror flick and a friend of mine had rented 3 of them but we only had time to watch one. I got to choose which one. Well... That wont happen again I tell you.

3 reasons to avoid this film at all costs:

  • Horrible horrible story/script. It has the same plot as every other zombie/living dead movie ever made, only devoid of all the interesting parts.

  • The horrible horrible 1st person photography. Reminded me of a 10-min zombie movie me and my friend did when we were 14.

  • This is not a horror movie. Its a horrible horrible movie in every possible way.

3 questions you most certainly will ask yourself after this movie:

  • Why oh why?! - How the hell did this movie end up on a shelf in my video store? - Can I please have that 1 hour and 15 mins of my life back?

(note: Why does IMDb "name" a 1 rating as only "awful"? Giving this movie a 1 is therefor almost an insult to all the awful movies out there.)
44 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great Idea. Poor execution.
Adam Sharples31 August 2007
I had high hopes for this. The trailer shows us what appears to be a very good movie. Tense and exciting. Upon sticking this in my DVD drive I found that the trailer in fact appeared to show a very different movie.

Whilst I found the idea of this movie interesting I found it very very very hard to watch all of it. I liked the idea of trying to show this genre in a more realistic light and I expected more from the Documentary segment but alas no.

Poorly scripted, poorly acted, poorly filmed. The special effects are good. But I feel most of the budget was wasted on them.

86 out of 141 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Missed the mark
zach827017 January 2011
I'd been warned about this movie by several of my friends, but I was determined to accept it as a challenge to see if I could get through it.

Now, looking back at it, I wish I would've listened to them. I do agree with several of the reviews that the idea of the film sounded promising. Lost video diaries documenting the escalation of the zombie apocalypse sounds like something that would be a fresh change from the rest of the zombie genre.

Unfortunately, the acting and the dialogue doesn't hold up to the expectations you have for it. I'm not a big fan of the hand-held camera style. It's too jumpy and too hard to focus on any one thing. The use of night vision, while supposed to add an eerie feel to it, just makes the jumps and camera glitches all the more apparent.

The acting was mediocre at best and I didn't think that the special effects and makeup was up to snuff either. Could've been good, but unfortunately, it wasn't.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It's like watching a you tube video thats 2 hours too long.
ryano-412 January 2009
I am a huge fan of zombie movies, which is the only reason why this movie would land in anyone's hands. But listen, and listen carefully: This was not only the worst zombie film I've ever seen, it may actually qualify as the worst of any film I've seen, period.

For anyone who says this film is realistic, that's hard to measure. If zombies stand there doing nothing while simultaneous scaring the crap out of everybody, then yes, it's very, very realistic.

But I doubt that is the case. They should have named it Zombie Matrix they way they had bullets flying around. I was embarrassed I made my girlfriend watch this.
36 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
0 out of 10
dusan-2230 November 2009
As stated in the subject, I am so mad that there is no 0 rate on IMDb site. Zombie Diaries proves the film theory that today digital movie making world is affordable to everyone. When I say everyone, I mean people that most probably should stay with another profession. This film is a total proof on that and a total mess! There is no plot, no tension, no continuance ... Nothing. Still, the director tries to steal a little bit from several movie blueprints made in last few decades. Movie is made in Blair Witch Project camera style. However there is more than one camera here and the director gets completely lost in first twenty minutes by mixing them. Then, we have Memento moments of going backwards in one part of the film, also parallel actions without interaction as in David Lynch films and all this cheep mishmash is followed by pale and somehow drunk zombies that look like bad navigated extras on the poor stage. Absolute waste. Don't even bother.
16 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews