Pretty Good

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Why people are saying that this is a bad film, I have no idea. Yes, it is a low budget British film. Yes, none of the actors are Brad Pitt. But that doesn't make this movie a bad one, because it is not!! I will now take this opportunity to explain why.A lot of films nowadays, mainstream or otherwise, have a specific fantasy to fall back on whenever we watch them. The reason why these films are like this is because it is based on pure FICTION. None of it is real, it is just what the critics and the mainstream suckers want to see (by which, I mean anyone who watches a film purely because it is mainstream and nothing else). The Zombie Diaries, however, even though it is a work of fiction, is based on real life and what real people would've done if a situation like the events of the film ever occurred. You do not need a plot for this, each group of survivors have their own little story to tell, and real life is not a plot that is already written.The quality of the cameras is mediocre, mainly because of the fact that they are using affordable cameras that anybody can use to document their lives or make films. Again, I am moving back to the real life spectacle. The characters are using this chance to show the surviving world what is happening, if anyone else manages to find their camera whilst on scavenging duties; and if the camera still works, they can continue the legacy from there. Not everyone in the entire world has a tripod, or SteadyCam, or a giant crane to capture an overhead shot or establishing shot of their surroundings. The camera would be shaking if the person holding it was running or focusing on something else entirely. Personally, I wouldn't be holding the camera perfectly still if I was scared to death and running for my life from a group of zombies. It's just not natural, and it's just not realistic! Anyone with half a brain can see my point. Realism is the center of 'The Zombie Diaries', not fantasy.Now I move towards the acting. Yes, all the actors are professional, just not well-known. Believe me, I checked. I personally found the acting to be really good, considering what type of film 'The Zombie Diaries' is. There are no over-the-top emotions that I thought needed to be toned down, everything I saw from an acting perspective was believed to be real, and how people reacted to different situations was accurate. Top notch acting for a realistic drama.How people can even think about comparing this movie to 'Diary of the Dead' makes me sick, because they are both completely different films! Yes, 'Diary of the Dead' is a good movie, and it is also shot in a video diary perspective, 'Blair Witch Project' style. It doesn't make it the same movie, just shot in America! 'Diary of the Dead' only focuses on one group of survivors, which are University students and their professor. 'The Zombie Diaries' focuses on three completely different groups that have their own way of surviving. If you still think 'Diary of the Dead' is better, then you should watch the sequel 'Survival of the Dead'. I dare you to say one good word about that film! But, I digress.In conclusion, 'The Zombie Diaries' is the closest thing to reality in a zombie apocalypse that an audience can experience, and it proves that professionalism can appear in the smallest of packages. That is why my final vote on this movie is a very enthusiastic 9.I do welcome any comments that anyone might want to express, but nothing that anybody says can change my opinions on this movie. Please keep this in mind.

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

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")

I was expecting an action movie, but this is actually one of those stupid "found footage" movies, where producers pretend that there's a reason for some character to be filming every little argument that goes on between them and their friends. That just makes absolutely no sense at all to me. Why the hell would someone randomly film the countryside from a moving vehicle? Why would you choose to hold a camcorder, rather a rifle, when you're facing off against the legions of hell? I'm just completely baffled.At one point, a character weakly explains, "I'm documenting everything, because this could be important". OK. That makes some minor amount of sense to me. First, this character is part of documentary film crew. Second, the "zombie apocalypse" or whatever has just begun, and any information could actually be somewhat useful. Third, the character seems like a lazy, whiny, useless person who wouldn't be doing anything else, anyway. However, what does he document? He documents his friends bickering. He documents the ground, as he runs. He documents everything *except* useful information.Eventually, the movie abruptly skips ahead a month, with a different group of survivors. They, too, have a useless person who helpfully documents every argument they have. However, he doesn't have the explanation of being part of a documentary film crew. He's just some guy with a camera, who inexplicably records random crap, while not helping out in any way. At this point, I started to lose interest in the movie.Finally, we're introduced to a third group of survivors. You're not going to believe this, but they also have a camera-obsessed member. Who are these people, and where are they coming from? Where are they finding all these cameras? Why do their friends tolerate this behavior? Why aren't they kicked out, when it's obvious that they'd rather stand around, documenting everything, rather than helping out? It's a mystery, and not one that the movie makes any attempt to explain. Anyway, the movie takes a rather strange detour in this story, switching subgenres without much warning. The zombies are nearly forgotten, though they do get a bit of lip service here and there. I won't ruin the twist for you, but it's really not much of a twist, if you're a zombie movie fan. Zombie movies have always been primarily about social dynamics (especially the original Night of the Living Dead and its remake), but the whole "zombie apocalypse" thing seems almost incidental to this movie, like some sort of background noise that could easily have been removed, without changing much of anything.For what it's worth, the zombie effects are pretty tolerable, but almost everything else is terrible. The characters are rock stupid, the dialogue is boring, the acting is generally poor, and the writing is bland. I'm sick of low budget zombie movies where people mindlessly mimic the most basic elements of George Romero's movies, without injecting any creativity or insight of their own. I prefer slow zombies, but does every zombie movie need to have shuffling, mindless undead who chomp on the living? No! Try coming up with your own ideas for once. As much as I dislike the whole "fast zombie" movement, at least they managed to bring some original thinking to their movies. I fail to see why these very fresh zombies would be moving so slowly -- or even why they'd bite the living. It's never explained. It comes across as lazy, unoriginal fanfiction set in the Night of the Living Dead world. That might work for some people, but it doesn't work for me, especially when the rest of the movie is poorly done. I could forgive a bit of unoriginality, if the rest of the movie were worth a damn.