Change Your Image
Mileskolehmainen
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Scream 3 (2000)
Not quite as good as two, but still pretty great.
Another underrated sequel. Scream 3 gets ragged on a lot for being a little more flashy and fantastical than the the first two scream movies, saying that it became the sort of movie it was making fun of, but I think that all this was just to put a new twist on the movie, like Scre4m (scream four) has more comedy. So that aside, I also liked the rest of the movie a lot. The writing is very good. The dialog is decent and the finale is excellent, and just like in part one and two, the suspense is effective. You will be on the edge of your seat for many scenes. The characters are once again likable, and they finally did one of my favorites justice. So I would recommend this movie to fans of the other Scream movies, and people who are into the teen slasher genre. I give Scream 3 8.4/10 (P.S. Don't visit Scre4m's IMDb page so you won't know what characters survive.
Scream 2 (1997)
Slightly better than the original
I am very surprised at the three star rating on here. Rotten Tomatoes (a website that's not a fan of sequels) gave this a (slightly) better rating than the first (Scream: 78%, Scream 2: 81%, it's not much but still.) This is a sequel that won't disappoint, it's still very clever, and a tad better than the original. The characters, new ones and survivors, are well acted and likable. The scares and chase scenes are very effective, and I'm sure you will find yourself at the edge of your seat in many scenes, and you're gonna jump a lot too. The script is pretty great also. The twist (and the rest of the film too) pack many surprises. So, if you haven't seen Scream 2, and are a fan of the first Scream, I recommend this movie to you. 8.8/10 (P.S. don't look at the IMDb page for Scream 3 if you haven't seen this one, it will (obviously) tell you who survives this movie)
Scream (1996)
Even better than I thought it would be!! Clever, scary, and smart.
First of all, I'm not going to write any spoilers. I usually don't anyway, but knowing any more than some of the most obvious deaths/twists in this movie or it's sequels can ruin them. These movies are murder mysteries, so you shouldn't know much about who lives and dies going into one of them. Now onto the review. This movie is scary. Lots of jump scares, violent killings, and edge-of-your-seat chase scenes. But Scream is also smart: The characters put up a fight, they are smart, and they really try to escape. The characters also make many comments on horror movies and how to survive a horror movie (This adds to the movie sly but subtle satire). The movie itself is very well written and acted. The characters are realistically written. They almost all have something to make you think "There's no way they would kill someone!". That's why it's so hard to figure out who the killer is. The plot ain't bad either, but after the first scene it takes a while to pick up, but when it picks up, it picks up. The acting, like I stated earlier, is decent. You really feel for the characters, you don't want them to die, and, unlike in many other movies, they have a good chance at surviving. Scream is an exceptional horror movie. Kudos to Wes and Kevin. Remember, like most of my reviews this is a rating specific for films like this one. It's not like you can compare this to Forest Gump or something. I compare horror movies to other horror movies, so thats what my rating is based on. 8.6/10 (or four and a half stars out of five)
A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)
Nothing to scary, but still fun, and much better than two. (SPOILERS FOR THE FIRST MOVIE)
If you are expecting a scarefest, you will be a tad disappointed. This movie is creepy, but not scary like the first. It's more just-for-fun than it is scary, but it is a good movie. The effects are, once again, great. There are dozens of crazy battles, monsters, and dreamworlds. The acting is decent too. It was nice to see (SPOILER)Nancy(END SPOILER) back again, and the others do a good job too. The script (thankfully) is much better than Part two's. There are some pretty cheesy moments in the dream sequences, but that's about as far as it goes. The rest of the script is decent, and the plot flows well. So I would recommend this movie for fans of the original. In all it is a fun and very cool movie. So I will give "A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors" 6.3/10, or three stars out of five.
A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)
Don't bother. The plot is awful.
Right off the back I would like to warn you, this movie is nothing like the other entries. It's plot and script are very bad, and also pretty weird (there is, no joke, a scene where Freddy towel whips a nude man). On the good side, the movie has great special effects, including many realistic gory deaths and some pretty cool paranormal attacks. The acting is actually pretty good, and so is the camera-work. But sadly, these things can't help but make you mad, just teasing you about how good this movie could have been if it had an even halfway decent script. I understand why Wes Craven had nothing to do with this. You just really can't have a good scary movie with such an awful script. So if you saw the first one and liked it, skip to part 3, part 2 has nothing to do with the others. So in all I give A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge 4.4/10, or two stars out of five.
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
A decent horror movie, but not amazing like many reviews would make you think. (MILD SPOILERS)
A nightmare on elm street has scares, and some interesting concepts, both of which are very memorable. The problem with this film really was the I thought the part with (SPOILER) what's-his-name going to jail.(END SPOILER) It didn't fit in a horror film, and did not have very much relevance in the film. This really put a damper in the excitement, I thought. The other thing that wasn't so great was the acting. There were many cheesy lines, and the acting wasn't great either- not horrible, but it not great. Other than that, this movie delivers. It's scary, creative, and appropriately weird. So I would recommend this to anyone who's a fan of Wes Craven, or 1980s horror films. A Nightmare on Elm Street is a classic horror flick, even if it's not as good as it is said to be. I give it 7.4/10 (three and a half stars).
Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013)
Incredibly scary, despite a few goofs.
*Just so you know I have not seen insidious part one yet, but I am planning on it*
I was impressed with this movie. I assumed it would be scary, but I was still expecting a by-the-numbers movie. But "Insidious: Chapter 2" is more colorful and creative than other films like it. It uses bizarre and colorful images to make the disturbing scenes in the movie seem out of place in real life, making them much more terrifying. There are many quick flashes of scenes or images that will only be explained later (or in some cases, never). The visual effects are outstanding, especial those in the world of the undead from the first film. I also enjoyed the plot of this film. The script contains many clever "so that's what that was about!" moments, and the twist are much more complicated and scary than you would expect in a horror sequel. The silly parts I was talking about really mostly happen in one of the first scenes with Lin Shaye's character (SPOILER)when she's played by someone different. There was just something slightly silly about that part, but other than that, the film is SCARY.
Insidious: Chapter 2 is a clever and terrifying horror film.
Curse of Chucky (2013)
Decent, but suffers from Large scale syndrome.
What I meant by the "Large scale syndrome" is a problem I see in lots of modern horror sequels, and regular horror films too. It is basically when a film promises a big-stage, action-filled show, and gives us a small-scale, darker film, with minimal kills. So don't expect those things, and this film is an effectively scary and stylish horror flick. I do prefer an inner-city family home for a scary Chucky movie, but the old, isolated, slightly dilapidated house in this film was decent. The effects are very good for the most part. I don't know for sure, but it looks like Chucky has CGI enhancements in some scenes, and I do think the puppetry and animatronics in this film work much better. Chucky looks okay too. His design is still quite scary, but he looks too plastic. The plot takes a little while to start, but once it gets going it's quite compelling. Curse of Chucky is also quite scary. It finds a way to be just vicious enough to scare you, but not enough to be distasteful. The plots twists are also very disturbing and really add to the Chucky mythology. So in all, Curse of Chucky is a decent film. Not as good as a few of the old CP movies, but better than lots of the crap horror that comes out today. P.S. My real rating would be a 6.6/10, but this movie needs to move up a star. It's underrated here (on Rotten Tomatoes it's rated 80%)
Child's Play 3 (1991)
Better than CP2, one of my favorite Chucky flicks.
This film is sadly hated by many fans of the series, but I think it was much much better than two. I think the plot worked well, much better than CP2's, and actually carried the movie. I like CP3's mix of fun and suspense. It limits the viciousness enough to still have fun, and I think this works very well. The writing and set design work great together. The slightly quirky look and feel of the characters really makes them feel realistic, more so than in many horror flicks from the time. And the acting is decent too. The script is clever enough. It supplies some good one-liners, decent dialog, and scary, tense set pieces. The military setting is also very gritty and fun. The effects are decent too. Chucky still talks realistically, and moves his arms and legs well. There are drawbacks though, like the issue I've seen in many of these films, where Chucky is standing there without moving his legs at all and people are running from him, but he doesn't seem to be a threat at all. But this only happens once. Other than that, he still moves pretty well, and the gore FX are excellent. So I thought Child's Play 3 was a very good horror film, an improvement from the second installment.
Child's Play 2 (1990)
An okay sequel.
Child's Play 2 seems to have one of your basic 1st horror sequel plan: Up the gore, up the scares, up the fun- but the paper thin characters with no interesting qualities really make this film boring. You don't hate them enough to want them to die, or like them enough to care what happens to them, so you end out with just some 'people'. You don't know them, you don't like them, you don't care. The only character I ever had interest in was the adopted sister, and even her character wasn't that great. The animatronics and puppetry are amazing though. Chucky walks, stands up, and makes complicated gestures on screen. His movement looks very realistic without any CGI, and I found this very impressive. The soundtrack is good, but at some times a little too familiar to other horror films scores. The kills in this film are also not that effective as scary, due to the fact that there is calm time between many of the murders. They end up coming off as slightly overly gruesome, making it even harder for the movie to be fun. In all I thought Child's Play 2 was an okay movie, but it doesn't have the a scares of CP1, or the fun of CP3.
Child's Play (1988)
A great horror classic.
Though it may sound sorta goofy, Child's Play is a very good film. It's smart, creepy, and plays the killer doll strait enough to be taken seriously as a smart slasher film. There are some goofy moments, but just try to get over these, you'll be surprised by how subtlety creepy this movie is. The characters are decent, and more sympathetic than in most slasher flicks, especially Andy and his mother. On the FX, Chucky's face movements look great, but some of his larger movements (Arm movements, mostly) look wooden. His design is very creepy. The plot of the film moves very well, with new twists and new locations at every turn, doing a great job of hooking you in. I also thought the cinematography was very effective, with long, panning, cuts from a lower to the ground than usual. These camera angles provide a very creepy feel to the film. In all I thought Child's Play was a great horror flick.
The Walking Dead (2010)
Amazing.
The Walking Dead: Season 1 review (VERY MILD SPOILERS)
First off, I know this and Z nation are being compared so much, and I'm just going to get that out of the way- I like both of them, and The Walking Dead is better than most zombie media, so yes it is the better show. But cut Z nation is some slack and stop comparing. Most zombie media is not nearly as good as TWD, but Z nation is a decent series.
So on to the review- I just finished season one and it's just great. Most shows never attempt a storyline where every episode continues directly from the other, building the suspense and tension very well. The shows large budget is used wisely to prepare many, many zombies, which appear in beautiful forest scenery and authentic-looking abandon cities. I seriously couldn't stop watching. After episode 1 everything picks up into an amazing storyline, and it really pulls you in. The characters all have their own problems and merits, and are all very believable. I've heard people call this show predictable, and I get. I understand that you're pretty sure that Rick will survive, (don't get mad, this isn't that much of a spoiler this is obvious once you start the show) but the other characters fates are mostly undecided. Besides, in most TV shows there are set characters will survive, and this is mostly so you can look back on what they've been through, and what they will do next. Onto the effects, The Walking Dead supplies surprising violence and gore, earning its TV-14 (and eventual TV-MA) rating. The zombies are incredibly realistic, and the gore is very real to, but there is actually some animated blood. It doesn't look horrible but the real stuff is much more realistic. I was very impressed with this show. I mean I knew it was supposed to be great, but if anything this series is underrated. An amazing show.
World War Z (2013)
Not that bad, but a perfect example of hollywoods horrible film standards.
I'm not going to start talking about "the old days", mainly because I am not nearly old enough to be around back then, but Hollywood can't get anything right nowadays. First off, I actually saw this before I read the book, and now I have read the book and realized they left out all the book's key elements: While the book was shockingly graphic and very violent, with thousands of people being killed, this film has practically no blood, even the unrated version could have passed as PG-13 like 15 years ago! I'm not just mad because it's bloodless, but because a movie about most of the world being wiped out and murdered, probably would have some blood, but no- none during attacks and none on the streets. The best blood we get is on a few of the zombies. The book had details on battles, fake cures, safe houses, effective weapons, and global impact. The film features the global impact, and nothing else. It's very frustrating because the book is a recipe for the perfect zombie film- just remove the interview style and you've got the base for one of the best zombie films ever made. I'm not trying to tell you that you will not be entertained or scared, because you will, but that this is not for someone expecting a zombie flick. This is much more a fast-paced action movie (like every film now that's not a comedy or a romance/drama). It's just a great example of Hollywood's way of using the same plot and same watered down rating for every movie until they get lucky and actually make something successful or decent. On the bright side, World war Z does include some breathtaking scenes of the zombie takeover, and an old school ending, but just don't expect The walking dead or Dawn of the dead, or any other real zombie film/show, or you will be disappointed. Just enjoy the ride.
Tales from the Darkside: The Movie (1990)
Creepshow 3
Tales from the Darkside (Technically Creepshow 3) is a great horror film, and actually better than the decent Creepshow 2. This film has a mysterious fantastical tone, with spikes of horror, and (surprisingly) romance. Tales from the Darkside has much better effects than the Second film, and great characters/actors. The stories are also very compelling and The second segment- "The cat from hell" written by Stephen King and George Romero, is quite scary. Not as scary as the Creepshow 2, but close. On camera views/cuts, this film also does well. Lots of comic book angles and coherent cuts. So Tales from the Darkside is a classic horror film, and I recommend it to horror fans. Also, Just like Creepshow 2, this got a low (35%) rating on rotten tomatoes, but is much better than two stars.
Piranha 3D (2010)
Piranha 3D is entertaining, but it's not funny enough to be a wild comedy, and not serious enough to be a horror film.
In all Piranha 3D is a fun film, but like I said before, it can't decide on comedy or horror. The trailers and making of featuretes promise a scary, crazy, tongue in cheek horror film. It delivers on one and three, but I did not find it crazy enough. Most of it seemed at the same level of some more serious creature features. I figure this is not just the film's fault, but all those trailers. They should have been marketed slightly differently, as a more serious (but still tongue in cheek) monster movie throwback. Other than that problem, I liked the film a lot. It was cool to see Adam Scott (One of my faves from Parks and Rec.) in a horror role, which he puled off well. The rest of the cast (A few Oscar-actors some celebrity cameos) were very good too. Unlike in many horror films, the cast didn't have weak points. Everybody did good. Effects wise, I do prefer the Piranhas 3DD's, just because they used more practical instead of CGI, but they did very well here too. The plot actually works well, but the ending feels a little rushed. But what are you going to do?? This is a fun movie, and even if Piranha 3D doesn't get everything right, It is still very entertaining. I recommend it, but only to hard-to-offend, strong stomached people.
Laid to Rest (2009)
Not for the squeamish, but an epic bad movie.
I don't mean like so-bad-it's-good, I what I mean is that even with a dumb plot, over the top violence, and not great characters, this film succeeds in being goofy entertainment. The killer "Chrome Skull" is actually pretty cool looking, and keeps a very menacing appearance and stature. The film is made up of gore, jump scares, and some crazy stuff (e.i. The caulk scene). That's what makes this film so fun. It lack of logic and goofy/scary mix manages to entertain well, but only for the non squeamish. I'm warning you- read the rating (NC-17), check the parents guide- this film is incredibly gory. But if you can handle that, and like goofy stuff, than this will be great! And unlike many dumb-plotted films, Laid to Rest's plot flows fine. It may be dumb, but it works. So in conclusion- You might just want to check this fun movie out- if you can stomach it.
Creepshow 2 (1987)
Creepshow 2 takes the scary route, instead of the first one's tongue-in-cheek tone. Not a mistake.
As sequels go, quite good. The three (Not five, budgetary reason) tales are fun (and surprisingly scary). The acting is okay, including a few good performances. The tales, which I will now rate, all have gore, fun, and scares. The first segment: "Old Chief Wooden-head" is an old-fashion revenge story. It has a slow and mysterious build, but with enough action to keep things interesting. Acting-wise this episode does okay, nothing too great, but pretty good. The effects in this episode are a little wooden (no pun intended) but capture the essence of the menacing but slow-moving monsters of 50s media. The second episode, "The Raft" Again, okay acting but nothing great. But the blob monster ranges from looking real enough to looking kinda horrible (mostly in the earlier shots). Stephen King was at least somewhat right when he described the monster as an "old rug". Despite that, this episode still dishes out some good scares and creepy gore. The third installment is the scariest one. Good acting, scary scenes, and scary gore. In all Creepshow 2 is worthy (but not equal to) the original.
Piranha 3DD (2012)
No plot, some problems (SPOILERS FOR THE FIRST ONE ONLY)
First off, I didn't think the first one was great either (but 3 1/2 stars, sure.) but this one's got nothing on #1's plot. The tension, and I guess a scare or two, but there is no ending set piece complete the film. The first one had the kids stranded and whats-her-name trapped in the boat. This film has none of that. The filmmakers understand the b-style, but when your monsters stay under the water for the most part, your people should be stuck in the water! The climax should have had someone trapped- like maybe on one of those water park lifeguard islands, like the ones in the middle of the pool, when you see the film you'll understand how that would work well! But for some reason: No. Other than that there are some great celeb cameos, humor and action to pass the time, but I guess that's not what people were expecting from this film. It's not bad though. I laughed, and had some fun- so I'm thinking the crazy low rating (3.8?? That's lower than those Syfy channel movies!) is because Piranha 3DD is goofy, not scary, and such a change in mood, story, and humor. People where expecting Piranha 2, they got scary movie 6. And apparently nobody wanted them to go comedy. And in some ways comedy doesn't work for this film, e.i. the first film wanted you to be impressed/entertained by the effects and the scares, and these type of comedy are basically making fun of them selves, so the film doesn't let you admire it's talent. Piranha 3DD is fun, and deserves much better than what it's gotten, but goes to show that spoofs and horror flicks don't mix well.
P.S. This film actually did okay over seas, and some of the behind-the-camera crew are interested, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Piranha: Part 3D (The third Piranha movie- hoping it might happen!)
The Omega Man (1971)
An epic apocalypse film.
Despite some mistakes, The Omega Man is still a great action film. Those mistakes, for me, start off with the music. No, not because it's old because it just doesn't fit sometimes! Example: In the middle of an action scene, I don't want to hear this groovy laid back stuff, what I want to hear is something suspenseful. I don't mean the music is ALWAYS misplaced, but it happens a few times. For our other mistake, I'll be talking about the hoods. Yes, hoods are creepy, but some of the mutants hoods in this movie look all shiny, which takes away some of their creepiness. (And mentioning the mutants is not a spoiler- they're on the film's cover. But besides that, this film is great for many reasons. Charlton Heston gives a great performance as the last man on earth, and his enemies are also played very well. Just like the performances, the movie's creepy throwback atmosphere is great, and the film really pulls you in with interesting ideas and exciting set pieces. In all The Omega Man is an excellent film.
The Gate II: Trespassers (1990)
A fun but slightly lacking sequel. Spoiler alert!!! (Only if you didn't watch the first one!)
I first want to say that I liked the first gate film a lot, and even though it's been a while since I've seen it but I remember enough to compare it to number one. The characters in this film, though stereotypes, have much more of a real feel to them than other films like this. Those characters help make the story compelling. The acting out of these characters is fair, with the exception of Our (SPOILER) main character, the nerdy neighbor kid, from the first one. I know some people liked him, but I thought he was a tad wooden. story is the biggest difference from The Gate. Whereas The Gate has a grander, action filled Premise, The Gate II: Trespassers has a slow build to an explosive ending. Don't think they went cheap on us though, because this "slow build" is filed with great stop motion special effects, thanks to the single minion ( the tiny guys from the first one) who gets a fair a mount of screen time. But let's get onto the ending, where things get sketchy. The start of the climax is excellent, but the final "battle" is just cheesy and a little disappointing. That's really too bad considering the rest of the film was great. And also if you're expecting scary, you may be disappointed. This film has it's moments, but the original is much scarier.
In all The Gate II: Trespassers is a decent film, and if you're looking for some effects laden fun, check this out!
Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation (2004)
A bitter, overly violent disappointment. (Slight plot spoilers ahead)
Just for the record I know not all slasher movies are bad, but when you watch a movie thinking it's and action-horror and end up watching a horrible slasher movie, you will be disappointed. This film had none of the originals satire, and manages to make many, many, mistakes (And not even entertaining ones)! Instead of overdoing it (Like most sequels), this film doesn't even do it in the FIRST PLACE. Instead of the goofy/dumb/incompetent sequel tone, Starship Troopers 2 is as bitter as they come. It is not easy to watch and (At least to me) is not even sort of entertaining. The slasher aspect sort of sneaks up on you. This movie starts up like a sci-fi movie and gradually turns into this gross joyless film that is Starship a Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation. I do not recommend this awful film.
Jaws 2 (1978)
Epic sequel! (Mild spoilers, don't read if u haven't seen Jaws, or don't want to know about the design of the shark)
This one sequel with a whole lot of bite. It almost rivals (or even tops) the original in a few fields, including shark attacks (tops #1, so many shark scenes), scares (Not quite there, more cool than scary, but the scariest of the sequels), characters (well not really but they are still very good), and (obviously) scenery, as the film is filled with colorful, beautiful, aerial shots. And despite practically the same basic plot description as #1 (killer shark, Police chief Brody attempting to kill it) Jaws 2 is nothing like the original. The plot, as you will see, takes a much different turn than in one, and it takes on such a different tone than Jaws also. Jaws has a dark, creepy feel too it, and Jaws 2 has this fun, action-horror thing going. So don't make the mistake I did and assume this is a ripoff of one. Another change to this film is the size and design of the shark. First off, the shark seem smaller ( much more like 13-16 feet, not 25) and much more agile. And second, he gets a bit of a makeover (you'll know what I mean). So with all these changes, Jaws 2 manages to be an epic, exiting film. I liked it.
Jaws: The Revenge (1987)
Psychedelic (The spoilers aren't too bad)
People always pick on this movie talking about the "cheesy dialog" or "Bad effects" or maybe "Terrible acting". But lots of better rated films have the exact same problems, and the acting (with a few exceptions) isn't too bad. I think the real reason that this film got such -low ratings is it's complete lack of logic (The shark traveling at the speed of a plane, The shark roaring, Ms. Brody's "telepathic?" powers), But do to these things- Plus the pristine and dream-like scenery- the film gives of a weird jaws-on-drugs sort of feel, which is pretty darn entertaining. My problem is the long, boring patch in the middle of the film. I will re-watch it and make my final decision about the film. They should have cut out 10-15 minutes in that middle slice, but in all this an enjoyable bad movie.
Jaws 3-D (1983)
The third dimension is some cool stuff and a few (somewhat mild) scares
Everyone seems to hate this movie, but it's usually just a few things giving off a crappy effect. Example: Dennis Quaid is decent, and for the most part the other actors aren't too horrible, the plot is great (shark in sea world!!), and the set prices are creepy enough.
But... The 3D is just ridiculously horrid in a few parts. I know some of them really just need the 3D treatment, but a few cuts were just unforgivable.
And... 2/3ds of the camera-work look like TV movie/digital camera type Quality, which doesn't look at all as good as the great film quality of one and two. In both versions I've seen everything is blurry for a film in theaters (I've heard that last part is due to universal never releasing a correctly made non-3D version of the film)
So those two combined really seem to screw up this film a little bit. Too bad, because this fun-but-not-great movie could have been much better. Jaws 3D might just get better rating if it was revised in HD with some of the 3D cuts removed (Or a 3D version- Yes!). Jaws 3D is also quite different in both tone and style from the other films. Both Jaws 1 and 2 seem to focus on being trapped on the open sea, Jaws 3D is more claustrophobic-based. And the style is also very different from 2 and 1, One is very thriller styled, whereas two is more showy. Surprisingly this film is not as showy as Jaws 2. It's style is just strait horror. And Jaws: TR- It's tone and style are pretty much "Watching jaws 2 while you're high" In all I thought it was an okay film, but a mixed bag. (By the way I would give this a 6-7 if I could see the true 3D version of the film.
Dawn of the Dead (1978)
I am sure this is one of the best zombie movies i will ever see.
DAWN OF THE DEAD
***** 4.7/5.0
I think it's pretty amazing that Dawn of the Dead's small crew, with a very low budget and limited resources, could make this film so good. Tom Salvini's effects are disturbing and convincing, The actors (including zombies) are great, The script is pretty much free of cheesy dialog, And the film's atmosphere manages to do something that most films can not: To maintain horror and fun at the same time, this is one of the things that improves it from Night. Another thing that sets apart from other zombie movies is the sly satire. It can be seen many different ways, or just unnoticed, so i think viewers with opposing views will have less of a problem with it than with other satirical films. I haven't seen very many zombie films, (I have been more into other horror sub-genres) But from those few this is the best one. I recommend Dawn of the Dead for any one who can handle lots of gore.
P.S. for a good (and long) version of the film (There are many versions of it) Check out this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba7is5M0POs