Not a zombie film


I love this film.
A decent British film that isn't either a period drama or cockney gangster film.
However, I hear people say to me 'hey, I hear you like zombie films!, have you seen 28 days later?'.......after The red mist has cleared I try to explain to them that ow can this be a zombie film.....zombies are people that has died and then come back from the dead, yet these unfortunate souls have been infected with rage.....they have not died ergo not a zombie.

------------------
Where to now Kessler?.....Ducks Breath!

reply

Right. It's an apocalyptic film. However I see several comparisons to this film and The Walking Dead, which IS a zombie series. They are also infected and die for a few seconds before they become Walkers. So the distinction is subtle.

reply

Talk about splitting hairs. Regardless if they are truly zombies it is completely reasonable to recomend this film to some one who likes zombie movies.

reply

28 Days Later is not only a Zombie Movie but it is perhaps the archetypal Zombie Movie.

This is about as formulaic as it gets for a Zombie Flick.

To suggest otherwise is tantamount to saying that something like 'Bruno' isn't a comedy just because it's not funny.


reply

There zombies.

reply

Where?

reply

There Zombie.

There wolf.

There castle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQQtgx4iG8E

reply

There zombies.


I see what you did their.

reply

Ha. I see what you did they're two.

reply

[deleted]

To describe it as a 'zombie' film isn't 100% accurate, sure, but it does give the uninitiated a point of reference. The Infected don't seem to kill in order to eat the living, as in post-Romero zombie flicks. However, the Infected do attack the non-infected savagely like the prototype Romero zombie. Its interesting that Eccleston's character notes that the reason they maintain an Infected on the grounds is to observe how long it will take one to die from hunger. If Infected don't feed on either the living or dead, what DO they eat?!

As for 'splitting hairs', lol, if one had to be etymologically precise, 'the dead which feed on the living' are ghouls; while 'zombi' are, in the West Indian tradition, a reanimated dead body which doesn't necessarily feed on anything.

Blame Romero for muddying up the waters, as it were! lol.

reply

Except Romero doesn't use the word zombie, other people applied it later. And since voodoo zombies a la Serpent and the Rainbow were technically still living and existed before Romero, then technically 28 Days could qualify as a zombie film. I don't think of them as zombies either, but I don't go getting all pissy about it like OP.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Its a zombie film without zombies. Look up the behind the scenes, or the triva here on imdb. They were trying to make a more modern and realistic zombie movie.

reply

I agree that it matters that they are not zombies. The fact that walkers in the Walking Dead are indeed dead adds a level of supernatural creepiness that 28 Days Later lacks. In The Walking Dead, it really does seem like the judgment of God or something. It's supernatural. 28 Days Later is manmade.

The difference is meaningful.

Some people may like any film with infected, mindless former people trying to bite or eat other people, but there is a difference between those infected by a virus made my man and those who may be changed by some supernatural influence.

Are the reevers in Firefly zombies?

What about the dark seekers in I am Legend?

What if the infected maintained their self-awareness and could speak but were just just ultraviolent like Alex in A Clockwork Orange? Is Alex a zombie?

reply

the dark seekers in I am Legend are Vampires

in both the book and the movie

reply

What if the infected maintained their self-awareness and could speak but were just just ultraviolent

The key element, I think, is lack of self-awareness. The zombies of legend aren't following their own will, but are controlled by the bokor who created them. Romero's zombies (originally referred to as "ghouls") have no minds of their own, they're just puppets to whatever force reanimated them - but then neither do Boyle's Infected, since the Rage virus makes them incapable of rational thought, and they're guided by nothing but elevated aggression. To offer another example, the creatures in The Last of Us go through several stages of infection, becoming less and less human as they go. By the time they reach the "clicker" stage they arguably don't even have a brain any more.

The common thread is that it's a body operating without a mind of its own, which I see as the defining trait of a "zombie". It's got nothing to do with whether or not it's breathing, or how violent it is, or whether the force that created it is supernatural.

Whedon's Reavers are sometimes lumped into the zombie category due to the hyper-aggressive way they behaved in the Serenity film, but in the Firefly TV show they were implied (since they never actually appeared on screen) to be extremely brutal and methodical sadists rather than raging berserkers. The "dark seekers" (stupid name) in I Am Legend are extremely primitive, but if you follow the plot thread regarding the alpha male and his mate - which was set up in the original version of the film, and then discarded in the ridiculous tacked-on "hand grenade" ending - they're clearly capable of rational thought.

The Borg from Star Trek are hard to define, since they think rationally but are part of a hive mind, so each individual drone is technically operating without a kind of its own. I tend to think of them as "cyber-zombies" of a sort, though your mileage may vary.

reply






It's a zombie film. Get used to it.






Calvin Candie: You sir are a sore loser
Dr. King Schultz:And you are an abysmal winner

reply