28 Days Later

[sphinx]

it's already out in canada, i'm going off to see it soon

[modage]

I was expecting a little of the old "in-out" towards the end. Great film though!

there's just something a little creepy about that coming from "Alex".  

[bonanzataz]

The audience was very immature, though.  When we first see the main character naked on the hospital bed they snickered.  Then later on when he's showering and we see his butt they snickered again.  This is why I hate full theaters during serious films  

teeheehee, human sexuality! that part was a bit unnecessary though. did i really need to see his dick?

and, you know what, a fucking zombie movie is supposed to be scary and fun. you don't go into a zombie movie expecting to fucking watch it calmly and complacently. it doesn't work like that. so fuck all your elitest "cinemagoer" bullshit. sorry if i offended anybody, it just pisses me off.

i never picked up on the monkeys being infected from watching society at its worst. i didn't hear them say that. does it happen in the opening scene with the doctor? aside from that little thing, i thought the zombies in the movie were really believable. not like zombies in traditional horror films. i really dislike that traditional zombies get up and walk around even if there's no muscle surrounding the bones or despite the fact that they're supposed to be extremely weak and can manage to break out of a coffin 6 feet underground (despite having their body full of formaldeheyde). these zombies could starve to death AND they were really fast and smarter than traditional zombies. i thought that was cool.

[SHAFTR]

i never picked up on the monkeys being infected from watching society at its worst. i didn't hear them say that. does it happen in the opening scene with the doctor?

Maybe you would have if the people in the theatre wouldn't have been so loud.
8)

[bonanzataz]

there were only three other people in the theater. my group was the loudest. YES!

[Ravi]

The audience was very immature, though.  When we first see the main character naked on the hospital bed they snickered.  Then later on when he's showering and we see his butt they snickered again.  This is why I hate full theaters during serious films  

teeheehee, human sexuality! that part was a bit unnecessary though. did i really need to see his dick?

and, you know what, a fucking zombie movie is supposed to be scary and fun. you don't go into a zombie movie expecting to fucking watch it calmly and complacently. it doesn't work like that. so fuck all your elitest "cinemagoer" bullshit. sorry if i offended anybody, it just pisses me off.

I like when people react to truly scary and funny stuff in a movie.  But when growups snicker when they see some guy's penis, well, that is just idiocy.

[Sleuth]

I'm going to have to agree with Ravi.

[polkablues]

did i really need to see his dick?

If you have to ask, the answer is yes.

[Jeremy Blackman]

God, I love this movie. This is the second time this summer I've been surprised by how much I love a movie that I thought I would just like (first was Hulk).

I think of this movie less as a horror movie or a zombie movie, and more of a post-apocalyptic allegory. This is a full-blooded art film.. I don't care what anyone says. It was beautiful.

For me, this is second only to City of God. 2003 might be a pretty good year.

(SPOILERS)

The whole scene with the guy released the chained up infected guy... that was incredible, that whole sequence gave me chills, it was absolutely beautiful.

I think a lot of people will scare themselves into thinking this is another summer blockbuster, and they won't see it for the masterpiece it is. I love this movie.

But the end was a little weak. It should have ended with the freeze frame. It really should have.

[jokerspath]

I cannot say enough about how amazingly brilliantly amazing I found this movie to be.  So I won't.

I'll go ahead and second that notion, but with some notes.  

Caught it last night and enjoyed the hell out of it, wouldn't have changed a thing.  Liked the DV look, esp. the rain.

There were a bunch of shitty snickering kids in there when I walked in.  One had a straw to his mouth and I heard the very familiar sound of spitballs (an automatic red flag to sit far away so I didn't have to confront them).  It filled up a bit but I, luckily, didn't have any real trouble with people talking.

I always enjoy the whole apocalyptic after thoughts that movies like Night/Dawn/Day of the Dead as well as Return Of The Dead and The Stand encapsulate.  I like to think that this is just one story of thousands.

I also enjoyed the fact that they were less like zombies (as in the undead) and more like rabid humans who could die, starve, run, and whose main objective was to kill and spread their infection.  It heightened the intensity.

Spoiler
I nearly had a heart attack when I thought it was going to end w/ the freeze frame (though it probably would've made the movie that much more unsettling).  

I'm told the R2 DVD has a ton of features, and I'm thinking of ordering it from Amazon.co.uk, for fear of it being a barebones stateside release a few months from now.  Might just settle with going and seeing it again.

aw

[DigitalFriend]

I was in a theater with a bunch of teenyboppers too who laughed and giggled everytime they showed him naked.

As for the movie, I thought it was GREAT.  I wasn't expecting anything more then a simple (well directed) zombie movie.  But, this one had heart and I really enjoyed the, "its not all fucked" line.  Uplifting!  Heh.

About the R2 DVD...I wonder if my dvd player will play it.  Will all PC-dvd players play any region?  Curious as to what it looks like on DVD (probably looks better then the film transfer).

[Jeremy Blackman]

Is family really the main theme though?  I see it more as human nature VS "sub-human" nature

But wasn't the real problem the humans who were either too arrogant to cooperate with each other or wanted to rape each other? That was the really disturbing part of the movie for me... thinking about how humans would operate in permanent survival mode.

Anyway... who blames it on the activists and who blames it on the scientists? I blame it on the scientists (surprise surprise). The activists released the chimp... and they may have been a little reckless. But the scientist who tried to stop them knew that the chimps were infected, and he knew exactly how dangerous the infection was. Wasn't it his fault for creating this kind of thing in the first place, and putting it where it could escape or be easily released (oops, forgot to lock it)? Curing cancer is one thing, but spawning a disease that could wipe out the planet is another...

[DigitalFriend]

I missed the very beginning of the movie, I caught just the tail end of the chimp thing and then it said 28 days later...

Did I miss much?

[Mesh]

Anyway... who blames it on the activists and who blames it on the scientists? I blame it on the scientists (surprise surprise). The activists released the chimp... and they may have been a little reckless. But the scientist who tried to stop them knew that the chimps were infected, and he knew exactly how dangerous the infection was. Wasn't it his fault for creating this kind of thing in the first place, and putting it where it could escape or be easily released (oops, forgot to lock it)? Curing cancer is one thing, but spawning a disease that could wipe out the planet is another...

I find it tough to blame the scientists, for this reason:

"Rage" seems to be a virus spawned within primates who are exposed to too much televised violence (at least that's the assumption one could glean from the prologue).  Those monkeys weren't sick, you'd assume, before the scientists strapped them down in front of video screens looping violent human activity (side note: A Clockwork Orange goes in the exact opposite direction, screening violence in combination with drug therapy in order to give the patient a learned aversion to committing such acts).  Now, apply that to the real world: the film seems to be saying that televised violence, in massive enough doses, causes "RAGE," the virus, in primates.  Therefore, humans probably would've developed it sooner or later anyhow, given the proliferation of 24-hour news, etc., etc..  The activists simply released what the scientists' work had pre-emptively created, dooming Britain with one swift blow.

The real question: after the UK quarantine, is the human race still doomed to develop "RAGE" some time in the future?  Or have they learned from their mistakes?

BTW, excellent film.  As others have pointed out, it's as rich and original a Night of the Living Dead Redux as one could ask for.  The DV is a rare success story here, as are the on-the-cheap gore effects and zombie design (that red-face is shockingly potent).  I love how Garland's screenplay picks up the "radio broadcast" motif from NotLD; also, taking it one step further into the sexual politics of desperation is a nice, if not utterly original, move (I've never seen it on screen before, I don't think, but I read it in Jose Saramago's novel Blindness, which substitutes an auto-epidemic of "white blindness" for 28 Days Later's "RAGE").

Hey, someone remind me what happens just before that fake-ending freeze-frame.....

[Mesh]

I missed the very beginning of the movie, I caught just the tail end of the chimp thing and then it said 28 days later...

Did I miss much?

You missed the prologue's explanation of the origin of the RAGE virus.  See my post and others for more....