• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Zombie movie recommendations!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nash said:
But the zombie genre *needed* reinventing though, it had become played out a long time ago from far too many similar films, a lot of amateurish shit, and an all-too-willingness to fall-back on comedy. Which is far easier to pull-off than effective horror.

The genre had become self-parodying, I'm glad 28 Days Later shook things up a bit.
Click to expand...

It did need to get shaken up, and yes, 28DL might have done that, but it doesn't mean that it was a zombie film.
 
Tedesco! said:
It did need to get shaken up, and yes, 28DL might have done that, but it doesn't mean that it was a zombie film.
Click to expand...

Okay, fine. 28 Days Later isn't a zombie film. It's a zombie-esque film that a fan of zombie films would probably enjoy. In fact, it's so zombie-esque a film that zombie fans would so obviously enjoy, folks may just refer to it as a "zombie film". This may not be entirely accurate, but it's excellent shorthand for a style of horror film, so let's all agree to let it slide if folks apply the zombie label inaccurately. Can we stop debating zombie semantics now?

FnordChan
 
n-off said:
Stacy

cover.jpg
Click to expand...
ignore this
 
Does "Dead Alive" count? I've only seen it once, a while ago, and while I KNOW there were zombies in it, I don't remember if they talk or not. I know they...uh...have sex, though... That and it's likely the goriest movie I've ever seen. (But funny-gross gore, not disgusting painful gore like Dawn and Day have)
 
WordAssassin said:
Does "Dead Alive" count? I've only seen it once, a while ago, and while I KNOW there were zombies in it, I don't remember if they talk or not. I know they...uh...have sex, though... That and it's likely the goriest movie I've ever seen. (But funny-gross gore, not disgusting painful gore like Dawn and Day have)
Click to expand...


Brain Dead is the uncut version of Dead Alivce.
 
The whole "28 Days later is not a zombie movie" bs is possibly the most anal thing I've ever heard. I'm sure it was just the directors take on "Zombies". He simply gave the formula a more realistic twist, being that it was caused by a virus. Personally, I think 28 Days Later is one of the most brilliant zombie movies ever made. :)
 
Leatherface said:
The whole "28 Days later is not a zombie movie" bs is possibly the most anal thing I've ever heard. I'm sure it was just the directors take on "Zombies". He simply gave the formula a more realistic twist, being that it was caused by a virus. Personally, I think 28 Days Later is one of the most brilliant zombie movies ever made. :)
Click to expand...
Well, you're fucking retarded :)
 
This zombie arguement happens every time!

The dictionary sez:

1. A snake god of voodoo cults in West Africa, Haiti, and the southern United States.
2.
1. A supernatural power or spell that according to voodoo belief can enter into and reanimate a corpse.
2. A corpse revived in this way.
3. One who looks or behaves like an automaton.
4. A tall mixed drink made of various rums, liqueur, and fruit juice.
 
Tedesco! said:
I just can't abide talking zombies. I still fail to see why a lot of fans get upset over running zombies and learning zombie, but no one says anything about talking zombies. Stupid.
Click to expand...
Return is more a comedy in my book so it can get away with the zombies doing about anything.
 
Aren't there two more Return movies coming out soon? 4 and 5? One is about punk zombies and the other is about XTREME SKATER ZOMBIES ZOMG? Or did I just describe only one of the two? Perhaps the other took place in space...

Edit:

Return of the Living Dead 4: Necropolis

Return of the Living Dead 5: Rave to the Grave

RAVE TO THE FUCKING GRAVE. :lol
 
Ecrofirt said:
?

You're the one who has no clue what a friggin zombie is.
Click to expand...


Yeah!! I'm so STUPID!!! I'm mean omfg, right?!! Zombies are like dead and these zombie imposters are just diseased people!!! It definately belongs in the "Diseased" movie category! It's like Outbreak but different!!!!!!11!!
 
Perhaps there is no diseased category,true, but you did hit the nail on the head: zombies are dead and the people in 28 Days Later are not. And I don't believe Boyle ever went and said that his movie was a zombie movie, that's more of the critics doing.

Look, I'm not trying to refute 28 Days Later as a good movie. I think it is a good movie, I just don't think it's a zombie movie. There are basic rules to what is a zombie, and 28 Days Later doesn't meet any of them. The people don't die in order to turn, you get infected just by being exposed to the blood, and the infected die within a month or so due to hunger and/or dehydration. To me that doesn't say zombie. No one rises from the dead. Hell, they don't even eat people, they just try to tear them apart.

And yes, I know that the screenwriters were inspired by the Romero films. Lucas was inspired by Akira Kurosawa, and used some of his elements, but I don't see Star Wars being taught in any Asian Film classes.

The premise of the movie spells it out clearly: Man creates virus that enduces rage. Virus escapes into the city, infecting the majority of the population. Those who aren't infected try and survive. Eventually they win because the infected die off. That is not a zombie film.

I still don't see why people think this film is a zombie film, and when I ask (see post #63) I get answers like the clever one from Leatherface. What makes this film a zombie film? I'm not being confrontational. I want to know your opinion.

Rumor has it that Boyle is doing a sequel, hopefully he'll shed some light on this tired subject.
 
Land of the dead ofcourse. Fucking brilliant and might just be my favourite among Romero`s.

Another I`ve not seen mentioned yet is Let sleeping corspes lie. Quite good and very overlooked. And Versus ofcourse.

I just saw a movie called Stink of the flesh, VERY lowbudget but it had some nice ideas and was ok.

Now I`m about to see a french one called They came back, which promise to be quite different.
 
If you really want to be technical, the only REAL zombie movie mentioned on this thread was The Serpent and the Rainbow, seeing that the Hatian version of zombies is the lead definition in the dictionary.

Night of the Living Dead is not a real zombie movie!!!!!! :lol
 
Tedesco! said:
Perhaps there is no diseased category,true, but you did hit the nail on the head: zombies are dead and the people in 28 Days Later are not. And I don't believe Boyle ever went and said that his movie was a zombie movie, that's more of the critics doing.

Look, I'm not trying to refute 28 Days Later as a good movie. I think it is a good movie, I just don't think it's a zombie movie. There are basic rules to what is a zombie, and 28 Days Later doesn't meet any of them. The people don't die in order to turn, you get infected just by being exposed to the blood, and the infected die within a month or so due to hunger and/or dehydration. To me that doesn't say zombie. No one rises from the dead. Hell, they don't even eat people, they just try to tear them apart.

And yes, I know that the screenwriters were inspired by the Romero films. Lucas was inspired by Akira Kurosawa, and used some of his elements, but I don't see Star Wars being taught in any Asian Film classes.

The premise of the movie spells it out clearly: Man creates virus that enduces rage. Virus escapes into the city, infecting the majority of the population. Those who aren't infected try and survive. Eventually they win because the infected die off. That is not a zombie film.

I still don't see why people think this film is a zombie film, and when I ask (see post #63) I get answers like the clever one from Leatherface. What makes this film a zombie film? I'm not being confrontational. I want to know your opinion.

Rumor has it that Boyle is doing a sequel, hopefully he'll shed some light on this tired subject.
Click to expand...

Well, since Zombies (as we know them in movies) are fictional characters, I would expect there are no real clear cut rules as you have attempted to lay out for us. That fact remains that one way or another a large number of once civil human beings have turned into a horde of blood thirsty, human attacking creatures that just happen to exhibit many of the same characteristics of other Zombie movies. Now you can argue with me until you're blue in the face, but there is no way you are going to convince me this isn't a zombie movie. Sure, the method in which the film is presented to us as an audience is not typical (thank god. It's ok to deviate from the formula one guy started for christ sake). Yes, the zombies run, die off from natural causes, transmit their "disease" in a different way etc... The effect/premise however is exactly the same... A small group of people trying to survive against great odds as they fight off hordes of "zombies" while escaping to freedom.
 
This could all be avoided with a disclaimer:

"While not technically a zombie movie, 28 Days Later is another recommendation. It's close enough to be considered."

Then the anal types can have their say and 28 Days Later can be listed among the movies where it belongs. It does *not* belong with the Plague pics-- I am a fan of that genre too, and 28 Days Later is much more of a Zombie movie with Plaugue aspects than the other way around.
 
Leatherface said:
Now you can argue with me until you're blue in the face
Click to expand...

I never was. I was just asking for clarification because you weren't making any argument except "It is!". You've stated your case, I think it's wrong, so we'll agree to disagree. Let's move on.
 
Tedesco! said:
Perhaps there is no diseased category,true, but you did hit the nail on the head: zombies are dead and the people in 28 Days Later are not. And I don't believe Boyle ever went and said that his movie was a zombie movie, that's more of the critics doing.

...

I still don't see why people think this film is a zombie film, and when I ask (see post #63) I get answers like the clever one from Leatherface. What makes this film a zombie film? I'm not being confrontational. I want to know your opinion.
Click to expand...

Without wanting to go round in circles with this, this is my wood / trees point. Instead of focusing on the details of what constitutes a 'zombie' look at the big picture.

Boyle said he saw the zombie genre as being a product of the nuclear paranoia of the time, and about the fear of what the radiation and radiation sickness might do to us if there was a nuclear war. Post-apocalyptic scenarios where a small number of survivors have to survive against the odds. But times have changed, and he wanted to play into current modern-day fears - AIDS, ebola etc. He only said he didn't want it referred to as a zombie film in the marketing because he was worried that it would put people off seeing it, because people by now had such a set view of what a zombie film is. This thread proves that point really.

For me a zombie film isn't specifically about the undead, it's about trying to survive when faced with a population who have turned into something that is now driven to hunt down those who haven't turned.
 
Nash said:
Without wanting to go round in circles with this, this is my wood / trees point. Instead of focusing on the details of what constitutes a 'zombie' look at the big picture.

Boyle said he saw the zombie genre as being a product of the nuclear paranoia of the time, and about the fear of what the radiation and radiation sickness might do to us if there was a nuclear war. Post-apocalyptic scenarios where a small number of survivors have to survive against the odds. But times have changed, and he wanted to play into current modern-day fears - AIDS, ebola etc. He only said he didn't want it referred to as a zombie film in the marketing because he was worried that it would put people off seeing it, because people by now had such a set view of what a zombie film is. This thread proves that point really.

For me a zombie film isn't specifically about the undead, it's about trying to survive when faced with a population who have turned into something that is now driven to hunt down those who haven't turned.
Click to expand...

well said.
 
Nash said:
For me a zombie film isn't specifically about the undead, it's about trying to survive when faced with a population who have turned into something that is now driven to hunt down those who haven't turned.
Click to expand...


I'll ditto that.
 
Didn't feel like starting ANOTHER zombie thread, just thought this was kinda neat:
http://fangoria.com/store/product.php?id=479
Zombie Survival Kit

20 ft. length of custom "CAUTION: ZOMBIE OUTBREAK" barrier tape
4 warning/hazard signs (5 _" x 8 _")
8 warning/hazard stickers
8 Zombie Classification trading cards
8 Z.E.R.O. branch/equipment cards
2 Zombie Disposal toe tags
1 "IN CASE OF ZOMBIE ATTACK" information poster (11" x 17")
1 "BITE KIT" (disinfectant pad, adhesive bandage, cotton swabs)
1 Z.E.R.O. identification lapel button (1" diam.)
1 glow-in-the-dark Z.E.R.O. logo sticker (2" diam.)

PLUS! BONUS CD-ROM "Electronic Training Supplement", including Shockwave shooting gallery and desktop themes!

The stickers and yellow barrier tape are cool as balls.
 
The three types of Zombies according to this site :

Hollywood (or Pittsburg) Zombies:

These are found in zombie B-movies. Their defining feature is that they are dead, but "reanimated". They are typically rather mean, and fond of human flesh. The zombies pictured on this page are mostly Hollywood zombies (though I'm informed that the one at the bottom is really a ghost demon). An expert tells me that the name should be "Pittsburgh zombies", since the most important zombie movies were made in Pittsburgh, but somehow it doesn't have the same ring.
Click to expand...

Hatian Zombies:

These are found in the voodoo (or vodou) tradition in Haiti. Their defining feature seems to be that they lack free will, and perhaps lack a soul. Haitian zombies were once normal people, but underwent zombification by a "bokor" through spell or potion, and are afterwards used as slaves.
Click to expand...

Philosophical Zombies:

These are found in philosophical articles on consciousness. Their defining features is that they lack conscious experience, but are behaviorally (and often physically) identical to normal humans.
Click to expand...
 
Okay, now that the whole inevitable 28 Days Later thing is out of the way, I need some help.

I've been wanting to pick up the original Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead on DVD for a while now, but there's too many to choose from. What I've worked out as the best are the Millennium Edition (tombstone on the cover) for Night and the Ultimate Edition for Dawn. I don't even think I've seen Dawn (I may have as a child) so I'm really looking forward to picking it up.

Now, for the Millennium Ed of Night, Amazon.ca says it's fullscreen. Was the theatrical version matted or something? Is there no widescreen release of it? Considering I can walk into Walmart and pick up a cheaper version of Night for $2 since it's public domain now, I want to make sure I'm getting the best possible release with the Millennium disc since it runs around $26 CDN.

For Dawn, there's a ton of different versions. Is the Ultimate Edition really worth the hefty price tag? How does the Divimax version stack up? What's the deal with all the other releases? Help meeee!
 
The ME is the best Night out there, and yes, it's fullscreen. If memory serves correctly, it's how it was shot (Like Kubric's stuff) The Dawn boxed set is the best for that film.
 
The ME is the best Night out there, and yes, it's fullscreen. If memory serves correctly, it's how it was shot (Like Kubric's stuff) The Dawn boxed set is the best for that film.
Click to expand...

K, thanks for the info. I found some good reviews on DVDtalk too. Both shall be ordered.
 
OK, so I just bought Night for $1 at Wal Mart the other day. It's nice having it on DVD as well as VHS.

What makes this Millenium Edition version so much better?

And how is Savini's version of the film?
 
What makes this Millenium Edition version so much better?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, it's the one Romero supports. No stupid added scenes like the 30th Anniversary Edition, two commentary tracks (including the man himself) and some other various extras. I haven't seen any of the public domian produced editions, but it's bound to have better video quality. There's more info in DVD Talk's review.

As for Savini's remake, as a film I thought it was very good. I can't compare it to the original though since I saw that when I was a wee bairn and can't really remember all the little details.
 
Ecrofirt said:
OK, so I just bought Night for $1 at Wal Mart the other day. It's nice having it on DVD as well as VHS.

What makes this Millenium Edition version so much better?

And how is Savini's version of the film?
Click to expand...


Pretty much what he said regarding the ME. It's the most polished version out there, and well worth the coin. The Savini remake was good in my opinion, I didn't mind the minor tinkering that they did. I also believe the remake was done to secure a copyright for the film? I have heard Romero makes comments to that effect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Recommendations for really good medieval movies with a lot of combat
42
2K
Disciple of MSSP replied
Favourite movie released in 2025?
47
640
Hugare replied
What’s your favorite Gundam series/movie?
35
314
Coconutt replied
Pollock (The Movie)
4
301
rm082e replied
  • Poll
Is Die Hard a Christmas Movie?
2
83
656
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
Top Bottom