Stereotype with a difference.

Rating: 8/10 (23 June 2013)

I've not read the book but the movie made me want to give it a glance. The outbreak of an epidemic, an apocalyptic scenario, people running and hiding (the scary parts) and the protagonists searching for a solution; this would be a bird's eye view of the movie, as such a stereotype, but for me it was the details that did the trick, the plot had a certain realism to it (kind of like a serious version of Zombieland) and the execution and acting is good, enough to engage and even make one eager for a sequel.
To elaborate, instead of a horde of zombies always chasing people around, there was some sense to the way things played out, how everyday behaviour could become a mistake and a cause of death (like a ringing cellphone when you are hiding from zombies who are sensitive primarily to noise) and how the fortification that kept a city safe could also turn it into a hell-hole. Even the temporary solution to curb the spread seemed sensible also it seemed reasonable that people were given priority (for safe harbour) not on the basis of rank and power but their usefulness in dealing with the situation. The protagonist wasn't a 'live on the edge', 'save all' hero but had practical reasons to risk his life (each time).
The acting was good if not stellar (I felt Pitt was too much like Keanu Reeves) and the visual effects were good but not the best. On the whole I found it entertaining and worth the time, a serious (almost) no nonsense thrill ride.