28 Days Later

[Something Spanish]

Golden Trumpet. I am going to refrain from using profanity, but reading your posts certainly makes refraining a difficult task. 28 Days Later is a masterpiece. I'm not even going to delve into the details about why or how. Go and see it again. All of the ideas spoken about in the first half are implemented through the use of character actions in the second. Just because the characters aren't elaborating on the film's concepts through dialogue, doesn't mean that Danny Boyle and Alex Garland aren't elaborating on them visually.

[Mesh]

I just wish the film would have rid of most of the attempts and tried to be a good horror film first.

Quit compartmentalizing.

(As I've said before) A film need not be one or the other, art (movie of ideas, as you'd say) or horror.  It can be and achieve many things at once.

If you're watching a horror movie and find yourself distracted by all the ideas it presents surrounding its own horror plot, you're not a very sophisticated movie-watcher.

Further, I find it boring to watch a flat-out gore film that never asks me to step back and think about what's happening, or at the very least, never puts itself into a larger film/movie/cinema context.  All good movies serve the purposes of their chosen "genre" while at once questioning other genre conventions and commenting upon the real world in which its viewers live.  We've given you plenty of evidence that 28 Days Later does all those things.  You'll need to change your reasons for disliking it before anyone let's you off the hook in this thread.....

[Gold Trumpet]

I finally read NYC's article for the movie website and these are thoughts of rebuttal to his points:

Though the producer and such MacDonald explains, “It came out of that. Obviously, it was pre-September 11th. That happened 2-3 weeks into filming. Then the anthrax scare came right after that. But in the UK, what we had was the foot and mouth disease. You remember those images probably of piles of burning carcasses. Then we had BSE (mad cow disease). It came more out of that. I think any sort of paranoia then leads you to think post-apocalyptic. The single biggest connection with the Romero films (Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead) in my mind is -- and why they’re such good films, even though they’re genre films -- they cover something really serious. Which is the Cold War and nuclear disaster. All those films, On the Beach, The Omega Man. That’s what you’re trying to do.”

I'm not convinced though the ideas of mad cow disease and anthrax scares really are best suited to be explained in the manner of a B horror film. It never really aims for why anything happened as much as it could, but the general results of what it could create. The example being here that zombies are killing everyone and a group of people need to survive. Various ideas of survival and post apocalyption follow and all, but it is looking to a subject on its most simplistic terms. That being on mainly the effect of what killer zombies will bring to a society when it is only containing a minor few people. Isn't the result obvious? Isn't a movie about the transition instead more interesting because it doesn't deal so much in the obvious?

Though this film is an indie, its preaching to the choir of big blockbusters as well because mainly of its B level horror film and how like the porno, it has influenced Hollywood today more than anything else. Simply because the please button on these sort of exploitation films are so high. 28 Days Later is still a film for its genre because of the necessity it has in showing all the random zombie attacks. Some attacks would have been fine, but more sparingly. In my mind, the number of attacks only limited its imagination and focus to show anything interesting at all. The summer blockbuster is similiar because it can't exist without showing certain amounts of action and certain amounts of sex or whatever. I can't take the film serious because it prescribes first and foremost itself to things that aren't important or even effective. With these films, the situation and explanations change in the story, but the result is always swished around in the realm of the genre. Thats why I wish it would have tried to be a good horror film - which it is not. Around this genre film, you have situations of ideas, but the ideas are juvenile and delivery even worse.

~rougerum

[Mesh]

Thats why I wish it would have tried to be a good horror film - which it is not.

Name us your favorites, then, for contrast.  Also, name us some of your favorite "art films."

[Mesh]

I'm not convinced though the ideas of mad cow disease and anthrax scares really are best suited to be explained in the manner of a B horror film.

Some consistency of belief, please?

Do you think B Horror is a bad genre for "explanations" of large-scale disease scares or, as you hinted at before, do you think "movies aren't good at expressing ideas"?  If you think the latter, you have no basis for disliking 28 Days Later.....

In other words, you can't criticize 28 Days Later for not doing a good job exploring ideas if you think movies themselves CANNOT do a good job exploring ideas.  That's extreme intellectual dishonesty, IMO.

[Gold Trumpet]

Cannot explore many ideas like a book can. Movies can explore ideas, but in a limited number. 28 Days Later is a movie made at exploitation price where the focus and benefit comes from seeing zombies attack. The story other than that is minimal because so much of the movie revolves around the horror cliche. Exploration and investigation into more meaningful things requires a story that takes that as its main importance. It can still be a horror film, just needs to realize where to sets its priorities.

~rougerum

[mutinyco]

Straight up -- Golden Trumpet blows. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about. I suggest you go read a book or jerk of to the porn you keep bringing up.

[Gold Trumpet]

Good defense. Since I am missing everything in this film, according to everyone, someone please tell me how great the film is with working in a genre that requires so many zombie attacks and how that correlates to elevating the drama of the story. I think if I got that from you guys, I could actually be arguing something because the defense as of late has been to how dumb I am. Gets lame after a while, but I am hopeful someone can explain this to me.

~rougerum

[mutinyco]

I'm having trouble understanding your complaints against the zombie attacks. Seems to me you wanted this to be a dry philosophical drama. What makes it great is that it used genre conventions to deal with its themes in an entertaining manner. Have you ever seen The Texas Chain Saw Massacre?

[Jeremy Blackman]

someone please tell me how ... zombie attacks ... elevating the drama of the story

I thought this was obvious, but...

Zombie attacks "elevate the drama of the story" by creating conflict. Something to intensify the threat to survival. Seriously, what would a zombie movie be without zombies?

I'm trying to figure out what you're getting to. Are you saying that a movie with zombies can never be philosophical?

Tell me how to fix this movie. What would you change?

[Gold Trumpet]

In this post, with no mention of why I dislike the film, I want to know how you think the horror element of continious zombie attacks elevated the drama and forwarded the ideas. Thats all.

I saw parts of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but didn't finish it. I didn't like it and guess I'm not part of the gore crowd. More of a crowd movie, imo.

~rougerum

[Gold Trumpet]

Good JB, now we are getting somewhere.

And to answer a previous question which may be important to understand where I am coming from: my favorite horror film is The Silence of the Lambs.

I'm not saying that a movie with zombies can't be philosophical. I'm saying that in certain contexts, like that of the numerous attacks in this movie, that sometimes too much of one thing that can be directly brought back to a B level movie can keep a movie from being philosophical. I just thought that attacks were so numerous and alike and overtly predictable that all tension and conflict was gone.

What I would have done is followed suit of Silence of the Lambs more where it focused on a story more relating to a general story and ideas. Tried to create an atmosphere more and let the horror element play in the background and then show itself towards the end to, in my mind, make the horror more effective. Even though Silence of the Lambs did end traditionally with capturing the bad guy, I thought it brought a great storyline to getting under the skin of Lector and creating an environment of being afraid to not what is shown, but what could be shown. The things Lector does at the end makes him only more scary.

~rougerum

[mutinyco]

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre isn't a gore film. In fact, there's very little actual blood in it. It's all insinuated. The zombie attacks aren't constant. They happen at certain moments, as you said, to elevate the drama. They serve the same function as the battle scenes in Saving Private Ryan. This is one thing that movies do that books don't -- visceral action. This is why action films tend to do well at the box office. The reason people like porn and violence is because they're base instincts within us.

[Jeremy Blackman]

GT:

Silence of the Lambs is not a horror movie. It's based on personality, acting, atmopshere, and tension. Probably one of the truest thrillers.

The fact that there are repetitive attacks in a consistently cold atmosphere makes 28 Days Later specifically incompatible with a thriller format, and a perfect canvas for philosophy.

With every infection, with every lunge at the neck, with every human betrayal... the point is driven home.

[modage]

In case it hasn't been said already as of July 25 all the prints of 28 Days Later will include an alternate ending.

so, what happens in the alternate ending?  who knows that has the euro dvd?