Zombie Diaries 2

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.

Most of this film is instantly forgettable, acting is so so, story is generic and doesnt hold on any one concept long enough for it to have any real impact. I would have given this a 2/10 except the ending was very good, I really liked that, too little too late really though.

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 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.