Gently but consistently fails throughout.

Rating: 5/10 (7 January 2019)

I would imagine it was very much a money grab to take advantage of the zombie craze. The concept was a decent variation on the theme of such, but it soon stopped there. I've seen post-apocalypse done much better but even those were flawed.
Two very incomplete and short movies mixed together (part 1 and 2) that were very much entrenched in B-movie devices to satisfy a perceived need vs. having any creative conclusion. And it was just so very damn long. Despite the fact that the short version failed, I would have been interested in trying it as a far longer mini-series to explore the subject.
I am disappointed in Bullock's decision to do this, as she was also attached as a producer. Granted, I know that Hollywood has a phobia of older women, which is shameful. But this is Sandra Bullock, who had led many fine movies and always does a good job. But she had very little to work with and got lost in an acceptable but not remarkable ensemble. She delivered urgency and emotion when she had the chance, sure. But I wanted more from our "hero" who was far more dominant in the 2nd portion than the first.
Or was this a failed attempt to introduce an older woman as a "hero" of an action movie? I am all for that, sure, although I am a male in his 50s. There were element to fuel interest in the female demographic, especially considering the attraction from women to violent material like Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. But we introduce Bullock as an ambivilant soon-to-be mother and then drop that 'til the very last scene when she gives the children names and calls herself mother. She steps up as a hero, but not from a great jump. But many times she is usurped and does play the female-in-distress role.
What also added to my theory that it was geared towards a female audience was the casting of Trevante Rhodes as Tom, the love interest. I don't have any real issue with it but thought it was a cheap device to entice women as he was a much younger handsome black man. Did a fine job as an actor, too, for what he was given.
I found interesting the concept that mentally ill people welcomed the sight of the "monsters." But relatively little was done with it. And John Malkovich's arc was satisfactory when he sacrificed himself for the children.
The direction was very pedestrian, though. The scene of havoc before they were in the house was workable but not memorable. I guess we are also transitioning in film from real effects to computer-generated effects (explosions, fire, blood, etc) and it's not looking that good.
I've heard Netflix bragging about great viewing numbers. That this was a high-profile tentpole movie for them vs. the filler they often offer. But it was very much an unremarkable B-movie.