IMDb RATING
3.8/10
2.6K
YOUR RATING
Three months have passed since a viral outbreak turned its victims into flesh-eating living dead. A band of survivors have taken refuge at a military barracks. A message comes telling of a "... Read allThree months have passed since a viral outbreak turned its victims into flesh-eating living dead. A band of survivors have taken refuge at a military barracks. A message comes telling of a "sanctuary" somewhere in Europe. But is it a trap?Three months have passed since a viral outbreak turned its victims into flesh-eating living dead. A band of survivors have taken refuge at a military barracks. A message comes telling of a "sanctuary" somewhere in Europe. But is it a trap?
- Directors
- Writer
- Stars
Toby Bowman
- Nicholson
- (as Tobias Bowman)
Aj Williams
- Snake
- (as A. J. Williams)
Craig Stovin
- Tom
- (as Craig Ramos-Stovin)
Criselda Cabitac
- Sandra
- (as Criselda Ramos-Stovin)
- Directors
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
What can I add that hasn't already been said in the other reviews? Well, I sat through it and at no point did I consider turning it off. So that has to be a big PLUS right? I turned TRON:Legacy off halfway through but for very different reasons so I won't use it as a benchmark ...
I haven't seen the original Zombie Diaries so had no frame of reference which may or may not be a good thing. Suffice to say that while I can't argue against what has been expressed by others, I cant say that I found it as bad as it is claimed. And it IS bad! However, if (and i do mean IF) you can look past the poor acting (They do at least TRY!), barren script and poor direction then it MAY just be worth 90 mins of your life.
This film is not about zombies in the way that Romero's films tend to be. In WotD it would be possible to replace the undead with other elements such as rednecks or bikers and still get the same results. WotD appears to focus on the main characters - which is very difficult given the script! What makes WotD watchable is its Point-of-View (PoV) technique - it's almost entirely seen through a Handy/Steady Cam of a military journalist 'embedded' with the unit. This alone saves the film from being appalling - as many editorial gaffes and directorial no-nos are hidden or avoided completely.
If, after reading these reviews, you DO decide to give it a go then be prepared to switch it off. If you're a zombie fan like myself then it MIGHT we worth your while.
You have been fairly warned ....
3/10
I haven't seen the original Zombie Diaries so had no frame of reference which may or may not be a good thing. Suffice to say that while I can't argue against what has been expressed by others, I cant say that I found it as bad as it is claimed. And it IS bad! However, if (and i do mean IF) you can look past the poor acting (They do at least TRY!), barren script and poor direction then it MAY just be worth 90 mins of your life.
This film is not about zombies in the way that Romero's films tend to be. In WotD it would be possible to replace the undead with other elements such as rednecks or bikers and still get the same results. WotD appears to focus on the main characters - which is very difficult given the script! What makes WotD watchable is its Point-of-View (PoV) technique - it's almost entirely seen through a Handy/Steady Cam of a military journalist 'embedded' with the unit. This alone saves the film from being appalling - as many editorial gaffes and directorial no-nos are hidden or avoided completely.
If, after reading these reviews, you DO decide to give it a go then be prepared to switch it off. If you're a zombie fan like myself then it MIGHT we worth your while.
You have been fairly warned ....
3/10
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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 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.
Did you know
- ConnectionsFollows Zombie Diaries (2006)
- How long is Zombie Diaries 2?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $1,500,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 28m(88 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content