I humbly opine that this movie gets just a little too much bad press.

Rating: 9/10 (2 June 2015)

Visit any Internet message boards about it, and you might get the impression that its more commonly accepted title is "The Brad Pitt Zombie Movie That Sucked." I myself am a die-hard fan of Max Brooks' original book, but I still loved the movie.
It wasn't a George A. Romero film, and it wasn't "The Walking Dead." (And it certainly wasn't the book.) But  that's just fine, in my opinion. It was different. It was a bangin', epic, global monster war movie with some amazing action set pieces. I think the siege of the walled Jerusalem (a subplot that actually WAS from the book), was alone well worth the price of a ticket. Not every zombie movie has to have the same tone and narrative as Romero's work or Robert Kirkman's work. Arnold Schwarzenegger's recent "Maggie" film showed us, for example, that very different zombie movies can still be incredibly good.
My only real criticism of the movie was that its plot resolution seemed  pretty damned risky. Isn't there a pretty obvious danger connected with the defense employed by Pitt's character? Maybe I missed something.