[Lucky]

Ok, second go. 28 Days Later goes from the witch in the woods and a snotty nosed chick to the killed in the doll and a snotty nosed kid. Go figure. Can the diminutive Chuckie handle the Rage Zombies. And yes, they're fucking zombies.


(10) 28 Days Later





vs



(23) Child's Play[/size]




Poll closes Wed at 8 PM EST.

[National Champion Chris Cole]

CHUCKY!!!!

[The Jewish Cunthead]

I love how Chucky went on to be Doc Cochran in Deadwood.

[DevSop]

Chucky was one of the best Halloween costumes I ever dared to try. Totally freaked a few people out.

[Lori]

Chucky still = meh to me. He's creepy, but 28 Days Later still reigns as one of my favorites.

[creepy]

I know I'm about to get internetly punched in the googlies, but I've never much cared for Zombie movies. More into horror that can actually, you know, happen. Serial killers and disasters and greed driven stories scare me while Zombie movies are just too cartoonish in that they just couldn't happen. I know that most entertainment is separated from reality, but I just feel it more if it's possible.

Of course, a serial killers soul being trapped in a doll is less likely to happen than some Up From The Dead Ghouls, but evil little shitbag kids have always scared me.

[Lori]

Seriously people? CHUCKY?

[National Champion Chris Cole]

[DevSop]

Yes Lori, because kids are always scarier than zombies. In order from scariest to least, it goes kids > animals > zombies.

[National Champion Chris Cole]

If everybody thinks kids are scary then why the hell was The Omen left off this tournament? Nothing is creepier then Damien the Demonic Toddler.

[Lori]

Kids are scary. Gage is terrifying. The kids from Children of the Corn (which somehow I completely forgot to put on my list), very scary. A fucking obnoxious little red-haired demonically possessed doll, is not.

[Lucky]

Omen was left off because too many people voted for the crap from the last 15 years or so. And despite that The Others got missed. Not to say its one of the best or anything but its better than Final Destination and Scream 3. (Not to mention a certain movie in here...)

The fact that there are at least 3 dramas, 1 sci-fi and 2 comedies on the showdown didn't help either. But I think they're horror so its all good (even nominated 3 of them). But if I had been strict we could have gotten Omen, Dawn of the Dead, Gremlins (which is probably a comedy too), TCM (2003), The Fog, and Rosemary's Baby on this thing. That's 4 classic horror films that got left off this thing because we needed 2 versions of the Ring.

/bitter

[creepy]

Yeah, but remember Lucky, according to this group, Rocky 3 is a better drama than The Godfather II.

[Jack Quinn]

yeah Chucky is a fucking doll. A demon possessed doll, but a doll nonetheless. I remember the scene where Chucky attacks some lady with a hammer or something, and she backs all the way across the apartment until she finally falls out the window. I laughed my ass off because it was so stupid.

Seriously, its a doll. I would stand on its neck and let the dog eat it or something.


Unless that would demoniacally possess my dog, that would suck.

[Chris Eco]

"It's a doll"
"BUT I CAN'T KILL IT!!!"
"Fine. Put it in a little cage."
"Oh..."

And creepy, 28 Days Later COULD happen. Because they're NOT zombies, they're INFECTED HUMANS. C'mon Lucky. Bring it.

Edit: In a less confrontational way: In Night of the Living Dead, they're reanimated. Same in Resident Evil, if I understand it properly (and I might not): They die, and the virus has now taken over a dead body with new DNA. 28 Days Later, they're infected people.

[Lucky]

No, that doesn't make sense. The original Night and its sequels had previously dead and those who die in other ways turn into zombies. Fine. Return had a biological agent that both killed and infected humans and reanimated corpses. Fine. Resident Evil had a biological weapon that infected people with absolutely no sign of reanimated corpses. Dawn of the Dead '04 specifically noted that those who died from causes other than bites are not turned. You must be infected. They never explain the source of the infection but you must be infected to turn. Just like Resident Evil. Just like Dead Alive. Just like Terror Planet (Grindhouse). Just like The Undead. And just like God knows how many other zombie movies I can't think of.

LOTS of zombie movies. Lots of different rules. Night reanimates corpses and they move slow. Return lets severed body parts move and the zombie use puns. The whole "they're not zombies" line is such silly, ridiculous BS. I've heard it for years from the other side. The zombie fans who were angry because they didn't fit into the Romero idea of zombies. They're zombies. Sorry. Cannibalistic dead guys who spread their "disease" through infection and can be killed with blunt trauma to the head. Yeah, sure. 28 Days Later wasn't a zombie film. That was an original idea. Fucking tool.

[creepy]

ecosystem said:

And creepy, 28 Days Later COULD happen. Because they're NOT zombies, they're INFECTED HUMANS. C'mon Lucky. Bring it.

I actually assumed that Lucky would rip me a new a-hole for that.

This is one of those movies that my old roommate watched all the fucking time. It made me loathe even the idea of watching it all the way through. This, Interview with the Vampire, Van Wilder and Spy g@me were on constant rotation at the creepyjacklopeeye and bnuts Casa. The Lost Boys was is secret weapon, though. That dude got so much pussy by just watching that movie with randoms.


EDIT: I see you started before me.

[Lucky]

Why should I rip you a new one? You said zombie movies don't do it for you because its fantasy. That's cool. I disagree but how am I going to argue taste? I hate shit set in space. I don't like magic. Its just likes and dislikes. As long as you don't decide Dracula can happen and Night can't, I'm fine with it.

Or you know, people can be turned into nearly invincible mindless cannibals who spread their disease by infection, but they can't be turned into nearly invincible mindless cannibals who spread their disease by infection if they're clearly labeled as dead. As long as you choose to be a tool and never explicitly state that last part you can claim you didn't make a zombie movie. Because who wants to make a zombie movie? And really. You can shoot people multiple times and they'll be fine as long as you don't shoot them in the head. Those people aren't dead zombies.

EDIT: Oh, I get it. Eco is just wrong. Lots of zombie movies fit the same criteria as 28 Days. They're zombies, no matter what name you want to call them. This dude isn't the first or last guy to throw a snazzy new name and try and avoid labeling it as that. He wants to be more than a zombie film and be about social satire when he doesn't appear to be smart enough to realize that the king of all zombie movies and directors was (and is) doing that too. You don't think that a disease can infect the entire world and turn them into nearly unstoppable zombies. That's cool. Just don't selectively choose when and where that gets applied. Its possible to convert humans into rapaging cannibalistic monsters who can more mortally wounded and keep going but its not capable to turn dead people into that? Sure. Thanks for making up your own rules.

Personally there is a small part of the back of my mind that allows for most anything to happen. I'm a Catholic. I go to mass every Sunday to eat the flesh of my savior who rose from the dead after a lifetime of healing sick and turning water into wine. I have angels and devils. We have ghosts. I've heard plenty of stories. I know people who think they were touched by angles. Inspired by God. Visited by demons. Priests who performed honest to God exorcisms (as they tell it).

I don't necessarily believe it, but I'm not so full of myself to think I know all the universe's mysteries. So I keep a door open in the back of my mind for this stuff. And if its open for that stuff its open for this. I've never touched a Ouija board, I've never said "Bloody Mary" or "Candyman" in the mirror, and I will never enter an old European castle that houses a Count and his weird man servant. And part of that is probably why I love horror so much. When I watch a REALLY good horror movie something creeps at the back of my neck when I turn out the lights. I want my back to the wall. I watch that light under the door. Because there MIGHT be something out there.

[Batman]

luckylopez said:

He wants to be more than a zombie film and be about social satire when he doesn't appear to be smart enough to realize that the king of all zombie movies and directors was (and is) doing that too.

Now I don't know for sure, but maybe it's not that he thought his movie was "better" than a zombie movie, maybe he just wanted to avoid the label of "zombie movie" and try to go after a more mainstream audience.

[Lucky]

Either or. I get what you're saying. One side is "Pshht, I didn't make no stupid zombie film" and one side is "no, no, no... don't disregard my social work because you think they're zombies." Fuck man, its 2007. Let the media love your movie, let it be a resounding success, and then use your fame and the tons of outlets we have to get how a horror movie can be more than gore and blood. And while you're there have the common decency to bring up Night of the Living Dead, the social satire within that and all Romero's films, and the very basic heart of zombie movies. They're not monsters or aliens or demons. They're not just a cold blooded killer. They're people, stripped of all emotion and thought and brought down to base savagery. And the sheer horror of being overwhelmed by that and living in a world where you know its just a matter of time before you're next.

You don't have to distance yourself. Its not like the Academy is going to hear you say they're not zombies and say "oh, well now we can nominate him." The public is going to see it as a horror movie one way or another and if its going to be hurt by that its going to be no matter what you call it. When you make claims like that all you're doing is preaching to Eco, Lori, and the people already watching.

This is my genre. The only thing I hate worse than people outside it shitting on it is people inside of it trying to distance themselves.

[Lori]

Lucky:

He wants to be more than a zombie film and be about social satire when he doesn't appear to be smart enough to realize that the king of all zombie movies and directors was (and is) doing that too.

Are you referring to Land of the Dead? If so, that movie sucked so much ass, and I'm ecstatic that it didn't make this showdown. Oh how the mighty king of zombie movie directors has fallen. I don't know where Romero was going with that, but social commentary aside, the movie was pure crap.

And I don't care if 28 Days Later was a "zombie" movie or not, I don't see how it has much bearing on whether or not the movie was good. I'd like less labels on everything anyway. It was scary, inventive, and had creepy eyes and some great scenes. Somehow it made a special little horror place in my heart, and that's enough for me.


Oh and Moose and Eco are awesome. For now. Unless we have a dispute over The Shining.

[edited to recognize the greatness of others who think Chucky is stupid]

[Lucky]

Romero was making social satires since Night. Land was just the most recent. Night's biggest storyline was a tale of racism as he cast maybe the first black hero in American cinema and immediately cast a racist to play against him. In every Dead film you'll notice that ultimately the greatest enemy of the humans is NOT the zombies but rather the humans themselves. Stripped down, forced to survive, they will always revert to bad ways and selfishness. The same thing 28 Days was trying to teach us.

I'm not going to argue Land's worth. I thought it was a decent flick. You want suck, watch Day. But I think Land was just as good as 28 Days Later. Decent zombie flick, decent commentary, didn't quite come together. If you applaud 28 Days for being inventive you have to do the same for Land.

28 Days Later was a decent zombie flick. I really can't recall it introducing anything which hadn't been touched on or done before. And personally its the only zombie movie I can ever recall seeing where there's a happy ending. Maybe that's "inventive"? I call it crap. And I see at wiki that they originally intended a MUCH better ending to the film that probably would have turned me around considerably on it. I don't hate 28 Days or anything. I think its completely overrated and many other movies deserved a spot over it. I just got wrapped up in the "not a zombie" thing which I think is utter bullshit. And I too don't think its all that important. So why do people have to convince themselves they're not zombies?

[Chris Eco]

luckylopez said:

<Lots of really intelligent discourse>

Yeah, sure. 28 Days Later wasn't a zombie film. That was an original idea. Fucking tool.

<More really intelligent discourse>

Oh, I definitely didn't think his movie was 100% original. But anyway, Lucky, you convinced me. I was more or less just prodding at you anyway, but you have converted me. I sincerely surrender my opinion as inferior.

Mostly because you're Catholic.

[Lucky]

I was directing the tool comment towards the director, for the record. Not you. You're just a fan of the film who admitted you weren't sure about the history of zombie films. He's a director who made a zombie film. He can take the time to go check on some of the more noteworthy films of the genre and he's surely had the information cross his proverbial desk well before he made any statement like that. He's either stupid, willfully ignorant, or just plain lying.

[Stu]

The funny thing about the racial tension in Night is that Romero said he didn't actually originally intend to have that there. He just cast the best actor friend he knew as the lead, and all that sort of came up by accident.