User reviews

Remember that bit in the Zombie Dead where they let all the zombies into the house because 'maybe its the house they want'? Well, within the first five minutes of this film, during a zombie epidemic, some guy leaves his family to go out and check out a noise, then his wife leaves their kid in the house to look for him (while filming, of course), then runs back into the house and keeps the camera focused on her kid while something climbs the stairs, enters the room, and then kills them both. That's not a good start to any film.

Some army guys (one with a camera of course) have to take to their heels and leave their base after the gates get open. They had for the coast with a view to getting to Holland, and run into zombies and some raping redneck types. Now, I'm all for zombie films, and this film works when the army takes on the dead, either in the base or in a house they end up in, but when these rapist guys show up, the film heads towards Straw Dogs territory where they torture and attempt to rape on of the soldiers. It's not pleasant to watch and puts a dampener on the rest of the film, which wasn't much to begin with.

You'd need to suspend your belief if you want any enjoyment out of this found footage film. In this world, when someone drops the camera, someone else picks it up and immediately starts filming. This film had some good points but it didn't need the rape and torture stuff - that's a genre I tend to avoid.

Also: Do the British army use the phrase 'clicks' when talking about distance?

I think if this film had been filmed with conventional movie-making techniques it might have been enjoyable. Those of the cast who are not returning from the first movie are competent actors and there are moments of cleverness every now and again.

The thing that made it literally unwatchable for me is the shaky-cam.

I've never liked it and it is rarely used well. The editor of this movie is Drew Culingham (umbrage the first vampire). He got his money for nothing. The choppy editing combines with the frenetic camera-work to cause something similar to sea sickness. It made the zombie diaries impossible to watch for me.

I switched off before the end because the editing was so distracting that I couldn't bear to watch any more. Fans of shaky cam might enjoy it.

Yeah, its been made with sincere enough intentions but it's b0llocks. Everyone over-acting like their lives were at stake. It's all a bit embarrassing. The characterisation is non-existent - you just don't give a sh*t about anyone and this is a big mistake in a zombie flick. Some of the set ups had potential but it's all just too amateurish.

IMDb wants me to add more lines but I don't really have anything else to add.

Apparently I still haven't added enough lines - hence this line.

And this one.

Ditto.

I am a big fan of the genre, however this was a terrible effort. A sequel to a narrowly passable film. Full of poor acting, plot holes and is hard to watch physically and mentally. Shot in night vision for some part (very poorly shot) made the first half and the ending part hard to watch. A group of poor acted thugs, depicting disturbing scenes of rape and murder, this is zombie horror, somehow it begins to border on being a disturbing snuff film. Also the original idea is the hand-held camera is on too keep track of the post apocalyptic world, when under heavy zombie attack, murderous gangs and other peril i doubt there would be a semi steady handed guy filming.

The found footage genre is all the rage nowadays. From 2008's "Cloverfield", "REC" and "Diary of the Dead" to the likes of the "Paranormal Activity" movies and "The Last Exorcism", people love watching horror films about horrific events caught on camera. Back in 2006, we a little movie called "The Zombie Diaries", which told stories of people with a camera filming their lives as the world fell through a zombie epidemic. I wasn't too wild about the movie, but it did good enough for a sequel to exist. Too bad said sequel seriously sucks.

The movie starts out in fine form, as we catch a night in the lives of a family trying to live on in a world in which the dead walk. Too bad it's only footage that was found by military types. Said soldiers find a civilian named Leeann (Alix Wilton Reagan), as well as possible hope when talk of a boat rescuing survivors. However, this may be at long reach, as our intrepid soldiers must not only survive the walking dead, but also murderous survivalists, and the possibility that salvation isn't going to turn out the way they wanted.

I'll give the movie this much: the acting is good, but that's the only compliment I can give this movie. The first (and probably biggest) problem with "The Zombie Diaries 2" is the fact that you really don't care about anyone here except maybe the family in the beginning. That's because there really isn't any characterization here, as these are just your typical stock survivors and army people trying to survive, to the usual psychopaths that stalk a apocalyptic world. Everyone here feels like a facsimile of a person. The direction also feels a bit "meh", as it's all edited erratically and the usual shaky cam that shows up in these movies makes some of the action a bit confusing. There's a bit of gore, but it's the usual shotguns blasts to the head and flesh munching that you've seen in so many other zombie movies.

Which leads to my next complaint-there's nothing here that sets this apart from other found footage horror movies or zombie movies. The whole thing feels uninspired, with no real reason to care about who lives or who dies, or what happens next. Also, did we really need three rape scenes?

You've seen this kind of movie before, so there's really no reason to bother watching it. You're better off watching "Day of the Dead" or waiting for the next season of "The Walking Dead" than sitting through this.

I must admit, I picked up this movie because I was attracted by its cover art. Although the cover art has no relation to the movie, I still found the movie somewhat entertaining.

For those who enjoy shaky cam films such as Cloverfield, Blair Witch Project, Apollo 18, then the camcorder effect shouldn't bother you. I have not seen the first one after reading mixed reviews about it, so I decided to watch this one randomly.

The story is not all that bad, and after reading reviews of this film and the first one, a few characters from the first film returned in the second, trying to connect the stories.

For a horror film, there weren't really any scenes to make you jump or anything. If there were any scenes that were supposed to scare you, then they were expected to come.

Philip Brodie as Maddox, Rob Oldfield as Jonesy, and Russell Jones as Goke were good actors for a low budget film. The rest of the cast weren't that bad as well, their acting was convincing enough for me.

All in all, try not to watch this movie with high expectations of an awesome, scary zombie film, because that will probably just ruin the experience for you. If you're a zombie lover like me, then give this movie a shot.

Having seen the first "The Zombie Diaries", I wanted to watch through part 2 as well. Not because I was overly impressed with the first one, but simply because it is a zombie movie and because I love all things zombie.

It was painfully clear that they had a bigger budget behind them this time in this production, and that really helped the movie along a good deal. Now with that being said, then let me just nail it clear that the whole hand-held camera point of view is not in my liking. So seeing a whole movie through that point of view was a notch down in the enjoyment of the movie for me.

Looking at the DVD cover I think to myself 'what the...?' The cover has two solders on it, yeah they are in the movie. Alright. But then in the background there is a metropolis in ruin and in flames. Right. Well there were no metropolis in the movie. The entire movie took place in a military base, a forest, a small village and a military bunker! Moving on, in front of this crumbling metropolis is a vast army of zombies. Again, what? There weren't that many zombies in the movie. Come on! The DVD cover was a total scam! It had very little to do with the actual movie, and it is a cheap trick to lure people in.

The zombies in "World of the Dead" could have been done more to make them look like zombies. It was basically just people with some wounds here and there. That whole gore and gross decomposition effect was lacking and it made the zombies look more like drunken stumbling buffoons.

Having seen "World of the Dead" now, I can scratch it off the list, and I can say that it is not a zombie movie that I will be watching a second time, because it had no real appeal and it just didn't have enough contents to make it worth a second watching. "World of the Dead" is good if you are a zombie aficionado and just have to watch zombie movies for the heck of it. Other than that, there is little new to be seen in this movie.

A couple other reviews said shallow things like they expect a zombie movie to be fun, a stupid laugh to have with buddies at a party. I've got to strongly disagree there -- zombie movies don't have to be campy, silly, parodies. They're perfectly capable of standing on their own as serious films. I'm a big zombie fan, and my opinion is that the "let's make it silly" meme does almost as much damage to the genre as low-budget horrors with awful writing acting and production -- and sadly most zombie films fall into those categories and aren't worth watching. WORLD OF THE DEAD however *is* worth watching for serious zombie and post-apocalypse film fans.

WORLD OF THE DEAD is a bleak survivor drama akin to THE ROAD or perhaps even things like the BBC version of DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS. This is not a movie to watch if you're looking for something "fun" (or "funny"). But if you like depressing, hopeless post-apocalyptic dystopia s, this one is worth watching. The fact that it is devoid of humor -- as well as cheap action or gore -- but is instead a slow dirge of grinding defeat is what makes it worth watching.

I don't usually take the time to review movies on here but when I see an injustice happening to a more than decent Zombie movie I just had to give this film it's props.

I can sum up this movie like this: If you're a fan of zombie movies and have sat through film after film in hopes you're going to find that next great flesh eating flick you will like this one. This is probably the best Zombie flick that's come out since 'La Horde'.

Simple and to the point I know, but I've waded through upwards of 120 zombie flicks and when you find a little gem like this it makes watching all those garbage ones like Dead Country and forest of the dead all worth while.

This had strong acting, good directing, great makeup jobs and a planned out script that they stuck to. You can tell from watching this the actors really put their all into it and that alone puts this movie on top of so many of even the main stream movies being pumped out nowadays.

The one thing about this movie that probably affected it's ratings is that it is filmed in the 'blair witch' hand held camera style. So if that style of filming makes you dizzy or nauseous, you may want to pass on this one.

I'm going to give one a 6 out of 10 which in my books places it alongside such Zombie films as Biozombie, Tombs of the blind dead and Quarantine.

I bought this after seeing positive reviews on amazon. I wish I hadn't.

The two leads -philip brody and alix wilton regan- are decent in this but I didn't see any need to replace Victoria Nalder who was the only good actor in the first film.

The problem I have with this is about half the movie is shot in nightvision or infra red or whatever its called. It gives a luminous green negative effect which I find irritating and difficult to watch.

The rest deals with a gang of badly acted rapists (Russell Jones returning from Zombie Diaries 1) which is both unpleasant and badly made. Goke is so poorly realised by Jones that he poses no threat. I felt that the whole interlude was a prurient attempt to pad out the film and provide a focus for the story.

As with other films by these people there's a lot of sexual violence and misogyny which is all a bit unsettling. I didn't enjoy it.

Hey,this type of filming a movie sucks a big one.It's like watching a very bad home movie shot by the village idiot who couldn't hold the camera still.If they spent a 1.5 million on this piece of garbage they spent 1.4999999 too much.It's a huge waste of resources and money on a project that never should have seen the light of day.Here's a tip if your trying to show realism it''s not realistic for someone to be filming while zombies are chasing you and it's not very entertaining trying to watch a movie that is constantly bobbing up and down ,out of focus or grainy night vision.Please do use all a favor and quit making zombie movies or at least consult with someone who does know how to .(George Romero)

THE ZOMBIE DIARIES is probably the worst shot-on-video zombie movie out there, and there are plenty to choose from. So why they bothered making a sequel to that nonsense I have no idea. WORLD OF THE DEAD offers up more of the same, i.e. a semi-talented team of amateur film-makers shooting a non-existent storyline out in the countryside, replete with poor script and indifferent performances. It pains me to report that these films are British.

The basic plotting involves a squad of soldiers battling to survive in a post-apocalyptic world. They have frequent encounters with zombies, who probably the least-frightening versions of the undead you'll have seen since one of those old 1930s films. It doesn't help that the actors playing the undead are singularly poor, you'd have thought it wouldn't be that difficult to play a zombie.

Unfortunately, the main thrust of the storyline isn't about the walking dead, but rather a gang of vicious rapists who go around abusing and then killing women. There are a lot of protracted rape and misogynistic scenes in this film, which makes it a gruelling and unpleasant viewing experience, and about the opposite of what I'd call entertainment. It's a piece of trash, nothing more.

Where the first movie in this hopefully ended series didn't know if it were a serial killer/slasher/zombie movie. This one, like that, expects the viewer to believe that while the world is falling apart, and zombies are running rampant, civilization is falling apart - the some pinhead would take the time to FILM IT? Are you kidding me? I really hate this found footage garbage. If someone survives such an apocalypse, would they really want to watch a worthless film about it? Unconvincing story, so-so acting, fairly bad filming. Laughable special effects. Things like this will kill the zombie movie, since 99 percent of them are trash like this. This is just bad, bad, bad.

This movie was fairly gritty and dark, made largely in the "camcorder" style so many are made in these days. The zombies don't get a lot of very good screen time, though - the glimpses are more fleeting and poorly lit, just a few really decent zombie closeups is all you really get of that. Lots of blood, and at least one very graphic depiction of rape (you didn't see anything happening below the waist, but the sounds were very authentic, imho).

All in all, it was a lot like "28 Days Later" only with real zombies instead of just the enraged infected. I won't spoil the ending, but I will say that it was a fairly realistic one and as such, perhaps a bit unsatisfying for some (reality does tend to suck like that, so the movie got it right, but not everyone likes a real-world style ending).

The acting was all pretty good too, imho. Didn't see any performances I could call "weak". The dude who played "Billy" got the "mentally challenged small town pushover" vibe down pat. Probably the weakest performance was the head commanding officer through much of it, and he didn't do too badly. I think he overdid the "detached, emotionless" thing a bit much, yet you -could- brush that off as a quirk of the character if you really wanted to.

Overall, it wasn't the best but it was far from the worst. While comparable to 28DL in tone, it -is- somewhat lower in quality, but if a little bit of quality doesn't bug you and you liked 28DL, I'd recommend it.

5 years after part one Michael Bartlett and Kevin Gates, the writers and also directors decided to make part 2. It picks up a bit further were part one ended. Leeann is saved and is now in the hands of the army. Naturally the zombies are still out there and things go badly wrong. But what the directors learned was the fact that they have to have a good story and so they did. This one goes a bit deeper into the characters and less into the zombie attacks. By doing so you have a better flick. But again there is a lot of shooting at the wandering zombies and here and there a zombie do bite in gory fashion.

But by going deeper into the characters they added the bad guys from part one back again into the story. And it's better to catch up the story then in part one. Goke is still out there raping zombies and torturing them. It is a bit necessary to have seen part one to understand the part were the soldiers find a tortured zombie and even for the story of Leeann.

Don't be fooled by the DVD sleeve, everything that you see on it isn't in the movie! But it's again a bit filmed in documentary style with the 'hated' shaky camera's. The end of the flick I liked a lot, because you are left with a bitter feeling as did the survivors. Only for the lovers of shaky camera flicks like REC and Paranormal Activity.

Gore 3/5 Nudity 1/5 Effects 3/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

I was a fan of the first ZOMBIE DIARIES. A very interesting, non-linear film about survivors in a post apocalyptic world. Made for nothing, the film did well with reviewers but split audiences down the middle. The terrible artwork depicting a burning London skyline also upset a lot of people. It was a case of one man's gold another man's poison, or whatever the appropriate phrase is.

Anyway, this film looked good from the trailer and it delivered in a number of ways. Let's look at those first: ACTING: The performances were much better this time around. A lot of the good actors from the first Zombie Diaries were brought back and the producers added some new talent. Phil Brodie (MADDOX) was the stand out for me.

PRODUCTION VALUE: With a decent budget, you can see the difference. Two bits that stuck out were the aftermath of a destroyed military base, and also some flashback scenes to an army extermination of civilians.

DIRECTION: There were some marvellous set-pieces, and overall the direction of the film was very good. The final scene was out of this world (And shot like a conventional film). But that just makes all the bad stuff even more frustrating... this COULD HAVE BEEN a great film. COULD HAVE BEEN! The negatives...

THE CHARACTER 'JONES' This guy (who is the audience in a sense) runs around documenting everything on his camcorder. People he know and loves are killed - and he keeps filming. I just don't believe his actions, and he took me out of the film many times.

THE PACING The editing was pretty dreadful. A lot of scenes didn't transition well like the first film with the use of the tape cutting out. They just chopped into each other. It was a bit of a mess. The film also could have been 10 minutes shorter. There was way too much walking around in the woods. There was a lacklustre feeling a lot of the way through the film. Even actions sequences felt a little lethargic at times.

THE REALISM The first film felt real - ironically helped by the amateur acting. But the camera-work is so professional in this film and everything pulls focus perfectly ... well, it is hard to believe these are found tapes. Especially given the behaviour of the Jones character.

So my score is 6/10. Compared to a lot of films out there it is still a very strong film - the atmosphere is bleak with no stupid joking or annoying characters - but after a while it starts to remind you of the British Weather and just seems to fizzle out, whilst Jones continues to be a traitor and film his friends dying. It is a real shame, as this film had huge potential. I think better realism and editing next time round if they do a third part.

World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries 2 just barely surpasses its predecessor, mainly because of the fact that it recognizes that more than walking around and verbally droning about the possibility of other lands being overtaken by zombies is not substantial enough for a feature film. Directors Kevin Gates and Michael Bartlett actually thrown some plot-progression and some events into the sequel to their Dimension Extreme-distributed film to provide for not only some much-needed life in an undead environment but, thankfully, something to reminds us why we're still watching.

The horror genre is at such a treacherous time in its life, where studios have realized the go-to for quick cash comes in the form of remakes, sequels, or the constant ubiquity of ideas such as exorcism and the "found footage" method of filming that true fans must not simply "take what they can get" but look under rocks for films of the genre that will satisfy their needs effectively. The Zombie Diaries unfortunately failed to do that, and looking at World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries 2, it doesn't improve on too much worth noting. However, it takes considerable risks at being more than a throwaway release and dares to at least be occasionally vile and inexplicable which, at this point in the "franchise's" life, is kind of relieving that, unlike its main focus, is still alive and breathing.

This time around, the film takes place about three months after the viral outbreak in the first movie began, and has since wiped out almost all of the world's population, leaving its victims as mindless, literal zombies feeding off the reminisce of the human race. One of the largest surviving groups comes in the form of experienced, well-trained soldiers, whom have taken refuge at a military base in the rural lands of Europe. After months of not coming in contact with any survivors other than themselves and spending most of their time warding off persistent zombies, the base receives communication from another, coastal military base that informs of safety and refuge in a nicer part of Europe. Thank goodness because, in a rather unbelievable chain of events, somebody left the gate to the military base wide open and allowed it to be flooded with the undead, so the soldiers need to make a run for it. The film follows the tight-knit group of fighters as they cross Europe's snowy terrain in hopes of starting a new city or state in what looks to be a promising place of comfort and, at the very least, reliable solace from the undead.

The film plays like we're watching video of people playing a game of paintball or laser-tag using large areas of land as their massive playgrounds. The most exciting footage is when we see the gang of soldiers stealthily maneuvering through uncertain land and attempting to avoid potential run-ins with zombies. On top of that, writer/co-director Gates fuels the film with some much-needed elements of excitement and peril, such as scenes of gang-rape, scenes of extreme violence, and Holocaust undertones. It's not that we are particularly gleeful that the characters now have the possibility of being raped in their minds, but it's the idea that something is finally occurring in this previously dead-on-arrival franchise that makes the film quietly remarkable.

However, the problems with The Zombie Diaries still exist in its sequel, which are the frequently agitating lack of steadiness in the camera, the occasionally bothersome and frequently interchangeable characters, and the fact that some scenes are way too poorly lit, even if the motive behind the film is to evoke suspense and fear. World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries 2 is far from a good sequel, but as an improvement on its heavily-flawed predecessor, it does rise from the ashes in some regards to create at least a more watchable film than the first which, the more I think about it, should be the tagline for every sequel to a mediocre or downright awful film.

Starring: Philip Brodie, Alix Wilton Regan, Rob Oldfield, and Vicky Araico. Directed by: Kevin Gates and Michael Bartlett.