28 days later by danny boyle can surely be seen as a horror movie. but one cannot be certain if it's a zombie movie. the filmmakers conciously avoid this term. in the film the zombie-like creatures are referred to as 'infected'. and of course the things don't act exactly like let's say romero's zombies (eg running around).

still i would put this movie in the zombie movie section. so, i'm interested in what you guys think.

Well, technically a zombie is a corpse brought back to life by a bokor (voodoo priest) so the enemy in 28DL are not zombies.

Also, in the film those who are infected don't die before they become rabid nutters, they just get a bit twitchy and tell their friends to get away from them.

Not that I've though about it much like.

All that said though, to the casual observer it probably is a zombie movie, people running from other slavering bloodthirsty folks will give them that impression.

P.S. You must never give a zombie salt or he will remember who he is.

To be honest,when I first read the review of this film I was really stoked,then upon watching it it showed alot of promise in the first 10 minutes..then...it fell flat on its face....will I ever watch it again?No...is it a horror movie?I don't think it is, more horrible than anything else.It is still amazing to me how many people rave about this tripe...I would rather watch a Franco movie than this one.I am just hoping the new Dawn of the Dead will not follow the same pattern.As far as a zombie movie...I thought they all had a virus or something..but I guess they are rotting away so it would be considered a zombie movie..just not a very good one.

not a zombie movie,not a good movie (although not a bad movie 6.5/10) it did promise a lot from the begining but went tits up as soon as the army lot got involved IMO and i definately hope DOTD will offer more for us when it's released soon

One thing I noticed about the new dawn,the zombies aren't walking around all slow and well...zombified..they are running around swiftly ala House fo the Dead and some of the others like 28 days later..A new thing for the Dead series...I am just hoping that it doesn't cheese out as my expectations are pretty damned high for this movie.Also I hope they put out an unconsored cut when it hits video but maybe I am asking to much here.The suppossed uncensored brittish cut of 28 days left me wondering what the hell they could have cut out in the first place...wasn't really all that gory imo.

I liked 28 days later, a good film, but not a classic, that I will watch again when on TV. This title sorta falls into the "watch when nothing else is on" bracket.

:edit: bollox forgot to say, no they aint zombies to those in the know like most of us, but to mere mortals and their frail intellects they prolly do appear to be the living dead. Me, I just think they all fucked up, but definitely not dead.

i think they are not zombies at all more like infected by a virus like the movie say they are... the virus make them go crazy... not dead.. this is the next step after the ebola virus..

didn't think was 2 bad a movie but def not zombies.

its a bit like resident evil to be honest, the difference is that in resident evil, the virus kill then reanimate. In the purest sense, dawn of the dead isn't a zombie movie, because zombies are animated by voodoo magic, they are the 'living dead', but I see them as zombies... the term has got redefined over the years

Evil Dead are sometimes called zombie movies which is just wrong... on so many levels, only someone who watches any of the films on mute and only see's clips of the corpses could think that. The people are possessed damn it!

Anyway, I'd say that no its not a zombie movie, but its close enough Tis like that episode of sliders all over again

Correct me if I am wrong but a zombie movie HAS TO HAVE ZOMBIES!!! Not "infected freaks".

One more point....

Bicycle curior vs the SAS...... (that film blows)

i prefer the pre-to-post-apocolyptic, slow moving, dead, walking slow corpses zombie films, like night, day, dawn. zombie, etc. these are ones i prefer, seeing the downfall of society, slowly, empty streets, etc.

return of the living dead has a kindof think along the lines of 28 days later, but they went with slapstick crapstick instead. basically indestructable, barely containable stupid jokes.

why didnt the raged zombies in 28 attack other raged zombies? that bugged me. and how do zombies in any movie tell other people from zombies. i liked in the mummy(i think) were the dude just pretended and whent with the crowd.

still 28 days later had a scene that sticks out in my mind as tense, running up the stairs while the infected kept chugging up after him. man, if anyone has run past thier endurance breaking point due to fear of death, they can relate.

I would think 28 days later fit the zombie genre just thru the whole downfall from within of society, friends suddenly turned into unknown strangers bent on killing you ziippy quik.
i guess if you were to broaden that slightly, invasion of the body snatchers could be considered a zombie film, or invisible invaders.
on the other hand, when thinking of zombie films, how many even consider 'i walked with a zombie' or even 'serpent and the rainbow'.
the semi modern zombie has divirged from it's origins, much like vampires had, to make them more easily packaged and sold to the movie viewing/video game tie in consumer market.

eh, who knows what tetrodotoxin is?

I think *everyone* prefers those, correct me if I'm wrong anyone. But I can't see anyone arguing that those are the best and most enjoyable

I would indeed concur Mr spud, that vision of the future is what I am spending my life preparing for. Cricket bats and swingballs at the readt ppl, here they come.

Its definietly a zombie film. The monsters aren't zombies, but the structure of the film follows Dawn and Day too closely to not be in the same group (but the first "waking in the hiospital" scenes reminded me of the BBC Day of the Triffids). And I thought it was exceptionally well done. Nice to see Danny Boyle do something good, again.

you should see the original instead. I thought it was much better. The BBC version was a little flawed because of the small budget. As they only show small places (backyards, rooms ect), it feels a little claustophobic and fake, whereas the original movie had alot of London totally deserted. A great effect.

Another thing with the BBC version: the 80s, ah WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? The actors weren't that ugly in the original.

don't know which of these was the real link:
ed2k: Day_Of_The_Triffids_(1962).(DVD).[www.the-realworld.de].avi  [669.30 Mb] [Stats]
ed2k: The_Day_Of_The_Triffids_(DivX_5)_by_Ganjaman.avi  [700.68 Mb] [Stats]

[ Add all 2 links to your ed2k client ]

I've seen the original. I liked the BBC version because it had more scope. It felt like it told more of a story. The advantage of mini-series, I guess.

@chadman

It isn't a zombie film... as it dose not have zombies. Undead, reanimated corpses, the living dead.... .. . ZOMBIES. It is just a rip of unimaginative peace of garbage.

I was so upset with this film. I mean I was really looking forward to it and bang .... He is a cycle curiour.... they are the SAS.. a bicycle CURIOUR.

PS:- Hacking her mate up with the machete... was the one saving grace.

old school = voodoo
semi modern zombie = Romero and the more punky ROTLD-version
modern zombie = Resident Evil and Dawn remake,but also things like Undead....

But 28 Days is not a zombie-movie although it has most of the features like Day of the Dead(dead empty cities,military camp,"zombie" or "infected" on a leash,etc..),it still lacks walking dead(!) bodies...

btw,would you say those guys from "Versus" are zombies??
Technically they would qualify,they are dead returning to life...


That's the poison of a "Fugu"-fish...