Quote:
Originally Posted by yourlastmistake
Not to piss anybody off but the people in 28 days/weeks were infected, not living dead. Therefore they are not zombie movies.
|
Oh, yes, definitely hyper aware of this particular critique... However, I feel as though 28 Days/Weeks later use enough of the zombie archetype (in both the zombie-inspired spread of the infection as well as the common themes of consumerism, consumption, and societal commentary) that it goes along as more of a zombie movie than the general branding of "monster."
Not to mention, if you take a look at the second one, 28 Weeks, the Infected begin to take more of a zombie-esque type of shape (i.e. lost limbs and the ability to persevere while the body seems to be realistically dead), so it's clear that the director meant for at least
that film to mutate even closer into the zombie mythos. Take a peek if you haven't seen it already.
...
Now,
not to piss anybody off (i.e. those who do NOT consider 28 Days/Weeks Later to be zombie movies), there was a recent film that I saw that uses the same theme of spreading Disease/Infection (bodily fluids - no cure) medium to create monsters from people that I DEFINITELY recommend:
Mulberry Street
If you're willing to explore beyond conventional zombies and consider Infection to fall under the same category - Check this one out. It's in select theaters now. Low budget, but uses every penny INCREDIBLY well.