What Genre would you put 28 Days Later in?

[bwind22]

Originally posted by urgeok
i enjoyed this film .. well directed, well acted, nicely paced ..
not sure why people jump all over it ... not enough gore ?

I thought it was pretty good too. The scene where he first walks out of the hospital into deserted London is great. I liked it enough to buy it when it came out after seeing it in the theatre.

[The_Return]

Considerig it's cheap, I plan to buy it soon. From memory I didnt like it, but I saw it before I was really into horror. After hearing some great reviews I want to check it out again.

[PR3SSUR3]

28 Days Later is Zombie Horror and if you try to call it anything (else) you're just nitpicking

That is an interpretation you are entitled to, but a zombie means a revived corpse first and foremost.

Nitpicking, accurate, whatever you want to call it.

:cool:

[newb]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
That is an interpretation you are entitled to, but a zombie means a revived corpse first and foremost.

Nitpicking, accurate, whatever you want to call it.

:cool:

Agreed....they are not zombies...they are infected people.

[urgeok]

but .................................................. ...................................


it's got all the trappings of a zombie movie ...
like The Crazies, or Rabid, or Mutant.



lets just say it's a zombie movie - without zombies.

the way April Fools Day was a slasher ... without any killings.


ooops ... delayed spoiler alert
:eek:

[newb]

Originally posted by urgeok
but .................................................. ...................................


it's got all the trappings of a zombie movie ...
like The Crazies, or Rabid, or Mutant.



lets just say it's a zombie movie - without zombies.

the way April Fools Day was a slasher ... without any killings.


ooops ... delayed spoiler alert
:eek:

I don't think James Whitcomb Riley's 1885 quote.....


"When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck."

...is relevant here.

[bwind22]

This is like trying to argue the fact that Steinbrenner ruined baseball to a Yankees fan and I just don't understand it...


The director himself has refered to it as a zombie film.

A film is a work of art.

How can you tell an artist he's wrong when he's telling you what it is?

Artists should be allowed creative liscence.

So if he, the director, says it's a zombie film and it has the general feel of a zombie film throughout the entire movie except for one point-of-origin detail, then I think creative license should be a no-brainer. Who are we (You guys actually, not me.) to argue with the artist that created the work of art that the film he directed is not what he says it is?

Who cares how this new breed of zombies got this way? We the horror fans are always the ones bitching at them to do something original in the first place, aren't we? They try a fresh idea on an old as dirt film villain and all they catch is slack from the same folks griping at them to do something new to begin with. Geez!

[/rant]

[bwind22]

Originally posted by urgeok


lets just say it's a zombie movie - without zombies.

let's say it's a zombie movie with a fresh different sort of zombie. One that doesn't neccesarily die first before becoming a crazed bloodthirsty contagious maniac in an entire city full of them chowing on the last few survivors....

[urgeok]

were people eaten in 28 days later ? (i havent seen it in ages)
i thought they were just killed ...

[bwind22]

Hmmm...

I'll rewatch it after I finish Kong and Narnia and let ya know. I thought they were, or bitten at least to spread it?