Top Ten Zombie Films

It's been a while since I've done a top ten hasn't it? Well, I've felt I've really got to do one on zombies recently. Pretty much because everyone has been saying how "brilliant" the film adaptation of 'World War Z' is. How "suspenseful" it is, how "terrifying".

It isn't. It really isn't. It's not even a good popcorn movie! You want a good popcorn movie? 1985s 'Commando' is the template. As a zombie film, it's okay. It's not brilliant, it's not suspenseful, it's not terrifying, it's just okay.

So guess what, here are my top ten zombie films which are infinitely BETTER than 'World War Z'. The film, not the book, I just want to stress that. I will only be looking at films by the way, not books or games or TV shows. Though Robert Kirkman's 'The Walking Dead' is much better.

Oh and '28 Days Later' will NOT be featuring on this list. Pretty much because THEY'RE NOT ZOMBIES. And '28 Weeks Later' will NOT be featuring on this list. Because it's shit.

10. Resident Evil (2002)

Before you start; I know. I know how the only connection between the films and the games are names (Even then they only start appearing in the sequels) and zombies, and I know how fast it went downhill. But then again 'World War Z' has little to do with the book so it balances out.

And, as a stand alone movie despite its flaws, 'Resident Evil' is actually pretty damn good. It has some interesting characters, including Alice before she unlocked God mode, great acting, and some pretty good effects. But it also has the tension and the action, it has the claustrophobia element, you get the feeling that the characters are trapped.

If you can ignore the sequels, this film as a stand alone is actually pretty damn good.

9. Zombie Flesh Eaters (1979)

When you're discussing zombies films, or zombies in general, one of the first things to crop up will be the 1979 film 'Zombie Flesh Eaters', also known as 'Zombie'. And 'Zombi 2'.

The film which features a zombie fighting a shark, it sets the dark tone immediately with what appears to be an abandoned boat heading towards New York. From that point we get some of the most cringing and horrifying images in cinema history, including the infamous scene where a woman is pulled slowly towards a certain splinter.

Story wise it may be pretty meh, but the make-up is superb, the zombies actually look real. Add a last stand climactic scene and you've got yourself a damn good film.

8. Braindead (1992)

Okay, when there's a line that says "I kick arse for the lord", you know this is a brilliant movie. In fact, THIS is the popcorn film people want 'World War Z' to be.

More of an over-the-top comedy then a solid zombie film, it's been known as the most goriest film of all time. And it pretty much is, with the scenes making you burst out in laughter at how far they are willing to go. You can tell everyone was having loads of fun, as will the audience.

I cannot think of the words to describe this film. Not in a short summary anyway. Believe me, this film is a LOT of fun.

7. Dawn of the Dead (2004 remake)

Yeah, it's a remake, hear me out. This is actually really good. The characters can be...a bit hard to get used to, shall I say, but at least they're colourful, at least there's a good mixture. Like the original you learn a lot about them, you care for them, you get the feeling that they're trapped. And the action is actually action, things don't conveniently happen.

It's not often that you can say you've thoroughly enjoyed a remake. Heck, this is probably one of the best remakes ever done, pretty much because it actually gets the remake formula right; it sticks closely to the source material but at the same time it makes its own story. The same could be said about the 1990 remake of 'Night of the Living Dead'. In fact, let's put that on here.

7. Dawn of the Dead (2004 remake)/ Night of the Living Dead (1990 remake)

There we go.

The 1990 remake is kind of an almost copy, but there's a fair few "what if" moments to completely change the setting, the main one being "what if Barbara is a tough girl?". Now, I was perfectly alright with the Barbara in the old version, the version where she was in shock and helpless, but I also like the strong Barbara who adapts to her new environment.

Either film you will enjoy.

6. Cockneys vs Zombies (2012)

It's kind of weird how most zombie films nowadays go down the comedy route, and boy does it work for 'Cockneys vs Zombies'. You may remember my previous review, but short story is it's a fantastic film.

Some truly eccentric and well thought characters truly bring this film to life, the comedy is golden, but it still manages to deliver serious moments. The acting is great, the story is good, and their zombies are actually threatening. Especially the zombie with the metal plate in its skull.

And when a film manages to make me like Michelle Ryan's acting talent, you know a film is good.

5. The Return of the Living Dead (1985)

The unofficial sequel to 'Night of the Living Dead', we see Dan O'Bannon take the  zombies in a different direction. Like 'Braindead' we see some over-the-top violence which make you love it.

Following in the steps of its unofficial predecessor, the film manages to expand greatly on its characters, even minor supporting ones. Not only that but the film is a true 80s spectacle.

Add in a fantastic 80s soundtrack, a great story line, and the infamous tar zombie, and you have a brilliant fun film. A TRUE popcorn film.

4. Shaun of the Dead (2004)

Ah one of the best British films to emerge in recent years. Like the old Romero films we see a fair bit of character development, as well as tension and claustrophobia. And like the old Romero films, it is suggested that humanity are already basically zombies...by literally showing people acting like zombies in the opening credits.

And like the other zombie comedies on this list, the film is hugely funny, it's got that clever wit. A good example of this, combining it with the people acting like zombies bits, is when Shaun walks to the shops on a normal day, then on the next day when zombies have taken over he doesn't notice a single thing wrong.

A film which successfully combines the zombie, comedy, and romance genre? Instant cult classic.

3. Zombieland (2009)

I think it was quite a surprise how successful this film got. It took cinema goers by storm, and there's a very good reason for that; it's bloody brilliant.

Like the old Romero films we get some really interesting and fascinating characters, which is made even better when you see we don't even learn their real names; with the exception of one of them towards the end, for example Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) is the identifiable character, while Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) is the one we wish we were.

The humour is brilliant, the zombies are threatening, the action is outstanding, this is one of the best zombie films out there. In fact, hey, 'World War Z', THIS is the popcorn film you wished you were.

2. Rec (2007)

Wow. Prior to this zombie films were at an all time low. There's the odd zombie hit, with 'Shaun of the Dead' probably being the biggest, but until 2007 we had some really awful zombie films. You know, like 'Zombie Attack', 'Resident Evil: Apocalypse' (Only Nemesis and the setting of Raccoon City save it), 'Vampires vs Zombies', 'House of the Dead', etc etc.

And along came 'REC', a film which basically came out of nowhere and became a huge hit. The film was downright scary, and the film does shows this effectively by doing its trademark first person camera view; which the third one decided to scrap. And like a few of the others on this list, you can feel the tension, the action, the claustrophobia. And the ending leaves you wanting more.

Just don't see the sequels. They leave you wanting less.

1. Night of the Living Dead (1968)/Dawn of the Dead (1978)/Day of the Dead (1985)

Okay I think you were all guessing this. I mean, I did put 'Night' and 'Dawn' on my top twenty favourite films list. Looking at other top ten/fifteen/whatever lists online though I see the old zombie holy trilogy listed as separate entities, so I decided, in order to get more films on the list, I'd list them as one entry. And, like for my top twenty films, I couldn't really decide which is better.

But, really, what else could have taken the top spot on a list of best zombie films? These are the films which basically built the genre. Oh yeah, there were zombie films before these ones, 1943s 'I walked With A Zombie' for a start; yes I do want to see this.

These films have some of the most memorable characters devised, some of the best effects and make-up for the time of release, brilliant story lines, great messages, what is there to not love in these films?





And those are my top ten zombie films. In addition those are the films I feel are BETTER than 'World War Z'.

I suppose in all fairness I should now do a list of zombie films I believe are WORSE than 'World War Z'.

Weather Wars (2011)

We go on from zombies to the weather now, or in this case people playing God. Because, you know, that's always a good sign. Because, for some reason, people rather do something and find out about consequences later.

Washington D.C. has suffered some weather related disasters. It turns out that renowned scientist Marcus Grange (Stacey Keach) is out for revenge against Senator Aldrich (Lance E. Nichols) after the senator pulled the funding for his weather related weapon. Well wouldn't you? Marcus' sons, David (Jason London) and Jacob (Wes Brown) team up with Marcus' former research assistant  Samantha (Erin Cahill) in order to stop him.

Wait, Erin Cahill? Now why does that name sound familiar?

Am I just going to keep finding Pink Power Rangers in the films I look at?

Though I do now want to see Erin Cahill and Amy Jo Johnson in something together.

I was not expecting this plot. Primarily because the back of the DVD box says a complete different story, where they created a machine which can control the weather, but the artificial intelligence turned on humanity. The plot's...okay I guess. It is hampered in parts mostly because of pointlessness and stupidity. How did Marcus finish his work with no funding? Why was there an unnecessary subplot involving a reporter and her cameraman which added nothing to the film? The film is littered with these sort of points.

Although to be honest the acting isn't bad, in particular our three main leads were pretty good. Keach I felt was pretty over the top though, I can only guess he knew it wasn't going on his resume. Most of the others are pretty bland and forgettable. You'll only remember them by their characters, like Senator Aldrich who is an important figure, or at least he's suppose to be, he just comes off as trivial. There's his daughter Chloe (Indigo. Yes, that's her stage name), who I'm pretty sure isn't allowed to be given a job by her father, but whatever, she's pretty meaningless and is glanced over quite easily. There's also Colonel Neilson (Gary Grubbs) who I actually did want to see more of, I felt Grubbs was underused. Not that he was a great actor, but I liked him nonetheless.

The effects. Oh boy the effects. They were atrocious, but then again what would I expect from a SyFy film? Okay, atrocious is a bit harsh, they're pretty bad but not as bad as you'd expect. They were as good as the CGI zombies from World War Z...which is quite sad actually. From missiles, to tornadoes, to blizzards, they're really quite bad to look at, but at the same time they're not the worse to grace cinema history.

To be honest, this film was a lukewarm experience. It's not bad, per se, but it is quite hard to get into it. Keach, personally, I feel doesn't help this film's cause, nor does the thin story. If you're a fan of Erin Cahill then I'd definitely recommend you check it out, or if you like these sorts of films. It certainly can be a fun film to watch if you're in the right mood or atmosphere. Otherwise, give it a miss.

Although, there'd be one thing that would make this film great no matter what

Badass Erin

World War Z (2013)

Of course I was going to review this! How many zombie films have I looked at now? Twenty odd? Plus Dead Island, TellTale's The Walking Dead, and Survival Instinct. I've already got eight sorted for this October, Hell I think I've got one for Christmas lined up.

Former UN investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) is with his wife, Karen, (Mireille Enos), and their two daughters (Abigail Hargrove and Sterling Jerins) when chaos erupts in Philadelphia, before learning that some kind of zombie plague is gripping the planet. Gerry is forced to leave his family to investigate the pandemic by traveling the world.

Okay. The obvious. This isn't a good adaptation of the book. I suppose it can operate in the same universe, but for the most part the only similarities occur in Israel. Well, there might be something which relates to the nuclear war which breaks out between Iran and Pakistan, but it's not really touched upon. In fact I'm pretty sure there's a goof there since the EMP burst would have knocked a plane out of the sky. I suppose it depends on how far the EMP reaches, I don't know about that.

The story is all over the place though. It works much better in the book because it's basically a history book. The book is told in a series of interviews, detailing what happens during of the zombie plague. The film feels like it's being rushed. Seriously the film hops around the globe as if all the countries are next door to each other.

But the disappointing thing about the story is simple; it's underwhelming. See. In the book, it is written by someone who tries to tell us the story with "the human factor", so we get the raw emotion. For example, there are two interviews, one is about a rich person fortified his mansion, saved his friends, and then basically gloated to anyone who would listen, which eventually caused a large mob to attack them. The other is about how a military squadron fortified a street with tanks, mortars, etc, and attempted to quell a horde, only to waste their heavy artillery on the first twenty, thirty, forty, and had nothing for the million/s strong zombie horde that followed.

You could feel the emotion, the action, the tension, the desperation. I felt NONE of that watching the film. The opening action scene, the one we all see in the trailers, that was suppose to be a gripping scene, it was suppose to be immense, chaotic, powerful. Instead it feels lacking and confusing, especially since most of the camerawork is in the car with the family and there's slow motion which feels intruding. Throughout the whole film, at no point, we do not feel there is any danger, things just conveniently happen, especially one thing. I've started reading the book, I haven't finished it yet so I knew I was taking a risk watching the film, but there is one thing in the film that I pray doesn't happen in the book. You'll know it when you see it.

Then again the CGI zombies don't help. They really don't help. I guess that's why I didn't feel any tension in the film because the zombies DON'T LOOK REAL. It's bizarre. Look at the original 'Dawn of the Dead', a film that is thirty-five years old, and those zombies were threatening because they looked real. Pretty much because they are played by real people. Take the remake of 'Dawn of the Dead', where they still used real people AND made them run, but because they were real, they were threatening. The CGI zombies, aren't threatening. They look stupid, especially when you see them running and jumping.

The running CGI zombies ruin it in more ways than one actually. It's not the running in particular, I'm okay with that. I can remember one zombie thing explaining how you can have running and slow moving zombies, I think it was The Walking Dead graphic novels, and the Dead Island game had it but in reverse (basic zombies walked, higher level zombies run). Basically, freshly turned zombies still have the capability to move fast, but as they decay they lose mobility. But that's beside the point, the CGI zombies move ridiculously fast, so when you see the non-CGI zombies run, you're wondering why they're not as fast.

The acting is probably the high point. Brad Pitt delivers his normal strong performance, even if it is weird to see him in a zombie film in this day and age. Can't say the same about the rest of the cast, who gave mediocre performances as best. Then again I get the feeling a fair few of the cast didn't really care since their characters were mainly cannon fodder. I wasn't really that impressed with Enos, portraying a British woman who, as Pitt says, "lost the accent"; that's one reason as to why this American actress with a French mother can't do a British accent I suppose. Then again I was really annoyed with the bland portrayals given by Abigail Hargrove and Sterling Jerins, you can add them to my top ten most annoying child performances list. I don't know, from 10 to 7 I should think.

Actually, I just realised, this film is rated 15 here in the UK, and it might as well have been rated U (for universal) because we hardly see ANY blood. Okay, maybe 12 for what is implied offscreen, but I don't think we even see a spec of blood. That's actually really bad for a zombie film. The original 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' got away with it because of the psychological aspect. In this film, no, nothing.

The film is disappointing, but looking up this film though, you can see why, there was some development Hell behind it; production set backs, one writer after another leaving (There were three writers), including two rewrites of the third act, and it really does show.

I can't totally condemn the film, it is watchable, Brad Pitt is great, and it does have its moments, but in the end, as I said earlier, it's underwhelming. The book has been acclaimed for reinventing the zombie genre, the film is just a rehash of what we've seen before even when separating it from the book, we don't feel any concern in the scenes even though we should, the majority of the other acting is bland, the film is rushed. I really wanted this film to work, but in the end it...I suppose it could be a fun flick to watch with drinks, but it deserved much better.

The Purge (2013)

You know, you're never wrong when it comes to the economy. Well, you could run it into the ground like Gordon Brown's Labour Party did, but for the most part if you can back it up, you are never wrong. You could have someone say option A is the best method, and someone else can say option B is the best method, and they'd both be right. Do you want to know how America solved its economic problem?

Well America decided that for a 12 hour period, called the Purge, all crime is legal. There will be no ambulances to treat the injured, no police to arrest criminals, no firemen to put out fires. In the year 2022 we follow the Sandin family; father James (Ethan Hawke), mother Mary (Lena Headey), son Charlie (Max Burkholder), and daughter Zoey (Adelaide Kane). However when Charlie lets in a man screaming for help (Edwin Hodge), a Purge group, led by the Polite Stranger (Rhys Wakefield) lay siege to the house.

I'll start off with the obvious, THE CONCEPT IS STUPID. Really? America, the land of the free, home of the brave, pushed this through the senate? It's like 'The Hunger Games' or 'Battle Royale', but without the charm or Jennifer Lawrence. I can kind of see why, to let people vent their frustrations without fear of consequences. But THAT'S STUPID. I'm sorry, but I really can't see every single criminal in America agreeing to this, to hold off their illegal activities for one twelve hour period. Then again the film does say crime "is low" so it's not wiped out completely. Actually, one person does basically say that a poor economy, high crime rate, war, et cetera, is because humanity is essentially a self-destructive force. Not entirely sure how America doing an annual purge stops war, but, whatever.

But how the Hell does this fix the economy? "1% unemployed", how does that work? People in the film keep saying how the Purge saved America, but they don't say how. I can only assume that so many people are killed off that jobs are easily filled up again. Then again a news report does have someone claiming that it's simply the governments way of killing off the poor. Now, I thought that that would've been the main theme of the film, and it does touch that subject a few times, but it's pretty much nonexistent since the Sandin's are a rich family and the attackers are also visibly rich.

Apart from that, the story is just a rehash of what we've seen before. A home invasion, obvious scares, a peaceful man doing violent things to keep his family safe. Although I did start to enjoy this more once I started thinking of this more as an action horror rather than a normal horror, even though the action doesn't really happen until the third act. For the most part the film is about the scares, and for a 15 rated film it really isn't scary. Hell, one scare I saw coming, the film just decided to wait and wait and wait before finally pulling it off.

And yes, you did read that right, I did start to enjoy this film. I did. I actually start to get into it, it even did some stuff that I didn't think the film would risk doing. Before doing something to annoy me again. And believe me there was a lot of that in this film, in particular Charlie since he was the one who let a complete stranger into the house, on a night when everyone can do whatever they want. Especially seeing as how the Purge appears to have been going on for a long time now, Charlie should know the risks. And Charlie's a smart kid, he can build portable cameras, he shouldn't be this naive. There are so many other stupid things to comment on, but I'll leave those for the spoiler section.

The characters themselves, are admittedly likable. Well, the characters you're supposed to like are likable anyway, with the exception of the Polite Stranger. Like Alien in 'Spring Breakers' the Polite Stranger has a certain charm to him. In fact he's the one who tends to portray the 'rich vs poor' message. He portrays a God complex, seeing anyone below his status as inferior. And yet it's kind of hard not to like the guy. Personally anyway. I think it's because I loved the way Rhys Wakefield plays the character, I feel he could play a young version of DC Comic's The Joker. Granted the only really stupid thing he does is cutting the power, making it harder for the Sandin's to find...whoever they're looking for.

James I'll talk about in the spoiler section, but overall he is likable. He's a good guy who tries to keep the family together. The man (Edwin Hodge), whose...name we never learn, to be honest, I wanted to learn more about him. He was actually one of the more fleshed out characters despite the fact that we never actually learn who he is. Well, not directly anyway, apart from the Polite Stranger saying he's homeless. We do see him wearing dog tags, so he's likely a former soldier and, given that the Polite Stranger says he's homeless (We don't know for sure, but then again the Polite Stranger has no reason to lie), this could be a very subtle message about how soldiers put their lives on the line, but can end up feeling betrayed by their own country.

Actually, just thought of something else for the spoiler section. Boy that's going to be a long one. Anyway, Mary portrays the kind of woman you'd expect to find in such a wealthy area, but even she has to evolve to protect her family. Charlie I've already mentioned how he's supposed to be smart but he constantly does things that put his family in danger, mainly by protecting Hodge's character. Zoey is your typical teenager, she strops for no reason, is "in love" with her boyfriend Henry (Tony Oller), and subsequently breaks down when the Purge arrives at her doorstep. Thinking about it, her character doesn't really develop that much, though I would like to know why she appeared to still be wearing her school uniform throughout the night. As for her boyfriend Henry, honestly I can see why James doesn't like him.

The acting, overall I suppose is actually quite good. I wouldn't say anyone gave a bad performance, there's no doubt about that. The main complaint would be that some dialogue can feel forced, but that's more the scripts fault because those lines don't really contribute to the film or make sense.

So is it a good film? No. Is it a bad film? No. It's an alright film. The plot, while stupid, is intriguing but not fully explored. The acting is good, a pretty memorable villain, and it has some good moments, especially when the action kicks in. But, like I said, it doesn't fully explore the possibilities, the characters do some of the stupidest things imaginable, and the film itself is predictable at times. I do have to say though that this is probably my guilty pleasure of the year. It's not great, but it isn't really a disaster.










Spoiler Section

Right, let's get down to James. His moral compass does a complete 180. Initially he wants to give the Polite Stranger their target, duct taping him to a chair, but is quite easily persuade not to. This is despite the fact that his family will also be put in the firing line; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. But then again, that's the kind of message this film wants to portray; would you sacrifice one man to save your family? Could you live with your decision?

But James is also very stupid. He not only doesn't free Hodge's character so he can help, he sells the lockdown systems which law-abiding citizens, which make up 1% of the country apparently, which is essentially metal plating covers the doors and windows. This is suppose to be the most advanced security system, the best the country has to offer, and yet the Polite Stranger's group bring them down at the first hurdle. How? By strapping chains to the metal and pulling them off with their cars. Now, James says that his system works 99% of the time, but they weren't designed for the events which happen in the film. Now, if I was to design a lockdown system, one of the first things I'd design is a feature to prevent exactly what happened in the film. But then again, this is also another subtle message, that corporations are selling peace of mind, rather than actual protection, they're taking advantage of people's fears, making James a very rich man.

Which actually comes up as a plot point. When the Polite Stranger and his gang get into the house, we see the neighbours coming over and killing them, helping the Sandin's. It then turns out that they were jealous of how rich the Sandin's got by selling everyone lockdown systems (War profiteering message? So many subtle hints), and now plan to kill the Sandin's themselves, before Hodge's character saves them.

But they're not the only turncoats in this film. Henry wants to talk to James because James doesn't like Henry seeing his daughter, because he's older than her. I don't know how old exactly, we don't get either of their ages. I'm guessing Zoey is 16, Henry maybe in his twenties. Of course you can't really tell what the problem is since Adelaide Kane and Tony Oller (According to IMDB) were born within seven months of each other and therefore look the same age. In fact, Kane is the OLDER one of the two. But anyway, Henry's solution to her father forbidding her from seeing him? SHOOTING HIM of course! I'm sure that will NEVER come up again with your girlfriend.

It's funny actually, the people's names we do get are the liars and backstabbers, and yet the characters who names we don't get, I.E. the Polite Stranger, his followers, and Hodge's character, are the HONEST ones. Maybe that's yet another message, that evil can wear any mask, don't judge a book by its cover, etc etc.

And every single death is the God damn same! Well, okay I lie, nine out of ten deaths are the same in this film. Basically, the second a main character is about to die, another character pops up from nowhere and saves them. Once or twice, this is okay, but by the ninth or tenth time, it's getting tiresome. Oh yeah, there are other deaths involving bladed weapons, but for the most part you wondering where the savior will pop up from.

You'd think that with so much predictable and stupid moments I wouldn't like this film. Alas.