Neither were even zombie movies... They didn't eat flesh. They still had the "ability" to kill by breaking their opponent"s neck or slamming them against things.
| |
I don't think "zombie" necessarily entails eating the flesh of the living, just the behaviour of a large-scale infection/event that causes people to turn unthinkingly murderous all around. Though in a stricter sense, yeah, they're not zombies -- just mutants.
| |
Pakbaum wrote:
Neither were even zombie movies... They didn't eat flesh. Maybe you should watch shawn of the dead again? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWw9vE39IGc&feature=related At 2 minutes 33 seconds whats that omg eating flesh. | |
Why do I get the feeling that people here have only seen the newer zombie movies or the classics? I didn't see much of anything in the middle ground here.
Dead Alive is fun, maybe the 28 days/weeks people would like it. It has with a zombie-makin monkey too! 28 days/weeks later were good. I'd have to say that 28 days later was much better than weeks. I'm going with what Elation was getting at. In other words I could sex up the chars in the first more than those in the second. I mean who wouldn't want to sex up a woman that could at a moments notice dice you up to save her own skin? I'd have to agree with Magicbeast20 that Dawn of the Dead(2004) is pretty good, it even had Richard Cheese singing Down with the Sickness, that's awesome in itself. Don't forget Ving Rhames, he's pretty.. yeah! My brother and I are into zombie movies, we watched one of the I Am Legend spawn, The Last Man on Earth (1964), with Vincent Price, before we knew they were making I Am Legend or even what it was. Anyway, before I go on too much more... This topic is boring! | |
I agree. It took the best of the Romero zombie genre (which has really faltered with the last two attempts) and added a healthy dose of humor without getting too silly. Great stuff.