Is "28 Days Later" a zombie film?
Pretty much is split between Nick Jobe, who says it's NOT a zombie film and on the other side is...everyone else. I feel bad for Nick because I know what its like trying to fight your point and having a gang of people team up and tell you that you're wrong and you suck and you should go to hell. (Reference: Jason Soto v Everyone Who Doesn't Get That Most Comedy Sequels Are Always Gonna Be Like The First Film.)
I have been asked a couple of times what do I think about this subject matter and my answer tends to piss people off: I don't know, but it is a post-apocalyptic film. Since both sides of this heated debate don't seem to know where I'm coming from, here's why I can't make up my mind.
Why It Could Be Considered A Zombie Film:
If you look back to the early films that started this whole zombie craze, mainly "Night of the Living Dead", you have a core group of people holed up somewhere while stumbling beings are outside trying to attack/eat you. Every zombie film since "Night" has followed this. Including "28 Days Later". The difference is the core group of people are constantly moving, and the stumbling beings run 200 MPH.
And what happens when one of those beings attack you? You become one of them. Much like zombies. Now Nick, before you hire hackers to take my website and turn it into a German Fetish site, let's look at:
Why It Could NOT Be Considered A Zombie Film:
Zombie, by definition, is a being who was DEAD, then came to life. The beings in "28 Days Later" have not died at any point. They get infected by, I forget, tainted
Now, I never seen "28 Weeks Later" so maybe some of this is explained. I do know there is a cure at some point, then of course some fucking stupid kid fucks it up. Ugh, I hate kids in movies. But the important part is, the people are never dead, just really angry to the point they aren't human anymore. Does that make someone a zombie? I don't think so.
What I DO know is, after the monkey bites whoever and that whoever bites whoever and so on and so on and so on, 28 Days Later, the world (or at least England) is one giant shithole. So therefore, it is a post apocalyptic film. I dunno how "28 Weeks Later" handles this. Are they like "Well everybody, things are ok now? Go back to work and your lives and...what not? Tally-ho! Cheers! God Save The Queen!" So this kinda throw a wrench into my theroy but really, I don't have much go on here.
So now, dear reader, I throw it to you. What do you think "28 Days Later" is? A zombie or not-zombie film? Can you at the VERY least agree it's a post-apocalyptic film? Sure it's no "Road Warrior" with a spikey guy yelling "JUST TURN BACK RIGHT NOW!! THIS GAS IS MINE!!!" but still.
As for me? I stand by what I said. I don't really know. If it is a zombie film, it's an interesting change into the zombie genre. And it's 200 times better than "Survival of the Dead". Fuck THAT movie.