Comments on: The Zombie Diaries (2006) Movie Review

By: Brent the critic

Brent the critic — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 06:46:23 +0000

I bought this movie for $9 at Walmart. I should be payed $9 just to have watched this waste of time. From the beginning of this millennium has been an onslaught of terrible, below even the earliest B-movie attempts at zombie greatness. The worst being that these horrible movies are plaguing our local movie rental facilities, such as blockbuster. My question is how can a movie of such low standards be represented and sold next to movies of any worth. My review of this movie is two severed thumbs down.

I don’t understand how anyone can condone this movie unless to be seen for free or more reasonable paid to see it.
For all those who agree with me are those who really know their zombie movies. Those who think this movie is good or “great” should probably never have any input on any zombie movie to be made in the future.

Also only an idiot would compare this crap to 28 days later. 28 days later was well made movie.

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 31 May 2009 06:38:11 +0000

I just watched the movie 2hours ago and i can say, OMG I WASTED MY **** TIME WATCHING THIS MOVIE? first of all , the filming was ok even if they didnt shoot what we wanted. Second, wow i have to say , these zombies are really quiet, like even if they were in a forest or a floor with a lot of rocks, they dont even make a noise. Third, the zombies always appear from no where and always get close to u from 100m in 1 second. Cmon, they walk slowly and they can get that fast to you? Omg BS! Then there is the survivors, for once i have to say, it was ok but the 2 evil maniacs, omg? what was their point? what happen to one of them the green guy, how could the guy who raped the girl approached the camera man while his friend was torturing a dude? Why did he kill everyone in a CHAOS SITUATION WHICH HE NEEDS THEM TO SURVIVE . Then we had the others survivor, THEY NEVER MAKE A NOISE WHEN THEY ARRIVE, THERE IS NO F*******ING SENS IN IT. OMG USUALLY U SAY, HEY IS THERE SOMEBODY WHO CAN HELP ME? AND NOT JUST WALK THROUGH BUSHES AND GET UR DAUGTHER KILL BY A GUN OK ? Also , i know that it is a handed camera that filmed the film, BUT WHY IS THERE A F******* BACKGROUND SUSPENSE SOUND? DID THE CAMERA GUY WAS LIKE : omg it is getting creepier, gotta put the sound on just for the moment and when the zombie attak me, i will turn it off. Next, we had the cover, OMG TOTALLY BS! CMON U GOT A COOL DUDE WITH HANDGUN AND SHOTGUN WITH A BADASS LOGO N THEN U HAVE SOME STUPID GROUP OF PEOPLE? Lastely the most important, better than 28 days later? wow… no words can describre what i felt by seeing it.

PS : for those who liked the movie… with all the respect, go rent 28 days later and months, Resident Evil, Land of Dead, Dawn of the Dead AND ENJOY!

By: Greg W

Greg W — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:38:29 +0000

Taste is certainly subjective, but “The Zombie Diaries” unfortunately fails to capture any of the horror or terror that a real zombie infection would cause. The reviewer’s comment on the Romero-esque quality of the zombies remains true; however, the film does not stick with this premise, as there are very few zombies on screen, and you never truly get a sense of the supposed scale of infection, unlike Romero’s Night, Day, or Dawn.

Additionally, “28 Days Later” is not a zombie movie. Yes, it’s horror, yes, it’s a post-apocalyptic virus movie, but it is NOT a zombie movie. Regardless, it is without doubt a better film than “The Zombie Diaries”. An attempt at creativity doesn’t deserve much credit if it fails miserably; reviewing a film from the perspective of filmmaker, writer, or director is one thing, but one must always remember the level of the general audience.

It’s hard to understand why the reviewer can accurately define all the movies major flaws, and still claim it to be a worthy entry into the genre – it fails to engage, fails to scare, and fails to repulse.

Reviewers need to consider the responsibility of their comments seriously and carefully, because quotes like “better than Danny Boyle’s 28 Days later” are the idiocy that get plastered across a DVD box and wildly misguide the general viewing public and give indie films a bad name. It cause a severe fracture trust which is horrendously difficult to rebuild.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 02:11:54 +0000

28 Days Later is a masterpiece of cinematography, film editing, and acting. It is by far the best zombie movie ever made. Anyone who thinks it is better than 28 Days should shoot themselves in the face because they have no taste whatsoever in movies. I literally could have produced a movie a higher quality with my camcorder and winidows movie maker. There is also the fact that it that it was no different from any of the other crappy zombie/horror movies out there. The aren’t smart enough to realize that being bitten infects you. They even included the sausage link gore present in all generic zombie movies. In conclusion, The Zombie Diaries in the worst movie in history. I wouldn’t have had as much of a problem with it if it didn’t claim to be the best zombie movie ever, which is a pretty strong statement about a movie that sucks that much dick.

By: JamaicanSheepsWool

JamaicanSheepsWool — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:50:09 +0000

‘better than 28 days later?’ no. it’s not. the graphic art on the front/back cover of the box shows that zombie diaries WISHES it was 28 days later. yea, i know they’re not technically zombies in 28 days, i don’t care, it’s a terrific movie that transcends the zombie genre itself. 28 days later sold me on everything it tried to do. it sets up its story right away, and after the initial zombie origin, watching cillian murphy wander around a deserted metropolitan city, i was instantly sucked into the atmosphere. the atmosphere was beautiful, desolate, and creepy. i believed the uk was completely ruined and deserted. in zombie diaries, i didn’t even believe the european countryside, where ever it takes place specifically, was deserted and empty, let alone over flowing with walking corpses. part of buying the atmosphere so completely in 28 days was the awesome cinematography. i don’t mind a handheld camera, but during many of confrontations at night with zombies in diaries, the handheld wasn’t used in a beneficial way. the night scenes were just very out of focus. i know it’s going to shake, it is a hand held, but at least get the zombies within the shot more then half the time. if used correctly, it could’ve been creepily beneficial, instead of just irritating. i didn’t really have any beef with the actors, didn’t love or hate them. i did like the one sociopath survivor, but i didn’t need either of them in the movie. i wanted more zombies, not explorations on how people would behave morally, or not so, during a zombie apocalypse. and the original review said one of the strengths was the romero zombies, and how their strength is their number, not speed. while i would agree that a horde of slow moving zombies is scarier then one or two running ones, in zombie diaries, there’s never more then four zombies on screen at a time. so, the strength in numbers argument doesn’t really apply for this movie. there may have been hundreds of zombies during the final stand at the farm, but being that it was pitch black, and the camera was shaking irritatingly, you can’t really tell if there was more then two or three. that’s not epic in any sense of the word. and that’s what i like in a zombie movie, the epic and terrifying fall of human civilization during a zombie apocalypse. but i in no way bought that the uk, or just britain itself, was in chaos and overflowing with zombies in this movie. didn’t hate the movie, but it in no way, is better then 28 days later. i mean they didn’t even kill the zombies in a cool way at any point.

By: I want brains!

I want brains! — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:29:11 +0000

Seriously. This movie was horrible. This review site is horrible. Don’t waste your time. Fuckers.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:18:55 +0000

How bad is this movie?

So bad that I had to actually look up some of the websites that touted its greatness on the cover of the DVD case in order to try and figure out if these were legitimate sites or just flat out BS. (The comments in question are the “Better than Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later” statement made in the review.) This Nix guy has to be either on the take or a complete moron to make that statement. Beyondhollywood.com has lost all credibility with me… This movie isn’t even worth a rental… and that’s saying a lot from me considering that I get free rentals.

By: chris

chris — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:16:55 +0000

you would have more fun and spend you money better on buying a saw and applying it directly to your forehead.

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:22:58 +0000

To say this movie is a horrible piece of crap would be an insult to pieces of crap everywhere. I watched this movie based on the cover and the comments(better than 28 days later)…what a sucker. I kept watching this movie waiting for it to get “good” and that never happened. When the show was over all I could think was, “That’s an hour and twenty minutes of my life that I will never get back.” This movie is a combination of Blair Witch Project meets Night of the Living Dead dipped in a large vat of crap. For Beyond Hollywood to say this movie is better than 28 Days Later makes me wonder…is the person who made this comment blind, on drugs, or tooling one of the cast members of this film? Your sites endorsement of this film clearly shows that you folks would not know a good movie if it came up and sodomized you from behind.

By: BudWeiser414

BudWeiser414 — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 03:55:49 +0000

This is one of the best zombie films i have ever seen. If you love films about zombies that don’t feature zombies then this film is for you. First off, it takes 20-30 mins to even see your first zombie. This movie is outrageous. The cover is so deceiving. There is this bad a** on the front cover and he is not even in the movie. This movie has to be the worst film I have ever seen. Don’t even go out and rent this movie, better yet don’t even try to watch it free on the internet, this movie is a big piece of doggy poo poo. For the people who made this movie please do not make another movie. And who is ever the DARK SIDE they can go shove it, this movie is “The Best Piece of S*** ever made.

By: Good_Pie

Good_Pie — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:08:59 +0000

I disagree. I think this films acheives what it sets out to do perfectly. The camera actually adds to the suspence.

My only comment would be that I thought Danny Boyle’s film was better overall.

By: Evil_Pie

Evil_Pie — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:16:12 +0000

The fact that the comment “Better than Danny Boyle’s 28 days later” as stated by your site, sickens me. one is a viral infection that kills the person slowly once they have been infected and the other simply turns them in a matter of moments leaving the body completely unharmed other that HOW it was transferred.

Its understandable that the camera jerks about because of it being handles by amateurs, But, this takes away from any enjoyment or the suspense and shock when your forced to see nothing but background images fly across the screen whenever something spooked the actors.

This one goes up there with B movies that aren’t really meant for the big screen but given a pretty cover and screen shots on the back to mislead you into thinking it would have been good enough to be placed on the big screen.