true enough, i understand they aren't truly zombies, but act in similiar enough manner to draw comparison. they arise very much like the zombies in 'resident evil', whom were infected by a virus and were classified as zombies. and like in 'resident evil' lore, they co-operate in spreading the virus. therefore, i justify the classification of zombie due to the similiarities between the two. they survive primarily on instinct, not intellect; they are both essentially mindless. the question of what those 'infected' eat also pops up. either they eat humans, and thus have a limited number of 'infected', or they simply keep spreading, and the earlier 'infeceted' die off. nothing is provided clearly and i do not think the writers cared to think upon this.

i did not sympathise with the characters, something a lot of critics and reviewers consider the most important factor in the movie. i didnt care for them because i couldnt relate to them. many of the actions in the film i consider irrational and illogical, things that are important in films driven on the fear that it may be real. i failed to see why the father and daughter couldnt simply leave with the car at the beginning. though the 2 protagonists provided good company, there was no real logic in simply waiting around as more 'infected' kept on increasing and the chances of people coming dropped. and if the two people at the begining managed to produce explosive weapons, why werent they able to retrieve firearms from dead corpses? it would certainly be more effective then a baseball bat and ax.

if the film wasnt on such a major scale, such as an entire city like london, possibly it would be easier to understand. but one of the most influencial capital in the world falling in a short period of time, with no signs of any major resistance seems ludicrous. the only other movie that falls so short of common sense would be 'Signs". this seems to me to be the major falling point. in other horror movies, such as the 'texas chainsaw massacre', the believability of such events occuring is legitimate. however, the complete take down of one of the most powerful countries in the world in a matter of days with no actual sign of conflict from military personel is ludcrious. the movie would have certainly be more believable, and more enjoyable, in my opinion, if different perspectives were shown, not just one group, but of many trying to survive.

the ending was cliche as you get, and the alternate ending provided in the end for australian viewers seemed weak and poorly thought out. it did not hold my interest, though it certainly had its moments here and there. the acting was acceptable, though i prefer to concentrate on the story. an appocolyptic tale needs to have some sense to it and an explaination that is legitimate and reasonable needs to be provided if viewers are to believe in it.

this is simply my personal opinion, and differs to many, i understand. however, i found myself disappointed with what many were hailing as one of the scariest movies of the year. the infected human were not frightening, as they could easily be replaced with hoodlums or an angry mob and still achieve the same affect. the solution of them simply starving to death felt a very weak to wrap it up. would it not be more likely that other countries would attempt to purge the threat via bombings if the danger was that great? the end certainly points to some military power in place still, and since the british forces seemed to not exist anymore, i assume it is that of another country.