Best Zombie Movie of All Time?!

I saw Night of the Living Dead 1990 a few days ago. It was a pretty good remake.
 
No doubt, Romero's ( The Original ) NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD & DAWN OF THE DEAD. SHAUN OF THE DEAD comes in for third, then RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD. And although it's not a movie, THE WALKING DEAD should receive honorable mention.

28 Days Later is not a zombie movie.
 
Romero lost some cred to me with the skyscraper Dennis Hopper one...zombies were shrugging off .50 cal rounds, got a little stupid.
 
I saw Night of the Living Dead 1990 a few days ago. It was a pretty good remake.

That was the first zombie movie that I ever watched, been hooked ever since. I really like the original version as well.
 
No doubt, Romero's ( The Original ) NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD & DAWN OF THE DEAD. SHAUN OF THE DEAD comes in for third, then RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD. And although it's not a movie, THE WALKING DEAD should receive honorable mention.

28 Days Later is not a zombie movie.

I agree with the bold part. In a similar note, I'd give honorable mention to Dead Set. I watched that last Halloween. A very good British miniseries.

About the whole "Running Zombies vs Walking Zombies" debate. I read a very good explanation which uses both styles in the same "story". I think it was The Zombie Survival Guide, or maybe a Zombie Survival poster. Anyway, it said that when they're first animated, zombies are as fast and nearly as coordinated as they were in life. Then when rigor sets in, they become stiff and slow. Once the muscles relax again, they become faster (almost as fast as when they were first animated). But as their bodies rot and decompose, they become slower and less coordinated. That's when they're your stereotypical slow walking zombies.

I don't know for sure, but I think they might use that system for the upcoming World War Z.
 
I agree with the bold part. In a similar note, I'd give honorable mention to Dead Set. I watched that last Halloween. A very good British miniseries.

About the whole "Running Zombies vs Walking Zombies" debate. I read a very good explanation which uses both styles in the same "story". I think it was The Zombie Survival Guide, or maybe a Zombie Survival poster. Anyway, it said that when they're first animated, zombies are as fast and nearly as coordinated as they were in life. Then when rigor sets in, they become stiff and slow. Once the muscles relax again, they become faster (almost as fast as when they were first animated). But as their bodies rot and decompose, they become slower and less coordinated. That's when they're your stereotypical slow walking zombies.

I don't know for sure, but I think they might use that system for the upcoming World War Z.

Dead Set was quite good indeed. Your explanation is interesting. It's still important to notice that infected people (like the ones in 28 days and 28 weeks) are not zombies. In the dawn of the dead remake, they show fast zombies. And they truly are zombies, regardless of their speed.

It's not the speed actually that makes them being zombies or infected. It's the nature of their existence. Living dead are zombies, regardless of their speed. Infected people are not dead in the first place.
 
I've been a fan of the zombie genre for many years now. But it always seems to be the same thing over, group of survivors hold up in some kind of shelter to fend of hordes of the undead. This seems to be repeating thing in nearly every zombie film, which is okay with me still, but I'd like to see a different take on the zombie film. Can anyone recommend a film which strays from this particular formula?
 
I've been a fan of the zombie genre for many years now. But it always seems to be the same thing over, group of survivors hold up in some kind of shelter to fend of hordes of the undead. This seems to be repeating thing in nearly every zombie film, which is okay with me still, but I'd like to see a different take on the zombie film. Can anyone recommend a film which strays from this particular formula?

Try those ones:

* deadheads. it's a zomcom, but a great one, very clever and well acted. The two heroes are intelligent zombies, trying to survive, and one of them is searching his loved one.

* zombie honeymoon. sad movie. The husband is biten by a zombie, and is slowly becoming one himself.

* zombies anonymous. Intelligent zombies, trying to work. They are victim of racism (or zombism, for lack of a better word), and vigilantes are hunting them down.

* I, zombie. It's about a dude who is becoming a zombie. Like zombie honeymoon, it"s written as if he was ill actually, rather than becoming a zombie.

* I don't remember the english title, but "the living dead" is about a guy who comes back from vietnam, and everyone thinks he's weird. Actually, he's a zombie.

These are different from your usual zombie movie. You could also try the serpent and the rainbow. It deals with the original voodoo zombies.
 
Savini's 'Dead' remake. That's the proper pace. Snyders zombies were more athletic than Kobe Bryant (No thanks).

"We could walk right through them." - Barbara.
 
I'd say the original Dawn of the Dead.

On the topic of 28 Days Later and its ilk, while not a bout the living dead, the film is dealing heavilly with the same tropes as other zombie films, not men Days has direct references to Day of the Dead.
 
Anyone seen Juan of the Dead? I hear it's good.
 
Léo Ho Tep;24283109 said:
Dead Set was quite good indeed. Your explanation is interesting. It's still important to notice that infected people (like the ones in 28 days and 28 weeks) are not zombies. In the dawn of the dead remake, they show fast zombies. And they truly are zombies, regardless of their speed.

It's not the speed actually that makes them being zombies or infected. It's the nature of their existence. Living dead are zombies, regardless of their speed. Infected people are not dead in the first place.

To paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi, it all depends on your point of view.

I believe the intent of the film makers who made 28 Days & 28 Weeks was to make a "realistic" zombie movie. In real life, the dead cannot simply get up and walk away. Especially the long dead, rotting corpses. I mean, a person could be "clinically dead" for a minute or two and be brought back through CPR or with difibulators. But that doesn't make them zombies. So they came up with "The Rage Virus" which causes the infected to behave very "zombie like". Which could be interpreted as being a zombie movie.

At least, that's how I see them. If you wish to see them from another point of view, that's your decision. However your opinion on what does or does not make a zombie movie is just that, your opinion. It's your point of view. It's no more valid than anyone else's.

And for the record, I never said I thought the speed a zombie moves is what makes it a zombie. I simply gave a quasi-scientific reason why some zombies might run while others stumble about all uncoordinated like. As to which I find scarier? They're both scary in their own way. The running zombies are scary because they put you in immediate danger. While the slow moving zombies are scary because of their relentlessness, and their weak appearance. One or two slow moving zombies are easy to beat. If a couple dozen of them surround you? That's a whole other ballgame.

:sbr:

But back to the question at hand. I once saw a zombie movie about 25 years ago. It was about a bunch of tourists visiting an old European castle which had been converted into a country inn. Then the dead rose from their graves and attacked the castle. I think the movie was called "Island Of The Dead". I remember one of the characters was a teenaged boy with serious Edipus issues. He gets bitten, becomes a zombie, then kills his mother by biting her nipple off. I remember that none of the living characters survived, and the last one killed was the most annoying character on the island. She wouldn't stop screaming from the moment she saw her first zombie. At the very end of the movie there were all these rotting zombie hands reaching for her and she was screaming "Nooo! Noooo! Noooo!" My mom, my sister, and I were all screaming "Yes! Yes! Yes!"
 
Anyone remember this? Still creeps me out.

[YT]39szQy3TcH4[/YT]
 
Does the Re-Animator also count as a zombie film? If so, it would definitely in my top ten list.

That was the first zombie movie that I ever watched, been hooked ever since. I really like the original version as well.
Yes, it was pretty good, though it had some stupid ass characters.
 
I felt dawn of the dead had the best combination of horror and humor/satire that a good zombie movie should have.

Still my favorite zack snyder film we'll see if MOS can change that.
 
I never could buy the whole " dead reanimated by a virus theory". It seems like every since " Resident Evil " and " World War Z ", the whole Zombies being caused by a virus thing has been the explanation lately. Kinda lazy if you ask me, like Marvel's " I have super powers because I was born with a mutant gene explanation. " I prefer my zombies revived by supernatural, alien, chemical, radiation, etc, instead of virus, or better yet, no explanation at all.
 
I never could buy the whole " dead reanimated by a virus theory". It seems like every since " Resident Evil " and " World War Z ", the whole Zombies being caused by a virus thing has been the explanation lately. Kinda lazy if you ask me, like Marvel's " I have super powers because I was born with a mutant gene explanation. " I prefer my zombies revived by supernatural, alien, chemical, radiation, etc, instead of virus, or better yet, no explanation at all.

A virus is the most realistic and believable explanation for a zombie outbreak. And if the zombie plague ever happened in real life (which I hope it never does) it would most likely be caused by some unknown virus.
 
Yeah, but how does a virus re-animate dead tissue ? Also, I always wondered, if zombies are truly dead, and the only thing that's left functioning is the brain, how do they digest flesh ? woulnd'n't their stomachs eventually explode from lack of digestion and BM ? Still think the whole virus thing is a cop-out like the " X-Gene".
 
Yeah, but how does a virus re-animate dead tissue ? Also, I always wondered, if zombies are truly dead, and the only thing that's left functioning is the brain, how do they digest flesh ? woulnd'n't their stomachs eventually explode from lack of digestion and BM ? Still think the whole virus thing is a cop-out like the " X-Gene".

Try reading The Zombie Survival Guide by Max Brooks. That explains it fairly well. There's also a whole lot of useful information in there.
 
LOL I remember reading on cracked.com on how a zombie apocalypse wouldn't suceed, and everybody in the comment section that disargeed kept metioning the solanum virus , Max Brooks, and his Zombie survival guide.
 
LOL I remember reading on cracked.com on how a zombie apocalypse wouldn't suceed, and everybody in the comment section that disargeed kept metioning the solanum virus , Max Brooks, and his Zombie survival guide.

Hey, I'm not saying that I believe that George Romero's films will become prophetic and that the dead will walk the Earth. As I mentioned before, if there ever is an actual "Zombie Apocolypse", it will most likely be more like 28 Days & 28 Weeks Later. That is, the people will become infected and "zombie-like", but won't actually be "walking dead". The Solanum virus is a work of pure fiction. However, the book's quasi-scientific explanation as to how the virus works is almost convincing. I know it's all BS, but it is still very technical looking.

Still, kinda makes you want to buy a tornado proof house in Calgary with anti-burglary bars on the windows, and fire doors with multiple deadbolt locks at every entrance, just in case.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"