Poll: Which is the best zombie movie?

[Shapoolaman]

28 days and 28 weeks are completely different. namely because 28 days was shit compared to the golden divinity of 28 weeks.

I think you're confusing the two. 28 Days Later was easily the best of the two. 28 Weeks was just retarded...truly a movie for Ritalin-popping ADD kids who can't wait for good pacing and just want a bloody gore fest.

you mean the movie that tried to anticipate human emotions during a zombie outbreak? the one that showed how even the smallest event could instantaneously topple a society reeling from the after affects of a zombie outbreak?
And that movie was supposedly worse than a movie that had as much imagination as a senile tapeworm.

yeah, no. "28 Weeks Later" was horrible. It was predictable, stupid, and didn't even make sense.

Danny Boyle (28 Days) vs. the nameless schmuck (28 Weeks)...yeah, Danny Boyle wins every time. Thats what happens when you have a competent director in charge of a project that is truly unique and original, rather then one who is trying to cash in on a successful property.

...did you just call a movie about people stuck somewhere surrounded by things that want to eat them original?
and also, just because the main character in 28 days is better doesn't mean that the movie is better. 28 days is an extremely run of the mill movie that looks good. and yes I know that 28 weeks is run of the mill but at least they do it well. the two movies are actually quite similar however, 28 weeks is so much more realistic. 28 days, omg crazy chimps have a virus that could turn into an epidemic and kill the human race, let's have so little security that some greenpeace guys can break in and set them free. and also, in case of a zombie apocalypse, go to a hospital and lie down on the ground for that is the best defense.
lastly, making a sequel or a spin-off doesn't mean that you are out of ideas. most of the time it means that you liked the idea of a movie but think it could be improved upon.

It wasn't the concept that was original but the execution of said concept that was. First of all, the movie went far and beyond the standard zombie film and entered into the realm of human drama. In the end, the monster wasn't the zombies, but human nature itself. The final scenes of the movie focused more on the main characters relationships,and the downfall of civilization and general moral judgment. This aspect alone sets "28 Days" far above the competition. Secondly, "28 Days" all but defined the now over-used running zombie concept, coming out two years before the release of the over-rated but still good remake of "Dawn of the Dead". To my knowledge there wasn't a movie featuring running zombies before it. And last but certainly not least, the cinematography and score of "28 Days" were art forms of themselves. The music in the final scene (which the sequel used as well), accompanied by the powerful imagery and genuine acting by the leads still remains one of my favorite scenes in movie history.

As for your hospital comment, if you were referring to the introduction of the main character, he didn't hide from the zombies in the hospital. He had been in an accident before the outbreak and didn't wake up until after.

 

[Marsell]

28 days later
Dawn of the dead

another hooror film to consider is "house on haunted hill"

 

[Denamic]

(Please no funny ones like shaun of the dead)

Are you kidding me?
Zombies and humour were practically made for each other!
I vote for Shaun of the Dead.
Possibly Zombieland too, I loved that too.

 

[Private Custard]

Dawn of the Dead (original version)

 

[irishdude]

28 days and 28 weeks are completely different. namely because 28 days was shit compared to the golden divinity of 28 weeks.

other way around imo, but both of them are good

 

[SextusMaximus]

I voted "other" for Shaun of the Dead before realising what you put...

I dunno... Night of the living dead? followed by 28 Days Later.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

I lean towards diaries of these choices for a serious answer (Shawn still is the best!) because the genre is to saturated with the standard format and diaries breached that format a little. Sure Dawn of the dead and others that follow the traditional format are good movie, I've watched them and liked them which is rare for me, but they don't have any real depth past 'here are some zombies coming to eat you.' No surprise, that is the standard format after all: Group of people hide somewhere usually poorly chosen and have to fight through zombies to freedom. Usual one person has to be nobly sacrificed or wounded in the finishing moments while another was a jerk all along and gets his face eaten for the pleasure of the crowd.

Rarely any more plot then that to be found....

In Diaries, the zombies where secondary and could be removed completely and not lose the core of the film. That core involves the fact humanity is sick and diseased as a whole, with only a slight excuse needed for many of us to completely abandon any pretext of being civilised beings. It will easily leave you with a understanding of a simple fact: Maybe it is best to alone in the zombie apocalypse.

This is amplified by the fact the survivors don't really have all that much to worry about the zombies as they are shambles. Sure a few survivors get eaten and what not, and those zombies do seem to be seeking them out somehow, but that isn't the focus of the movie. It appears to be more a psychological mind fuck of the survivors, where you don't even have to ask who is the true monsters by the end: It is us!

Apparently there is a similar named zombie movie so now I am confused. To clarify the one I am talking about is set in England where a group of reporters head out into the country to interview someone over losing their stock to a current bird flu scare. The whole movie is watched as if it was filmed by them, giving it a blair witch feel and while it isn't a plus (never is) they don't ruin the effect as much as that awful movie did. The time line is a bit harder to follow, that was another negative, as half way through the movie it jumps away from the reporters and focuses more on another group of survivors... but that is explained towards the end.

Frankly I just assume whoever is watching the recovered videos had them out of order.

So while it is a harder to follow movie, without as much action in it, it is actually quite good. Just be warned, it can easily turn a few stomachs and not in the standard way gore might... but because of that psychological effect I mentioned. I don't want to give too much away so I have been choosing my words, but I do feel it is a good warning:

In the zombie apocalypse your fellow survivors might be the biggest threat....

ADDED: The zombie diaries are the one I am thinking of apparently, and it apparently there where three groups which explains the jumpiness even more. Seeing this wasn't on the list given I'll have to lean more towards 'other.'

 

[Zap Happy]

I like Shawn of the Dead, personally. It's a great mix of action and comedy. Zombieland was also pretty good for this reason, but Shawn was better.

 

[Lazarus Long]

A couple movies you should consider are:
Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things
and
Burial Grounds: The Nights of Terror

These are certainly not the best, but they deserve quite a bit of credit.

I thought Bob Clark and I were the only ones who liked "Children Shouldn't..."
It's hard to go wrong with some Italian deadspoitation.
Why is there no love for Day on here? It's the crown jewel in the trilogy.

 

[Xeros]

Gotta go with Zombieland. I've literally seen it like 10 times. I don't know why, it just gets better every time I see it.

 

[Drakulla]

Evil Dead was an awesome zombie movie.

 

[Azaradel]

I do so love 28 Days Later, but Dead Snow is probably the best zombie movie I've seen, save Zombieland.

Then again, I'm one of those mutants who finds the Dawn of the Dead remake awesome...

 

[MurderousToaster]

Either 28 Days Later (28 Weeks Later was good, but just not as good).

Or Land of the Dead. I just like that film.

 

[Zorg Machine]

...did you just call a movie about people stuck somewhere surrounded by things that want to eat them original?
and also, just because the main character in 28 days is better doesn't mean that the movie is better. 28 days is an extremely run of the mill movie that looks good. and yes I know that 28 weeks is run of the mill but at least they do it well. the two movies are actually quite similar however, 28 weeks is so much more realistic. 28 days, omg crazy chimps have a virus that could turn into an epidemic and kill the human race, let's have so little security that some greenpeace guys can break in and set them free. and also, in case of a zombie apocalypse, go to a hospital and lie down on the ground for that is the best defense.
lastly, making a sequel or a spin-off doesn't mean that you are out of ideas. most of the time it means that you liked the idea of a movie but think it could be improved upon.

It wasn't the concept that was original but the execution of said concept that was. First of all, the movie went far and beyond the standard zombie film and entered into the realm of human drama. In the end, the monster wasn't the zombies, but human nature itself. The final scenes of the movie focused more on the main characters relationships,and the downfall of civilization and general moral judgment. This aspect alone sets "28 Days" far above the competition. Secondly, "28 Days" all but defined the now over-used running zombie concept, coming out two years before the release of the over-rated but still good remake of "Dawn of the Dead". To my knowledge there wasn't a movie featuring running zombies before it. And last but certainly not least, the cinematography and score of "28 Days" were art forms of themselves. The music in the final scene (which the sequel used as well), accompanied by the powerful imagery and genuine acting by the leads still remains one of my favorite scenes in movie history.

As for your hospital comment, if you were referring to the introduction of the main character, he didn't hide from the zombies in the hospital. He had been in an accident before the outbreak and didn't wake up until after.

I agree that 28 days made a good job of showing how humans can react after a zombie apocalypse.
However, the fact that no one had any contact with any government (not even the millitary) is borderline ridiculous.
the parts that I like about 28 weeks is that it takes place after the apocalypse. this is an actual original idea and is executed perfectly. also, the first scene is pure genius and so awesome I would easily hold it over the best scenes of 28 days.
the only part of it that I think is not that good is the "this boy is the only hope for humanity" part.

btw, what I was being sarcastic with the hospital comment as the hospital should have been overflowing with the undead and the fact that he was just lying there for 28 days without getting torn apart is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of since baconnaise.

 

[Deadarm]

I found one a while back called Deadgirl. Its not a zombie pandemic type movie but it has a zombie in it and its really fucked up. Also it isn't an action movie.

 

[cheese_wizington]

Shawn of the Dead, I don't care what you say. It has zombies in it and it's a film, so it's a zombie movie.

 

[Superior Mind]

I feel I should say George A. Romero´s Dawn of the Dead because it's a damn awesome zombie film and is by most regarded as the pinnacle of zombie achivement.

But I won't.

Then I feel I should say 28 Days Later because it captured a real sense of armageddon and isolation in a world gone zombie. Incedibly stylish and great to watch, both for the sopisticated film geek in me and the salivating zombie nut.

But I won´t.

Seriously I have to go with Zack Snyder´s Dawn of the Dead 2004 remake/reimagining. Why? Because it was everything you want in a zombie movie. There were zombies, oh yes, there was shotguns firing at zombies, there was action, there was gore, there was violence, there was action again, there was a feel of complete and utter 'oh shit we're fucked', there were tits, (and not zombie tits either although thanks for playing 28 Days Later,) there were massive fucking explosions which accompanied more action, gore and violence. There was even a baby being shot in the face. Tell me; what else do you want in a zombie movie?

Shaun of the Dead, admirable candidate though it is and a fantastic movie, gets by on it's own merits than it being a good zombie movie, so not really a consideration for me.

 

[slowpoke999]

It's good to know at least the first in the 28 series was good. I'm guessing in 28 weeks they filled the first half with expensive action, exploding and writing but near the end their budget ran flat so they retorted to cheap ass chase scenes in the directors basement but the lights were turned off so you wouldn't notice and a cliche 'chosen one' plot.

Seriously why put two movies in the same poll option?That's like saying which is better, Star Wars or LOTR and you group the prequels with the originals.

 

[xDarc]

I'm pretty partial to the 1990 Savini remake of Night. From 1990 til 2002 (28 days later) there were hardly any zombie flicks. A few no-name hack jobs. Consequently, I can almost do every line in 1990's "Night," having watched over and over again.

P.S.

Patricia Tallman was a sexy, sexy lady. Still is. She's been my avatar a while now.

P.S.S.

Forgot about the return of the living dead trilogy. I really liked the first two from the late 80's, but the 3rd one, which came out in 93' or 94' I didn't care for and really didn't watch it a lot.

P.S.S.S. ... god damn it I keep remembering stuff.

Check out Lucio Fulci's "Zombi" movies. They're not bad and I rather like Zombi 3.

 

[Shapoolaman]

I agree that 28 days made a good job of showing how humans can react after a zombie apocalypse.
However, the fact that no one had any contact with any government (not even the millitary) is borderline ridiculous.
the parts that I like about 28 weeks is that it takes place after the apocalypse. this is an actual original idea and is executed perfectly. also, the first scene is pure genius and so awesome I would easily hold it over the best scenes of 28 days.
the only part of it that I think is not that good is the "this boy is the only hope for humanity" part.

btw, what I was being sarcastic with the hospital comment as the hospital should have been overflowing with the undead and the fact that he was just lying there for 28 days without getting torn apart is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of since baconnaise.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I have the same feelings toward to 28 Weeks as you do towards 28 Days and neither of us will change our minds. All I know is that I couldn't stand 28 Weeks Later. There were several cool scenes and interesting ideas, but overall I think that 28 Days Later wins. But this is my opinion.