Well it depends on how little realism you can tolerate. In the film, the zombies can somehow climb over each other into strange pillar shaped crowds and clamber over 30ft walls. If the lack of there logic doesn't bother you, then you'll love it. You'll love it even more if you can stomach that it's a complete bastardisation of it's source material.

I've refused to watch it ever since I discovered just how much they'd changed the structure, plot and fundamental details of the book. It should never have been made into a film, it would be a fantastic TV program if it stuck to the source material and Max Brooks was part of the writing staff.

Seen this, was pretty disappointed really

[IMG]http://www.breatheheavy.com/exhale/public/style_emoticons/default/***********[/IMG]

Everyone would have complained it was a rip off of the walking dead then, so they wouldn't be able to win either way

The book isn't anything like The Walking Dead though. The book is basically a bunch of Survivors talking about their experiences.

I haven't read it, but a tv show about zombies would just have people calling it a rip off from the start

Maybe if they hadn't watched any of it, but the book isn't like anything else in the genre, it's basically an unnamed UN reporter going around talking to survivors from all around the world and documenting their experiences of the zombie uprising and the book follows a general timeline from start to end by jumping between stories; so it'd be more like, I dunno, LOST in the sense that there would be lots of flashbacks - the characters range from soldiers to politicians to every day people...

It's one of the best books I've ever read; you could replace the zombies with any other kind of plague/infection and it would read the same, it's more about the impact on the world after a global catastrophe.

Ugh the bit about little Sharon in the church makes me upset every time I re-read the book, all the parents killing the children to "save" them from the zombies outside, but she manages to get away somehow... Max Brooks wrote that part so well, I can picture both the church part and her in the ward part so vividly :(

was gonna read the book, but now -＿-

Honestly couldn't recommend it more, I couldn't put it down the first time I read it and I've re-read it so many times over the years

Well it would be an okayish action film if it had a different title. I just don't get why they bothered to slap on the book's name as the movie's title. It makes no sense because the two bear absolutely no similarity whatsoever, the only thing that unites them both is their names.

You're right anyways, it would make an excellent TV series.

Well a zombie isn't as unrealistic as the crap in the movie. The right combination of symptoms in a disease like rabies could probably whip up something remarkably similar.

It was the movie's flagrant disregard for basic things, like way people move, pissed me off. Those stupid 100ft zombie pillars, and the way the zombie crowds flowed around like they were made of water are both examples of that. It made no ****ing sense.

Brad Pitt survived throwing a grenade in a plane and it crashing and you're complaining about the way zombies move :nono:

I think i'm just playing devils advocate I really don't care :laugh:

-skips away-

the main thing about zombie moves is the zombies and WWZ's are terrible and CGI-ey, the same thing that ruined I Am Legend

most of them is make up (I think) it's only when they're in the massive herds(? idk what you call a group of zombies) that they look CGI

tHE WHOLE THING WAS A MESS OKAY http://forums.llli.org/images/smilies/angrywife.gif

Hordes. The word you're thinking of is horde.

oh yeah, i was close :hmph: