What's Your Favorite Kind of Zombie?

2»

Comments

  • edited July 2013
    My first Zombie film was the 1968 Night of the Living Dead, and yes I saw Shawn of the Dead before Dawn of the Dead, a few months ago, I really liked it also, I just saw Zombieland before Shawn of the Dead.
  • edited July 2013
    My first Zombie film was the 1968 Night of the Living Dead, and yes I saw Shawn of the Dead before Dawn of the Dead, a few months ago, I really liked it also, I just saw Zombieland before Shawn of the Dead.

    That's okay then,you scared me,I thought you hadn't seen Shaun of the Dead,sorry. :o
  • edited July 2013
    Funny, me teacher would tell me every day that I did not see Shawn of the Dead that I would get more homework, and it still took me sometime to get it but it was so worth it, the ending is still amazing.
  • edited July 2013
    I loved Shaun of the Dead. Being half Brit/half NZder the humour resonated extremely well. I also got very 'excitable' over all the references to zombie lore gone before, such as the restaurant Shaun was supposed to reserve a table at being called Fulci's. Little things like that are huge for a zombie nut like me.
  • edited July 2013
    I am just going to get both, the remake and the original, should I get any other Romero zombie movies or should I just stop at Dawn of the Dead.

    Um, I'd try Day of the Dead (1985) if only because it's Romero's favourite. It took me a few goes to kind of 'appreciate' it. I do not like it anywhere near as much as the previous two films. The scenes with zombie "Bub" are must see scenes though. The remake of it would be better off named Steroidal Zombies doing Parkour. They are fast and ridiculously nimble and strong and it all gets a tad ridiculous.

    Romero's The Crazies (1973) is worth checking out too. Not your classic zombie film, rather people gone nuts from a bioweapon. The remake is pretty damn good too.
  • edited July 2013
    Okay, good tip, thanks Sick Octopus.
  • edited July 2013
    my kind of zombie would be the DEAD kind. or you know the one witch a pickaxe in the head.
  • edited July 2013
    Okay, good tip, thanks Sick Octopus.

    Also I would suggest you do not watch Diary of the dead if you haven't already seen it,it was mediocre.
  • edited July 2013
    Okay, also a good heads up, movie reviews can really only go so far you know.
  • edited July 2013
    Also I would suggest you do not watch Diary of the dead if you haven't already seen it,it was mediocre.

    I agree.

    I'm a huge Romero fan but his recent films are somewhat disappointing. Watchable but lacking what made the first three so good. Land of the Dead was the better of the recent three, had some interesting ideas, particularly with the 'learning' zombie (first developed in Day of the Dead) but it fell flat as a Romero film, for me personally. Diary of the Dead and Survival of the Dead? I could hardly believe Romero had worked on them.
  • edited July 2013
    I think Land of the Dead could have been absolutely fricking awesome had it been approached a little differently; had great potential.
  • edited July 2013
    Okay, also a good heads up, movie reviews can really only go so far you know.

    True but Diary of the Dead, and Survival of the Dead, are I believe the most recent of the Living Dead movies. And as we all know, sequels can only get worse and worse.

    indiana-jones-04.jpg
    star-wars-episode-v-the-empire-strikes-back-yoda.jpg
    toystory2281292.jpg

    Well, not all the time. But in most cases.
  • edited July 2013
    In those three cases, plus Terminator 2, and Aliens, but most of the time you are right.
  • edited July 2013
    That and Survival of the Dead does not at all sound as cool as Night of the Living Dead, or Dawn of the Dead.
  • edited August 2013
    I prefer the slow moving zombies. It makes more sense that they would move slow because they should be slowly decomposing and their limbs can be severed easier than a living person's. The zombies in 28 days later take the piss. They run at break neck speeds and never twist their ankles or break any bones.
  • edited August 2013
    The infected from 28 Days Later are so thoroughly rabid, I doubt they have time for pain.
  • edited August 2013
    Disregard shattered tibia and being on fire, must continue to rage run until starving and lethargic.
  • edited August 2013
    But you can't call them zombies, infected is the word, which for some reason annoys me.
  • edited August 2013
    Big fan of 28 days/weeks, but i still prefer the good old slow zombies.
  • edited August 2013
    Slow Zombies are my personal preference since i like the the fact the threat builds up slower. "the infected" are a clusterfuck from the word go and there's nothing wrong with that per say and it is very good from creating something frantic and exciting like left 4 dead. I also do like the semi-plausible explanations it gives, but i prefer the slower burn where the human element comes in a little more and then things gradually fall apart. In a way find the idea of a slow yet unrelenting force scarier despite the lesser threat as i'll get gradually overwhelmed and have a lot more time to be scared and probably die a more painful slower death than by the infected.
  • edited August 2013
    That is my reason to, it's worse when they walk slow, but it takes sometime.
  • edited August 2013
    White Walkers
  • edited August 2013
    I change my vote, got to go with the greatest zombie ever, the zombie you can't kill, unless you are a nerd.
This discussion has been closed.