Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Which do you like better?
I Would Say DOTD.

28 Days Later by a mile. Better characters, more believable zombies, has a strong message about society (which is a must for any truly good zombie film) and some great music. Plus it's more original then Dawn of the Dead as well.

28 days later blew me away, incredible movie. DOTD just didn't do it for me... back you up 100% BF

I totaly disagree on "28 Days Later" originality factor, since I have said before, it's disease premise is ridiculous, and it's just a modern day "Omega Man" w/ hints of "Resident Evil".

If I have to pich, I'd say "Dawn of the Dead", just overall more enjoyable for me.

DOTD

I agree with most of said.

I favor DOTD a hair away from 28 days later.

I never claimed that 28 Days Later is really unique it it's basic premise, it isn't. The story is typical. However it is original in the way that is keeps us watching by actually developing an emotional attachment to the charachters, rather then simply using tired, and generic scenes of action after action like the new Dawn of the Dead did. Plus 28 Days Later didn't have any overly stupid scenes like Dawn of the Dead did (zombie baby knocked about 3 points off of Dawn of the Deads score for me).

Irronically, what you said about 28 Days Later could very easily be said about Dawn of the Dead, it very loosely took the premise of the original, minus all of the skilled storytelling and social commentary that was infamous in the original, and threw in some ridiculously hyper 28 Days Later style running zombies that weren't nearly as believable. In fact, one of the Dawn of the Dead zombies actually defied gravity at one point. The little girl zombie at teh beginnign of the film pulled some matrix finesse out of nowhere and managed to levitate herself after falling down. Pretty cheesy if you ask me.

28 Days Later succeeds in taking a generic premise, and having some of the best zombies that are both intense and believable, and actually developing the small group of characters in the film, which Dawn of the Dead didn't do. In fact, I lost track of the large cast of Dawn of the Dead, most of which simply weren't even necessary.

Moving to Horror movies
Moving--moved

Dawn of the dead should be out soon. I'll reply later

DAWN OF THE DEAD for me! The first ten or so minutes of 28 DAYS LATER were phenomenal but after that...

Well, "Dawn of the Dead" was never billed as some director's though provoking personal platform to express his world views. It was a fun, brainless horror movie.

To say that seeing Cillian Murphys wang, and watching a loaded taxi cab of people literally go "Bigfoot" over mounds of cars weren't two of the absolute stupidest, pointless, and in the taxi's case, impossible scenes of "28 Days Later" is ludicrous.

The zombies were nice, but rehashing 1,000's of movies, setting with a pretty London backdrop, then going as far as calling is "scary as hell"?

Folks, the movie has it's flaws.

No one claimed it was flawless, just a better overal film then Dawn of the Deads typical mumbo jumbo that will be forgotten in 4 months.

And the scene with the cab going over a mound of cars may be silly, but it pales in comparrison to the overwhelming stupidity of the zombie baby in Dawn of the Dead.

You proved my point with your first sentance though, it's impossible for a stupid brainless film like Dawn of the Dead to be better then a thought provoking film with social commentary that took at least some skill to come up with and make.

If you look a little deeper, there's no real skill in someone hiding their own personal agenda in a movie. It happens all the time, they're called independent films.

What was Danny Boyle's message anyway? Is he part of Greenpeace? Is he against animal testing? Is he foreshadowing a POTA like uprising?

His "messages" are a little heavy handed, and most of us don't need movies, nor directors telling us how to live our lives. I think we learned these same "appreciate life" messages from all the movies "28 Days Later" ripped off, like "Dog Soldiers", or "Outbreak" or "The Omega Man" or even "Dawn of the Dead".

Putting an old toy in a shiny new package doesn't make it new.

As mentioned before, it's still not a fair comparison. But aside from the "infected persons" (Boy, could AIDS sufferers have a field day with this movie) there isn't anything groundbreaking about it.

BTW, am I the only one to understand/appreciate the signifigance of the zombie baby? How many babies, zombie or not, are killed in horror movies, much less any movie? It was done as a statement for the movie, that a zombie is a zombie. Besides, it was like a 5 second shot.

i never seen both anyway

I understand what the zombie baby was supposed to symbolize, but it's still a stupid way to try to portray that message. It's simply too cheesy to be taken seriously. Plus it was hella predictable, the moment I saw the pregnant woman I groaned out loud and leaned over to my friend and whispered "If there is a zombie baby in this movie I'm walking out". Granted I didn't walk out, but I was very disapointed that they actually went through with something so dumb, especially in a film that wasn't meant to be taken as tongue and cheek, like Dead Alive, which has a zombie baby in it, but it goes with the whole feel and attitude of the movie. It was used as a humerous scene, where as the one in Dawn of the Dead simply brought me away from the atmosphere because of it's stupidity.

Anyways, the message in 28 Days Later is basically the same message that's standard in most zombie films with a brain of any sort. That humans bring about their own destruction in the end, the zombies are simply a by product of their own stupidity. However, it makes this message very clearly and poigniantly, arguably better then any past zomibe movie has.

It also has a very unique statement that has never really been brought up before in any of these "end of the world" type movies. And that's the films stance on women should a catastrophe like the one portrayed actually happen. Women would be viewed as objects for procreation and for continuing life, I was very happy to see a movie finally deal with this like 28 Days Later did.

Very well said dude. 28 days later rocked until it turned into a cheezy f*ucked up ending.

what a worthless post




For this debate. I think it would have been a better scene in DOTD if the pregnant infected girl was outside the mall... It show her pregnant in the first half .. and then later show a scene with her walking around senseless dragging the baby by the ambelical cord still attached. That would not have brought humor to the horror movie and maintained the aggressive/brutal nature it had going for it.

Dawn of the Dead for me.

i no it was worthless but hey i am worthless.

/drevil

..riiiiiight...

/enddrevil

Oh, I know the whole zombie baby bit was cheesy, but there is a little symbolism behind it, no matter how ridiculous.

As for the whole procreation issue, props on that observation. I think one of the main reasons it isn't too popular in movies such as this is because it, too, is virtually impossible.

Given the circumstances, an army of 9 or 10 men has 2 women. After 1 man supposedly impregnants one of the 2 women, they still have to wait an entire 9 months for the thing to even be born, while the world is slowly being overrun by zombies?

To critique it even furthur, what if they have a boy the first time around?
They have to spend another 365 days trying for another girl, that would STILL have to wait another 15-16 years to be fertile?!? They would al be dead by that time. They will run out of food, ammunition, and any other supplies, given the state of the world. On top of that, they wouldn't have any health care.

It's just an even more ridiculous premise than a virus being created by television watching monkeys. I can suspend reality, but I surely cannot, and will not suspend practicality when a movie tries so hard to be serious.

That, IMO, is why the whole procreation angle has never been played out. It's impractical.

Yet at the same time it would almost definately happen in real life. Women would be used soley for sex (not necessarily for procreation actually, but also, as 28 Days Later explains, to keep men sane). Granted that particular scene in 28 Days Later may be far fetched, but it at least attempted to show something that, if the situation portrayed in the movie occured in the movie occured in real life, would definately happen in some way or another.

Well, I know I'd probably go mental if I didn't get laid. In retrospect, I guess they never went either way with it in the movie (pleasure/procreation). The second of which would just be really, really hard to pull off in their situation.

Damn...On my list DOTD doesn't even come close to 28 Days Later.

Whats wrong with the Zombie baby? Have I missed something?

SPAM REMOVED

Why is social commentary so important to zombie movies? No offense but you keep spouting on about it, and I don't see the monumental significance

zomba's

Good question, it's just the way it is. It gives the movies a deeper meaning then just watching peopel die randomly. It's become a kind of tradition for the genre because of the trilogy of the dead, and is almost expected for a serious zombie film.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the occeasionally mindless zombie movie as much as anyone else, just for a movie to be taken seriously, it can't just have killings and a simple story.

28 days later did everything dawn of the dead diddnt. 28 days took the risks and pushed the limits in the sense of actually relying on the audience to understand the metaphors within the film. It also took a new step in the zombie films as we know them. A recipe that dawn of the dead copied but diddnt bother to go in depth on. For the longest time i diddnt like 28 days later, but then i realized why. It was because it was a horror flick with ambition and it has been so long since i have seen one of those. I had forgotten what it was like to sit down and actually have high expectations for a horror movie, instead of waiting for a movie that i can put my sarcasim to good use on

Dawn of the dead was just painfull to watch, because you knew with different direction it could have been good. Instead however, it followed the same bullshit horror formula with a few dynamic camera shots thrown in.The potential of the movie turned into cheese and predicatibility. so sad.

zomba mova's! lol

I didn't like 28 days later. I enjoyed Dawn of the Dead (remake) because there were more zombies, and living people blasting them with guns. More action, more entertaining for me. The story kept me more into the movie. Whereas with 28 days later it just didn't click with me.

I haven't seen 28 Days Later yet, I'm going to borrow it from a friend

All this talk abiut the movie is making me want to go and re-evaluate it. It's a movie I love to hate for obvious reasons, but I feel like I should atleast rent it, if not own it.

Damn this forum!

ummm i am gonna see 28 days l8ter to day.

Your a 12yr old boy...

Anyway, DOTD is winning!! w00t.

easy. 28 Days Later. DOAD was good but it seemed very familiar to other zombie movies. 28 days later was unique.

28 days later is better then the dawn of the dead remake but i cant make my mind up if it is better then the original dawn of the dead..ummmm

Dawn of the Dead the frist and the new one but i like the frist one more thoe

28 Days Later is miles better, DOTD basically got bits from every great zombie film and tacked them together.
It should have been brilliant, but it was sadly lacking...
Anyway, someone said something about the taxi and the pile of cars, it is possible.
London taxis have the best damn suspension out, I have driven one myself.
There is a group of stuntmen from England who only drive them and Mini Coopers, and they pull air over all this stuff like stairs.
There might be a website, check back with you...
p.s. Shaun of the Dead sucks!