John austin 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.

Steve Pulaski 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.

artpf 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.

Claudio Carvalho 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")