28 Days Later

[markums2k]

Gold Trumpet must be writing all those negative reviews on IMDB.  Some unfortunate few seemed to have developed an all-consuming hatred for this movie.  Not unlike... rage?  

So many message boards, so little time.

[markums2k]

God, I have no idea why I try to understand you, GT.  Make more sense.

Funny.  I have the habit of saying the same about you.

Anytime someone sticks it to mesh, I'm happy.  

[Mesh]

Anytime someone sticks it to mesh, I'm happy.  

Yeah, it really gets my goat when xixaxers don't understand my usually well-written, cohesive posts that 95% of the time have an intelligible point.

Your incomprehesion is like white-hot needles in my spine!  Desist!

[Sleuth]

I don't get the anti-Meshitism either.  Eats Mayonnaise, wha?  Whatever people, calm down.  28 Days Later is for cool people  8)  with sunglasses

[markums2k]

Anytime someone sticks it to mesh, I'm happy.  

Yeah, it really gets my goat when xixaxers don't understand my usually well-written, cohesive posts that 95% of the time have an intelligible point.

Like, for example:

The fuck? I mean, what? No.

You are well before your time, sir.  We shall look back and marvel upon your glorious treasures of literary brilliance.

Anyways, I probably agree with you 50% of the time.  And I like mayonnaise too.  So, I would say 'that's that', mattress man.

[Mesh]

The movie just exists for the thriller plot of running away from zombies and these people trying to stay alive.

It's a genre pic and, for its highly specific genre, it's a good one and a thoughtful one.  Name me one gory, apocalyptic zombie movie that really digs into the deep philosophical issues surrounding mass human death, and I'll give your criticisms of 28 Days Later some creedence.

Either that, or think about what the film does give you to think about; for more on some of that, see the rest of this very thread.

[Jeremy Blackman]

My complaint is that disease through this way is done over and over again.

Then your complaint is not with the movies. The fact is that most major viruses come from animals.

And I guess another fact is that the biggest threat to humans, the biggest potential for mass death, is disease.

2.) I have no clue what you are saying there.

I'm saying that you complained about 2 conflicting things: That it is too abrupt with no build in suspense, and that it is too predictable. A build in suspense is by definition predictable, insofar as you know something's going to happen and you're scared of the impending event.

The movie just exists for the thriller plot of running away from zombies and these people trying to stay alive.

I don't think you would recognize a good survival movie if it landed in your lap on a silver platter. Are you biased against all genre movies?

[Gold Trumpet]

JB
1.) My complaint is still for the movies. The idea of viruses killing off everyone and serving for melodramatic purpose only has been done over and over again and usually with little talent. This movie is being said to bring out ideas. I just don't see any. Its purpose isn't for that.

2.) Most things in movies like thrillers and such can be predicted. At least with a build up in suspence, the result can be effective. The build up in 28 days later was nonexistent and predictability was everywhere and that made for nothing being effective.

3.) Are you done arguing for the credibility of the ideas during the prologue? I'm surprised you really haven't touched that point and my points of why they are not credible. Genre movies aren't bad, but with other points, this is me saying '28 Days Later' is a bad scary/thriller/zombie movie.

~rougerum

[Jeremy Blackman]

The build up in 28 days later was nonexistent

Actually, this describes it well:

Scene starts out in lighted area, person enters mysterious dark place, and if in a group of many, the number is reduced down to one or two only. When swift camera movements from alien angles begin to show, they are coming and within moments, their physical attack of the humans is on the screen

Are you done arguing for the credibility of the ideas during the prologue? I'm surprised you really haven't touched that point and my points of why they are not credible.

The prologue was symbolic. Was that taken literally anywhere in the movie? It's like saying "this is a movie about human nature." To be honest, I think the mixing of genres (or the possibility that a zombie horror flick can have deep meaning) makes you uncomfortable. Are you willing to consider that it's what was intended, and that it's what a lot of people got out of it?

[Gold Trumpet]

Not uncomfortable at all, but more or less not really believing there is any mixture of genres here. It seems, more or less, that the zombie thriller part of the movie is taking up all the room. The talk and symbolism feels drowned out so much by the constant noise of zombies trying to kill them that there is little hope. The art film and the horror film are both ones of such extreme, so much so that when you try to mix them and benefit both realms it is more likely you will actually be just playing to one over the other. If making a horror thriller, you get large quantities of action and attacks of various creatures. An art film would have very little by way of action and be much more in talking about the things that maybe created the way things are and instead of showing the attacks, it plays more off the atmosphere of life their existence has created for these people to forward the feeling of their drama as their own search for answers forwards the ideas.

With this, I feel all the talk has been drowned out. The horror element is just way too much. The beginning is hurried along so quickly to its pay off of that first attack any grounds for what did what can not really be attained and all talks of existence and meaning by people during the rest of the film feel like interludes separating only the action in the film. And as a zombie/horror film, I've already said why I didn't like it.

~rougerum

[Mesh]

This movie is being said to bring out ideas. I just don't see any.

Ideas/Topics Presented by 28 Days Later (some more original than others):

1.  Might televised violence cause further violence (or even a physiological event, such as the genesis of a virus) in primates?

2.  Do humanitarian/environmentalist efforts really succeed very often, or do they serve to complicate potentially important research projects?

3.  What would happen if an extremely aggresive virus overwhelmed the UK population in a month's time?

4.  What kinds of morality issues arise when a person you love or trust is turned bloodthirsty via infection?  Is it OK to kill loved ones, or even children, when such a situation occurs?

5.  In a mass death scenario, to what extent would the remaining military actually assist the surviving population, given that military types are often more focused on self-survival than on the protection of innocent civilians?

6.  In a mass death scenario, in which females are suddenly badly outnumbered by desperate males, does rape become a necessary evil?

7.  If an entire nation were under quarantine for a deadly virus, and a reconnaissance flight spotted apparently uninfected survivors, would that reconnaissance vehicle be wise to assist those survivors?  Would it be more prudent to kill said survivors on sight?

Topics not explicitly presented by 28 Days Later (but which might bear further thought):

1.  Is human violence an endless vicious cycle?  How can it be short-circuited?

2.  What's the significance of the "28" in 28 Days Later?  Might it have some subconscious relationship to the female menstrual cycle?

3.  Right after Jim spots the plane flying high over England, he's inspired to "go wild," so to speak, in defense of his female companions.  He's seen that the outside world hasn't "ended" yet and he has hope; in fact his wild rage at the end of the film is inspired by that hope....Is 28 Days Later making an implicit point about human nature's innate desire to revert to its wilder, more animalistic heritage?  Can such lawlessness, recklessness, incivility, etc., be a positive force for humanity?  Is it a countervailing force against the "Rage" inspired by human violence?


OK, GT, there's 10 issues I believe 28 Days Later invites us to ponder...there's probably a dozen more.....Still think it's just another dumb, bad horror movie?

[Ghostboy]

I'm sure he does.  I really love the movie, but I think it's important to consider that the movie doesn't force us to consider these ideas; it puts them on the table, if you want to look for them they're there. But if you want to go and just see an action horror film and don't want to think TOO much, it functions on that level as well. Which means it does what the best action and horror films do...it presents a subtext worthy of discussion, without alienating those who just want to have a good time.

[Mesh]

I'm sure he does.  I really love the movie, but I think it's important to consider that the movie doesn't force us to consider these ideas; it puts them on the table, if you want to look for them they're there. But if you want to go and just see an action horror film and don't want to think TOO much, it functions on that level as well. Which means it does what the best action and horror films do...it presents a subtext worthy of discussion, without alienating those who just want to have a good time.

100% agreement from Mesh.

That fact about 28 Days Later is its single greatest strength.

[Gold Trumpet]

OK, GT, there's 10 issues I believe 28 Days Later invites us to ponder...there's probably a dozen more.....Still think it's just another dumb, bad horror movie?

I do and you've been missing my points. Even if you are able to discern ideas from a movie, that doesn't mean they are valid ones. To give an example: On cinemax late at night in the soft core porn movies, one of the most used kind of movies is ones dealing with virtual reality and how technology has created a perfect system where you can act out sex with any dream girl in any dream situation to the point it feels like actual sex. Like usual, its a big great thing for everyone but then the movie actually shows real relationships being destroyed because of one's addiction to the virtual reality of sex. You could get from that a bigger picture of technologies grasp on more and more things in our lives to the point where it is invading on our personal relationships and finding ways to replace them. You could ask the question of how far our own society and ourselves have fallen down this trap and what it means.

But thing is, its ridiculous to think about that when watching that kind of movie. Its very similiar to 28 Days Later where so much of the movie is for the purpose of the gore of zombies killing and thriller of these people trying to escape that all ideas seem weightless. The horror genre, like porn, is way too extreme of a genre for a movie with ideas because it requires so many things that just wouldn't be in that kind of movie. Nothing against the horror or porn genre, but the elements in them are way too out of context for the requirements of an art film. Where an art film wouldn't show all the zombie attacks and killings but instead set up a scenario that would bring out the atmosphere of living with them and what they bring to their own world, the zombie thriller movie would show the action elements of zombies actually attacking humans. Movies are a terrible art form for ideas because they can only sustain so much attention to certain things in the time period of two hours and when trying to go for information, it always loses to the book, so movies are best to try to capture an environment and feeling of something. Trying to better dramaticize something.

~rougerum

[Sleuth]

Why are we all so happy to categorize something as a horror or art film?