[thunderclap]

Just watched this movie last night and neither ending can save this trash. There was no need for the CGI zombies which looked terrible. Smith talking to the dummies, which could have been interesting, came off as forced. I actually had to start fast-forwarding through the movie. This ranks up there with "Spider-man 3", "X-Men 3" and "Dead Man's Chest" as big budget crap from '07.

[Tinkerhell]

Originally Posted by Zardon

I don't feel it was "another" zombie movie on any level at all - there was actually quite a lot happening under the surface if you looked, I guess a lot of people didn't really. A movie like Dawn of the Dead is a pure zombie movie.

I'm curious about your take on this as I see a few differences from other zomb movies but not that many. Certainly not enough that I would call it original or special in the genre.

I'll grant it's not just a "Zombies are trying to eat the cute chick while she is trying to survive while being as stupid and scantily clad as possible" flick.
Watching Smith's breakdown is pretty good, but more could have been done with it. The fact that he is intentionally hanging around & working on the cure himself is good. I get his driving motivational factors. Yeah he lost his wife & kid. Fluff tossed in to give him a bit more drive. The zombs are getting smarter. No big improvement on other films. The look & feel of the zombs is slightly different - their hair falls out, they are still "human" and probably can be cured instead of just eradicated. They were created by trying to help mankind instead of through an accident or through military research or clandestine corporate R&D.

Hmm, listing the above maybe is enough to set this aside as something different. Maybe I'm just jaded to the genre and it's going to take something REALLY different to get my attention? *shrug* I don't know.