'Better than Danny Boyle's 28 days later'
That's what somebody at beyondhollywood.com said. What trash. 28 days later was WAY better than this garbage. I could go in my backyard with a camera and make a better movie than this.
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > The Zombie Diaries (2007) Discussion > 'Better than Danny Boyle's 28 days later...
[deleted]
Well the first crew in ZD made sense for them to have the camera. The other two groups was just as cheap way of avoiding proper camera work. For pucks' sake 1/2 the movie the camera is pointed at the ground.
If one good deed in all my life I did,
I do repent it from my very soul.
Aaron the Moor
28 days later sucked????? hmmmmm no it didnt,
you dont need to be british to enjoy it, and as you stated there not zombies, so no point in bringing it up in comparison with a zombie film.
zombie diaries and diary of the dead are complete and utter wastes of time
"she's the tear that hangs inside my soul forever."
At least Diary of The Dead had some kind of reference to horror movie conventions (In tearms of who died when & the different personalities within the group) As cheesy bad movie fun it worked.
I'm half an hour in & I'm debating switching it off. The people aren't just bad actors, they are unlikable, which isn't great, I don't really want to spend the whole movie just waiting for everyone to die, as soon as possible.
Bad effects I don't mind one bit, but bad scripting & acting, nah.
[deleted]
'The Dood' as you call him, was already bitten and infected; the wife was seriously injured. The guy with the camera was out for himself and caused them to get 'ambushed' when he walked off into the field to talk with her but the guy with the radio was careless.
OMG! (it's not what you think)
I actually liked Diary of the Dead. This on the other hand was terrible.
Insert signature here