I was not a huge fan of the book, so maybe it is just as well the movie’s only point of similarity appears to be its title:
Of course, the movie goes with freakishly hyper-fast zombies, whereas the books featured the standard shamblers… I cannot say as though I have ever been a huge proponent of the former position. I mean, unless we are going to the 28 Days Later theory, "zombies" are functionally dead, with the majority of their bodily functions shut off. As such, wounds will heal slower, if at all, infections will win, swelling and necrosis will set in, and things will just start breaking down. If it is winter, you will probably end up with zombsicles, and if it is the summer, especially around the equator, you are going to have steaming puddles of goo and one hell of a smell.
But zombies as a persistent threat? Unless we are talking about certain parts of the world, or we buy into the Newsflesh theory that all humans are already infected and just waiting for exposure to the live virus and/or death for the bug to take over, I am just not seeing it. Oh, sure, a zombie break-out would pretty much be an apocalyptic event, if only because people are stupid, but the movie seems to focus more on that collapse, and less on the aftermath, which is what the book really pursued. Of course, that aftermath did not exactly make for riveting reading, which means the producers probably made the right call.
*shrug* Honestly, I am more looking forward to this one:
(Videos should work now. Apparently when scheduling posts for the future (which I was doing for the Christmas holiday period, since we were and are out of town), WordPress just arbitrarily deletes / breaks the YouTube embed code for videos. Wierd.)