Where's the zany gore?

Rating: 5/10 (7 February 2014)

Hero gets chased; hero flies to new location; hero gets chased; hero flies to new location; hero gets chased; hero flies to new location and gets chased; hero has airplane titanium part stuck in his gut, but after extraction, fights on like a good camper; hero gets sick; zombies avoid the sick.
So much for the monotone plot and implausible ending. Of course, most zombie movies don't have a much more sophisticated plot, but they don't have the following problems: lack of zany gore, and pseudo mumbo-jumbo pretense of explaining zombies medically!
The 'zany' vs. pretentious part: this movie is 'serious' and attempts to elevate zombies to realistic status: it's a disease with an incubation time of 15 seconds, they can chase you at high pace, and lumber around only when dormant because no healthy victim is nearby, they can't be killed by disease because they have no circulating blood, etc. But the premise falls flat with inconsistencies. Too much BS pseudo-science. Like, why would the underlying disease bug prevent the host from biting a deadly sick human: after a 15 second incubation time, your circulation will cease and you'll be 'dead-alive' anyway. No evolutionary advantage here.
Speaking of Dead-Alive (also known as Braindead in Australia). Unlike Peter Jackson's masterpiece of zany zombie gore, this movie has no real zombie gore. Brains are bashed in - off-screen; hands are cut off - off-screen; etc - off-screen. Zombie movies are about ridiculous, all-out, gore. Not about pretentious, pseudo-medically-explained off-screen gore for the parentally accompanied pre-teen audience.
This film falls flat on all counts. No plot. No zany. No gore. Mucho pretense. It gets a 5 for reasonably professional production values and an OK chase scene here or there. It's mediocre, not awful. Go see 28 Days instead, a better entry in the 'serious' zombie genre that has cropped up of late.