Well, it had the slow-mo norks with the tassles at the beginning,Yes, the zombies looked shit (as are all speedy ones). Yes, it's not as good as 28 Weeks Later (but probably a better overall one that 28 days). And yes, it was slow at times.
BUT, it had great characters, a quality script, and a great film homage moment mid-way through (without spoiling it for the 1% of people who haven't heard of that cameo already).
I thought it was a quality Mainstream zombie movie overall.
(BUT, it had great characters, a quality script, and a great film homage moment mid-way through (without spoiling it for the 1% of people who haven't heard of that cameo already).
I thought it was a quality Mainstream zombie movie overall.
ArghZombies No longer has a Leaky QUIM,
Sat 10 Oct 2009, 15:07,
archived)
I must say the Bill Murray part was funbut that was about it...it was like having bad sex and sometims you think "hmmm she's pretty hot" and then she turns her head "OMG where's me gun".
(
Floppy Donkey crawled out of the ditch.,
Sat 10 Oct 2009, 15:25,
archived)
speedy zombies suck balls (28 Days later is the exception that proves the rule)I truly lament the way all zombies seem to be "speedy" these days (like in that TERRIBLE remake of Dawn of the Dead...Nowhere near as scary as "The Shufflers" of George A. Romero's classics.
Though not all his films are classics. Lots of them are shit.
(Though not all his films are classics. Lots of them are shit.
Fitznicely into a thimble,
Sat 10 Oct 2009, 15:49,
archived)
No, Return of the Living Dead is the exception.They are the only decent fast zombies.
( ArghZombies No longer has a Leaky QUIM,
Sat 10 Oct 2009, 16:23,
archived)