Wednesday, April 29, 2009


Well, I have been a little lax in my updating this week, but that's because I am getting ready to fly across various landmasses and oceans to go visit my girlfriend in Japan! I haven't seen her in 8 months (she's teaching Engrish over there), so it should be a good time. But, in honor of me going to Japan, I am going to do a list of things I fully expect to happen to me while over there according to J-horror.

I expect to piss off a spirit and have it stalk me: From what I can tell, you basically have to mildly offend a Japanese and it will try to enact vengeance upon you endlessly. And considering my girlfriend has informed me that sneezing in public is considered rude, I don't think it will take much to get a renegade spirit all over my tall, foreign ass. Speaking of being tall...

(Striking similarity, eh?)

At some point, I will be mistaken for Godzilla: I've see so many scenes in Japanese (specifically Godzilla) movies where they look up, point towards the sky, and shout "Godzirra!", that I'm almost sure that the 6'3" American will freak them out. I also figure they will yell because I will probably be destroying some tall structure while roaring (probably trying to hold back a sneeze).

I am going to say the phrase "Japanese people are fucked up" even more than I do now: In a land where you can buy panties from a vending machine, I have a feeling I am going to see some strange stuff. I do know that if I see a sign for auditions, I am going to stay the fuck away from that. I've seen what happens with that. Takashi Miike has made me so paranoid of Japanese women; wait, Japanese people that I'm actually a little scared to talk to them. Plus Miike made a bunch of weird other movies. Damn, Japanese people are fucked up.

There will be a pale boy that meows like a cat somewhere:

There are ghosts haunting everything: We are going to be visiting some old temples. Guess what? They're haunted. We are going to Mt Fuji at some point too. Haunted! Museums? Haunted! The Denny's near my girlfriend's apartment? Haunted! THERE ARE FUCKING GHOSTS EVERYWHERE!

That's really all I know about Japan. I will of course be speaking all the Japanese I know to people over there. And by Japanese, I mean loud, slow English. It's gonna be interesting. I'll try to keep updating, but it will be even more infrequent than I do currently!

Friday, April 24, 2009

Straight to Video Gems: The Burrowers

As I struggle to establish some interesting posts on my blog, I've decided to try to get some regular (or semi-regular) themes going, and one of them is my finds for the straight to video movies I've seen that have actually proven to be good (or bad). This was actually inspired by the last one I watched recently, The Burrowers. I feel that some of these movies don't get the attention they deserve when they are often times much better than whatever Hollywood churns out to the theaters (case in point: The Unborn). So I'll try to give you guys some recommendations about movies by telling you to either go buy them or stay the hell away. I won't review them in the same way I review most movies, but just give you a little more info or impetus to see them. So, without further ado, I'll get into THE BURROWERS!

I was fairly impressed with this little Lion's Gate flick. It came out 4/21/09 on DVD, so I decided to check it out. I'm a sucker for lower budget, indie American horror because I want to believe that we can still do horror that isn't a remake (either of a classic or foreign film). I'm also a sucker for a movie that doesn't just sound like every other movie out there. When I saw the ads for this movie and it didn't say something about "teens in a remote spot are stalked by a masked/mysterious/inbred killer", I was intrigued. A basic rundown according to IMDB:

"It is 1879 in the Dakota Territories. A handful of brave pioneers maintain isolated settlements in the badlands beyond civilization. Irish Immigrant Fergus Coffey is near to winning the hand of his beloved Maryanne when she is suddenly taken from him, her family brutally abducted in a nighttime attack on their homestead. Suspicion falls immediately on hostile Indians. Experienced Indian fighters Will Parcher and John Clay form a posse and set out to rescue the kidnapped settlers, taking along a naïve teenager hoping to prove himself a man, an ex-slave looking to find his place in the world and their ranch-hand, Coffey. But as men vanish in the night and horrific evidence accumulates with the dead and dying, the group discovers that their prey is far more terrifying than anything human, and their prospects are far more terrible than death."

Right away, it's interesting to see a horror movie set in the old west (yes, I'm aware it's been done before). In fact, one of my other straight to video favorites is also set in the old west (more to come in a future article about that one). The movie is well acted and the special effects are pretty impressive for how small the budget was. The crew of men go out to try to find the lost family they figure was attacked by Indians, but they end up discovering the burrowers took them. As they try to discover what the burrowers are (they think initially they are a tribe they've never heard of), the men find an incapacitated girl with a strange wound on her neck.

The best part of the movie is just how much thought they put into the creatures themselves. They look interesting enough, but how they kill their victims is the interesting part. They make a wound in the neck with their claws, then spit some strange saliva on the wound. That clots the blood so they don't bleed, but also paralyzes the victims. Then they bury the person alive and leave them like that for a couple of days. After a few days of the venom coursing through the person, the burrowers come back to feed on the soft parts of the human... while they are still alive. It's an eerie death and when you see a victim that's been buried trying to signal another person but all they can do is move their pinky, it's rather unnerving. And to think about being fed on while you are still alive is scary enough as it is.

As I said before, the acting is ample and you will see a couple of familiar faces thrown in there (Clancy Brown and Doug Hutchinson are the most notable). The nice thing is that the writer knew what he was doing with the ending too, as it has a Night of the Living Dead style reveal with the humans being the real monsters. It's a fairly intelligent little flick with some nice script work in there.

All and all, The Burrowers ends up being an above average horror flick. It's nothing incredible, but a worthy addition to any horror fan's collection for sure. It's nice to find these flicks every once in a while, even if I have to wade through some shit along the way. But I definitely approve of The Burrowers and encourage you all to check it out and tell me what you think! If you don't want to buy it, it is available via Netflix and there are some places to get it from the internet. I downloaded it first, but I am definitely picking this one up in the near future. Hope you guys enjoy it! Here's the trailer for the movie if you haven't seen it yet:

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Amazon Sale!

Just a heads up to all you horror fans out there, is having a big horror 2 for 1 sale that lasts until May 19th. There aren't a lot of great things on there, but there are a few worthwhile purchases, so check it out here.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Splinter Review

I know I've recommended it before, but I now need to take a critical eye to just how Splinter will hold up to my criteria. It came out last Tuesday on DVD and Blu-Ray (I have it on Blu-Ray and it's quite enjoyable), so I would suggest trying to find it. Very worthy little flick, but what is it all about?

Well, we find a couple, Polly and Seth (played by Jill Wagner, the Mercury spokeswoman, and Paulo Costanzo) trying to go camping. Seth isn't the outdoors type but Polly would like to go camping for their anniversary. They have some tent problems, so they are forced to scrap the camping and go for a motel. On the way, the see a girl alongside the road in need of help (Lacey, played by Rachel Kerbs). When they stop to help her, her boyfriend Dennis (aka D, played by Shea Wigham) pulls a gun on them and tells them to drive the pair to the nearest town so they can run from the law. On the way into town, they run over a strange spiny creature that pops a tire and ruins their radiator, forcing them to stop at a gas station.

They then encounter a strange creature that kills things and seems to reanimate their bodies. They are chased by severed arms, reanimated bodies, and creatures with spines all over their bodies. They have to try to escape this hell before they succumb to the creatures themselves. Who survives and who becomes one with the Splinter creature?

Cinematography: The movie starts off with some nice establishing shots of the Oklahoma wilderness and some very cool exteriors. And once they are inside the gas station, the majority of the movie is done very well, giving it a nice confined feel. However, the action shots tend to involve a lot of quick cuts and shaky cam, sort of deterring from the experience. You never really get a good look at the monster because of the shots, which was the intent because of the small budget, but it still makes for some very annoying camera work. However, it wasn't all that damaging to the overall competent shooting of the film, so it earns a 3 out 5 for Cinematography.

Execution: Well, we get to see a monster movie that doesn't involve any huge creatures from the sea or werewolves, so that's a huge plus for originality. I know the idea of something taking over a human body isn't that original, but the design of the creature definitely is. The actors and characters they portray are not only believable, but genuinely likable. Shea Wigham is very good as D, going the full gamut from despicable antagonist to the protagonist everyone is rooting for. He's a powerhouse onscreen, well aided by Wagner and Costanzo. The characters all have their arc that is very well executed and keep you engaged and the story is quite original, so it gets an impressive 4.5 out of 5 for Execution.

Sub-genre Comparison: It's definitely a monster movie of sorts, but it's hard to compare to recent monster movies like Cloverfield or The Host (2 very good movies) because of the scale of the monsters in those movies. However, it does hold up very well against them. Slither and Black Sheep are more equatable (again, 2 very good movies), and Splinter keeps right up with them as well (though it's not as funny). Splinter will hold up well against pretty much any film of the genre, even such classics as The Howling or Alien (though it may not be as good, it's not far behind). It gets a glowing 5 out of 5 for Sub-Genre Comparison, which isn't to say it's the best of its kind, but Splinter is amongst the top contenders.

Production Value: Splinter is not a top budget flick. The creature effects don't really seem to suffer from this though. They are wonderfully done (possibly because you never really get a good look due to the shaky cam) and end up being very creepy. The effects of a person succumbing to the splinter creature are startling and jarring, making joints go the wrong way and causing the limbs of dead bodies flail about. The scenes with the creature trying to get into the gas station by just throwing the body against the glass are nerve wracking. And there is a scene where they have to amputate an infected arm with a box cutter and a cinder block that is one of the most intense and gut-wrenching scenes I have seen in a long time (that isn't a torture scene of some sort). It's incredibly well done for the shoe-string budget it had to work with, so Splinter earns a 4.5 out of 5 for Production Value.

Scares: This movie will scare you. It will keep you on edge. It's not particularly scary in the sense of giving you nightmares, but it's tense and unnerving, with great use of sound to keep up the intensity. Some of Splinter's scariest moments come from the sound effects and atmosphere rather than the creature itself. Not a lot of jump scares to be found, but it does have a few thrown in for good measure. When a movie can make a disembodied arm crawling towards someone creepy and not laughable, it's doing something right. Splinter comes up with a 4 out of 5 for Scares.

So, the final tally for Splinter is an impressive 21 out of 25. This is a must see as far as I'm concerned. It a nice tight little movie that only really suffers from questionable camera work. However, as I said, that doesn't ruin the movie at all. This movie has given me hope for the future of small budget American horror and proves that we can still produce some good flicks in our own country (nothing against foreign horror, just nice to know we can still do it!). I greatly encourage horror fans to go see this movie, especially on Blu-Ray! Go! Do it!

Friday, April 17, 2009

A look again at The Mist

So last night I finally watched The Mist in black and white on my 2-disc special edition of the movie (at the suggestion of Johnny). Now bear in mind that I like this movie quite a bit. I love Frank Darabont (Shawshank, The Green Mile) and I was very eager to see this movie when it came out. I was a little put off by the special effects at times (a little too computer generated), but it was still a very worthy movie. And the ending. Whoa, just whoa. It was so ballsy and astounding that a Hollywood movie could do that. I was quite impressed with the movie to begin with and glad I watched. If I had a recommendation for you readers, it would be to watch this movie if you haven't seen it, but watch it first in color to get the feel of the movie. Then re-watch it in black and white.

And be prepared to be blown away.

The black and white version is amazing. Yes, it's the same movie, but at the same time it isn't. The special effects are now more masked and less evident. The CGI suddenly looks more integrated. The textures of the monsters are muted and meld with the background textures. The blood takes on more of a Psycho feel. The whole move is just elevated. It works so well it's scary. Darabont says in an intro to the movie (which I also recommend watching) that The Mist was supposed to be his little nod to the 60s monster flicks and wanted it to have that same gritty, surreal feel. In B&W, it does. I can't describe it. You just need to see it.

It's amazing how something so simple can entirely change a viewing experience, but it really does. I can't stress enough that people should watch the movie like this. If you liked the movie, it will make you like it more. If you didn't like the movie, it may just be enough for you to rediscover it. Just go and watch it! Here's a nice little example (the sound is a bit off, but it's the best example I could find quickly):

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Overrated Horror: Eli Roth

Here's another little segment I think I might start rolling out: overrated horror! I will go into movies, characters, actors, directors, or even franchises that I think are overrated or just don't click with me. Now bear in mind this doesn't mean necessarily that I don't like that particular movie or person, it just means that I don't think as highly of them as most people tend to see them. For my first installment, I'm going to delve into a person that I really cannot seem to figure out:

Eli Roth. I have to say, my hatred for this guy knows no bounds. Okay, so maybe not for the guy himself, but for the movies he makes. You may know him as Tarantino's little pet project and the guy who talks about things almost a passionately (and at length) as Tarantino himself does. The guy has directed 3 movies so far: Cabin Fever, Hostel, and Hostel II. I just don't know where to start.

I've seen the guy talk on TV (101 Scariest Movie Moments, Starz Inside: Fantastic Flesh, His Name Was Jason) and he seems to genuinely like horror movies. You can see the passion when he talks about them. He's trying very hard to promote horror and seems like he wouldn't be a bad guy to go and get a beer with sometime. He knows his stuff and cares about what he does. So why do I think he's overrated?

He's not really that good of a director. His movies have been generally boring and lifeless with terrible dialogue. Cabin Fever was laughable at parts and not when it was trying to be. Hostel was an okay movie at best, but was forgettable and overall kind of limp. Hostel II was regrettable. I just can't understand how this guy keeps getting press for his movies. He's the poster child for the torture porn industry ("gorn" as it's called sometimes) and basically the boiler plate I use for explaining why too many horror movies just rely on gore and no story or scares. Hostel wasn't scary, it was violent. Cabin Fever had no tension, it had makeup effects. Hostel II had, ummm, a guy killing someone with a scythe? I don't really think Hostel II had much going for it. I'm greatly scared for his upcoming adaptation of Stephen King's wonderful book Cell because it's one of my favorite King books (and just overall books) of recent memory.

When it comes right down to it, I think Roth can actually set up shots pretty well and has an eye for some great scenes, but he can't really do tension or write scripts. His dialogue is (as previously mentioned) lacking and uninteresting. He's ambitious, but leaves most of his movies feeling like he spent too much time on the effects and not enough on the plot or characters. Cabin Fever was basically a train wreck. Hostel was like watching an epileptic try new meds: at times it was working and focused, others it was seizing out of control. Hostel II was that same epileptic giving up on the meds: an interesting thought, but ultimately unfulfilling and not that fun to watch.

I think with a little direction and someone else penning the script, Roth could make some very interesting movies. However, he seems like the type of person that would consider himself an "auteur" and would refuse to do work that he doesn't have full control over, especially if Tarantino has anything to do with it. I said before he seemed like a guy that would be cool to go have a beer with, but he also seems like a guy who you would want to punch after about 2 hours of talking to him. I feel like he would be an interesting person in limited doses. It's also worth noting that the antagonist from The Girl Next Door (played by Timothy Olyphant) is based off Eli Roth and his many mannerisms. That doesn't paint an attractive picture.

Basically, I think Eli Roth isn't nearly as good as people like Greg Mclean, Neil Marshall, or even Alexandre Aja. Is Eli Roth the future of horror? God, I hope not.

Monday, April 13, 2009

A meditation on zombies, part 2

A couple posts back, I started writing a meditation on zombies. I am little perturbed about the state of zombies in our world nowadays actually. What happened to the slow lumbering zombies? Why is it all of a sudden cool to have fast moving zombies that can run you down? Don't get me wrong, I think fast moving zombies can work, but why doesn't anyone want the slow zombies anymore? Did Zack Snyder ruin that like he's ruined 300 and The Watchmen? Don't get me wrong, I liked his remake of Dawn of the Dead (and Watchmen was okay, but 300 was pretty mediocre), but between that and 28 Days Later, fast zombies (or infected zombies) have become all the rage. Aren't people scared by the slow moving zombies anymore?

My girlfriend said she thought the fast zombies would be scarier because they produce more jump scares. Well, in my opinion, jump scares can be used fairly well, but after a while, they just make a crutch for bad horror to "scare" audiences, when all it really does is surprise them. You get the same effect when the lights turn on and a group of people yell surprise. The majority of jump scares are not that scary, just abrupt. They make up for a movie's lack of true tension by creating brief glimpses of it. Fast zombies create the possibility for the zombie to pop up suddenly and scare you, but they aren't truly horrifying in most cases. Dawn of the Dead had some great scenes and it was fun, but it was really more of an action movie than a horror movie, it just happened to have zombies in it. It's also worth pointing out that the characters were better developed than the average action movie, but that's neither here nor there. The thing is, most of the scares in the Dawn remake came from jump scares. It worked though because it got tension from the characters, not the zombies.

That's also why 28 Days Later worked: it produced a lot of tension. Go back and watch that movie: it doesn't have that many jump scares, but Danny Boyle could have easily put many in there. Instead you have (one of my favorite scenes in recent movie history) the scene where Jim enters the church and is greeted by a lot of infected, including an infected priest. It's wonderfully executed and tense, yet not a jump scare to be found. In the end of the movie, there's also a scene where young Hannah is suspended behind a mirror while an infected looks at his reflection in the very same mirror. It's spooky because the danger is so imminent (and quite well shot by Mr. Boyle). 28 Days Later, with its infected zombies, stands out as a wonderful zombie movie and would easily go in my top 10 zombie movies of all time.

But 28 Days Later is a rarity like that. Slower zombies will always be scarier to me because of the tension they create. They are ever present. You can easily walk around them and get away from them, but every time you look behind you, they are still there. They don't stop. And if you stop moving, even for a night, they have suddenly come out of the woodwork to surround you. They moan, they stumble, and they drive people insane. The slow zombies can lull you into a false sense of security because they are so slow. And then when you let your guard down for second, they will get you. Even slow zombies produce jump scares. They stalk in the shadows and remain silent and motionless until you get right up next to them. There's no scream or rumble before they attack, they just bite your neck.

You may say to yourself that slow zombies aren't nearly as scary because if you were in that situation, you would totally get away from them. The fast zombies are what would get you because you couldn't out run them. And that's exactly why when the slow zombies truly come, you'll be totally screwed. At least the fast zombies will give you a screech or just come running at you. The slow moving zombies are the things that are right there when you turn a corner. You take off in a sprint and come around a building to be caught by the slow-as-molasses zombie lumbering towards you.

Slow moving zombies represent the ever present death in our lives. They can be used as an allegory for many things (and have been by Romero). Fast moving zombies are cool, but they are ultimately there for show, not for introspection. Slow moving zombies will always be scarier to me because they can represent things besides just the walking dead. For me, it's all about the approach and the slower, the better.

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Dead Snow Review

I managed to find a copy of Dead Snow that I have wanted to see for a while now. I watched it this weekend (twice actually as a friend wanted to see it too) and decided to review it. But first, just what happens?

The movie opens with a girl getting chased through the woods by some unseen evil and she eventually falls down a steep incline and is devoured by something we don't fully see. We then find 7 friends heading up to a remote cabin in the Scandinavian mountains for a fun filled weekend. As they settle in for their first night, a strange man comes to their cabin asking for some coffee. He tells them a story of how the village near the cabin was once occupied by Nazis during WWII and they weren't kind to the villagers. However, the villagers rose up against them and drove the Nazis into the very same mountains this cabin was in. It was said the Nazis, knowing they would have to retreat, grabbed all the valuables from the village and hid somewhere up in the peaks. Of course the kids (who are all Med students) don't believe in that sort of story and the stranger is on his way.

After their first night, they realize their friend who was supposedly hiking to the cabin hasn't shown up yet, so her boyfriend goes to look for her (of course, this was the first girl we saw getting killed). The boyfriend finds our stranger gutted in his tent and falls into a cave where Nazi memorabilia abounds. Meanwhile, his friends back at the cabin find a box of treasure (I wonder where that came from) and rejoice. All at once, there are NAZI ZOMBIES attacking their cabin and the guy in the cave! As some of the kids get picked off, we are treated to eviscerations, heads being pulled apart, decapitations, a machine gun mounted on a snowmobile, and just general anarchy. But, did the movie produce any fun or scares?

Cinematography: I don't know if it's that the Scandinavian mountains make directors look good or vice versa, but some of the shots in this movie are actually quite breathtaking. The long shots for some of the scenes give you a great sense of how epic the scale is and the isolation these friends face. The sheer lack of overt color in both the scenery (mostly snow and trees) and the zombies (very drab, dirty uniforms) is contrasted wonderfully by the kids' clothing and the blood in the fight scenes. The shot scale is varied and quite well done, never really relying on one type of shot for any particular scene. And there are no real shaky cam parts (in fact, the tracking shots of running through woods are quite smooth in most parts). I give it a nice, solid 4 out of 5 for Cinematography.

Execution: Well, technically we've seen Nazi Zombies before, but I still think there aren't enough Nazi Zombie movies to really call this tired or done to death. I am still willing to call this original, especially because of the back story and the fact they aren't in Germany. It's a nice little twist on a zombie film and the zombies don't really bite all that much, instead preferring to punch, kick, or stab people (which makes for some great fight scenes). The characters aren't anything groundbreaking (movie geek, horny guy, horny girl, mild mannered dude, jock type), but they aren't overwrought, making them enjoyable. You start to like the characters, but you don't get too invested in them. They are all well acted, so it gets a respectable 4 out of 5 for Execution.

Sub-genre Comparison: Comparing this to other zombie movies is kind of hard because they aren't like traditional zombies. However, it definitely holds up against some of the heavy hitters (Night, Dawn, Shaun) for sheer enjoyability. It's not a particularly scary offering, but then again it's not trying to be either. Comparing it to recent zombie offerings such as Day of the Dead or Diary of the Dead and it more than holds up. It's a fun little twist on the zombie tradition, so comparatively it gets a 4.5 out of 5 for Sub-genre Comparison.

Production Value: The settings are great, the effects are first-rate, and the acting is more than ample. It looks very polished and is done well, making it very easy to watch. They went for mostly traditional effects for gore, using CGI pretty sparingly (something I appreciate greatly). The movie is pretty gory, so for you gore-hounds, it should satisfy nicely. The scenes where Nazi after Nazi is mowed down with hatchets, sledgehammers, and chainsaws are grotesquely pleasing, offering all manners of limbs and entrails flying through the air. It's all kinds of fun to watch, so it gladly earns a 4.5 out of 5 for Production Value.

Scares: This movie isn't really meant to be that scary, opting to be a bit more towards the funny spectrum, but it still actually produces some good, tense scenes. There is an out house at the cabin, which makes for some great, Friday the 13th style scenes with people stalking around the shack and looking through the boards. There is a scene where someone is looking through a window at their friend outside, only to find out that it's only her severed head being held up that is extremely well done. Basically, when the movie wants to be scary, it succeeds pretty damn well, so I'll give it a 4 out of 5 for Scares, taking into account it's not supposed to be the scariest thing in the world.

So, the final tally for Dead Snow puts it at a 21 out of 25. That puts it into the "Must Watch" category, as far as I am concerned. As I said, I watched it twice this weekend and I gleefully enjoyed both viewings. It's got so many fun scenes once the action starts that I couldn't help but laugh. And the homages it throws out are great too, so be sure to watch for some of those. It amazes me at not only how much fun it was, but how well done it was. It wasn't just a fanboy making a movie, it was a director (who happens to also be a fanboy) making a film. This movie is a blast, I highly recommend watching it when it gets here to the US! And in a movie full of ridiculous scenes, I give you the most ridiculous as further proof you need to see this movie!

Friday, April 3, 2009

IMDB Frontpage

Anyone notice anything about the IMDB front page today?

(Click on the image to zoom in)

The trailers (with the exception of 2012) are all for horror movies. Am I the only one who finds that interesting?

Thursday, April 2, 2009

A meditation on zombies

First off, let me apologize for the infrequency of my updates as of late. There is a guy at work that has been gone for the last 3 weeks and is out next week as well. I am this guy's back up at work, so I have been pulling double duty lately, which has left me working about 55 hours a week and tired when I'm not at work. Admittedly I knew this was coming because he is gone to spend time with his first child, so I'm neither surprised nor angry, it's just been a bit tiring. But I will diligently try to keep updating as often as possible.

Well, as expected from the title of this posting, I will be discussing zombies today. We'll see just how long I rant on the subject; it may end up being broken into two posts for you, the readers' sake. First off, let's establish something: what defines a zombie?

Now, I'm not exactly Webster's (I am a bit of a walking dictionary, though), but I have a definition of a zombie that I adhere to. A zombie is a creature (not necessarily human, but more often than not) that has died and due to some unnatural process has come back to life. The reanimated corpse is unable to truly think, though they may be able to put some basic thoughts (even speech) together. They are in the group of creatures known as "undead", which includes vampires, mummies, ghouls, skeletons, and (depending on which legend you go by) werewolves. They are all creatures that die and then come back, not really alive but definitely not dead.

Now that's where my definition really trails off. My usual thought of a zombie is that of the Romero Type - slow, shambling corpses with no thought or coordination. They are ever present, moaning but not really speaking. And you had better be prepared to shoot them in the head in order to kill them. That doesn't mean I won't accept other types of zombies: Dawn of the Dead (2004) had zombies, but they were fast; Return of the Living Dead featured zombies that had to be electrocuted, not shot in the head; The Dead Next Door had zombies that were basically unkillable and some spoke; and Cemetery Man featured zombies that could not only talk, but could hold conversations. Now, I consider all of those movies to contain zombies, but they aren't all the same type of zombies. I am even willing to accept 28 Days Later and Quarantine as having zombies in them if someone wants to use them as an example. I realize I have said in the past I don't accept 28 Days and Quarantine as true zombies, but I do consider them a sort of sub-genre in zombie movies I like to refer to as "Infection Zombies". So while they aren't "zombies" in my truest sense of the word, I'm willing to accept the movies on a zombie movie list (though I like to point out they aren't "true" zombie films). The one uniting factor is that you have some unrelenting, unthinking enemy that keeps wanting to kill you for no good reason.

With the recent development of the fast zombie (28 Days Later, Dawn remake), it has given rise to one question: which is scarier, the slow zombie or the fast zombie? Seeing as how this post has already come to be quite long, I will tell you in my next post what I think. However, I would like to know what everyone else thinks. So, in the comments, what do you find scarier? Fast or slow zombies? Here's some food for thought:

Fast Zombies:

Slow Zombies