As zombie movies go I would say its probably just about average (but in a genre befouled with cheap nastiness thats not a brilliant compliment). It makes some mistakes tonally (adding humour where its really not needed and not even that well) but would otherwise be just a very forgettable, straight to dvd genre piece.
The problem, which would have been very easily avoided, is claiming this film has any connection to the Romero classic. The script, the characters, the setting and just about any measure you want to make are at least 99% different from the original film. There was no need to draw a comparison with the original Day of The Dead film but in doing so the makers invited a comparison and came up wanting. I think this is why the film received such a critical mauling from zombie fans and can only be motivated by the desire to make a few more bucks. Without the Romero remake angle this would have just been an average and anonymous zombie movie (assuming it got made at all) but now looks all the worse for it.
Dawn of the Dead was a superb effort, I thought. It was still inferior to the original but managed to balance keeping the same setting while trying to do something new. The Italian Job also springs to mind. The remake could have been an okayish (but probably anonymous) heist movie, but by calling it a remake of the original classic - when it had almost nothing in common apart from the mini's - just made it look very poor by comparison. Its all worth it if it gets those few extra dollars it seems.
This week I have been mostly reading: Blues For Bird by Martin Gray