Darkest Day

I picked up a copy of "Darkest Day" given the movie's cover was fairly interesting and depicted zombies. Yeah, a zombie movie, and I am all in.

However, it turned out that "Darkest Day" was a mere cash-in and a copy of the 2002 "28 Days Later" movie, and it was not a particularly good imitation. And it was painstakingly clear that writers Will Martin and Dan Rickard had borrowed heavily from writer Alex Garland and director Danny Boyle's 2002 movie. Tch. Tch.

And this is not a traditional zombie movie, so if you like me sit down to watch "Darkest Day" hoping it is a proper zombie movie, you will be sorely disappointed. First of all, it is mere infected humans with rage, yeah surprise, where did we see this before? Infected humans running around all fast and agile jumping and violently assaulting uninfected with fists and teeth.

The acting in "Darkest Day" was adequate for the type of movie that it was, which is not a major Hollywood blockbuster with so many millions in its budget that it could have supported a small country for years to come.

As for the storyline, well it was just too mundane and offered nothing much of any interest to the audience, and that was essentially the coup de grace to the movie, ending its misery and sending it far beyond mediocrity.

And the characters in the movie were very flaccid, one-dimensional and essentially merged with one and each other to the point where you didn't have any interest in them or a lack of care when they were infected or killed. And the actors were struggling with bringing their characters to life on the screen because everything was stacked against them in terms of proper characters.

I endured "Darkest Day" to the very end, an ordeal in itself, and one that I can't really recommend that you embark upon. This addition to the zombie movie came and went without as much as a groan, shamble or an infectious bite.

Oh a zombie apocalypse ! Just what the world needs - not . You can understand why they're popular with low to no budget film makers because all it needs to take one is a small handful of extras , a quiet morning to film on some deserted streets and you've got a movie , one that you've probably seen a dozen times and were probably bored by the second , third or fourth time

So what's so different about this one ? you may ask and in reply all I can say is not much at all . If you've seen Boyle and Garland's 28 DAYS / WEEKS LATER there's very little new here . In fact the story starts with a young man waking up on a beach and the entire early segment is structured exactly like the beginning of Boyle's film on a mis en scene level except it's set in Brighton instead of London . Even the music is similar to 28DL . The only time the film goes its own way is in an inferior manner where the uninfected do illogical things like have a house party ! I know Brighton has a reputation for hedonism but this is too much on a credibility level . It also copies the illogical plot turns of 28 DL where a wimpish middle class student is able to kill battle hardened squaddies with his bare hands . I know Britain's military reputation has plummeted after Iraq and Afghanistan but you'd think a soldier would get the better of a student once in a while

Searching on the internet I found out DARKEST DAY cost less than £1,000 to make , was shot over a long period of time . In other words it's a labour of love Unfortunately as an audience member I am under no obligation to love any film . It might have worked better if it had a bigger budget , a more developed screenplay and a better cast but you could say that about most films that aren't Hollywood blockbusters

I try not to write a negative review but this time i feel that i must. Where and how this film got over 5 in a review it must be the people that made it have done the voting. One of, no scratch that the worst film i have watched in such a long time that i felt the need to write a review. Firstly it looks as if it was made by some university students who had to make a film for their drama class, the acting was bad, the story was okay, the filming itself, half shaky cam was totally off putting. Let's just say that i am glad i didn't pay to watch this film, if i had bought it or rented it i would have been really cheesed off but as it was free, i still felt robbed and wanted a refund. Don't waste your time on this film.

As everyone else said, poor everything..... I think a group of high school kids with a cell phone camera could do almost as good. But I give some credit to the actors for giving good try, guess you got to start somewhere! But watch this only if its the only thing left to watch..

One of the worse films I have seen in a long time. It was so bad that I just couldn't watch it through to the end.

At best the actors were mediocre and mostly well below average but the script certainly didn't help them.

The filming appeared like it was done on a home video camera and there were constant out of focus errors. If the shaky camera was on purpose they massively overused it. It also looked like the camera man/woman didn't know how to work the camera and was having a fit the whole time they filmed.

The rip off of every idea from 28 days later was obvious. I have seen better produced, filmed and acted home movies.