28 days later or Dawn of the dead 04?

Both are alright, but I preferred the original Dawn of the Dead to the re-make. 28 Days later has the edge over the remake, but maybe not the original.

EDIT: By "alright" I don't mean bad, all three movies are very entertaining and fun to watch.

Really Tough, but i would have to choose 28 days later, i also thought 28 weeks was a great film as well.friutpunch

Meh I didnt like 28 weeks later, it had no really interesting characters and it was pretty much a dumb action movie pretending it was something more. Plus the two kids sucked, i wanted to smack them.

i liked 28 days later better. one thing you didnt mention is the soundtrack. lets face it. "in the house, in i heartbeat" is much more chilling than "down with the sickness".LoG-Sacrament

Also 28 days later had godspeed you black emperor in the sountrack:D

28 Days Later isn't a zombie movie, but it's better than Snyder's 'dawn' remake.

Danny Boyle, as a filmmaker, is leaps and bounds above Zach Snyder.

28 Days Later isn't a zombie movie, but it's better than Snyder's 'dawn' remake.

Danny Boyle, as a filmmaker, is leaps and bounds above Zach Snyder.

MedicMike66

You should see danny boyle's new film Slumdog Millionare, I think it is the best film he has ever done.

28 days later for the story.

Dawn of the dead 04 for the action.

[QUOTE="MedicMike66"]

28 Days Later isn't a zombie movie, but it's better than Snyder's 'dawn' remake.

Danny Boyle, as a filmmaker, is leaps and bounds above Zach Snyder.

Film-Guy

You should see danny boyle's new film Slumdog Millionare, I think it is the best film he has ever done.

I'll have to check it out. Thanks!!

I think 28 days later is much better, it had better acting, better characters, and overall it was just a much better film. Film-Guy

[QUOTE="friutpunch"]Really Tough, but i would have to choose 28 days later, i also thought 28 weeks was a great film as well.Film-Guy

Meh I didnt like 28 weeks later, it had no really interesting characters and it was pretty much a dumb action movie pretending it was something more. Plus the two kids sucked, i wanted to smack them.

yeah, but still the girl was really pretty :oops:

[QUOTE="friutpunch"]Really Tough, but i would have to choose 28 days later, i also thought 28 weeks was a great film as well.Film-Guy

Meh I didnt like 28 weeks later, it had no really interesting characters and it was pretty much a dumb action movie pretending it was something more. Plus the two kids sucked, i wanted to smack them.

The ending made me want to smack the sister. >_>

[QUOTE="Film-Guy"]

[QUOTE="friutpunch"]Really Tough, but i would have to choose 28 days later, i also thought 28 weeks was a great film as well.MrLions

Meh I didnt like 28 weeks later, it had no really interesting characters and it was pretty much a dumb action movie pretending it was something more. Plus the two kids sucked, i wanted to smack them.

The ending made me want to smack the sister. >_>

It was the kids fault the whole mess started in the first place, that and the stupid military that had the brilliant idea of locking people in a room and not posting guards to watch over the infected mother.

The 'dawn' remake is a quality movie, and I was surprised that I really enjoyed it. Snyder is a talented filmmaker, but he's no, Aronofsky, Paul Grenngrass, or Del Toro -- pretty much everyone that passed on Watchmen before he obtained rights...

Looking kind of corny.

28 Days Later is a solid piece of horror/art that came close to being great -- I think the ending is a little contrived and audience pleasing.

I would go with Dawn of the Dead which surprised me by being an excellent remake that I was prepared to loathe. I thought it was an excellent choice as well as the original does seem somewhat dated upon multiple viewings whereas Night of the Living Dead has always seemed fairly timeless.

28 Days Later however I didn't think much of and it rather bored me. I thought it started off fine, but when they headed out of town the clashing with the cadre of soldiers just seemed rather silly to me and it pretty much drained my interest to see the sequel.

The 'dawn' remake is a quality movie, and I was surprised that I really enjoyed it. Snyder is a talented filmmaker, but he's no, Aronofsky, Paul Grenngrass, or Del Toro -- pretty much everyone that passed on Watchmen before he obtained rights...

Looking kind of corny.

28 Days Later is a solid piece of horror/art that came close to being great -- I think the ending is a little contrived and audience pleasing.

MedicMike66

Which ending did you see? I saw the original one that was used in the British version that has Jim not surviving.

28 Days Later is much better. I really need too see the sequel 28 Weeks Later.Jazz_Fan

Its not as good and it is much more shallow and has alot of stupid plot devices, but overall it's ok.

28 Days is good,but i prefer Dawn over it.teh_destroyer

Because of the baby scene right? :P

[QUOTE="teh_destroyer"]28 Days is good,but i prefer Dawn over it.MrLions

Because of the baby scene right? :P

28 Days Later was awesome, while Dawn of the Dead was really good.

[QUOTE="MedicMike66"]

The 'dawn' remake is a quality movie, and I was surprised that I really enjoyed it. Snyder is a talented filmmaker, but he's no, Aronofsky, Paul Grenngrass, or Del Toro -- pretty much everyone that passed on Watchmen before he obtained rights...

Looking kind of corny.

28 Days Later is a solid piece of horror/art that came close to being great -- I think the ending is a little contrived and audience pleasing.

Film-Guy

Which ending did you see? I saw the original one that was used in the British version that has Jim not surviving.

[QUOTE="Film-Guy"][QUOTE="MedicMike66"]

The 'dawn' remake is a quality movie, and I was surprised that I really enjoyed it. Snyder is a talented filmmaker, but he's no, Aronofsky, Paul Grenngrass, or Del Toro -- pretty much everyone that passed on Watchmen before he obtained rights...

Looking kind of corny.

28 Days Later is a solid piece of horror/art that came close to being great -- I think the ending is a little contrived and audience pleasing.

krazykillaz

Which ending did you see? I saw the original one that was used in the British version that has Jim not surviving.

Yeah in the american ending of the descent she lives but in the british one she is still in the cave, I dont know why they changed that ending. Maybe they thought that 28 days later was too grim and it needed something happy.

[QUOTE="MedicMike66"]

The 'dawn' remake is a quality movie, and I was surprised that I really enjoyed it. Snyder is a talented filmmaker, but he's no, Aronofsky, Paul Grenngrass, or Del Toro -- pretty much everyone that passed on Watchmen before he obtained rights...

Looking kind of corny.

28 Days Later is a solid piece of horror/art that came close to being great -- I think the ending is a little contrived and audience pleasing.

Film-Guy

Which ending did you see? I saw the original one that was used in the British version that has Jim not surviving.

The theatrical version. The alternate ending is just a special feature on my copy and it is much better.

Dawn of the Dead 04, by far. Got me into zombie movies.-TheSecondSign-

Same.

both are great movies, but i prefer 28 days later more, when jim is all alone in london is one of the most errie moments in a movie imo, the music in both 28 days and weeks are beautiful too.

though the remake of dawn is not as good as the origanal imo, its still a great movie. i also really like the dvd extras with the news station, it seemed real and scarry

[QUOTE="MrLions"]

[QUOTE="teh_destroyer"]28 Days is good,but i prefer Dawn over it.teh_destroyer

Because of the baby scene right? :P

It made giggle. :P

it depends what you're after.

Dawn of the Dead is by far the better ZOMBIE flick. It has shotguns, it has Ving Rhames, it has zombie babies, it has tons of brutal kills and ridiculous vehicles....it's a superb zombie flick that truly serves the zombie fan's appetites.

on the other hand, 28 Days Later is the better film, qualitatively. It's a zombie movie for film critics, or people who are not zombie fans. In fact, it's often not even a zombie flick. Outside of some defenses at the military outpost, this isn't the slayathon zombie fans expect. I mean, i think the main character kills one zombie the entire film and never fires a gun.

In other words, 28 days Later is better as a real, quality film. Dawn of the Dead 04 is much better at being zombie fan service. i love both movies, but they truly are very different.

it depends what you're after.

Dawn of the Dead is by far the better ZOMBIE flick. It has shotguns, it has Ving Rhames, it has zombie babies, it has tons of brutal kills and ridiculous vehicles....it's a superb zombie flick that truly serves the zombie fan's appetites.

on the other hand, 28 Days Later is the better film, qualitatively. It's a zombie movie for film critics, or people who are not zombie fans. In fact, it's often not even a zombie flick. Outside of some defenses at the military outpost, this isn't the slayathon zombie fans expect. I mean, i think the main character kills one zombie the entire film and never fires a gun.

In other words, 28 days Later is better as a real, quality film. Dawn of the Dead 04 is much better at being zombie fan service. i love both movies, but they truly are very different.

Paladin_King

Dawn of The Dead for sure. 28 Days Later is like rip off of it.rom11

28 days later came out before dawn of the dead:|