Originally Posted by edwood saucer
Just to add after reading the post...
I like slow Zombies. I like slow mass murderers. No matter how fast you run - they catch up. It's like a nightmare - and I think that works a lot better than fast zombies and murderers.
Not to say there is not the exception - I thought 28 Days was a great movie. Fast domestic zombies don't work for me!
For whatever reason!
First of all, Ed, I just want to thank you for expressing why you didn't care for the film. A lot of people would have come out with something trite and uninteresting like, "I just thought it sucked," without a decent arguement to back it up. I respect people who give me a good solid reason whether it agrees with my own opinion or not.
Back on topic, 28 Days Later
isn't a zombie film. They were victims of a disease called Rage. They didn't take sustenance from their victims, that is why they began to die out in the end. No food, no energy to continue those seemingly tireless sprints.
In the original NOTLD you did see gut chomping, but you didn't actually see the zombies take them from the ones they were eating. In the redux of DOTD you actually seen the biting, but it is neither here nor there and is just a matter of preference I suppose.
JT mentioned Carnival of Souls.
Without this film then I seriously doubt Romero would have made NOTLD. Both are fine, creepy films and an asset to anyone's Horror Movie collection.
If I had a problem with Snyder's version of DOTD, then it's the fact that the zombies didn't slow down even when massive deterioration was glaringly evident. I am writing a screenplay now that sort of addresses that. That aside, I think the redux is a great film and possibly superior to anything Romero put out. Once again, it's all a matter of preference.