Zombie Diaries (2006) User Reviews

No more shaky camera, please.

[CaressofSteel75 · 4/10 · 18 January 2015]

The Zombie Diaries was intriguing in the very early going. It had a low budget realism that actually worked for a little bit. I remember one scene early on where a character had trouble lining up a single close range rifle shot against a lone zombie. There's more realism in that than most movies that feature over-the-shoulder head shots on moving targets from 50 yards away. Unfortunately, that's about the best thing I have to say about this movie.

The Zombie Diaries consists of three separate stories that occur during a zombie epidemic in England. The stories intersect later on in the movie, and that's really about all you can say about it in a review. There are numerous characters in the various stories- so many in fact, that it's hard to identify one from the other after awhile. The virtually non-stop cinema verite shaky camera will drive you mad and makes it impossible to follow the storyline they're trying to set up. This is especially true during the nighttime scenes, and there are several of those. With all apologies to my British friends- the actors in this movie are so British that they're nearly incomprehensible.

So, if you've seen Zombie Diaries, you can scratch it off your list and move on. If you haven't, you're not missing much. With all that being said, I will say that there's a basis here for a much better movie. I would be interested if someone gave it another go with a script rewrite and some improvements in the basic cinematography.

I have seen them all, this was the worst

[tarincarpenter · 3/10 · 15 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Zombie Diaries

[Scarecrow-88 · 4/10 · 16 June 2009]

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 him..it'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(..one 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 head..it 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(..one 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.

Get Ready for a Miserable Ride

[artpf · 1/10 · 29 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.

Great Concept, Terrible Everything Else

[elgilbro · 1/10 · 26 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.

Worst movie ever made

[Goldman_in_LA · 1/10 · 24 October 2010]

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.

Absolutely dreadful.. and that's not an exaggeration.

[capcanuk · 1/10 · 13 December 2008]

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.

I didn't even know what the hell was going on

[larawoolley · 1/10 · 30 July 2012]

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.

Dull and boring

[laffertj-764-22936 · 3 July 2011]

It's a shame I did't see the bad reviews here before watching this stinker. I only saw good reviews. Here's another bad one.

OK, where do I start with how bad this movie is. OK, the world is full of zombies. They come out at night. What would you do when night time comes. Answer: Hide in a house and fortify it. What do these egg heads do? They go out at night with very little light and surprise, surprise, run into a bunch of zombies. Jeesh. For crying out loud. How stupid do these people have to be? Next. If you have a gun, where do you shoot the zombies. Answer: In the head. Here, they are not shot in the head. Even worse, there is no bullet hole / wound. It's like they couldn't afford to pay SFX guys.

Acting - horrible and dull. Story line - ditto. Zombies: more of the same - dull and boring.

Do yourself a favour and save yourself from total boredom and see any of the classic zombie movies because this one is a stinker.

Not as bad as everyone is saying

[spunkmiester13 · 6/10 · 6 April 2008]

I just watched the movie reluctantly after reading some reviews and found it really isn't as bad as everyone is saying. Take into account that it is an Indy movie and probably had a small budget to work with over-all it had some scary moments and a bit of a twist at the end. I do agree with some people who say the acting was weak but remember this is a B-horror movie and bad acting is part of their charm. The zombie make-up wasn't bad and the staticy camera coming into focus just as it catches sight of the zombies actually made me jump a few times. Believe me, it's not going to go down as a zombie classic like the original 3 Romero films but it is better than a lot of those other zombie movies (Like the "Day of the Dead" remake)

Weak on every possible front.

[astoler · 1/10 · 25 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.

Makes Zombies Scary Again!

[atari1971 · 10/10 · 7 April 2008]

Zombie Diaries is ballsy, back to basics film-making and shows that you don't need a huge budget to make a damn effective horror movie. I recently saw Diary of the Dead, REC and Cloverfield but none contained the realism of this movie. The others are far more theatrical in their acting for a start. The people in Zombie Diaries react the way a normal person would to a zombie apocalypse - and its all the better for it. The film contains 3 threads of different groups of people in different situations (not too far removed from Max Brooks's excellent 'World War Z') and shows the real human struggle for survival in this new world. The usual zombie set pieces are there for the purists. There's gut munching, intestine pulling and brains flying out of the back of zombies heads, but this film makes zombie films scary again and contains one of the best scenes in zombie history in the jump stakes! Turn the lights off, grab yourself a beer and settle down to enjoy this excellent indie movie from the UK.

Good attempt

[wideopenvision · 6/10 · 2 April 2008]

Yes this film has problems, but I did enjoy it and thought it showed promise from the film-makers. At times it gets a little confusing with the shaky cam style, but it is interesting.

I thought it would have been better to see more of the zombie action, rather than the build up. The acting isn't great, but all in all I did find the film enjoyable and interesting. Would be interested to see what the film-makers could do with a bit of a budget.

Not an amazing zombie film, but better than some of the reviews on here in my opinion...

Worth a watch

Save your precious time and cash for a movie which deserves it.

[Krome · 1/10 · 27 January 2013]

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:

DON'T BOTHER WATCHING THIS RUBBISH

This is Terrible

[catfishman · 1/10 · 18 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.

Truly awful film.

[halliwelleddie · 1/10 · 14 December 2008]

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.

Never Have Zombies Been This Boring

[SnacksForAll · 1/10 · 25 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.

Unwatchable junk

[mrush · 1/10 · 29 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?

Missed the mark

[zach8270 · 17 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.

An in-depth review of THE ZOMBIE DIARIES

[frog_foster · 7/10 · 1 September 2007]

REVIEW OF THE ZOMBIE DIARIES I have never been a big fan of Zombie Movies if I am going to be honest. I watched Night of the Living Dead when I was young and loved it. Dawn of the Dead then blew me away. Apparently there are hundreds of other 'zombie' movies around but these made it under my radar. I caught 28 Days Later (Which was alright!) and now The Zombie Diaries courtesy of London's FrightFest. The film is not perfect, but I thought it was quite a solid little film. The directors came on stage afterwards and said the film was made on next to nothing, but I didn't have this info during the screening and it never once felt like that. In fact, the entire production was very slick, and despite getting much criticism I found the acting to be pretty good. There are quite a few actors in the film, and I would say maybe 3 or 4 of them could have improved. The rest were very natural and it didn't feel like acting at all (Which was the point). It's basically three "video diaries" inter-cut in a pulp fiction style that show England in the grip of a zomboe plague. It feels very real I must say. My biggest issue with this film was the absolutely ridiculous COVER ART the distributor chose. I am not surprised the film has had the backlash it has when it has been presented as a high-concept Hollywood epic with scenes of chaos and destruction in London. Imagine if they had put some kind of "Independence Day" cover art on a movie like PI? Imagine the response. Well that's what happened.. Putting the cover art to the side I also have a few minor quibbles. As mentioned 3 or 4 of their actors could have done better, and the script felt a little loose (Although I suspect this was to do with the amount of improvisation the filmmakers talked about). The good points would be: The Score, The Natural Acting, The clever way the 3 stories inter-link, and the atmopshere. I really do not like hardcore films that are bathed in blood and have no atmosphere. I found the spooky side of The Zombie Diaries very good. In fact there is a set piece about 20 minutes in set in a farm house that I would rank as one of the best and most atmopsheric moments in any horror film this year. So it's a mixed bag really. The cover art is rubbish and there are a few flaws here and there with over-acting, but on the whole its a decent flick and the special fx are pretty good, although they should have remembered to put make-up on the zombie's hands!! Overall a 7/10. Next time I would like to see the directors given a decent budget and spend more time on their scripts and get a distributor who won't try and lie about the movie. A Hollywood epic it ain't! A solid little indie it is! - that's my advice!

Everything a zombie film - even a slowburn zombie film - shouldn't be

[StevePulaski · 4/10 · 13 July 2014]

If you're going to make a film that doesn't have much in the way of a clear, evident story or plot-progression, then you better make a story that has some vividly drawn characters. Unfortunately, Kevin Gates and Michael Bartlett's Zombie Diaries has neither, and only serves as an exhaustive retread through lackluster horror filmmaking, peddled by the Dimension Extreme, the direct-to-DVD label mostly comprised of low-budget horror titles that fail to bring anything new or interesting to the game. As much as that seems to be an oversimplification, it's worth noting that the several films I've sought out from this label have all been met with some sort of butting disappointment.

The film bears a triptych structure, focusing on three different groups of people during an impending epidemic/viral outbreak and shows it all come together at the conclusion of the film. The film's first chapter, "The Outbreak," starts in London and details the paranoia and the fear circulating about the Asian countries experiencing a far-reaching and lethal virus outbreak. While it hasn't reached the Western Europe or United States areas at this time, the lax response from Asia's government suggests that it could in the near future, making the residents of London admittedly jumpy and unsettled. In this chapter, we follow a documentary crew's research and documentation of the viral outbreak in the countryside, unbeknownst to them they'll experience the hell first hand and won't just to be talking about the epidemic while filming themselves.

The second chapter, titled "The Scavengers," follows a young couple, an American man and a foreign woman, who are traveling in their car, equipped with a rifle, looking for food to ration and radio parts in order to send communication signal with the optimism they'll get rescued during this time. This chapter should logically be the most suspenseful, given the immediate idea, the circumstance, and the fact that, by this point, we're already in the second act of the film. Sadly, little occurs here that makes for an interesting setup, and by this time, the monotony and ugliness of the hand-held-camera really begins to takes a toll, and as somebody who scarcely complains about such a thing, this is when you know things aren't going very well for this film, aesthetically speaking.

Finally, the final chapter, titled "The Survivors," details a large group of uninfected souls who have found solace on a farm. They spend much of their time strategizing their next move and checking out surrounding areas to assure their safety is long-term and not a short-term illusion. In addition, their time is spending warding off large bouts of zombies along with fighting about how to assure their own safety. Again, this is another potentially riveting portion of the film brought down by the filming techniques of Gates and Bartlett and the overall repetition of the film and the lack of character investment.

The Zombie Diaries has an intriguing structure, but little to back it up in terms of achieving any kind of narrative success. Despite having three stories, its story and story-progression isn't the least bit evident, the characters remain flat and vague, almost as if they're mannequins given the ability to talk and move, and the entire aesthetic that Gates and Bartlett hope will achieve success only results in mounting tedium for the film's already short runtime.

Starring: Russell Jones, Sophia Ellis, and James Fisher. Directed by: Kevin Gates and Michael Bartlett.

One of my FAVORITE Zombie films...ever!

[ajslroper · 10/10 · 10 October 2008]

Firstly i feel compelled to defend this movie. Secondly, why in the world has this got a bad write up?

I have seen many, many, many Zombie films, and i generally like them all. However of the many i have watched i wouldn't particularly say many were "greats" of the Zombie genre.

I can state that this is truly a "great" of the Zombie genre with a clear conscience. I have never, ever been held in suspense as i have been with this film. The first chapter was absolutely fantastic, where they go into the house and look for "Mr. West" and they are checking upstairs. I will be honest, i have never been so compelled by a movie before in my LIFE. The suspense was Truly draining. The fact that this is a British made film makes it even more incredible. The way it was shot gave it the gritty realistic feel that we have come to expect from the British Film Industry.

I quite honestly, am left bewildered at the bad reviews this is getting. The acting wasn't great but i thought that it added to the sense of realism!

At the end of the day thats all it boils down to, realism, and i can say, by far and away this is the most realistic Zombie film ever made. The settings were just like any old town/village in England, in fact i swore blind it was set where i live (Derby - East Mids).

The twist at the end with that Gonko or whatever his name is, was absolutely fantastic. I am a gore fan, and i'm pretty formidable with gore/disturbing things, (Ichi The Killer - where they torture the prostitute comes to mind) and I've honestly been bored with many attempts at movies trying to disturb me. However, this film was successful at well and truly disturbing me, the "mercy killing" of the little girl was pretty horrific, and also the whole cutting fingers off peoples hands and the "rape" part of it, they all added something to this film, that really makes you think (and i'm going to steal a quote from the narrator in "Diaries of the Dead") "Are we worth saving?"

All in all, an absolutely BRUTAL, Stunning, disturbing, brilliant British film. I recommend it.

Good story. Bad acting.

[GenevaConvention · 6/10 · 29 August 2007]

The Zombie Diaries is a mix between the realism of 28 Days Later, and the suspense and terror of the George A. Romero's 'of the Dead' series. The storyline of Zombie Diaries follows the experience of three different parties. A group of four people filming a documentary, only to find themselves trapped in a forest filled with the living dead. The second is a group of 3 people who have survived the outbreak for a month, scavenging for supplies and travelling throughout the country for some unknown reason. The third group is an unknown amount of people, surviving, living in an old barn.

There are some flaws with this film, the acting for instance is dreadful. The first group are friends that work together, however they don't talk like they know each other, they talk like teenagers in a school play forced to talk in a friendly way with a person they have only just met. They make unnecessary moves that just wouldn't happen in a real life situation like that, such as running in the opposite direction of a car that could bring you to safety. The second party make an even more stupid mistake, like parking their car for absolutely no apparent reason.

The good parts of the film is the zombies are scary, there are some genuinely intense moments where you never know what will come around the corner, you are genuinely scared. Another good point is the realism of the film, besides the shabby acting and the unnecessary things they do, the film focuses on how the people survive, the needs they have, the dangers they face and how zombies aren't the only thing they need to worry about.

God Awful! Not worth free rental even.

[barr_chel · 1/10 · 3 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.