Good idea BAD MOVIE

"No zombies in "the Omega Man", which is my point"

haha.........none in 28 Days Later either my friend. If you'd watched the movie.......the entire premise is about everybody being infected with a virus that makes them go crazy. How do you even liken this to the walking dead (zombie)? People go crazy and kill people. This is nothing like the dead coming back to life and seeking human flesh to devour.

I think Alien vs. Predator will be a decent action movie. I don't look for anything plot wise.........I think the plot will be retarded. Alien 3 & 4 aswell as Predator 2 were both extremely weak in plot. I hope that the action in Alien vs. Predator justifies the $8 I drop to watch it.

The people infected are posessed. In "The Exorcist", what would you refer to Linda Blair as? A zombie, no? Generally speaking, they were untreatbly posessed people, who would no doubt attack the unposessed?

But who's to say, since we never saw them in action.

As for "28 Days Later" and it's plot. I was under the impression that the premise of the movie was how people react when faced with overwhelming circumstances, as well as human nature, nationwide epidemics, survival of the fittest, procreation. All this was even touched in in Planet of the Apes, too.

Do you mean possessed by demons?

What the hell.........they simply have a virus that causes them to go crazy. It's syphilis x 1000. The virus is passed through blood exchange........

"but the premise of the movie was how people react when faced with overhwelimg circumstances, as well as human nature, survival of the fittest, procreation. All this was even touched in in Planet of the Apes"

dead on..........

Tank Girl, bad idea, bad movie.

"Tank Girl" was just a silly comic book. I loved the movie, and I own it. I also own "UHF", so so much for my credibility, eh? Those are just guilty pleasures.

Those "people" in "28 Days Later" were clinically dead. Mindless. Remember the black guy that was chained up in the alley? He couldn't feed, right? So, that implied he need to do either one or both things.

a) Spread the virus
b) "Feed". Never said how, but I don't think he meant a Big Mac.

Draw your own conclusion. I say they were zombies. 😛

Those "people" in "28 Days Later" were clinically dead. Mindless. Remember the black guy that was chained up in the alley? He couldn't feed, right? So, that implied he need to do either one or both things

Incorrect sir. You need to watch the movie again. Those people were alive. The guy chained up couldn't feed, that was the point. They captured him and chained him up so they could see how long it would take him to starve to death.........which would in turn tell them how long it would take for the other people infected with the virus to starve to death............so they could commense with rebuilding their society after all of the crazy people had starved to death. That is all laid out in the movie.........by the commanding officer of the military group.

Bah......we all have guilty pleasures. There's nothing wrong with that as long as you realize that is what they are. I own all 4 Critters dvds.......you can't have too much more guilty of a pleasure than that.

No need for me to see it again. Couldn't stay awake long enough to do so, anyway. Let me reiterate. Clinically BRAINDEAD. They were braindead persons who needed to feed on something to survive, which would make them zombies.

Thats the point I am trying to prove here.

But they weren't clinically brain dead..........

They were no more brain dead than a tiger or lion.........or any other territorial animal............

They were far from being brain dead.......they could see, hear, had normal motor activity, they could think, reason,........they knew how to climb barriers.......how to break glass to get to people......they were simply crazy humans who wanted to kill. They were more like Slasher movie icons than they were zombies.

Cinemaddiction> You really need to re-watch the movie cos you completely missed its point. I guess it having a story kinda thru you off. Watch it again,but pay attention. I know its difficult...most movies these days you dont need to pay attention to get them. There's nothing to get. Put see this one again and you'll see.

Kes, I'm the one that nailed the point of the movie earlier. I've seen the movie twice, and understand it fully. You are way off base.

The "infected" people aren't really people. They are, by definition, zombies. Human beings in a state of automaton, meaning, an individual who acts in a mechanical fashion. They were literally rabid human beings.

It has been referred to time and time again as a "zombie" movie, and that is always the way I will see it.

um.........a zombie by definetion is a reanimated, dead person. The walking dead. The term comes from Haiti and the voodoo belief that casting a curse on a person can bring them back to life after their death as a mindless servant.

How can you call them zombies if you don't even know what a zomie is?

You are correct on one assertion.......they are basically rabid human beings. Rabies being a disease and all...........so rabid dogs are now zombies by your account? WTF?

I know precisely what a zombie is, and the "infected" people in the movie are just a new breed of zombie. Thats what's different about the movie. The people are infected with a disease that corrupts everything about them, and they become mindless, operating on an adopted instinct that forces them to feed to survive.

The only 2 non-human entities that come to mind, that have to feed on something human to survive, are Vampires and Zombies. Process of elimination rules out vampires, so what's left?

Reviews, synopsis, press releases, you name it ALL refer to the infected as zombies. It's a new breed, like I said ,and the only thing that makes the movie somewhat original.

I'll suspend reality when it comes to this movie, but not common sense or logic. New breed of zombies are made in this movie, lets agree and STFU about it.

Like myself and Kes both said........you need to watch the movie again.

The infected people DO NOT FEED ON PEOPLE........THEY DO NOT EAT PEOPLE...........they simply kill them. They eat as many people as Jason Voorhies, Michael Myers and Freddy Krueger do........which is zero. They merely kill..............which is why I likened the infected people more to slasher movie icons than to zombies earlier.

You are confused on many aspects of the movie. You probably need to atleast understand the movie before you continue to bash it. What in the world gave you the idea that the infected people in 28 Days Later were canibals? What the hell made you think that they ate people?

I understand the movie just fine. Not once did I say they did eat people. I said the needed to feed somehow. We never saw it happen, so whos to say how they did feed to begin with? I'd assume they have to get something from the humans to survive?

As for the zombie debate, I'm sticking to my guns with what I said earlier, because I'm not wasting another dollar on this movie.

" I'd assume they have to get something from the humans to survive?"

A main plot point towards the end of the movie reveals that they don't eat anything........they don't feed on anything. They get nothing from humans/animals/plants to survive.

The infected are so over taken with Rage that killing is all they think about. They do not even eat. This is why the soldiers have captured one of them. Since they do not eat..........having one of the infected held captive will tell them how long it takes the infected to starve to death. They watch this guy.......if it takes 15 days for him to starve to death........they know all the infected will starve to death 15 days after he becomes infected. This tells them how long they must wait to start rebuilding their society.

And I will never agree with your "new breed of zombie" theory...........I will never consider crazy people who kill to be zombies. Some crazy guy in Florida just decides to start killing everybody in sight........I'm not going to call him a zombie.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
A main plot point towards the end of the movie reveals that they don't eat anything........they don't feed on anything. They get nothing from humans/animals/plants to survive.

The infected are so over taken with Rage that killing is all they think about. They do not even eat. And I will never agree with your "new breed of zombie" theory...........I will never consider crazy people who kill to be zombies. Some crazy guy in Florida just decides to start killing everybody in sight........I'm not going to call him a zombie.

You don't have to agree with me on the zombie issue, most everyone else already does, as I said.

As for the "not feeding" issue. If they didn't need to feed, why was it mentioned that they had to do it to survive?

Also, how do you account for the dead HUMAN bodies on the streets? Meaning, not infected? Is it totally illogicial to rule out they were killed, fed upon, and not infected?

Nobody can say, but while there is no proof either way, and their failure to explain a feeding process, I'm going to keep my opinion open ended.

"If they didn't need to feed, why was it mentioned that they had to do it to survive? "

It was mentioned to point out that they can't survive. The infected do not eat.......which means they can not survive very long........which means they will all die. The military are waiting for them all to starve to death.

This is why they have one of the infected chained up at their compound. They were able to knock him unconcious as he became infected...........and are now keeping him chained up so they can see how long it will take him to starve to death. This will tell them how long it will take all the other infected people to starve to death.

This leads into the closing scenes of the movie when it focuses on random infected people dying in the streets.....holding their stomachs, starving to death.

I know I keep saying it again and again but seriously man, you need to watch the movie again. You are arguing points that were covered in the movie........and were actually intregal plot points but you just missed them when you watched the movie the first time. Even if you don't like the movie..........just watch it again to see what you missed the first time. It might make a bit more sense to you. You will probably still not like the movie........but atleast you won't be coming on message boards arguing about stuff that was already explained in the movie, you just weren't paying enough attention to grasp the first time.

Alright, maybe I will. Don't be surprised if I come back with more fuel for the fire, though.

I look forward to it. Even if full of debate, this is one of the only threads I've read lately that actually discussed a movie. Which is ironic being as our discussion was completely off topic............

Terminator 3 - This film had a good concept & story line but Johnathon Mostow the director kinda went for the more action packed genre and didn't get the story across that well, it was more like a hit n run kind of story. Once u heard it u thought ok then.

The person playing John Connor was annoying n looked like he was gonna cry or was paranoid. Claire Danes had a perfect role tho and im not too sure about the TX in female form, seems like a cheap shot to get more people in but she did pull it off nicely except for the action scenes when her and Arnie duke it out. And there wasn't much of an ending was there like the Terminator 2 ending when the T-1000 and T-800 battle it out.

Not too much action either, but when they did do some (i.e. the truck) they kind of went over the top.

Freddy V Jason - Very good concept and is an good movie but the acting from a few of the actors wasn't that good, like from Kelly Rowland in some scenes and the main guy who got locked up in that pysch ward. But you will be all joyful to see Kellys last scene near the end when Jason gives her the chop 💃

Story could of pushed on a bit tho, it seemed a bit slow in some areas like the at the Pyscho-hosipatl n Party thing, u kinda of wonder how did u get there so fast, 1 min ur at a party then ur in a van, then ur at a table. BUT the fight scene at the end of the movie was SO GOOD you would of finished watching the film and would of gone WOW.

😱 😄

Alien 3 - Alright concept n an alright movie but it no way compared to Aliens, why where the main charactors killed off like Hicks n Newt. It would of worked from a good angel with those charactors in. Instead of the once again Survivor Ripley. Environments n sets looked good but no real story except for stay alive from the one Alien n not get killed. A few things could of been done to of made this movie better. But as we all know Alien 3 is so much better than Alien Ressurection (a poor excuse of a movie, dont even get me started 😠 ).

Evil Dead 3 - Very good concept but the movie wasn't played out as good as I hope, it was given a more comedy side but a few scenes were good and I cant stand when that thing is chasing Ash in day light as he rides his horse, it seems so corny n the way it moves n how the trees r knocked down aren't that good.

EVIL DEAD 2: DEAD BY DAWN is the BEST !!!!!!!!!! Go see it.

Resident Evil - Ok concept, loved the games, but the movie kind of sucked in story-line, action, and the Zombie effects. When the team shoot the zombies I didn't feel the action of the moment, just felt plain, it needed better gun sound effects and better camera angles as well as better use of the guns.

It panned a long but not as good as I hoped, Zombie pit was a bit extreme since u would never of seen that in the games and the Licker was cool tho.