What killed it for me

He didn't miss out on "a pretty damn good little horror" at all! While this movie may have been better than a lot of other recent Australian attempts at B movies OP did the right thing here by bailing early. It was below average, genre confused (straight out horror or horror/comedy, failing competently at both) and forgettable.
And no, you are most definitely NOT right with your B&W analogy! Two very different scenarios. OP couldn't get into the movie because credibility was blown by the way the creatures were portrayed. Totally valid reason for him to dismiss this movie early on! Your analogy? Dumb!
You missed OP's point entirely and your response was really quite moronic.

He missed out on nothing but 90 minutes of squandered potential, false promises and fartbreath idiocy and you're out of your mind for comparing this in any way to Schindler's List.

Imagine you're a Dracula fan. You grew up reading Bram Stokers Dracula and watching all the classics both old and new, then you come across a vampire movie on Netflix so you start watching it only to realise 5 minutes in the vampires don't suck blood by biting into the jugular with their fanged teeth but instead a tongue shoots out and attaches itself to the victim. Or maybe when the vampires die they make a gurgling sound and turn into a puddle of green goo.
You were wanting and expecting the vampires you know and love and even though it's only 5 minutes into the movie, you know you're never going to be able to enjoy the rest of this particular flick. That's not to say others won't, because others surely will, but it's not for you and you have a valid reason to dismiss it based upon your criteria of what makes this particular subject matter enjoyable for you.

So many diverse people out there with different needs, desires, dreams and expectations. It's what makes the world interesting. For instance, for some people a Zombie has to follow certain rules to be believable as a Zombie. I believe these people are called purists.
Stop being so ignorant, open up a bit and realise their are all sorts of different people out there with different tastes, ideas and outlooks from you.
I didn't think in 2015 it was possible to run into a person with such a limited grasp on how diverse our species has become. There are 7 billion people on the planet now, not 1 billion. It's not the 19th century anymore Zeke.

LOL. I stopped reading the rest of his post because of that.

I never once demanded realism. It's a zombie movie lol. But when a zombie makes lion sounds and animal noises to me it just turns into unintentional comedy. I don't care if the zombie walk, run, or crawl but the moment it sounds like I just started watching the lion king I can't go on. Zombie's are scarier to me when they make the least possible noise. That way you don't always know where they are. These low budget Scify channel type zombie movies cast aside any scare factor they might have had when they go for cheap sound effects and just go for loud noises and action.

Says the dumbass whining and crying because other people don't like the fartbreath idiocy of this mediocre movie.

Next time I'm on Netflix I'll give it another try. I just get so turned off of zombie movies when the zombies make sounds like that.

I hate getting into this, but any time anyone pulls out the "technically the things in 28 Days Later... are not zombies" I get so annoyed and I need to counter that technically the Romero zombies are not "zombies" either. It's an argument I've made for years now and I see a lot of people catching on, but calling the living dead "zombies" has always been a misnomer. It's late, I'm tired and frankly it's not my job, but if you need to, research the etymology of the word zombie. What I mean to say is the infected in 28 Days Later... are as much "zombies" as the living dead in Dawn of the Dead or the things we see in this film because, in order to call the Romero things "zombies", you really need to be loose with your definition. Then, are the "zombies" in Return of the Living Dead not legit because they don't stop moving once the brain is struck? And who decides? Hopefully not the idiots who made World War Z into that horrific film- please don't let them decide.

Wyrmwood was quirky and fun. Is it an instant classic? No, not by my standards, but it was fun enough to sit through. Aside from the vapors the creatures produce, there's very little that makes the story unique. I liked the idea of injecting an immune individual with infected blood, but her then seeing through their eyes and controlling them...? yeah, that was a bit much in my book, but the actress was far too attractive to stop watching, so I sat through the whole film despite my objections. Did I love it? No, but I don't regret watching it and if a sequel comes I'll watch that one too.

What I won't accept are these people saying "it's Mad Max meets Dawn of the Dead"! Costumes and one truck aside, there was nothing Mad Max about it. See, the problem is Wyrmwood was a bit too confused with what it really wanted to be, but it had the raw material and it made a solid effort to be unique. Enough of an effort that I believe it earns a viewing or two by anyone who enjoys the genre- then they can decide if it sucks or not.

How silly to watch five minutes and then whinge. It's a good film worth watching