Regardless of whether or not you consider this a zombie film or not, it should be said that this film is not mainly about the horror of zombies in London, but more about human reaction to widespread chaos.
In the argument on whether or not these people are zombies. There are multiple forms of zombies not only in folk lore and movie lore, but essentially the core definition of a zombie is a person who is under complete control, and will do a task mindlessly and non-stop under any means necessary. This definition covers the traditional movie favorite, a corpse come back to life to devour flesh, and the type of zombie in this film, people infected with a virus causing uncontrollable violent rage, and a lust for killing.
In a neat plot device, if someone in the movie is scratched, bitten, or exposed to the blood of the zombie, then he/she will become infected in ten to twenty seconds. It makes the need to "kill or be killed" all that more important. It also eliminates the tired scenario of people being able to hide their infection until the last minute.
As for the zombies themselves they run fast as the wind looking for people to kill, they are quick brutal and violent. In the film when a zombie attacks a human the camera pans around wildly, never really giving a true clear view of the event until the attack is over. Some may complain about this, but I felt it added a level of brutality to the zombies. Besides, it's a lot scarier to HEAR a zombie kill someone, rather than see it, because it lets our imagination make it as gruesome as we want to be.
The film has many creepy elements, especially the sequence at the beginning when the main character is walking through the abandoned street of London, where nothing is left but himself and chaotic remains of a tragedy that has already past, and he is completely clueless of. This accentuated by the camera, I don't know much about film cameras, but this is of lesser quality, giving the shots a grainy, rough look to them. This gives the eerie "documentary" like effect to it, and it gives a sense of devastation, like this was the only camera they could find in the rubble of a destroyed civilization.
Of course eventually he meets other people, who with them goes in search of more people, and that is where the real meat of the film is. It's main focus is on the interaction, thoughts and relationships of these survivors, and to what level they will go to ensure their survival, which is at times more disturbing than any zombie they could come across.
28 Days Later is an engrossing horror/sci-fi drama that focuses on humanity in a post-apocalyptic nightmare, and decides to make it interesting by throwing some zombies into the mix. It's up to you to decide which is scarier.
In the argument on whether or not these people are zombies. There are multiple forms of zombies not only in folk lore and movie lore, but essentially the core definition of a zombie is a person who is under complete control, and will do a task mindlessly and non-stop under any means necessary. This definition covers the traditional movie favorite, a corpse come back to life to devour flesh, and the type of zombie in this film, people infected with a virus causing uncontrollable violent rage, and a lust for killing.
In a neat plot device, if someone in the movie is scratched, bitten, or exposed to the blood of the zombie, then he/she will become infected in ten to twenty seconds. It makes the need to "kill or be killed" all that more important. It also eliminates the tired scenario of people being able to hide their infection until the last minute.
As for the zombies themselves they run fast as the wind looking for people to kill, they are quick brutal and violent. In the film when a zombie attacks a human the camera pans around wildly, never really giving a true clear view of the event until the attack is over. Some may complain about this, but I felt it added a level of brutality to the zombies. Besides, it's a lot scarier to HEAR a zombie kill someone, rather than see it, because it lets our imagination make it as gruesome as we want to be.
The film has many creepy elements, especially the sequence at the beginning when the main character is walking through the abandoned street of London, where nothing is left but himself and chaotic remains of a tragedy that has already past, and he is completely clueless of. This accentuated by the camera, I don't know much about film cameras, but this is of lesser quality, giving the shots a grainy, rough look to them. This gives the eerie "documentary" like effect to it, and it gives a sense of devastation, like this was the only camera they could find in the rubble of a destroyed civilization.
Of course eventually he meets other people, who with them goes in search of more people, and that is where the real meat of the film is. It's main focus is on the interaction, thoughts and relationships of these survivors, and to what level they will go to ensure their survival, which is at times more disturbing than any zombie they could come across.
28 Days Later is an engrossing horror/sci-fi drama that focuses on humanity in a post-apocalyptic nightmare, and decides to make it interesting by throwing some zombies into the mix. It's up to you to decide which is scarier.