User reviews

The cover is what actually got my attention to watch this movie. Right at the start I already knew it was a B movie when the camera panning and blurry unfocused technique was used which was very amatuer. As I continued watching I noticed there's not much dialogue and conversations are simple few word sentences. If you don't have good scripting then you make up for it with good action. But even that was poorly done. I couldn't continue to watch it because there was constantly unnecessary.panning closeups in and out. Then when it came to action scenes whether running or fighting, you cannot see clearly or make out what they are doing. The camera shakes too much that you can not make out what they are doing. Also, every scene is short, lasting about a second or two, jumping from one person to another, and one place to another. Focus then unfocus, behind objects and things, looking like the director was trying to use every technique in the book to make it work. I got dizzy just watching the screen moving all over the place. I cannot possibly watch the whole movie like this. It was very poorly done with bad acting, bad editing and overall bad production.

Sound effects and background audio completely cover up the vocals. They were about ten times the loudness of everything else!

I gave it a 4 back in 2015. Its your average low budget zombie conspiracy. Acting, filming and direction are all ok but the writing needs help. I lowered my rating to 3 because there's been several low budget zombie conspiracy movies since this one first appeared that were better.

From the outset, terrible focusing of the camera was annoying. Constant blurring of images was (at best) bad cinematography.

Next, I could hardly hear what was being said - it was as if the cast were speaking through a mattress.

Finally, the actors didn't question why the lead was brought into their midst, rather just welcoming him as a long gone friend. There was no questioning about his history just a nod of acceptance.

I gave up watching this movie after 20 minutes because it was so bad and didn't offer any promise of improving.

Looks like it was shoot on an old cellphone.

Waste of time unless you like B- movies.

They get a A for effort but by the looks of it this movie will possibly not be in tethers because it's not as hyped as these other movies. I didn't even make it 2mins in and I was saying "I'm not finna watch this"because zombie movies have advanced so much that you won't want to watch any old time movies. All dire respect to the actors and everyone who worked on it. Just not your best.

Constant Shaking, you can burly see on what's happening in the scene 2) it look like it was shoot on a old cellphone 3) Poor editing 4) Poor acting 5) Please use some kind of stabilization next time and get a better camera and not use your phone🙂

A 2021 zombie movie, will I watch it? Of course. Did I have any expectations for it? No, not really.

Did writers Will Martin and Dan Rickard deliver a wholesome and entertaining movie. No, not even remotely. So was it worth the time, money and effort? No, no and no.

First of all, let's just address the first scene, the intro scene, that was blatantly stolen from "28 Days Later", from the atmosphere, the events that happened and even the music was very much reminiscent of that other and far more entertaining movie. Sure, this was off to an adequate start.

Then the movie just fell apart. The camera work in the movie was all over the place, and a lot of wobbly, shaky and out-of-focus camera work does not make for an entertaining movie in my book. Nay, when I sit down to watch a movie, I want to watch a wholesome movie with proper production value, and not something I could film better with my own DV camera.

The storyline is so generic and mundane that you could essentially drift off to Sleepland, which you will mostly likely do during the course of "Infected: The Darkest Day", and wake up later and still be up to speed with the events of the movie.

And then there was the sound. By God that was a mess. The scenes with infected, shooting, helicopters and what not were of adequate sound, you know where you could hear things properly. Then cut to every single scene with dialogue, and the sound was so low and muffled that it was hard to comprehend most of the dialogue. Luckily I had the option for subtitles, which I had to make use of in order to comprehend the dialogue.

The acting in "Infection: The Darkest Day" was dubious at best. So you are not in for something great here.

The zombie make-up was not really impressive, so "Infected: The Darkest Day" didn't harvest any much needed points here.

Sure, they had things like soldiers, proper costumes, even helicopters (or proper CGI ones), so it wasn't all bad. But yeah, it was.

"Infected: The Darkest Day" was indeed a dark day in the history of zombie movie, because this heap of rubbish from director Dan Rickard is one you should avoid. I am rating this 2021 movie a mere two out of ten stars. This was by no means a shining or glorious moment in the history of zombie movies. Nor is it a movie that I will ever return to watch a second time, nor one I would recommend you waste your time, money or effort on.

Constantly needing to adjust volume as the spoken parts were unintelligible. Oh how I wish I had read the other reviews before starting watching this...

I like UK made zombie movies. This is not 28 days later or 28 weeks later, but this is a good movie. A credible story with fast running crazies. It was a good entertainment watching it, give it a chance.

I completely fell asleep for 40 minutes, woke up, and didn't miss anything. The director is also the writer and in the star of the movie. Immediately knew it would be terrible. Everyone else has pointed out the terrible camera and focusing, so I won't repeat it. Absolute miss.

The camera work was the worst kind of cell phone quality out of focus shaky cam hackwork. It reminded me of old super 8 black and white home movies, only with less entertainment value. I gave up trying to see what was going on.

The audio work was equally amateurish, with the volume frequently dropping out to the point you couldn't hear what the actors were saying. I gave up trying to hear what was going on.

When I realized I couldn't see what was happening or hear what was happening, then I was no longer watching a movie. Zero stars for claiming it's a movie when it isn't.

On a serious note, everyone involved should at least take an intro to cinema course at their local community college before attempting another film making effort. This "movie" is the video equivalent of a pre-schooler's comic strip hanging on the refrigerator. Your family and friends may think it's cute, but the rest of us don't want to spend our hard earned money on something with lower production values than the average high school student project posted on YouTube.

I cringed so bad watching this movie. I can't believe this movie came to be as it is TRASH. The first 'zombie eating someone' is 39 minutes into the movie. Other zombies you see before just attack people. I thought a group of college students got together to film this! The quality is trash. The music is trash especially when they're running. I would have loved more from this... sadly, disappointed instead. It's a waste of time to watch and a waste of time just filming it. Do better.

It looks like a school project, the poster is noth8ng like the movies .

I tried. I honestly did. I like to support student flims/low budget indies, but regardless of budget, the filmmakers and actors must have talent. I put about 20 minutes into Infected and then I quit. That doesn't happen often. Editing was bad, camera work was off, sound was off acting was off. Just a bad movie.

2/10- amateur "movie" and it shows.

Having read up on the production of this film, I must say I'm VERY impressed with what the filmmakers have achieved on such a tiny budget.

Helicopters, zombies, destroyed cities, soldiers all look like they are part of a Hollywood film. Whilst the acting and the plot aren't 100% (although i read that the whole film was improvised by the cast and shot at weekends over several years so that can be forgiven) it's an enjoyable unpretentious zombie action film.

The film is very similar in style to 28 Days Later in terms of visuals and tone, had some funny moments, a few jump scares and plenty of zombie carnage. Well worth a watch if you're a fan of the 2002 Danny Boyle film.

This movie had a lot of potential, and throughout to get times where to feel it might finally take off. However it again kinda flatlines and the end is just brutal and makes you feel like you wasted time.

Hard to watch for all the wrong reasons.

We want hard to watch for gore, storytelling, realism. Something that makes you think either, this is scare, or, wow if this happened.... Instead, you're asking how this movie happened!

The acting, if you'd call it that, was script reading, monotone, emotionless garage.

Save yourself!

Let's be honest, poor script, naff acting, awful cinematography and those are it's good points.

If Temu remade 28 Days Later this is probably what you'd get... That said I loved it, it's a B-movie in every sense of the word. I've been on a B-movie kick just lately and this ticked all the boxes.

The characters are rather boring and when one dies you don't miss them because you don't get invested in them, I'm not sure if that's down to poor script or poor acting or both.

It's an easy something to have on in the background while you do something else, you can pause and continue without getting or go away and comeback and easily work out what you missed.

I can understand why some don't like this film as it isn't like the usual zombie trash such as world war Z or the Walking Dead. Both of which I personally found brain dead rather than fully undead. The constant moving of the camera which is reminiscent of NYPD Blue worked well. It keeps the costs down. The acting wasn't A list but was passable. Cinematography was good. Music wasn't too in your face. Suited the film. Of course with these films there's loopholes everywhere. No packs of dogs. Soldiers without earpieces. Soldiers without IR goggles. Etc etc. But I think it's worth watching. Just don't expect a CGI spectacular or loads of blood and guts which seems to excite some people. .

Not every film can have a budget like World War Z did. The makers of Infected: The Darknest Day certainly didn't but they show a big love for the genre and especially for the 28 Days Later movies. It was almost shot the same way, has the same scenery and even uses the same kind of music. As a lover of zombie films I liked it.

Infected: The Darkest Day is a rather ambitious title for a well made low budget zombie film. The movie opens with our protagonist Dan (played by actor Dan Rickard, who also co-wrote and directed the film) waking up on a beach. He doesn't know anything about his past. When he enters the city he sees that the place is abandoned. What the hell happened? By chance he meets a boy and a girl and tries to talk to them. Instead, he draws a crowd of zombies and they have to flee. He follows the girl into a house where other survivors live. Here he learns about this disease that affects people and at least he remembers he's on the run for the militairy. The reasons why are still unknown. Together with this group of people he tries to survive not only the zombies but the soldiers as well. As time passes he lears that he is in fact the very reason why everybody's in danger.

Infected looks great for a low budget film. There are a lot of scenes with abandoned streets and a lot of shots with actual helicopters. The zombies are of the 28 Day Later kind: they run and scream and appear when you don't expect them. There's even a scene in a big abandoned supermarket, which gives you a Dawn of the Dead feel.

Unfortunately there are also a lot of things that don't work.

Dan joins this group of survivors who don't seem to understand that the world has ended. They spend their time drinking beer and reading books and greet the two people who were out looking for something to eat and drink with a "Yes, the food has arrived". They don't seem to realize how dangerous it is in the streets and that the chances of actually finding something useable are really slim. Have they survived the apocalypse? How? They should be working on a big survival plan or be reinforcing the house they're living in, not boringly do things that don't matter.

Another thing that bothered me.

Dan is - for some reason - on the run for the militairy. But the survivors weren't. Why did they immediately see the soldiers as an enemy instead of their rescuers? What has happened in the past to make them think this way?

But enough with the nitpicking. On the IMDB this film gets a poor 2,5 rating and that's a pity. It does offer entertainment and I think zombie fans who don't expect much will have a good time.

Too bad the ending is rushed. Looks like the makers didn't know how to finish this story and choose for this option. Well, you can't have everything.

7/10.