Quarantine: 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 Quarantine (2008) Starring Jennifer Carpenter.
IS: Flesh hungry, infectious, ravenous humans that kill and spread their kind like wildfire, that sounds JUST LIKE a zombie movie!
IS NOT: We’re talking about people infected with hyper-rabies, not zombies. It’s just an infection movie, not a zombie movie.
Now it’s up to you, reader. What do you think? Quarantine: Zombie Movie Or Not?
Comments(19)
While I have yet to get out and see this film and do have a few comments about it.
Depending what type of zombie your looking requires a few things. One of the main things is if the suspected zombie is indeed dead or not. If the people in the apartment were actually dead, but still attacking the living, then yes I would say it is a zombie movie, but if the people just have a form of rabies and have gone homicidal, then no this would not be a zombie movie. Like I said I haven’t seen it yet and I’m going off the original post, so unless there’s any additional information on it, I vote not.
This post will have spoilers.
The disease is caused by a “doomsday virus” which mimics the symptoms of rabies, but with a massively accelerated incubation period. The victims are not dead.
That said, I consider it a zombie movie. The victims’ minds are lost forever, and they attack friends and loved ones as readily as strangers. Consider this, like a certain British film and its sequel, a mutation of the zombie genre.
Movie stunk.
Not.
i vote no. zombies are undead. these are alive.
I have to say no here. Zombies have to die first to become a flesh eater. The people who were infected in this movie did not die, they just turned violent. Uncontrollably so, but that does not make them zombies in my book. Much like 28 days later, the people had a rage virus, they never died and came back. As much as I’d like to say yes here, This is NOT a zombie movie.
I’ve only seen [REC] (and since it’s a shot for shot port I think that’s fair) so I’m voting on the basis of that. I think these creatures are very zombie influenced and that [REC] was simply another film-maker’s chance to compete with and capitalize on the releases of Diary of the Dead and 28 Weeks Later. Though the ending reveals some religiously influenced deviancy that caused the virus and we have runners here, too much of the film stinks of zombie (the makeup jobs, the tight quarters for the setting, cannibalism, “get bit and turn”, the stairwell sequence). I vote YES.
You know, as we look at the Haitian zombie, it is a living human who has lost his/her identity through a scientific, chemical process. Is there a big difference between zombie powder and medical diseases?
Bob the Coward for the win!
The more I think about this one since seeing it, I’m not sure. Part of my gut says yes, part says no. Sure, they act like zombies, look like zombies, eat like zombies, but they don’t always feel like zombies to me. But, this is very similar to 28 Days concept, and I feel that is a zombie movie. So…I’m going to go with YES.
GIven the fact that not even Haitian zombies are dead and they are, in fact, the original zombies, all this stuff about zombies having to be dead to be zombies is bunk. If the Mulberrt Street was a zombie movie, then Quaratine can be a zombie movie. Given the fact that this movie will appeal to at least 95% of the zombie enthusiast crowd, I’d say it could safely be labeled a zombie movie.
Yes, zombie movie.
I think the argument about “zombies” being dead (or “undead”) goes back to Romero. But he never set out to make any kind of movie about any zombies. They are ghouls, the living dead, flesh-eaters. I think it was the Italians (among others) that misunderstood what Night of the Living Dead was about, and dubbed the creatures “zombies”, even if there was no voodoo in sight.
As for the movie in question; I haven’t seen it, yet (it premieres here in December). I have seen the original Spanish version though, but I have come to understand the American re-makers didn’t want any kind of supernatural goings on in their movie. So no vote (as in neither yes or no) from me, but I will point out the infected in REC did re-appear once they were smacked down with an fire-axe in a previous scene. That’s undead in my book, but this wouldn’t count as for the remake, right?
Yeah, the remake is a bit different. THe point that Kelly King brought up is actually the main point that’s different between Rec and Quarantine. There was no supernatural leanings in Quarantine. But, I think Pork-Eater hi the nail on the head in a reply to an earlier post when he described the supernatural stuff in REC as a bull-headed vatican’s way of making sense of the zombie infection as a supernatural occurance or possesion.
Zombie-like, but not zombie.
I do agree with Jef, but I was saying no on the basis that a rabid dog, is not a zombie just because it may eat your throat out because it’s infected with rabies. I did like this movie and it did appeal to me because of the zombie influences, but I still stand by my vote that this is not a zombie movie. I also realize that defining what make a zombie a zombie, be it infection, radiation, Haitian powder and mind control, its all up in the air. By my vote I am going with the old dead and come back zombie and I say no. I want to say yes. But, I’m voting No.
I still have to see Rec, so on Rec I’m sure that is a zombie film in essence, but not the remake.
It’s my opinion that the infection zombie should be included as the third definition of what makes a zombie a zombie. The argument is not whether or not they are alive or dead/undead, but what they represent and how they scare us.
The classic zombie is based on the fear of the supernatural. The voodoo zombie represents the loss of control to an outside force, from another culture. It’s an affront to the norms and values of western Christian society. Likewise, the Romero zombie represents these same things. In addition it also represents the fear of societal collapse, when the supernatural controls people. In today’s society, because we’ve become mostly secular, that same fear doesn’t exist. As a result, the things we actually fear are things like global pandemics. The loss of control to these is what now scares us.
So, yes, I consider Quarantine to be a zombie movie.
I believe it is a typical Class 2 Zombie outbreak. The old lady is shot twice in the chest, and dies. Yet, she is still able to live, until the firefighter beats her face in with a hammer. The amount of blood each victim loses would likely more than kill them. The firefighter continues to attack despite his broken leg. Their brains are obviously destroyed, and causing an aggressive effect just like any zombie virus or disease. Definitely a virus similar to any virus that would cause zombies.
I vote yes.
I second the motion to add “infection or parasite zombie” as a third category.
How many times must this subject be debated!? I know, I know, it must be done or I wouldn’t be on here.
it looks like a duck.
zombie-like. just like 28 days later. Zombie-like movies will always be included in my zombie flick discussions. So, I might as well say YES, zombie movie.