That I can understand...they want fresh meat as opposed to rotting flesh.

Probably because the virus is able to recognize itself. There's no point in infecting someone who is already infected, the virus is already there.

When I have the flu, I can't tell immediately if anybody else passing me on the street has the same viral strain as me.

Great point.

Since we all know "28 Days Later" was a commentary on violence against each other it would've made sense to see "infected" fighting each other individually or in groups. Then say another "infected" or someone NOT infected would happen upon the group, get spotted, then chased down only to join the already raging group unless they are able to escape.

Has it though? I mean, obviously the Italian schlock zombie movies all took from Romero, but even the Return of the LIving Dead didn't bother following his rules at all. In fact, many zombie movies just don't follow the same rules.

And Trigger, what are the dozens of zombie movies that are better than Dawn and Night? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to see these movies...I love my zombie movies, but I've yet to see one that is better than Romero's Dawn.

You wouldn't tell, but the flu won't go and infect the guy with the same viral strain. I think, if someone were possessed by the virus, they would know, since they're now acting directly because of the virus.

Trigger is right. Romero ripped off Price's Last Man on Earth. The modern day zombie was born in that movie.

Well okay - I guess 'dozens' is an exaggeration. Also, my taste in movies typically sets me in the minority... however, here's a short list of some zombie movies that I liked better than anything Romero did...

Cemetary Man (Dellamorte Dellamore)
Dead Alive
Versus
Serpent and the Rainbow
Dead Heat
Wild Zero
Resident Evil
Night of the Creeps
Stacy
Pulse/Kairo - new kind of zombie movie
Night of the Comet
Evil Dead (1, 2 and Army)
Bio Zombie
My Boyfriend's Back
Re-Animator
Return of the Living Dead 3 (terrible, but in a good way)
Junk (wasn't very good, but was better than Day of the Dead)
Body Snatchers (1993) - not quite a zombie movie, but pod-people are a sister genre to the zombie genre
The Faculty - also more of a body snatch type than a zombie flick
Phantasm (not even close to a traditional zombie flick, but the tall man took bodies and reanimated them to use them as undead slaves

finally saw this. wasn't that bad
and while the infected weren't zombies by the normal definition of zombie, they were definitely patterened after zombies and the movie was going for a zombie movie feel

I love this movie. It's one of my all-time favorites. It's hard exactly to pin down why though. It has a strong depth of emotion to it and the characters, outside of the ones introduced at the tail end of the film, are quite likeable and well written, none of which are usually characteristics of horror films. Cillian Murphy is one of my favorite up and coming actors now, mostly because of this film. He was quite good in Intermission also, fwiw. Danny Boyle was able to make this film under the radar after the failure of The Beach and I see a lot of the cleverness of filmmaking and characterization that he and his collaborators brought to Trainspotting in this film.

This has got to be one of the funniest threads I've ever seen.

The op's comment about how Europeans can't make good horror films? WTF???

But the funniest comments come from those bashing how the zombies/infected "can run" and how it is setting a bad tone for zombie films..............................................yet here comes Dawn '04 and the majority of people who are shitting on running dead people in this thread loved it!!!!!

(believe me, for this board....point #2 is a lot funnier than you think)

Agreed. He was perfect in this movie. He was great in Batman Begins and I'm looking forward to seeing him in Red Eye (Wes Craven's upcoming flick). However, I can see him being pigeon-holed into roles where he plays a villain/bad guy. There's something about his face that has 'don't trust me' written all over it.

I agree with all the negative reviews of this awful flick. I thought it was even more boring than CABIN FEVER, which is so deliriously bad that you have a "Springtime for Hitler" look as you're watching it.

I thought this movie was pretty terrible. Once they met up with the army guys, it just turned completely stupid. I bought it as a blind buy when the DVD came out...what a waste of money that was.

Maybe we need a better way to classify movies like this, given that 28 Days Later had all of the hallmarks of a Zombie flick, but the people in it weren't actual living dead zombies but instead had a hyper-rabies like disease.

Maybe call them Zombie-like Movies? Or Pseudo-Zombie Movies?

(Heck, even the original 1976 Assault on Precinct 13 was a "Zombie-like Movie", so this movie isn't alone.)

what's the politically correct label for a zombie? animatedly impaired? reanimated person?

better yet, what's the politically correct term for the people in 28 days later?

animatedly enhanced? enragedly enhanced?

I felt this movie started off wel and set the mood, and then totally lost direction and fell apart towards the end with the whole punk ass military kids stuff.

I enjoyed the flick alot but I wish they would have put the alternate ending in the movie.

Not that this argument needs brought up again, but alas I have nothing better to do today. A zombie is not defined as a reanimated dead person. It is officially just someone who is mindless and behaves like an automaton. Zombies in films are traditionally undead, but in literature there have been several novels in which zombies are not undead, the most celebrated example I think is Joyce Carol Oates novel Zombie. This is absolutely a zombie movie as the infected act like mindless folks, automatons if you will.

It sure looks like both are definitions to me.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference...y/entry/zombie

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...nary&va=zombie

Anyway, the movie was below average. It started well, but then it fell off.

LOL!

*ahem*

Anywho. I never thought 28 Days Later was all that scary. It has some thrills, but overall it's not like, truly scary. But very few horror films are, to me. I still think it's a cool flick on its own merits; it's good with atmosphere, has decent acting, and introduced us to the newest Doctor Who.

I thought it was OK. I too liked the begining and thought that

I think they could have gone in a different direction with the ending.

er, you are aware that there are two endings, aren't you?

Good enough that I bought it on DVD and didn't regret it. Well above average rewatchability. I've probably watched it 5 times and still enjoy it.

It seems like it's one of those that friends pick out of the collection when they come over, and they almost invariably like it.

The misperception about 28 Days Later is that it's a horror movie. It's not, not really--it's more of an end-of-the-world movie science fiction movie. It's mostly about painting a picture of civilization falling apart than gore or horror-movie-style scares. In that respect it has more in common with The Omega Man or War of the Worlds than a Romero flick (even though it cheerfully rips off plot points from Romero movies.)