lloydking85

As an Australian migrant, watching this series felt both familiar and unfamiliar. Familiar, because of some of the places depicted central to the plot (St. Vincent's, Hyde Park, Surry Hills, etc). Unfamiliar, because of the fear and stigma that was prevalent at that time (not that's fully gone in certain spaces even today). As a person who was not yet born at the start of the AIDS epidemic, a series like this can help some of us understand how far we have come and what it took to get here.

There were many parts of the series that filled the gaps in my head, or just things that I took for granted. Like the gallantry of the lesbians on bikes (yes, it's called differently, but it may be flagged as an offensive word without context). Or the level of engagement and involvement of the community when it comes to sexual health treatment, research and education that exists even today. Or the humble beginnings of organisations like ACON. All of these stories are impactful and profound to this day.

Another memorable aspect of the series was the occasional breakout into song that was emotive and didn't feel contrived in any way. There was also one scene portrayed at st. Vincent's chapel in the hospital in the last episode that was well written and portrayed.

However though, not a perfect show. One could always argue that the community wasn't represented enough. Granted, the vernacular in the early 80's wasn't as rich as it is today, so this could have been difficult, but not impossible. Although Tim Draxl played his role well enough, I was not convinced of the casting choice as he doesn't look like your average politician in Canberra. So that took a while to translate. There was also the politics of one particular state that got singled out, and I realised the series had the liberty to, as it was funded by that state. I'm not sure if other states escaped historical attention because of this. And lastly, the editing in the last episode could have been better - some predictable scenes could've been shortened or eliminated altogether to make it less protracted, but that may be my own take.

Overall though, a solid 9/10 for a memorable, thoughtful portrayal on the history of a painful subject in Australian (and much of the world's) history.

I haven't read the book and am therefore not making a comparison against the book.

As a zombie flick on the whole, it is definitely quite different. These are not the traditional slow moving, flesh tearing zombies reminiscent of the Walking Dead walkers or the more classical types. It's zombies v2.0, the faster ones, featured in Resident Evil 5 (the game) and the creatures from I Am Legend. So if you consider this expectation or aspect, then your experience with this movie might be different.

The severe lack of blood and biting also makes this movie depart from the classical sense. After all that's said and done, I actually did find this movie 'refreshing' from the usual zombie apocalypse movies. You didn't have large groups of people with a set of melodramatic characters who are quick to whine about every decision made by the group. There is also no cases of a group holed up in any place and surviving the apocalypse. Therefore, there's very less of the older zombie movie formula.

If, like me, you've got a good dose of classic zombie or zombie v1.0, then you might find this movie refreshing. Add to that, there are quite a number of intense moments that will keep you on the edge of your seat. There is also another interesting aspect that this film handles which is rarely ever dealt with in classic zombie flicks. I can't give that part away without revealing a spoiler.