Having a film that bears a resemblance to the source material in name only is just asking for the derision of source-material fans. This is the main reason its a bad idea to throw the original concept out the window, but studios never learn. And I don't look for that to be changin'.
So, to answer your question: if it had no affiliation, it would not even be on my radar. I am not really interested in the idea of wild people overrunning the world, which is kind of what this film turned out to be. Its not scary, its not eerie, its not creeping me out. Its just meh.
Let me ask you this hypothetical question: if a "zombie" does not decay, if it does not kill by bodily trauma - WHERE is the horror in that? Zombies are about horrible, disgusting "things" turning you into one of them. Its kind of like Invasion of the Body Snatchers: a slow wave of horrible, inhuman things slowly takes over the whole world, turning everyone into one of themselves. In the end, none will escape.
But here, we don't have "zombies": we have the film equivalent of poking an anthill and observing the "ants" [zombies] running hither, thither and yon in a mindless frenzy. They don't decay, they don't do anything except trash the place. Meh.
In fact I would rather see a film about giant ants invading. That would be awesome.
They did decay. All of them. Some were quite extensively decayed. They did kill by bodily trauma. Isn't a bite trauma? What movie were you all watching?
And, as someone said earlier, they may have done more than bite off camera. The way groups pounced on people does imply eating.
Regarding source material, the vast majority of people would be unfamiliar with it, like myself.
Last edited:
