MovieChat Forums > Zombi 2 (1980) Discussion > Rotting zombies vs. fresh zombies

Rotting zombies vs. fresh zombies

posted 13 years ago by sbaldwin999
24 replies | jump to latest

I love Zombie, it's one of my favorite movies ever made. It is often compared to Romero's zombie movies, which are better quality but not nearly as entertaining in my opinion. One thing that I really love about Zombie is the fact that the zombies are not only the recently bitten but also corpses that rise from the grave. I think this really makes the zombies scary, plus you get to see all these corpses in various levels of decay (Return of the Living Dead does the same thing). Romero doesn't do that, which makes his zombies a little more realistic considering a rotting corpse would have trouble walking around, catching victims, keeping body parts together, etc. But in the end, I just really have a soft spot for those nasty rotting ones like the conquistador zombie or that gooey brown zombie from Return of the Living Dead.

So which do you prefer and why? I'm just curious because a lot of people I know really can't stand the idea of already rotting corpses rising from the grave, but I think it's fantastic...

[–] Drakenlord 13 years ago

I prefer the Night of the Living Dead "Ghouls" to their variation of Zombie "Voodoo Ghouls". Romero's Ghouls are what became the standard zombie to many and yet Romero himself always called them ghouls, as the term zombie in 1968 specifically referenced humans put in a trance by voodoo like in White Zombie, not reanimated monsters from the grave.

[–] sbaldwin999 13 years ago

interesting, I have never heard that before but it makes sense.

[–] White_Thunder 13 years ago

The zombies in this and Return of the Living Dead are far superior, the film makers have obviously gone out of their way and spent time on them and the end result says it all.

[–] BrainGremlin 11 years ago

If we're going by the original meaning of words, then "ghouls" doesn't make much sense either. Traditionally, ghouls plunder graves and feed on the dead. Kind of the opposite of the film zombie MO.

---
Sad story. You got a smoke?

[–] sirfunnyboy 13 years ago

I prefer fresh zombies.

[–] MonteCarloMan 13 years ago

This movie and many of Lucio Fulci's movies have the best undead creatures...the makeup effects are groundbreaking...

[–] Headskott 13 years ago

I want rotten zombies. The look of the zombies is very important, they look way better and creepy in Fulci's movies than Romero's for example. But my favourite ones are those from Burial Ground: The Nights of Terror (1981). Sure, they look kinda fake, but damn they are scary!

You're sure it wasn't that retarded kid, Timmy, up the street?

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] n8325250528 13 years ago

i love rotted zombies! you can tell with dawn of the dead it's just some actors with makeup on, but the ones in here look awesome and repulsive!

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 13 years ago

Man, I have never seen Zombie (Zombi 2), but you think EXACTLY as I do! When I was little I wasn't afraid of fresh zombies, but the thought of zombies rising from their graves scared me to death! I guess it was all those nights I spent watching The Return of the Living Dead (my favorite zombie movie, and one of my favorites of all time). For me NOTHING beats the thought of rotten zombies rising from their graves. In fact, I recently spent some time watching some zombie flicks and I was thinking "Why is The Return of the Living Dead the only one that has done this?", I didn't know that this flick, Zombie, had grave zombies too! Now I gotta watch this!

- Brand, where're you going?
- This is the men's room

[–] sirfunnyboy 13 years ago

"This movie and many of Lucio Fulci's movies have the best undead creatures...the makeup effects are groundbreaking..."

It did have good effects. I will agree, but is kinda boring.

[–] matt-282 13 years ago

In George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead (1978) and other zombie films, most of his zombies look just like regular people aside from greasepaint on their faces. They suffle, moan, and resemble just very inebriated people.

In Lucio Fulci's Zombie, his zombies look more like real "walking stiffs" out of Hatian voodoo rituals with their Earthly appearances removed to resemble dirty and decomposing derelicts. In Zombie, the zombies walk with their heads down and their eyes closed, as if being guided by some mystical force towards living victims. Note that unlike Romero's zombies, Fulci's zombies seldom raise their arms when they attack people. In Dawn of the Dead, the zombies claw and smash their arms against doors to get at their victims, where if you notice that in Zombie, they are mostly try to smash against doors with the weight of their bodies rather then raising their arms to pound at it.

Romero's zombies may be unintentally funny to look at, whereas Fulci's zombies (in this film as well as in The Beyond) are more creepy looking and more of the right way that walking zombies should look like.

[–] Injectionlethal 13 years ago

I actually posted a similiar board to this one explaining my position. As much as I love Dawn and Night, the rotting corpses are by far more terrifying. Zombie is not as memorable as the early Romero work (and not as close to my heart) but It would be a lie if I said seeing the vhs at Blockbuster as a kid didn't scare me to holy hell. Fulci's zombies are creepy as hell so they win in the asthetically prefered arena, but Night has better elements in terms of mood and set design; it just puts you in the house under siege in the 1960s due to the documentary approach. Dawn is, and forever will be, my favorite; its a zombie film epic.

If life is so fair why do roses have thorns.

[–] tomas208 12 years ago

Of course decayed zombies are the best! I can't really understand how anyone could like fresh zombies more? :) Fresh zombies are like ... "we didn't have time to do make-up".