Meh.
Don’t get me wrong … this remake of George A. Romero’s 1973 flick of the same name (which I haven’t seen) is actually pretty good. By which I mean, I enjoyed myself well enough while watching it. No unforgiveably crappy dialogue, no egregious plot flaws, no interminable stretches of boredom, punctuated by zombie attacks. And best of all, there is plenty of suspense, a good helping of crazed zombie attacks, and lots of genuine scares. I actually put my hands to my eyes a couple times, which is embarrassing to admit, but usually a sign that the film is working as intended. And there are some pretty memorable gore scenes — the attack at the carwash is decent, the pitchfork attack in the hospital is quite well-done, and I felt like I hadn’t seen these scenes 1,000 times before. The film is gory at times, but it isn’t going to set any records, and I appreciated both of these facts.
That said, my problem with the film is that it seems entirely derivative of other zombie movies. This was 28 Days Later in a lot of ways, with a hefty dose of Outbreak for good measure. It wasn’t horribly dark like Evil Dead, nor was it rip-roaringly funny like Shaun of the Dead or Zombieland or Evil Dead II, but it does have its comedic moments. With few exceptions, you won’t see anything new, and you’ll find yourself saying “This is like X, but not quite as memorable.” Also, the zombies themselves aren’t that interesting. But that’s OK. The film still mostly works, as it does what it needs to do competently and effectively.
If you need a zombie fix this weekend, you won’t go wrong if you catch this flick. But when your friends ask you next month what you thought of the movie, you won’t remember, and you’ll have to tell them that. You’ll still be thinking about 28 Days Later, or Zombieland.
