Slither: Zombie Movie Or Not?
Where do we draw the line on what is and what is not a zombie movie? We just can’t decide on our own, so every Monday we’ll post a new movie to be debated by, you, our readers and ask the question: Zombie Movie Or Not? Every Sunday we’ll post our findings and possibly strike that movie off our Zombie Movie List. The week should give you enough time to rent the movie if need be or you desire.
What every reader must keep in mind is that there are two basic types of zombie that every zombie movie based off of - the Voodoo Zombie and the Romero Zombie. The Voodoo Zombie, while not always raised by Voodoo necessarily, is basically a person, either undead or entranced, that is controlled by a person or entity for the purpose of completing tasks, often killing. Romero Zombies are basically mindless, flesh-eating undead whose bite will turn victims into zombies. Now, not all movies adhere to all of these rules, but if the basics are there, you got a zombie movie.
This weeks debate is over James Gunn’s Slither (2006) Starring Nathan Fillion and Elizabeth Banks.
IS: The zombies in this zombie are more like the voodoo zombies in that they are controlled by a single entity, yet are like Romero zombies in that they crave meat.
IS NOT: The “zombies” were never dead, they were just taken over by an alien life form. They’re just drones.
Now it’s up to you, reader. What do you think? Slither: Zombie Movie Or Not?
not.
Probably not. Maybe 1/4 zombie movie. But awesome nonetheless.
I love this movie. But I’m not sure if it’s a zombie movie. It’s really more of a parasite/body-snatcher movie. The “zombies” are neither mindless automata nor reanimated corpses with vestiges of their former personalities - they’re all extensions of Grant Grant. And with everything else going on, they don’t play an enormous role.
That said, for some reason, I think of it as a zombie movie. Maybe because I first heard of it in that context. Or maybe it’s the cheerfully large quantities of gore and splatter.
I’m going to have to vote close, but no cigar.
I have to go with Don there. Totally more of a body snatcher movie than a Zombie movie.
No
I never looked at this as a strict zombie movie, but I felt it was close enough to include and that zombie enthusiasts would appreciate it. I liken the zombies in it to voodoo-style zombies with just a hint of Romero zombies in that they are after meat and, of course, their look. Plus, the way that the characters are forced to survive their attacks is very zombie survival movie.
As I said, not strict in it’s zombie-ness, but close enough to include.
I say yes it is.
It’s not your traditional zombies, and more of a scifi “body snatched” theme, but the creatures act more akin to zombies in terms of their aggressiveness towards people. Their control by the being controlling ‘Grant Grant’ does add a post-modern vision of the warped Voodoo zombie that populated b horror from the 20s til the 70s. I reluctantly file this under zombies, reluctant because of this film’s indie bent that defies all of the movies similar to it (you cannot say that it is a remake of any particular movie, it does maintain originality), but very much zombie because of the scene towards the end during the music montage in which the mayor embraces his inner zombie and tears into his first lump of human flesh.
yes.zombie movie
A general comment about ‘Zombie Movie or Not?’ feature: Are the votes reflected against anything significant like a “master zombie movies list” because that would obviously be more a detrimental than useful practice. It’s fun every week to say “the users think blah” but it shouldn’t effect amount of content/coverage (I suspect it doesn’t).
That said I think this series makes for a valuable tool. My observation is that horror fans are quite picky, very genre-minded. As zombies are a literary staple - as standard as angels or leprechauns, and used so liberally as to be featured in every potential “genre” - there are ’standards’ that each person ascribes to what a ‘zombie’ is. With this exercise, we are not only examining the typical concept structures for the zombie creature, but people biased to a particular heavily perpetuated version of the ‘zombie’ can use the feature as a litmus test for finding the material they’re looking for. Furthermore, maybe we should embrace the idea that there are many more builds of zombie than just two, and I fear the sub-genretization mania that might occur, but perhaps the ultimate goal should be to explore and identify more modes of the zombie than “Romero” or “Voodoo”, as the ‘Slither’ debate has brought into plain view the recurring “body snatcher” mode of zombie.
Ultimately, I feel what we’re doing here is trying to find the essence of ‘zombie’, to really debunk what central idea it is that has pulled so many people together that it had to be given its own name.
Am I going too intellectual? Cause that’s good. I don’t want my pseudo-intellect showing.
Not a zombie movie
Ok I just finished watching this movie for the first time.
Funny movie - had a vibe that reminded me of another zombie movie, Dead Alive. Like that movie, it defies categorization. I’m heavily torn on this one.
Logically, If the humans infected with a virus in 28 Days Later are “zombies”, and the creatures in this movie are humans infected with a parasite from out space… I guess it’s close enough for me. The only thing throwing me off is the whole Grant character.
My vote is PRO-zombie movie but just barely.