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.
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.