||Abram||: 8/10 - A great zombie film. Yet again directors prove zombies are more of a setting than really integral to the story. These zombies make sense, a virus which makes you a rageamoholic, you kill people and spread the virus by blood because you puke it up a lot. BUT you don't attack the infected. The virus is also cross mammal... Love story etc was interesting as well as the idea of "Rebuilding Society" through reproduction. Ending felt silly but then again it felt really good to see some civilians take out a post of soldiers.

||Mark||: 5/10 - I didn't want to see this film because I knew it would freak me out, which it did.  One of the things that made it most effective was the filming locations.  There is something about Europe which is automatically a bit creepier than any American city or countryside.  Additionally, the credability associated with the zombies in this film lent it a sense of sophistication or depth that films like "Dawn of the Dead" cannot match (though they perhaps laid the foundation for 28 Days).  Plus, ya' gotta love a film shot on DV!  Were they just leaving the disease to die out on its own on the Island???

Incidently, did you guys get to see the alternate ending that they have apparently been playing after the credits for the past few weeks?  Is it any good?  What's the difference?

||Abram||: I was about to say Dawn Of The Dead was a much better movie but then I remember that Day of The Dead is much better. 28 Days Later and Day Of The Dead are both movies with a zombie setting, it's people dealing with their enviroment, their enviroment includes zombies. The plausibility didn't bother me  at all between the two, The *TIME* of the Dead series used death altogether as a way to become a zombie even in the abscence of zombies so there was no real rest in death. 28 days you could totally die if infected and you did.