MovieChat Forums > 28 Days Later (2003) Discussion > Not a zombie film

Not a zombie film

posted 11 years ago by nfrankis01
34 replies | jump to latest

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!

[–] Prismark10 11 years ago

Without getting too much involved with semantics it is a zombie film without the stereotypical zombies, but maybe it was such twists, with a low budget, British based twist that made it a hit.

Its that man again!!

[–] defensorvindexbrat 11 years ago

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.

I think its silly to ascribe to such a narrow definition of a "zombie". The actual term comes from voodoo mythology. A zombie is a human being resurrected by witchcraft usually as a servant. There's nothing in there about flesh eating or reproduction through exposure to bodily fluids to my knowledge. The word is just an approximation used by characters and audiences to describe the monsters. I think you could call them vampires and it would be just as accurate. Its not a hard and fast definition someone can get pedantic about.

Here's the funniest part. There is at least some controversial research that suggests that voodoo zombies could have basis in reality. The magical concoctions may actually actually psychoactive drugs that impairs a person's brain function so they can be manipulated by their master. If this proves true are you gonna say "they're not real zombies they're just infected"?

[–] actionmanrandell 11 years ago

calling them vampires would not be accurate because vampires have a very specific lore

they are generally undead creatures with increased strength speed and agility

but even then they have a very large base of lore that makes it impossible to call someone who is infected with a rage virus a vampire

[–] DrWalterBishop 11 years ago

They are no longer conscious. What is being alive, but having a concious. Without one all you are is a meatsuit.

My father always taught me to respect nature 'cause it has no respect for you. - Scully.

[–] actionmanrandell 11 years ago

Not all zombie movies have it to where they are undead creatures

and not all zombie lore has it that way.

28 days uses science to explain a zombie outbreak

those infected with Rage are in FACT zombies
you can deny it all you want
doesn't change the fact they are zombies

[–] theunknowntyper 11 years ago

You're all morons. How are they not zombies?
Zombies are not undead.

only undead zombies are undead.
Zombies need not be flesh-eaters... Gouls are flesh-eaters.

Romero's undead ghouls are a type of movie zombie... but they are not the definition of a zombie.

Mindless dronelike behaviour = zombie.

These are enraged living, zombified people.

This is a zombie film... it is not an undead ghoul film

"I am the equal and opposite reaction!" -Unknowntyper-

[–] jeffnova 10 years ago

This is one of my favorite zombie films.

[–] tobias_681 10 years ago

It is a zombie film. You're really just splitting hairs. The premise is the same: People that want to eat/attack other people and infect them by doing it. It doesn't matter if they're dead or not. The genre is the same. 28 days later will appeal to a person that likes zombie flicks and the other way around. Sure there is some social commentary in there but it's not like that's never been done in a zombie flick.

---

You see things; and you say Why? But I dream things that never were and I say Why not?

[–] briscut 10 years ago

It's a fracking zombie film, they're not REAL zombies you say? Well since zombies aren't real to begin with who's to say they aren't zombies in this film? Just seems to me they tried to bring some realism to the zombie fiasco. Let's see, how cam we try to explain the dead rising & eating people?? I got it! Let's make it a virus! Bam! Now you have mindless, crazed, cannibalistic people running on instincts to kill & eat....in other words, zombies.

[–] utfan62 10 years ago

I just don't see how anyone can say this is a zombie movie using the modern zombie mythology. It is zombie like in that it is apocolyptic with a few survivors hiding from the horde of rage infected people. These "zombies" are just people filled with rage. They can be killed like any other person. No headshot necessary. Also, they don't die to turn as all zombies I can think of do.
I still like the movie, the fact that they are not zombies is fine with me.

[–] Mel-g-966-183920 10 years ago

Close enough to Zombies to be considered a Zombie film. *shrugs* I consider it to be one. I've seen plenty of Zombie movies, and this is one of the best!