FITZZ wrote: Perhaps, but this statement is applicable to almost any genre film...it's the subtle differences that make each film unique ...obviously Shaun of the Dead is a much different film from Night of the Living Dead, even though both follow certain established scenarios.
Maybe I'm just sour over the countless Night of the Living Dead clones I've seen
I do really love Shaun of the Dead but mostly because it makes fun of the Zombie genre from start to finish and its a genre that is so easy to make fun of.
Zombieland I loved just because it was a zombie film right up my ally. The film knew the scenario was absurd and they played with it much like Shaun did so I had an easy time enjoying it.
sarpedons-right-hand wrote:I know I'm splitting hairs here...but I don't consider any of those films to be " Zombie" films...as the " hordes" depicted in them are not " zombies" but rather " infected humans" who are still living.
I'd agree with this mostly but for slightly different reasons. I Am Legend (the recent film) isn't really a zombie movie. It doesn't have the same themes or ideas behind it.
However I do think the 28 Days and Rec/Quarantine are 'zombie' films in every way except for the origin of the 'zombies.' Rec follows a typical zombie story structure. The only thing I really liked about it was the somewhat unique setting. I've seen few films that depict the survivors as being trapped in a building because all the normal people outside will kill them if they leave. I didn't really find the 28 series different from the typical zombie fare. 28 Weeks was certainly different but that one is a picture example of what Fitzz means when he says running zombies move to fast for things to develop. Weeks was an action movie in a zombie setting. Days was more of a zombie style movie and I enjoyed it a lot more because they didn't throw the 'zombies' at you constantly. They let the situation sink in.
