From the director of Trainspotting and The Beach (Danny Boyle). This movie looks really good. I wanted to see it after people in London were talking about it and said it was good. Doesn't come to American cinemas until August, unfortunately. Anybody seen it? It seems like it would be really creepy. Deserted cities freak me out. "WHERE IS EVERYBODY!"
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/28_days_later/
I am really psyched to see this one man, I know how you feel about the deserted cities! The trailer is really well done, I think
It just premiered in Denmark. Haven't seen it though. I saw a review of it in a well respected Danish paper. He said that the first hour were really really impressive and scary but eventually it became kind of a b-horror cliché. But i've also heard people say that this was a cool thing (b-horror cliché). Maybe I should go see it myself......but PDL premieres here Friday so i guess i'll wait a little. :-D
Btw. They are already planning a sequel to 28 days later....hmm so i guess it most have some qualities.
Isn't the whole movie suposed to be b-horror cliché? Isn't it suposed to be kitch? That makes it not bad but cool...
i'm a self-proclaimed b-horror movie nut, so this one should fucking rock for me.
great picture..... very uneven second half
but the first few acts are genius.... thrillingly intense.... opening sequence is jawdroppingly good....digitally shot footage of a deserted london put to a fantastic Godspeed you black emporer track....
zombies look great...idea behind the movie is spot on
like i say...movie loses its way a bit towards the end but is always absolutely watchable...
lead actors a bit hit and miss
but danny boyle is definitely back on track...i'm interested to see how the movie does stateside....was a pretty sizeable hit in britain and ireland
...and deservedly so
Fox Searchlight to Sneak 28 Days Later
On Friday the 13th of June, 28 cities across the U.S. will be infected by 28 Days Later sneak preview screenings. June 27 marks the date Fox Searchlight Pictures will fully unleash the horror that gripped the UK last fall with the U.S. release of Danny Boyle's British smash hit film.
"Get ready for the coolest, scariest movie of the year," Fox Searchlight Pictures' President of Distribution Steve Gilula said.
In 28 Days Later a powerful virus is unleashed on the British public following a raid on a primate research facility by animal rights activists. Transmitted in a drop of blood and devastating within seconds, the virus locks those infected into a permanent state of murderous rage. Within 28 days the country is overwhelmed and a handful of survivors begin their attempts to salvage a future, little realizing that the deadly virus is not the only thing that threatens them...
The film re-teams the director/producer duo of Danny Boyle and Andrew Macdonald, who previously collaborated on multiple award-winning films Trainspotting, Shallow Grave and A Life Less Ordinary. The film's original screenplay was written by Alex Garland, the author of The Beach. It stars Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Christopher Eccleston, Megan Burns and Brendan Gleeson. Following its blockbuster British release in fall 2002, 28 Days Later was named Best British Film by the UK's Empire Awards.
The movie earned $10 million when it opened in the U.K. in 2002. The U.S. premiere of the film was held at the 2003 Sundance Film Festival. It has also been selected to screen at the 2003 Tribeca Film Festival on May 7 and May 9.
Sneak screenings will take place in the following 28 cities on Friday the 13th of June: Albuquerque, Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Baltimore, Charlotte, Chicago, Columbus, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Madison, Minneapolis, Montreal, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, Toronto, Vancouver and Washington, D.C.
yes
Now if only I can figure out which specific theater
I interviewed the producer and writer of 28 Days Later. Go to:
http://www.movienavigator.org/digitalrage.htm
Just got the 28 Days Later R2 DVD this week.
Love it, a great bunch of B-fun. The sci-fi explanation of the "zombies" adds layers, and I for one like the third act quite a bit. Not that I can't appreciate a good ol' supernatural zombie horror flick for what it is, but the virus is an interesting premise, well examined here, and the small rag-tag military stronghold and the dynamics of that situation all worked for me. All the requisite genre tension and gore are fully in tact, but there's also more to it. Economical storytelling, strong cast of mostly unknowns, the DV is perfectly suited for the material, and they accomplished some nice effects on a very limited budget. And I'm glad Boyle and co. opted to play it straight rather than camp it up for laughs.
Danny Boyle is definitely back. It's not as perfect as Shallow Grave or Trainspotting, but a darn good little movie.
Nice disc too, BTW. The commentary with Boyle & screenwriter Alex Garland is good stuff, plus the deleted scenes and the making-of add up to a nice package. I liked it so much, I'll probably even see it in the theater next month when it finally premieres here in The States.
"movie earned $10 million when it opened in the U.K. in 2002"
is that good?
Watch a six minute preview of the film here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/28_days_later/)
I'm more hyped to see this now.
I love Alex Garland. His novels are [in my opinion] masterpieces. The Beach is such an oustanding debut work, and is still my favourite book now [although I think Boyle fucked up the cinematic adaptation]. The Tesseract, which I just read for the second time, is not as good, but is [on its own terms] a really outstanding piece of metaphysical fiction. I was stoked when I found out that he wrote 28 Days Later.
I just saw it this evening, and it rocked. It's probably about as original as a zombie movie can get at this point...and the third act shift was brilliant, in my opinion. It totally took the movie in a direction I didn't expect. I thought the cast was excellent, especially the lead girl...who was also gorgeous. The shots of her in the red dress were stunning (the DV photography was on the whole extremely well done -- its from Anthony Dodd Mantle, who also shot The Celebration and Julien Donkey Boy, among others).
The origin and explanation for the zombies was very good, too. And that scene in the tunnel, where they're changing the tire -- utterly terrifying. I wish I had seen it on the big screen first -- but I'll definitely be seeing it again when it does get released.
Holy fucking shit balls this movie is good. This is one of the most intriguing and well directed films I've seen this year. It does have some b-movie cliches but it builds tension WAY higher than any b-movie I've seen. The creep factor is very well crafted. Naomie Harris and Cillian Murphy are great leads with well developed characters. Boyle has proven himself worthy of the accolades he got on Trainspotting fo sho. I'm excited about watching it again in theatres but I don't know if it will be as overwhelmingly creepy surrounded by a bunch of people as it is sitting in the dark of a quiet empty apt. Thank goodness I had Ghostboy to hang onto.
I'm seeing it Friday
the site says to wear a red shirt, INTRIGUING (don't tell me why)
i got my tickets. i am psyched.
I thought this was the long-awaited sequel to that Sandra Bullock movie where she goes to a drunk camp...
Seriously, though, I'm willing to give this a shot. Not a huge fan of Danny Boyle (Trainspotting is fun, A Life Less Ordinary was such crap that I wrote him off and never bothered with The Beach).
This is the movie that will make my opinion of him ... I liked Trainspotting as much as the next guy, but then, The Beach... this is hard to forgive.
Hm......
seems very LAME
When I saw the tv spot, I thought it was cool to have a story about if everybody just disapeared of the earth and you were the only one there, I always think about it, but then I saw the zombie/horror whatever and it killed my enthusiasm, Ill make no judgements tho
Watch more Twilight Zone
just got back from 28 days later. i liked it. it definitely wasnt really what i expected, but was enjoyable for anyone who is the slightest bit interested in what they've seen from the previews. i dont want to give anything away, but its very different. there arent too many low budget well done zombie flicks nowadays so this is a rarity. had some good scares. an interesting score (thats danny boyle alright). and some interesting commentary on the nature of violence and soforth. thats all for now. interested to hear what others think of this flick.
my danny boyle background:
LOVED shallow grave, have on VHS.
LOVED trainspotting, have on VHS.
LIKED a life less ordinary, have on VHS.
LIKED the beach, seen only once in theatre.
What was the deal about wearing a red shirt to the preview?
at mine, NOTHING! a bunch of us nerds were easily identified, thats about IT. i am very interested to know if there was anything going on at other cities. but not in Philadelphia. we got some stickers and a few backpacks (but it was at random thru a radio station and red shirt or otherwise). pisses me off.
I ended up not going, but my friend says he got some free promo stuff like dogtags
I thought it was really cool but then the last act kind of destroyed some things that made me respect it so much.
Spoiler...
I thought that the suicide note from his parents was really striking.
...
I like all of his films really. I need to see the Beach again though. Its such a brilliant concept. I haven't read the book but am I right in thinking that they dont get away quite so easily as they do in the film?
this movie rocks. AND rolls!
but, to tell you the truth, it ain't got shit on resident evil!
i respectfully disagree!
I thought it was fantastic. I can stand very few films shot of DV and this is surely one of them. Danny Boyle also gets +'s with his soundtracks, this one having Grandaddy, Godspeed You Black Emperor, & Brian Eno.
Quite good. Deserving of a 2nd viewing.
very true. dv usually bugs the shit out of me, but this was very good.
That was part of my argument in my article. The film was shot the same way it would've even it had been 35mm. What you had was a beautiful degraded image.
Understand, it's only in the last decade or so because of TV, and especially digital video, that we've had these sparkling clean images. Most of that is the influence of videos and commercials. But if you go back through history, a lot of films preferred a very grainy aesthetic. In modern times, I'd say Eyes Wide Shut is the most influencial. Everybody was complaining when it came out. They weren't used to grain.
It's quite a nice effect.
I already said that if you wore red you get special promo stuff like stickers and dog tags
I'm so pissed off at you right now
Quote from: mogwaiHow the hell is Pubrick?
goin to bed.(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fffmedia.ign.com%2Ffilmforce%2Fimage%2Fchristucker_rushhour21.jpg&hash=590eefb48e7554d649a0c83089acc0e3ca5f3229)
"And u know this, man!"
This was a real treat... there aren't too many good horror flicks out there these days, and this one was great. Anyone know what DV camera it was shot on?
XL-1s, right?
Danny Boyle...auteur?
I think this was a great step in that direction. Once you get past the b-movie cliche manifestation of the film, it's got a great social commentary and a very coherent structure. A longer explanation might come soon, just testing the waters.
BTW... I don't know why everyone's complaining about the ending, the ending was fantastic. It's the beginning that's problematic. Should've opened subjectively. Show us the main character's wonderful family life before the accident (since family is a theme), show the accident, then cut to "28 days later..." Perfect. Why spell out for the audience the cause of the epidemic. It would work as a much better social commentary if this rage just sprang up overnight in the eyes of the main character. Just my opinion.
Is family really the main theme though? I see it more as human nature VS "sub-human" nature
Main theme?? What does that mean. The best movies have many equally important themes. I think it is telling that family is the source of salvation for our three main characters. Obviously this main character had a wonderful family before the epidemic, just thought it should be emphasized a bit more to juxtapose the individual isolation that results from rage (i.e. black chicks willingness to kill ANYONE infected in a heartbeat to save her own ass, which she does early on, with that other dude)
OK, only seen it once and too lazy to go to IMDB to look up names. Don't discount my opinion just because i said "black chick" and "that other dude" Thanks. :lol:
Well, I was saying that I think the family theme is sort of a subdivision of the nature theme. But maybe I have it all wrong
and by the way, their names were Selena and Mark you racist feminist
sorry bout the double post
Beyond that, I was humbly suggesting that the beginning would be more effective if it was subjective. The family recommendation was just an afterthought. Why do we need to see the chimps? What purpose do they serve other than providing a "nice neat explanation" for the people who like their movies perfectly wrapped.
(I just got into Lynch, big time. So obviously I'm just hugely in favor of subjective movies.)
Hey, racist feminists are people too. Don't hate.
The racist part is off. The feminist part is way off
:-D
SPLOIURLRLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think the chimps are necessary because you see the science view to study the chimps and the activists' view to save them from the cruel captivity. Captivity shows up again with Mailer (you might know him as Black Army Zombie) and the quarantine of England.
MT TAKE---------------
man this movie is great gimmme some good visuals, story, acting, score/soundtrack, etc(production design etc,........) and i more than likely like your film ...Boyle did this for me i am generaly a fan of all his films EXcept Life lesssssss....... but the beach and 28 days later made up for that.. loved the deserted part through London w/music the most they could have extended that for much longer and i would not have been bored or thought it was TOOOOOOOO much. (It's just something about being alone in a huge city thats cool on film I.E. Vanilla Sky & devils advocate) ..I really though this wasn't B-filmish just a diferent take on epidemic/zombie/WHAT-HAVE-YOU type of film D. Boyle has got a style that i think keeps viewer interested and glued (trainspotting, the beach and Shallow grave ) fit the bill for that....VISUALL Bliss IMO -aronofsky also merits admiration from me for visual reasons like boyle..... The only thing that kind of seeemmmed odd to me is that the film ends like the beach man vs man instead of zombie/"non HUMAN thinking" VS. man
INTERESTing don't wish to blabber so i will end.. But NONEtheLESS GREAT film Can't wait to own on DVD..
I really didn't see science as a big part of the film. After all, the epidemic is "Rage". i think this is more of a social commentary ala this insightful article:
Quote from: mutinycoI interviewed the producer and writer of 28 Days Later. Go to:
http://www.movienavigator.org/digitalrage.htm
After all, the scientists weren't really exposing the primates to scientific research, they were just making the monkeys watch footage of modern society at its worst, fostering rage. It's more of a study in the effects of modern culture more than it is a study of modern scientific technology. Even though technology has caused many of the problems, I still think Rage is the real problem here. The violence that is so deeply rooted in society; from the national level, to the individual level (i.e. Fight Club)
This is the epidemic that the attitudes fostered by films like Fight Club will eventually cause.
Anyway, I just love on how many levels this movie works. You can take anyone to see this movie and they'll love it. Non-film-maniacs will love it because it's a great innovation on an old genre. Film lovers can sit there and love the aesthetics and teh many layers of meaning. Truly a film for everyone, snobs and normals alike.
Thanks for the hook up with the link, but you said something I disagree with. Perhaps you phrased it incorrectly. You wrote:
>>This is the epidemic that the attitudes fostered by films like Fight Club will eventually cause. <<
When I linked Fight Club and 28 Days Later, it wasn't to suggest that movies like Fight Club will lead to events like those portrayed in 28 Days. I was suggesting that on a similar level they were both critiques of our homogenized consumer culture and repressed violent urges. I don't think Fight Club intended to incite violence, so much as it attempted to satirize the ultimate effects of broken families, supressed sexuality, and the social evolution of man from hunter to consumer outpacing his biological and psychological evolution to that mechanized society.
I think 28 Days Later took it a step further. This RAGE is a symptom not of these movies, but of a repressed, homogenized, mechanical society which tries to rid itself of these base instincts. It's a push down/pop up effect. It's the repetition of daily life that leads people to require bigger and bigger booms. We're slowly learning to love the bomb...
Maybe the disagreement stems from my general dislike of Fight Club and its popularity. Granted I haven't seen fight club in a few years and I certainly understand the satirical aspects. In any case, it was a interesting article and good read. After these last few posts I reread the article when I created the link and realized that I had read it wrong. I was hoping nobody would call me on it. :oops:
Either way, whatever meaning you find in a film is valid, whether right or wrong. For me, I saw 28 Days Later as satirizing not only the depravity of society but also the media that foster and popularize those ills. Maybe the problem is just that I never viewed Fight Club as a serious film; always just took it as an example of "cool". If, as you say Fincher is actually satirizing, then I'll get my hands on it and give it a more respectful viewing.
BTW, you write beautifully. :-D
Thank you.
I just saw this last night and it wasn't what I expected. I did really enjoy it and I thought the first half was excellent. I wasn't a big fan of the first part of the tunnel sequence (cab driving) but I did still enjoy the film.
This is the only thing I have ever seen where the quick cutting and strobe effect almost made me nauseus (sp?), I had to look away at one point b/c I felt like I was going to seizure.
Just saw this movie an hour ago and liked it. Some parts where pretty fucking scary. I didnt like the ending very much, but the rest was fine. The cinematography was a little annoying at times, but the I thought the humor in the film was pretty cool. Overall , I'm pretty pleased with it. Good stuff.
The movie (sort of) reminded me of "Omega Man." If Chuck Heston wasn't plant food he would've been perfect for the lead...
Well, I finally saw it after missing a sneak preview a few weeks ago and the theater filling up at a free screening last Wednesday.
I liked it. I thought it was an interesting movie. Sort of reminded me of Dawn of the Dead where there are only a handful of normal people and everyone else is either dead or zombies. Excellent suspense and mood. The cinematography was terrific, though they could have turned down the edge enhancement on the camera.
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 :evil:
Quote from: 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 :evil:
I went to the midnight showing on a weekend and it was full of people who bothered me, since half were drunk. Everything seemed to be funny, and i hate comments during a film at a theatre.
QuoteThe 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
Welcome to Life.
Anyways, I saw allot of Dawn of the Dead influences along with other films. It was nice that it was shot on DV. I'm sure thats the look he wanted and it really cut down the budget, but I think the film could have benefited from film soo much better. 28 Days Later I think would have looked so amazing if shot on film. For example, the forest scenes where the two soldiers take them to be executed... I kept thinking in my head, "Man if this was shot on film, it would have looked sooooo clean and nice"
Looks nice, but still I would have much rather had a film look on 28 Days Later.
chris
I really enjoy the look of DV. I agree that some movies work better on DV and some work better on Film but I think for the majority, it doesn't matter.
Quote from: RaviThis is why I hate full theaters during serious films :evil:
Uh... I'm not sure a movie about zombies was supposed to be THAT serious.
Quote from: SHAFTR
I went to the midnight showing on a weekend and it was full of people who bothered me, since half were drunk. Everything seemed to be funny, and i hate comments during a film at a theatre.
I had a couple of drunks at my showing Friday, too. They didn't bother near as much as the up-tight attendees pouting and shushing them the whole time, though.
Quote from: Pawbloe
Quote from: SHAFTR
I went to the midnight showing on a weekend and it was full of people who bothered me, since half were drunk. Everything seemed to be funny, and i hate comments during a film at a theatre.
I had a couple of drunks at my showing Friday, too. They didn't bother near as much as the up-tight attendees pouting and shushing them the whole time, though.
I don't shush them and I don't mind them during the Trailers, but when the film starts...It bothers me...and cell phones...they bother me too.
Quote from: PawbloeQuote from: RaviThis is why I hate full theaters during serious films :evil:
Uh... I'm not sure a movie about zombies was supposed to be THAT serious.
By "serious" I mean "not a comedy."
I cannot say enough about how amazingly brilliantly amazing I found this movie to be. So I won't.
Quote from: bonanzatazFrom the director of Trainspotting and The Beach (Danny Boyle). This movie looks really good. I wanted to see it after people in London were talking about it and said it was good. Doesn't come to American cinemas until August, unfortunately. Anybody seen it? It seems like it would be really creepy. Deserted cities freak me out. "WHERE IS EVERYBODY!"
I was expecting a little of the old "in-out" towards the end. Great film though!
it's already out in canada, i'm going off to see it soon
Quote from: halo_onI 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". :?
Quote from: RaviThe 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 :evil:
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.
Quote from: bonanzataz
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)
there were only three other people in the theater. my group was the loudest. YES!
Quote from: bonanzatazQuote from: RaviThe 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 :evil:
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.
I'm going to have to agree with Ravi.
Quote from: bonanzatazdid i really need to see his dick?
If you have to ask, the answer is yes.
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.
Quote from: polkabluesI 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.
SpoilerI 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
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).
Quote from: tremoloslothIs 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...
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?
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanAnyway... 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.....
Quote from: BobbyI 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....
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: tremoloslothIs 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.
That's what I meant. Human nature (as personified by the soldiers and maybe even Selena at the beginning) seems to get real fucked up in times of crisis like that. Meanwhile you'll see horses and ever rats work together
Quote from: MeshI find it tough to blame the scientists . . . The activists simply released what the scientists' work had pre-emptively created, dooming Britain with one swift blow.
So you don't blame the activists either? Should it be blamed on the violence of society in general? Or human nature itself? I was thinking just between the scientists and the activists, but it's probably not that simple.
Quote from: MeshThe 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?
Good point... and I'm happy that wasn't hammered down our throats. Mmmm, a subtle horror movie.
Quote from: MeshHey, someone remind me what happens just before that fake-ending freeze-frame.....
(SPOILERS) They're trying to break through the gate, and smash the car...
Quote from: jokerspathSpoiler
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).
POSSIBLE SPOILER (SORT OF)
My mom, when she saw the plane coming, thought it was going to drop a bomb on them. I told her an ending
that bleak would never have gotten a major theatrical release. Would have been a shocking twist, though.
The original ending was apparently pretty bleak, and I'm thinking maybe that's what happened. It's an extra on the UK DVD...I'm sure it'll be on the domestic release as well.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: MeshI find it tough to blame the scientists . . . The activists simply released what the scientists' work had pre-emptively created, dooming Britain with one swift blow.
So you don't blame the activists either? Should it be blamed on the violence of society in general? Or human nature itself? I was thinking just between the scientists and the activists, but it's probably not that simple.
Well, the premise of the movie seems to rest on human violence as the cause of human violence; in this case, televised violence has manifested itself physically as a virus (the characters assume) in monkeys. Compound that with the fact that scientific curiosity and human compassion for primates (insofar as the scientists' and activists' role in releasing that deadly, violent virus) caused the death of millions and the quarantine of (potentially) the entire UK, and you've got a movie with an immeasurably dark message: in short, human violence, scientific inquiry,
and human compassion collaborate to cause human misery. Bleak.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: MeshHey, someone remind me what happens just before that fake-ending freeze-frame.....
(SPOILERS) They're trying to break through the gate, and smash the car...
So we just assume that that last scene was the most dramatic way to say, in effect, that the three protagonists made it out of the military compound and found relative safety for 4 more weeks? Seems incredibly unlikely, given their circumstances just a few hours prior to their escape. Like someone mentioned before: perhaps the film should've ended with that freeze-frame....
And, hey, I just want to throw this out there for you people to mull over....
Why, specifically, 28 days? Deep down, does this film, like so many other horror films (Carrie, The Exorcist, Firestarter, to name but a few), maybe have something to say about the human female menstrual cycle?
"28" is a very specific number, is all I'm saying....
Notes to consider:
-the infected vomit rich, red blood.
-the epidemic is called Rage, something many women experience during key points in the cycle.
-the infected have glowing red eyes.
-the young female protagonist seems to be right at about "that age," doesn't she? Maybe a bit older?
-the two females are dressed quite specifically in two deep red dresses, and in preparation for (and I know I sound quite callous here) performing their biological reproductive function...
Just some facts to consider, I guess....
Quote from: Meshthe two females are dressed quite specifically in two deep red dresses, and in preparation for (and I know I sound quite callous here) performing their biological reproductive function...
It's okay, you can call it rape...
Yes, it made 9.7 million I believe, which is more than it cost to make. They're going to give it a wider release soon
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: Meshthe two females are dressed quite specifically in two deep red dresses, and in preparation for (and I know I sound quite callous here) performing their biological reproductive function...
It's okay, you can call it rape...
Yeah, but I wasn't really trying to make that point; I was going more for a "female reproductive function and cycle" point.
But, yeah, it would've been a rape, no question.
Quote from: tremoloslothYes, it made 9.7 million I believe, which is more than it cost to make. They're going to give it a wider release soon
It opened at 4, I think, which is pretty good considering how little advertising I've seen for it.
I just saw it at the local artsy theater. Great, great movie. I had a wonderful time. For all that's left unexplained, it's still a really smart movie. The only time I thought any of the characters were being overly wreckless was the gas stop. "Cheeseburgers..." yeah, I was rolling my eyes. "Don't go in there!" They were just messing with us, eh?
If any of you have to drive a long way to see this in a theater, it's worth it. You'll talk about it all the way home anyways... :-D
I finally was able to see it Saturday. It's playing at the big theaters here, but it was 10:10 at night and I figured there'd be a small crowd with T3, CA2, and LB2 (read: I didn't expect area moviegoers to have good taste). The wife and I arrived 15 minutes early and had to sit in the second row... in a theater that holds 400. Great movie, from what I saw.
To touch on some of the things mentioned in this thread. I thought the movie made a point to show "Rage" was a natural thing, not just a virus. The virus only triggered the permanent emotion. *SPOILERS* Jim, after his near death at the hands of the army basically begins to act exactly like one of the infected but with intelligence. He hops about like one, smiles ruefully, and then proceeds to kill two soldiers in a gruesome and caulous way. Basically, people killing people is a natural thing. "Rage" only brought it to the first and foremost reaction.
I am going to see this again before it leaves the theatres...
Anyone think they're gonna put out a decent DVD of this? I heard the UK version was loaded, and I was thinking of ordering that now that I'm rocking the all region player...
aw
Quote from: markums2kThe only time I thought any of the characters were being overly wreckless was the gas stop. "Cheeseburgers..." yeah, I was rolling my eyes. "Don't go in there!" They were just messing with us, eh?
Actually, that's one of the scenes which I think illustrates how sophisticated and intelligent this particular "zombie flick" was.
***SPOILERS in the following paragraph***I think Jim goes in there equipped with the knowledge that, in horror movies like the one he's found himself a part of, when a character walks into any dark, deserted space, he's bound to be attacked by baddies. Jim has accepted his new, horrific world and needs to harden himself against it by making his first, brutal zombie killing. It just so happens that he's attacked by a child-infected, so his is a double initiation: not only kill zombie, but kill cute little kid-zombie. After that, he's prepared for anything.....which proves especially useful later on....
Quote from: MeshQuote from: markums2kThe only time I thought any of the characters were being overly wreckless was the gas stop. "Cheeseburgers..." yeah, I was rolling my eyes. "Don't go in there!" They were just messing with us, eh?
Actually, that's one of the scenes which I think illustrates how sophisticated and intelligent this particular "zombie flick" was.
...
More spoilers. Like an initiation type of thing. He was obviously prepared, huh? I love how he wipes off the bat.
I mean, I get it. But he could have easily died. I didn't have enough faith in the character to feel like he was making a good decision by going into the fridge alone like he did. Great attack sequence though. Love how the kid drops from the top. Dead-on.
Fuck all this Danny Boyle is Back talk. When was he gone? I liked The BEach
I saw it yestarday with my dad and really loved it... not as scary as I thought it would be though. I mean, very creepy, but I think the only thing that made me jump was the car alarm while Jim's walkin' around the empty London.
I was especially creeped out as the movie started because there were only three other people in the theatre (not including my dad) and when I'm expecting to be totally freaked out, I feel more comfortable when I'm surrounded by people. That's how into I get... I would swear the guy three rows behind us was going to jump on our backs and start puking his red "rage" all over us. Makes me more comfortable when there's more people in the theatre to get infected as well, ya know.
I really thought the soundtrack was bitchin', especially AM 180 by Grandaddy (the supermarket scene - I've been listening to that song on a continuous loop for about an hour now - oi)
I really liked this movie. A lot. Read my less than stellar review at
http://outofthevoid.blogspot.com
Finally saw it. Pretty much a crap movie and terrible on all levels. This is right behind the Matrix on hardest to sit through movies. As a note, I am not knocking the genre, but will speak on how it doesn't do anything to add to the horror genre or any other serious genre at all.
From reviews, I was given thought that this would be with ideas and such unlike others, but I found none that weren't of the obvious and lame. The movie skated on the level of going through all the quircks of any sci fi post acoplyptic movie for the first hour on how certain freedoms are now attainable. They don't matter really and of course, everyone can dress generation X now because the end of the world has come and such. The first hour was a run through of what was obvious in the first ten minutes, with dialogue and ideas that only spelled out the obvious of what could come on the surface from the next great, mysterious disease that ends all mankind. The idea of disease itself, ala Black Death is cliche beyond death because the screenwriters really only know of that idea and such has become a norm in dealing with many end of the world scenarios because it is so easy to invent. A cute name plus a percise physical ailment coming from it that destroys. It would be great to have actual philosophers of science facilitate with screenwriters of talent on theories and see the storytellers try to find the best way to bring those ideas out in relating to drama. For this movie, I was just looking for the ideas. The last part of the movie is just a cop out of any hope.
On the horror level, it is all lame in the movie. The entrance of zombies acts swift and fast with little build up at all and actually can be categorized to be predicted for the first hour and some what through the second. 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 and never changes. Every attack is a repeat attack with a different venue and such, that is still dark. When the movie should have went for atmosphere, it went hip and sped everything up. When it should have found the smaller moments creepy, it brought an onslaught of zombie attacks over and over again. Not even the zombie scenes were effective or innovative.
The last part is pure torture, but funner. A man afraid and left on his own in the cold and shirtless somehow turns into Steven Seagal half poccessed. Its a not a character move, but a stlyistic one. His cloak skills during the last part can only pay homage to every Jason movie but roles reversed. Sad thing about this movie, because nothing in it was scary besides the very first sequence with the apes which was well done. Everything else was lame and just not scary or effective. I see no ideas in this movie at all. The first part is cheap sci fi dialogue and the last one, dealing with the placement of the girls in the army place, feels lifted from the ending of Dr. Strangelove at best. Everything in this movie is typical, besides the color tone, which can make shit look good to some.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetScene 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 and never changes. Every attack is a repeat attack with a different venue and such, that is still dark.
I actually agree with this part, but I still fucking love this movie
Wow GT, I'd at least thing you'd see it as an archetypal catalogue for the horror genre and the blending of movie themes we haven't seen in a while. Not to mention the contrast between "Rage" the virus and "Rage" the inherant human emotion.
I guess some people just have to bash.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThe idea of disease itself, ala Black Death is cliche beyond death because the screenwriters really only know of that idea and such has become a norm in dealing with many end of the world scenarios because it is so easy to invent
What are you talking about? You're saying that disease in general is cliche? Or that mutant infection apocalyptic disease is cliche?
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThe last part of the movie is just a cop out of any hope.
I thought the last part of the movie (the very last two seconds) was somewhat of a cop out
in favor of hope.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetScene 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 and never changes. Every attack is a repeat attack with a different venue and such, that is still dark.
Again... what are you talking about?
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI see no ideas in this movie at all.
What about everything Mesh and I were talking about?
JB.
1.) I'm saying that movie disease in the style of it coming from an infected animal and spreads through humans in disasterous ways and starts screaming "end of the world" is cliche because it isn't for any good scientific thought, but for a melodrama of "saving humanity" from destruction.
2.) The last two seconds was just realization of what the movie was; a thriller. Nothing else at all. The idea that it ended peacefully or not is just a color tone thing and not important. I'll say why later I think it is just a thriller with your fourth point.
3.) Just describing the situations in when the zombie attacks happen to show complete predictability in the film which is one way of getting to say it is not scary.
4.) Those aren't legimitate ideas from the movie, though. The prologue in question doesn't exist for bringing about any ideas that will be forwarded, but a set up for the scenario the world in England is gone and a few humans will have to fight zombies in order to survive. Notice how there is no talk after the prologue about who caused what and who is to blame and anything else attempting to a bigger picture idea? Because it is all just set up for a thriller and the limited scene the prologue is anyways doesn't give any clear ideas to anything. One ape, out of many, was tied up and watching violent TV in one portion of a building. Thats it. To attempt to question anything wide reaching for the entire program and relating it back to our own struggle is just desperate and really out of context to what the movie is. Talk through out the movie is just idle talk of end of the world and how these people need to survive their immediate situation of zombies trying to fuck them over. The movie lives for the chase and killing of this scenario and forwards or deepens no ideas at all.
Raikus,
I don't see really many themes here, just a horror movie with a thriller part of it. The location and situation was changed, sure, but the means of the movie is still escape from some nasty shit. The rage tie in was cute, and I did notice it, but it was just cute. Any further thought only needs be applied if the movie lived for any ideas at all worth thinking about.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetJB.
4.) Those aren't legimitate ideas from the movie, though. The prologue in question doesn't exist for bringing about any ideas that will be forwarded, but a set up for the scenario the world in England is gone and a few humans will have to fight zombies in order to survive. Notice how there is no talk after the prologue about who caused what and who is to blame and anything else attempting to a bigger picture idea?
I think that's for you to decide really. The movie is a sort of example in the same way that Selena seeing Frank and Hannah made her shed that survival mode shell. It shows how different creatures and people are in situations where they are the prey.
Quote from: tremoloslothQuote from: The Gold TrumpetJB.
4.) Those aren't legimitate ideas from the movie, though. The prologue in question doesn't exist for bringing about any ideas that will be forwarded, but a set up for the scenario the world in England is gone and a few humans will have to fight zombies in order to survive. Notice how there is no talk after the prologue about who caused what and who is to blame and anything else attempting to a bigger picture idea?
I think that's for you to decide really. The movie is a sort of example in the same way that Selena seeing Frank and Hannah made her shed that survival mode shell. It shows how different creatures and people are in situations where they are the prey.
I do think the selena situation is a theme/idea that runs for the entire film and is legimitate. Doesn't mean I think it is anything good, though.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI'm saying that movie disease in the style of it coming from an infected animal and spreads through humans in disasterous ways and starts screaming "end of the world" is cliche
Almost every serious virus comes from animals (primates). It's not cliche, it's just realistic.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetJust describing the situations in when the zombie attacks happen to show complete predictability in the film which is one way of getting to say it is not scary.
Now you're complaining about predictability, but didn't you say before that there's no suspense? I think the fact that the characters know the inevitable (that pretty much everyone will be infected) throws a blanket suspense over the whole movie. Makes all of it disturbing.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetNotice how there is no talk after the prologue about who caused what and who is to blame and anything else attempting to a bigger picture idea?
Notice how the point of the movie is not blaming one person, but blaming human nature?
JB
1.) Its cliche in the realm of drama. My complaint is that disease through this way is done over and over again. Isn't there more scientific thought to suggest other ways for human race ending? Ways that won't lead to cheap melodrama but actual ideas?
2.) I have no clue what you are saying there.
3.) That still doesn't forward discussion or thought on what took place in the prologue to bring about your beloved discussions. The movie just exists for the thriller plot of running away from zombies and these people trying to stay alive.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetIsn't there more scientific thought to suggest other ways for human race ending? Ways that won't lead to cheap melodrama but actual ideas?
Here's a thrilling new treatment idea:
Earth slowly runs out of water/gas/food/space over a period of the next few hundred years. Shit gets fucked up. Mel Gibson puts up a fight.
GT, what apocalypse movie are you wanting 28 Days Later to be? Go make it yourself, if you're so concerned with originality....
Remember the spate of "comet hits earth chaos ensues" movies from a few years back? Those were scientific thought applied to the concept of the apocalypse....What'd ya think of, say, Armageddon?
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
3.) That still doesn't forward discussion or thought on what took place in the prologue to bring about your beloved discussions.
God, I have no idea why I try to understand you, GT. Make more sense.
Quote from: MeshGod, 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.
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? :evil:
So many message boards, so little time.
Quote from: PawbloeQuote from: MeshGod, 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. :-D
Quote from: markums2kAnytime someone sticks it to mesh, I'm happy. :-D
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!
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
Quote from: MeshQuote from: markums2kAnytime someone sticks it to mesh, I'm happy. :-D
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:
Quote from: Mesh
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.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThe 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.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetMy 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.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet2.) 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.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThe 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?
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
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThe build up in 28 days later was nonexistent
Actually, this describes it well:
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetScene 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
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetAre 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?
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
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThis 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?
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.
Quote from: GhostboyI'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.
Quote from: MeshOK, 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
Why are we all so happy to categorize something as a horror or art film?
cause it keeps the thread gowing
...and growing...
aw
I'll be the judge of that
no way man, ur powerless after 2 pages.
like cinderella or sumthin.
Quote from: mogwaiI just want to say for the record that I'm happy that this movie is doing good business in the U.S.
That has to be the longest sentence ever. Seriously tho.
You have no idea. I don't know how movie ads are in Europe, but in the US we have these lame "audience reactions" ads.
They interview teenage girls while screaming, "OH MY GOD, That was, like, so scary!" and then obviously concludes with giggling.
So, like, it's a screaming success. Hee hee hee hee!
From The Los Angeles Times:
DVD-like addition to '28 Days' in theaters
Come July 25, an already-filmed darker ending will be shown after the credits.
In an unusual marketing move to pump up the buzz surrounding its horror hit "28 Days Later," Fox Searchlight will attach the film's original, rather downbeat ending to all 1,400 prints now playing in theaters.
Although outtakes, filmmaker narration and alternate endings have become an expected part of DVD movie packages, Fox Searchlight says it is aware of no other instance in which alternate scenes were added to a film still in theatrical release.
The ending now in theaters was actually the film's original scripted ending but was ditched by screenwriter Alex Garland and director Danny Boyle during production in favor of a darker coda. That grim ending was included in the first cut of the film and tested with preview audiences in theaters. But Boyle and his filmmaking team ultimately rejected the scene, set in a hospital, as simply too bleak.
"We felt we can't do this to people. Because it was such a tough journey anyway," Boyle said. The filmmakers went back and filmed the more upbeat ending they had originally written, which tested much better and is now the film's final scene.
The darker ending, which already appears as a feature on the British DVD of the film, will appear beginning July 25 at the conclusion of the credits. Otherwise, projectionists would have to splice in the four minutes of footage or Searchlight would have had to strike new prints.
Searchlight contemplated re-releasing two versions of the film — one with the upbeat ending, the other with the downer conclusion. But Motion Picture Assn. of America rules prevent two versions of the same film from playing at the same time.
Since its debut June 27, "28 Days Later" has been a critical and commercial hit, grossing nearly $30 million.
Quote from: MacGuffinSince its debut June 27, "28 Days Later" has been a critical and commercial hit, grossing nearly $30 million.
That's wonderful. Hopefully somebody will realize we need more movies like this. And I'm not talking about the zombies. Probably how it will be interpreted though. Get ready for House of 1000 Corpses 2... eckk
Quote from: Pawbloebut in the US we have these lame "audience reactions" ads.
They interview teenage girls while screaming, "OH MY GOD, That was, like, so scary!" and then obviously concludes with giggling.
So, like, it's a screaming success. Hee hee hee hee!
Quote from: markums2kI swear to fucking God, sometimes my almost every day your country makes me want to vomit.
Quote from: PQuote from: Pawbloebut in the US we have these lame "audience reactions" ads.
They interview teenage girls while screaming, "OH MY GOD, That was, like, so scary!" and then obviously concludes with giggling.
So, like, it's a screaming success. Hee hee hee hee!
Quote from: markums2kI swear to fucking God, sometimes my almost every day your country makes me want to vomit.
Don't take me out of context, dammit. :x
http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=2419&start=30
But, yeah. The giggling girls piss me off too. They probably giggled at the cock shot too. "Ohmigod!" giggle giggle giggle
wtf? dude, ur not alan rickman.
i crossed out the lines u wrote and inserted my own additional lines.
don't freak out and put a black cape on or sumthin.
Quote from: Pwtf? dude, ur not alan rickman.
i crossed out the lines u wrote and inserted my own additional lines.
don't freak out and put a black cape on or sumthin.
It's too late. I'm one of the infected.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
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.
This whole paragraph is one giant load of utter, complete bullshit.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetIts 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.
Films almost always have more than one "purpose," as you so high-mindedly put it. They often want to scare or titilate you, or make you paranoid, or make you feel love, or make you laugh......but they almost always, with very few exceptions, can make you think....If only you'd let them.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetNothing against the horror or porn genre, but the elements in them are way too out of context for the requirements of an art film.
"Requirements" of an "art" film? What the hell are you talking about?
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetMovies are a terrible art form for ideas...
Holy fuck. I'm so flabbergasted by this, I can't even begin to respond......
OK, I'll try: Movies are a bad way to express ideas because books have more time? OH. MY. GOD. Why do you even post, then?
First, I thought you were just deluded or bad at expressing yourself in English. Now, I think you're a moron. In one paragraph, you went from saying that Horror and Porn films are bereft of ideas, due to their graphic, explicit nature, to saying that films, in general, shouldn't (or can't, I'm still not quite sure) be used to express ideas.......when just a few posts ago, I listed you 10 ideas that one Good to Great Horror movie explores or invites its viewers to explore.
I can't believe any of this is what you really think. If you continue to defend this position, I'll have to consider whether I ever want to read another post you write.
Oh, and in the first part of your post: What do you mean that certain ideas brought up by films may or may not be "valid?" What could that possibly mean?
Quote from: MeshNow, I think you're a moron
Thank you. I'm sure many others feel the same way. Hopefully now since your feelings of me are known, I can live peacefully without your words directed at me because you will realize I am an utterly useless person to talk to. I don't mind continuing conversation and discussion with JB, though.
Quote from: MeshOK, I'll try: Movies are a bad way to express ideas because books have more time? OH. MY. GOD. Why do you even post, then?
Actually, I first heard that from the filmmaker, Krzystof Kieslowski.
~rougerum
This 'Krzystof Kieslowski' fellow, he sounds like a twit.
Quote from: markums2kThis 'Krzystof Kieslowski' fellow, he sounds like a twit.
He's not.
He spent 30 years making nothing but documentary films, that one genre of films most interested in relating ideas. Apparently, though, he wasted his time because "films are a bad way to express ideas."
Kieslowski was a filmmaking genius, but if he truly believed that films don't express ideas well, he was a genius who was very, very wrong about his own chosen art form.
Quote from: Cmte de Saint GermainHe spent 30 years making nothing but documentary films, that one genre of films most interested in relating ideas.
12 years. His first was in 1969, with "From the City of Lodz" to 1981, with "Station". in 1973, though, he began in fiction by directing and writing a TV drama called Pedestrian Subway, so only 4 years of full documentary filmmaking.
Quote from: Cmte de Saint GermainKieslowski was a filmmaking genius, but if he truly believed that films don't express ideas well, he was a genius who was very, very wrong about his own chosen art form.
He never said films couldn't convey ideas, but just very limited in doing so. He continually tried to push it as much as he could, but felt it was near hopeless because of how little movies could show in relation to what books could do. Movies, in his mind, could only give ample weight to so many things in the time period of two hours to fully express them as anything meaningful. Its different than just slamming as much dialogue talking about a ton of ideas. You aren't giving the required weight to it.
~rougerum
I'm not sure, but I think this is the first time I've seen a throwdown of Krzystof Kieslowski references.
Ain't It Cool News can suck it!
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI don't mind continuing conversation and discussion with JB, though.
I'm pretty much with Mesh on this one. You're just not making sense.
It's pretty idiotic to suggest that horror movies and ideas don't mix. What about war films, if we're talking about extremes? Or science fiction? There are different genres that best represent different sides of humanity. Look at a film like Jacob's Ladder -- part war movie, part horror film -- lots of ideas about life and death, etc. I actually find genre movies better for dealing with ideas, because they're already abstracted from reality. The Shining anybody?
I interviewed Naomie Harris from 28 Days Later. Go to:
http://movienavigator.org/naomie.htm
Fine, my problem with 28 Days Later is that it is trying to act as two things at once - horror and film of ideas. And in the limited resources of movies to being a large enough canvas to convey many ideas and identities, it doesn't work. The horror element of the film is just too intrusive onto the art part that the potential ideas you could get from the film seem juvenile. Because of the intense focus on the horror, the element of focus for the ideas is not given enough life and focus to really expand beyond anything general.
Mesh's list of ideas from the film mean nothing because it is my opinion, the film never really attempts to dramaticize those ideas at all. The matter with the prologue is just left where it is standing with a very limited amount of information to convey much of anything. And all the general talk of existence and its importance during the rest of the movie never goes beyond that because nothing is able to be forwarded or dramatized to give them any weight. When you see talk between people that could matter, all it seems to lead to is just another attack by the zombies. Basically just the typical horror pay off like any other movie.
~rougerum
You really should just stop watching movies. What you're saying is laughable. This movie was filled with ideas. I saw it a month and a half before it opened and this is why I was so thrilled. The ideas coexist in harmony with the action.
But, as I recall, you wrote a post accusing Kubrick's post-Strangelove films as lacking. Those are what most people would consider his great works. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly pragmatic or functional about your criticisms.
There's a reason the film is doing well.
have you seen American Nightmare? http://www.imdb.com/Title?0259182 its a pretty interesting but a little bloated documentary of the horror films of the seventies and has interviews with John Carpenter, Wes Craven, David Croneneberg, George Romero, etc. and they talk about the ideas behind the movies and how what they were doing with these cheesy horror flicks was making grander statements about what was going on in the world. personally i wouldve rather them talked about other things, but i think it would be interesting for what you guys are talking about. (horror films conveying ideas.)
Like I said, Mesh presented many ideas but I don't they are legimate at all. The ideas are just not allowed to evolve at all because stylistic filmmaking and horror cliche is way too present to do so. Everytime a topic of idea is brought up, that pay off of that is a zombie killing someone or an attack by zombies. Thats not fertile grounds on trying to make a movie of ideas. I just wish the film would have rid of most of the attempts and tried to be a good horror film first.
If what I am saying is laughable, then say why they are. I can't argue that kind of talk at all.
And the kubrick matter.......that is an argument too big to start here.
~rougerum
The ideas are quite legitimate. I've gone over them in both of my articles which can be found throughout this thread. I don't feel the need to repeat them. In fact, since you're the one person making an argument to the contrary I feel the burden of proof lies on your shoulders. The ideas in 28 Days Later are totally relevant. In fact, I think it's the most relevant film so far this year.
What the fuck have I been talking about the entire time? Who's the one writing massive paragraphs of explanation?
The ideas aren't legimitate because they are never gone into in any insight at all. They are talked about for moments of time during the whole movie, but their pay off is only another zombie attack. That isn't the working of legimate ideas. It is the working of a plot very juvenile in showing ideas because it only dedicates small moments to them. Its like reading a newspaper but just reading only the headlines and saying you got an informed reading from that. The articles in this movie are for the attacks and shifts of style in filmmaking. Sure, ideas here and there, but what investigation is there into anything?
~rougerum
Ideas don't come from dialogue. Ideas come from the action/drama of a film. I took away the film's ideas from the setup and various situations depicted throughout. Films that use dialogue to express their ideas are bullshit. Ideas should be left for the audience to realize. I did here.
How?
The ideas in this movie seem superficial in the highest degree because the only drama it leads to is the lack of drama that runs through out the film in that it is a series of zombie attacks that are highly predictable and not scary or effective at all. The switch to the army headquarters extends little and only says a slim idea of how the army views its means to trying to give birth to a new fertilization of humans in England again. The pay off of that is again, more zombie attacks.
~rougerum
In case it hasn't been said already as of July 25 all the prints of 28 Days Later will include an alternate ending.
The alternate ending comes after the credits. Clever marketing.
Quote from: michael alessandroIn case it hasn't been said already as of July 25 all the prints of 28 Days Later will include an alternate ending.
Those clever bastards are trying to get another eight bucks out of me... it'll probably work, too.
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.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI 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.....
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
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThats 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."
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI'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.
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
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.
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
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?
Quote from: The Gold Trumpetsomeone 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?
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
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
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.
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.
Quote from: michael alessandroIn 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?
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanSilence of the Lambs is not a horror movie. It's based on personality, acting, atmopshere, and tension. Probably one of the truest thrillers.
Likely a good indication of what I think of the potential of the horror genre in general then. Call it my own belief that horror is a pretty thin genre because of how it rests so much on things too much for the purpose of its own genre only.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanThe 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.
How so? I only see it compatible for a horror film.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanWith every infection, with every lunge at the neck, with every human betrayal... the point is driven home.
It may be driven home, but with little interest. The plot is too thin in many areas and exploitive in the attacks and how often they are. The drama outside the horror is just juvenile to me in storytelling.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI only see it compatible for a horror film.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetLikely a good indication of what I think of the potential of the horror genre in general then. Call it my own belief that horror is a pretty thin genre because of how it rests so much on things too much for the purpose of its own genre only.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetGenre movies aren't bad, but with other points, this is me saying '28 Days Later' is a bad scary/thriller/zombie movie.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetWhat the fuck have I been talking about the entire time?
Every single point taken way out of context because they rest on what was said before or after in explanation.
To put it all together: The horror film is a pretty thin genre, but doesn't mean it is necessarily bad to begin with. When it trying to be something like 28 Days Later and about things on a larger level, it usually falls face first because the requirements of the horror, the large amounts of violence and intense focus on those things first don't allow for anything else to be shown in any meaningful manner. The horror film can exist at just being a horror film and being an actual good one that is well made and actually scary. Even on that level, 28 Days Later is not.
~rougerum
If the quotes were taken out of context, how were their meanings altered? Don't you still believe in those ideas?
You have yet to show me that you don't have a grudge against horror.
Do you really think that all it can do is "scare" you?
Taken out of context because in the middle of a paragraph with much more said, just one sentence was quoted. Many were done like that to the useful effect to show me contradicting myself.
For the given moment, the horror genre seems pretty limited to the level of scaring someone and other minor variations of that effect.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetTaken out of context because in the middle of a paragraph with much more said, just one sentence was quoted.
GT post reduction is not a new concept. I'm not going to quote your prose... I'm only interested in your ideas.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetMany were done like that to the useful effect to show me contradicting myself.
It
was useful, to encourage you to better organize your thoughts. So we can get somewhere.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetFor the given moment, the horror genre seems pretty limited to the level of scaring someone and other minor variations of that effect.
See? What did I say? Now how long did it take you to admit this?
Like i've said, I'm still learning.
~rougerum
Quote from: mutinycoStraight 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.
now now, lets keep it below the belt, as much as we would like to beat the living shit out of eachother sumtimes, remember its all in good fun and we're all here to discuss our love and passion for movies and eachother.
u see there, gt? i just defended u. i expect sum serious ass kissing or ill get angry and beat u up myself.
I'm not angry. Just be careful beating up yourself. Maybe you could do that to one of GT's pornos... :)
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetFor the given moment, the horror genre seems pretty limited to the level of scaring someone and other minor variations of that effect.
...And this whole thread has been an attempt to show you that, even if the above statement were true (and it's not...not even close), 28 Days Later would be a terrible movie to use as evidence, because even the least sophisticated viewer can see that it deals in ideas and concepts as lofty and important as those dealt with by the stodgiest of art films. It may not dwell upon those concepts for long or provide answers or offer in-depth, detailed analysis of them, but what good film does?
Now, damn it, other than Silence of the Lambs, name me a true Horror film that does more with concepts and ideas than does 28 Days Later.....
Quote from: TrumpetNo.
Quote from: MeshYes.
Quote from: TrumpetNo.
Quote from: MeshYes.
Quote from: TrumpetNo.
Quote from: MeshYes.
Quote from: Sombody ElseHi.
Quote from: TrumpetNo.
Quote from: MeshYes.
Is this
still going on?
no but i appreciate the time u took to properly space those quote boxes.
Quote from: MeshNow, damn it, other than Silence of the Lambs, name me a true Horror film that does more with concepts and ideas than does 28 Days Later.....
Like JB and I were talking about, it doesn't seem like Silence of the Lambs is even a horror film. Much more a suspense film with elements of the horror genre included. To get back to repeating myself, I just don't buy any serious ideas from a true horror film. For me, the horror genre is best used when more of a background situation of influence. The horror genre itself smells like porno too much to be taken serious.
And thanks cbr, gotta love you man for it. And to all the people I argue with, its all in the name or arguing and nothing more. Nothing personal.
~rougerum
There are 2 things we need to understand about where GT is coming from, because they're both weak positions.
First, his declares that 28 Days Later is short on ideas and they aren't well presented. This is fundamentally incorrect. The very fact that everybody is talking about the ideas is proof that they exist and resonate with people. How often does a movie genuinely provoke discussion of its ideas?
Second, GT is declaring the horror genre to be a poor genre, and one inadequate at conveying ideas. What he's really trying to do is explain his own emotional reaction to horror by attaching them to grander intellectualized arguments. (Just say you don't like the violence and leave it at that.) But to try to mount an argument as to why it doesn't work is silly. It does. It wouldn't be as popular if it didn't. And I'm of the belief that The Silence of the Lambs didn't work. 3/4 of the film was essentially a drama about a serial killer being tracked (liked that), then the 3rd act reverted to more traditional suspense/horror elements -- complete with the bad guy's POV and Clarise killing him at the end. It would've been better if he was captured JUST LIKE EVERY SERIAL KILLER IS, instead of that stupid night vision shoot out shit. Demme was out of his league with that crap.
Furthermore, good movies don't stop the drama to pontificate their ideas. They don't take entire chapters to offer exposition like a book does in abstracted form. Movies are about motion. All of your ideas should come forward through the action of your plot. I think you were so turned off by the violence of the attacks that you couldn't put them in perspective, and looked at them as nothing more than exploitation. The film is about a small group of people trying to survive and find some type of civilization again. It's either kill or be killed. When Jim kills the kid it isn't about gore, but showing that the rage virus is amoral. If he hadn't killed the kid the kid would've killed him. Same thing when Selena kills her partner early on -- she hacks him immediately before the audience is even up to speed. Yes, it's jarring. It's intentional.
Your assertion that it should've been more of a suspense film with the hint of attack about is just plain wrong. This film would not have worked in that mold. This is a film about survival amidst the collapse of society. How once you strip away the mechanisms of society all you're left with is a base individual who acts more on instinct than anything else -- whether it's the army guys wanting to rape the women to procreate or Jim's descent into natural rage. The point is that it's already inside each of us. It's just a matter of the circumstances bringing it out.
The fact that this small film is making money and stirring debate is proof that your accusations are false.
Ease off boys. This movie is not that fucking great. It's a zombie, world ends, quick little semi-action film that, as usual in every great plotted set-up in our fine times, fizzles to a stop. It was decent. I enjoyed it. But for fucks sakes, GT has some great points.
And to talk about digital for a sec... I'd say 35% of the shots were annoyingly shitty. Digital still sucks ass. Highlights it cannot handle. Man, I wanted this to look so good, and it just let me down. I'm pissed that I own a DV camera. Fuck. If this would've been on film, it woulda been so much more enjoyable. As usual, quick cutting masks over whatever is lacking. Hmm. But I will say this for the movie, at least there were no scenes I had to cringe at the cheesiness of. That's nice in a new movie of this type. But I was more psyched by the Cabin Fever preview than by this. A so so effort.
So, go watch a slick music video. The movie looked great. The editing hid nothing. (What have you got against editing if you love M.S. so much?) The degraded image was the point. It wasn't supposed to be polished. Ever watch anything of Altman's? He INTENTIONALLy degraded him films through massive filters, flashing, pushing, anything to ugly it up. It's just another aesthetic choice. That was a really immature post SoNowThen.
Hahahahahahaha!!!! That's classic.
Video looks video. It cannot hold detail like film. It's highlights hurt the overall picture. It looks flatter than film.
I like grain. I love Eyes Wide Shut. I like softness, I love the early 70's Altman movies. I LOVE FILM.
As much as I'd like to say it looks great, video just doesn't. It doesn't look great. Not in this flick, anyway.
Not to mention the ugly edge enhancement.
http://www.davisdvd.com/News/daily_news.htm
THEATRICAL NEWS
In an unprecedented move, Fox Searchlight Pictures will attach the original, darker ending to all 1400 prints of 28 Days Later now playing in theaters. Look for the new final reel to show up on July 25th.
Of course video doesn't look as good as film. But I;m starting to like it. It has its own quality. And I did think it looked good. Real good.
Quote from: mutinycoThis is a film about survival amidst the collapse of society. How once you strip away the mechanisms of society all you're left with is a base individual who acts more on instinct than anything else -- whether it's the army guys wanting to rape the women to procreate or Jim's descent into natural rage.
So what. That explanation could easily be attributed to any of the Jason movies too, but it doesn't make the film very interesting. You say I have a problem with the violence - Yes, I do. Not on amy moral level, but on the level of how easy it is to resort to that for pushing the drama. Just everything in this movie in trying to address the ideas is through ways obvious and over played. With a more suspense film, at least the environment of a post acopalyptic world could have been felt more and action presented in a more effectful manner dealing with story. Everything in the movie is just dealing the cliche of a genre that acts to block anything else from getting in.
Also, you 2 points to why I am wrong just get down to basic arguments saying the popularity of the movie generally wins out my opinion. If thats your defense, I expect you to be defending Michael Bay very soon.
And for the most part, I agree with you on Silence. The body of the work though is too good so the end is excused.
~rougerum
It's not that the film is popular so it must be right. It's that films rarely elicit discussion about their ideas. This one has. That's a good thing.
Saw this today, but why interrupt a thread I've been chopping because I have no idea what is being debated with my opinion? Carry on.
I don't have anything to add. I just didn't want to see T3 at the top of the pile.
just saw this today too, pretty cool. a lot of their day-for-nights were pretty obvious though.
I read an article on it in the american cinematographer magazine, those guys went through a lot to shoot this film.
Anyone get annoyed by the Pepsi product placements?
I was more annoyed when somebody said "LOOK, A PEPSI PRODUCT PLACEMENT"
Quote from: tremoloslothI was more annoyed when somebody said "LOOK, A PEPSI PRODUCT PLACEMENT"
Hmmm, I wasn't that obvious..i leaned over to my friend and said, "Drink Pepsi"
Quote from: SHAFTRQuote from: tremoloslothI was more annoyed when somebody said "LOOK, A PEPSI PRODUCT PLACEMENT"
Hmmm, I wasn't that obvious..i leaned over to my friend and said, "Drink Pepsi"
Not nearly as horrible as those McDonald's "Pirates like Big Macs and so should you" commercials. Give me forty in-focus Pepsi cans over that shit any day. And Pepsi tastes pretty damn great.
When seeing the Pepsi placement, my comment to myself was: "Wow, this movie isn't as indie as they say."
~rougerum
It was financed by Fox Searchlight. Part of 20th Century Fox. Part of News Corp.
Quote from: mutinycoThe degraded image was the point. It wasn't supposed to be polished.......It's just another aesthetic choice.
Whether it looked great or not is beside the point, IMO.
The DV gave this film a documentary, "reality TV" look that totally serviced its premise and plot. This movie was Survivor on the grand scale. One could even make the argument that the video violence the monkeys are subjected to in the prologue is echoed by the DV violence we're subjected to throughout the rest of the film; by viewing 28 Days Later, we're put in the same position those viral monkeys were. In this way, the DV involves, and even implicates, its audience.
BTW: GT, you still haven't told us about a film within the Horror genre that you think effectively presents its ideas while satisfying its audience in a more visceral (potentially violent) way.....
Choose one of these, choose your own, or be considered hopelessly biased:
1. The Exorcist
2. Bram Stoker's Dracula
3. Night of the Living Dead
4. Suspiria
5. Last House on the Left
The Shining
The Vanishing
Don't Look Now
(though those are kinda suspense/thrillers, aren't they?)
You should make him choose from my list of horror films:
Dr. Giggles
Candyman
Dollman Vs. The Demonic Toys
Shark Attack 3: Megalodon
Nothing But Trouble
aw
So, what's your favorite scary movie?
"Showgirls. Absolutely frightening." :roll:
Please tell me you saw that coming.
Quote from: MeshThe DV gave this film a documentary, "reality TV" look that totally serviced its premise and plot.
I saw it as more trying (and succeeding pretty well) to emulate the sort of "blown-up 16mm" look of 60's and 70's exploitation horror movies.
Same thing. In the 60s and 70s news footage was shot on 16mm. Today it's shot on DV.
I haven't been able to see this yet, but I had a question about it: I noticed that it's been shot on DV, and I'm thinking about whether or not I should use DV for a feature I've been planning to do. I should probably ask this in the Tech Talk forum, and I may do that later, but I just wanted to get an idea: if "look" (color especially) is important to you in a film, how effective is DV? I've done one short film using it, but it was rather short for me to judge things. So for the people who've seen this film, I was just curious as to how effective DV is. I probably should just see the film for myself. I may this weekend if I can find a theatre that shows it. Is it worth an hour-long drive?
I found that when they were in almost total darkness, but had one shaft of light coming in, and had exposed pretty much for this light, so that everything else dropped off by degrees, things looked great. But when they had a variance of light levels going on, and the exposure was centered, all the bright areas ended up washed out and slightly fuzzy on lines, while the dark areas weren't as strong as they could be.
Also, lots of color subtlety seems to get lost. Striking colors come across fine, but less explosive colors don't look as good, imo.
But others here seemed to think it looked great...
Well, are you planning to have your mini-DV movie blown-up to 35mm? Yeah, you're gonna lose picture quality -- unless you like the degraded look. I thought it looked great in 28 Days Later.
Another thing to consider if you plan to blow-up -- you need to shoot in PAL. PAL runs at 25 fps, which is a lot closer to film's 24 fps, than NTSC at 29.97 fps.
Quote from: mutinycoWell, are you planning to have your mini-DV movie blown-up to 35mm? Yeah, you're gonna lose picture quality -- unless you like the degraded look. I thought it looked great in 28 Days Later.
Another thing to consider if you plan to blow-up -- you need to shoot in PAL. PAL runs at 25 fps, which is a lot closer to film's 24 fps, than NTSC at 29.97 fps.
Seriously? You might know more than me, but I think that's a bad idea. PAL also features different video resolutions (standard for PAL DVDs is 720 x 576 pixels, while NTSC is 720 x 480 pixels).
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the process. However, trivial things like frames per second can be altered to your heart's content once you have the stuff on a computer. Obviously, if you live in the UK, use PAL. If you live in the US, use NTSC. To suggest that every DV film-maker should use PAL, that doesn't sound right to me.
I thought this movie looked great, by the way.
Every major DV film I've seen that's been blown up to 35 has been PAL. It's not even up for discussion. There's a 6 frame difference between NTSC and actual film. You'll loose picture quality and sound synch.
By the way. I just saw the new ending. Opinions anybody?
yeah my opinon is, i want to know what happens. can you tell me?
Quote from: mutinycoEvery major DV film I've seen that's been blown up to 35 has been PAL. It's not even up for discussion. There's a 6 frame difference between NTSC and actual film. You'll loose picture quality and sound synch.
By the way. I just saw the new ending. Opinions anybody?
Can this be found on the net? I have the DVD, and it contains a alternative storyboard ending. Is this it?
Basically, after the credits you see a scene where they rush Jim to a hospital. They try to save him, but he dies. Then Selena and Hanna walk off, still unsure how they're going to survive. Real bleak.
Quote from: mutinycoBasically, after the credits you see a scene where they rush Jim to a hospital. They try to save him, but he dies. Then Selena and Hanna walk off, still unsure how they're going to survive. Real bleak.
didn't they get saved like in the original ending with those giant sown letters but without jim? this would've been really cool cos that way he would've died the way he was 'born' in the beginning of the film.
they should've done the alternative storyboard ending instead. when they hit that army base, the movie fell apart from me.
I think the army base made the movie. That's where all the themes came to fruition.
Quote from: mutinycoBasically, after the credits you see a scene where they rush Jim to a hospital. They try to save him, but he dies. Then Selena and Hanna walk off, still unsure how they're going to survive. Real bleak.
Oh, I've seen this one! It's on the DVD.
Quote from: mutinycoI think the army base made the movie. That's where all the themes came to fruition.
well i'm from denmark so i can't discuss anything with anyone using words like 'fruitation', it will only serve the purpose of making me think of fruit and then i get hungry and log out to get something to eat.
Watch it. You'll lose your appetite. Fer sure.
finally saw this. ummmmm. dissapointed. I thought I was really going to dig this movie, but I just couldn't respond to it. I really don't see what all the hoopla was about. There was some stuff that I really liked in the first half but then the movie took a turn that I just couldn't get into.
This may sound pointless, and even though I liked the opening, I would have drug out the quietness in the beginning even longer to build up to the rage. He threw in music where Jim comes across the bulliten board and so on. I would have kept the music out with the car alarm giving the audience the first jolt.
I don't know, just a thought I remember having during the movie. I wasn't too impressed overall.
and the second ending they've been advertising was not worth staying for after the credits. They should've just left that for the DVD.
it's funny, I was really looking forward to 28 days later and not looking forward to POTC at all, and I ended up not really liking this and really liking Pirates.
maybe I'm losing it.
Quote from: poserI was really looking forward to 28 days later and not looking forward to POTC at all, and I ended up not really liking this and really liking Pirates.
They're both in my Top Five of 2003 so far.
so what did you all think about the music? i thought it was unfitting to a degree where it ruined scenes for me, especially in the beginning of the film. how cool could it have been if they went for industrial and noise instead of whatever pop rock.
Hey Marlowe, your signature about golden girls is a quote from me, and as horrible a human being as I might be, I'm certainly no Hitler! :-D Don't confuse the avatar with the man behind the avatar. And I love 28 days later, but have not seen the new ending so I can't comment on it.
cinemaanarcist, i love you as a human being and i know you are not hitler. i am in fact the crazy man rocco but you are sertainly not hidler.
some times im just cunfusedhigh... :?:
Quote from: phil marlowei am in fact the crazy man rocco
u play with the asses too much sometimes. cut back on the playtime and more classic butt action please.
Quote from: Pu play with the asses too much sometimes. cut back on the playtime and more classic butt action please.
you see p, now you're being rude. ass play is my specialty. the fact that i
am such a crazy man from italy makes me the most original ass player on the surface. when i work on set, i am the auteur with an overload of ideas.
and the thing with allways having the girls lick my butt while they sqeeze my nuts is just something i choose for my own comfort. it's a working condition.
Quote from: phil marloweso what did you all think about the music? i thought it was unfitting to a degree where it ruined scenes for me, especially in the beginning of the film. how cool could it have been if they went for industrial and noise instead of whatever pop rock.
I couldn't disagree more with you!
Quote from: Sigur Rós ©Quote from: phil marloweso what did you all think about the music? i thought it was unfitting to a degree where it ruined scenes for me, especially in the beginning of the film. how cool could it have been if they went for industrial and noise instead of whatever pop rock.
I couldn't disagree more with you!
Ya, are we speaking of the same movie?
aw
Quote from: phil marloweso what did you all think about the music? i thought it was unfitting to a degree where it ruined scenes for me, especially in the beginning of the film. how cool could it have been if they went for industrial and noise instead of whatever pop rock.
I thought the use of Godspeed You! Black Emperor during the "Empty London" scene was just about perfect.
Quote from: MeshQuote from: phil marloweso what did you all think about the music? i thought it was unfitting to a degree where it ruined scenes for me, especially in the beginning of the film. how cool could it have been if they went for industrial and noise instead of whatever pop rock.
I thought the use of Godspeed You! Black Emperor during the "Empty London" scene was just about perfect.
Good call...
aw
Quote from: MeshQuote from: phil marloweso what did you all think about the music? i thought it was unfitting to a degree where it ruined scenes for me, especially in the beginning of the film. how cool could it have been if they went for industrial and noise instead of whatever pop rock.
I thought the use of Godspeed You! Black Emperor during the "Empty London" scene was just about perfect.
Sucks that the song isn't on the fucking soundtrack!!!!!!, i wanted it because of that song during empty london.
Quote from: EEz28Quote from: MeshQuote from: phil marloweso what did you all think about the music? i thought it was unfitting to a degree where it ruined scenes for me, especially in the beginning of the film. how cool could it have been if they went for industrial and noise instead of whatever pop rock.
I thought the use of Godspeed You! Black Emperor during the "Empty London" scene was just about perfect.
Sucks that the song isn't on the fucking soundtrack!!!!!!, i wanted it because of that song during empty london.
Buy their amazing first album. If you like the stuff used in 28 Days Later, you won't be disappointed.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB000007T2Z.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=8941859224718ebdd97eb25febdea424fb273b9a)
Thanks Mesh, ill be looking for it this week.
Quote from: EEz28Quote from: MeshQuote from: phil marloweso what did you all think about the music? i thought it was unfitting to a degree where it ruined scenes for me, especially in the beginning of the film. how cool could it have been if they went for industrial and noise instead of whatever pop rock.
I thought the use of Godspeed You! Black Emperor during the "Empty London" scene was just about perfect.
Sucks that the song isn't on the fucking soundtrack!!!!!!, i wanted it because of that song during empty london.
yep me too!
hippies...
the movie uses a lot of silence which is cool by me, it really sets the tone in the biginning but when the musics starts it gets alot of focus. the music style is wrong cos it fits the present and only that and 28 days later may technically be in the present but the mood is not at all. it tryes to capture a deserted futuristic feel and really does that but the music just ruins it for me.
don't get me wrong i think it's a good song, just so fucking unfitting.
Quote from: phil marlowehippies...
the movie uses a lot of silence which is cool by me, it really sets the tone in the biginning but when the musics starts it gets alot of focus. the music style is wrong cos it fits the present and only that and 28 days later may technically be in the present but the mood is not at all. it tryes to capture a deserted futuristic feel and really does that but the music just ruins it for me.
don't get me wrong i think it's a good song, just so fucking unfitting.
I thought it was a *perfect* fit. Rocco would understand.
Quote from: markums2kI thought it was a *perfect* fit. Rocco would understand.
it's funny cus you know, my dick really want me to love this movie but i just can't? i liked the first half but then...my dick just lost its will to live.
chop it off....
that would be a bit drastic but if i'll ever do it i'll have you ease my harry nuts.
better "harry" than hairy...
Phil, your avatar is killer. The man is a class performer, always giving us the kind of films we so need to see.
"Look 'dis, beetch".
It's like his "I'll be back".
Quote from: SoNowThenPhil, your avatar is killer. The man is a class performer, always giving us the kind of films we so need to see.
"Look 'dis, beetch".
It's like his "I'll be back".
Sorry to say I have no idea who that guy is. I thought he was some gay porn star. Not that I, uh, would know anything about that.
Unless I'm totally mistaken, that's Rocco!! He's a class act Italian porn king who always busts in the hottest little girls.
Unless I'm totally mistaken, that's Rocco!! He's a class act Italian porn king who always busts in the hottest little girls.
He of the "yeah baby, fuck yeah baby." Not that I've seen any of his work or anything....uh heh heh...
(rocco returns to the board)
naaasty bitch, naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasty bitch, oooh oh ooooh suck my aaass fuck it, ooooh, naaaaaaaaastyyyyyyyyy
(rocco leaves)
Ha! I knew it was the porn star...but the other half was convinced it was one of the characters from that crappy Young Hercules show...
I saw 28 Days Later (back on topic) and I liked it until the ending. What the fuck was that?? The music wasn't very good either...but I did like that special camera crap they did...with the darkness and I can't really explain it, does anyone know what I'm talking about?
The music wasn't very good? No, I don't know what you are talking about
Can someone tell me in detail as to what happened on the alternate ending? The movie stopped playing where I live before they released the new ending after the credits.
SPOILER TO ALTERNATE ENDING
After the general gets dragged out of the car and killed, Jim and the two girls drive off. Jim is wounded badly, so they take him to the nearest hospital in Manchester and try to save him with an adrenaline shot. It doesn't work. There's a little bit of crying. Then the younger girl (I don't remember her name) looks up and asks "What do we do now?" Cut to both of them walking down the hospital hall, carrying their guns, as two swinging doors close on the camera.
I liked the other ending more. Also, unless you just want to see the movie again (which is a good idea), I wouldn't pay just to see the new ending. It's interesting, but not mandatory viewing.
Quote from: Still the WalrusI saw 28 Days Later (back on topic) and I liked it until the ending. What the fuck was that?? The music wasn't very good either...but I did like that special camera crap they did...with the darkness and I can't really explain it, does anyone know what I'm talking about?
You mean, DV footage? Looks good, don't it? Fits the mood. Some of these guys don't think so, but they're wrong.
On October 21st Fox unleashes the British zombie sleeper 28 Days Later. Available in separate anamorphic widescreen and full screen flavors both with Dolby Digital 5.1 surround tracks, extras include audio commentary with director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland, not one but three alternate endings, deleted Scenes, the "Pure Rage" featurette, two still galleries, storyboards, a music video and theatrical and teaser trailers. Retail is also $27.95
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.fortunecity.com%2Fthemodernage%2F28daysdvd.jpg&hash=51f4110b10915d4612fd17a90ea85d121b01e550)
I like it
Finally saw it... really enjoyed it. I thought it was *very* intense.
Only have two minor gripes : i wouldve used less music (in general) and i thought the "shopping" scene was bordering on being ridiculous. IF they needed a lighter scene to bring the audience's pulse down, they couldve just used the cemetery(?)/field scene for that, but it was really hard for me to swallow how they just went "shopping" in such a happy and careless way after what just happened... a bit more and they couldve turned that scene into a "montage" :roll:
aside from that... i really loved the movie as a whole...
if anyone wants to be disgusted visit the movie's IMDB forum... its 10 pages long but there is a GEM of a thread on the main imdb preview page called something like "THE NUDITY WAS UNNECESSARY" .... funny (as in pathetic) stuff.
i actually really liked the shopping scene. As a matter of fact it was one of my favorite parts of the movie. I think the characters went through so much crazy shit that they allowed themselves to be carefree and happy as a sorta false escape.
I liked the song during the shopping scene
Quote from: EEz28I liked the song during the shopping scene
Grandaddy - AM180
Quote from: Bankyi actually really liked the shopping scene. As a matter of fact it was one of my favorite parts of the movie. I think the characters went through so much crazy shit that they allowed themselves to be carefree and happy as a sorta false escape.
I dont know, I guess it felt the transition from the tunnel sequence to the shopping sequence felt too jarring for me, and the "montage" feeling of the music behind it made it worse for me :? Anyhow, that scene didnt take a single thing away from the fact that i thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I felt drained when i left the theater, and that is always good , to me.
Quote from: tremoloslothQuote from: EEz28I liked the song during the shopping scene
Grandaddy - AM180
Thanks, i have the soundtrack.
Quote from: EEz28Quote from: tremoloslothQuote from: EEz28I liked the song during the shopping scene
Grandaddy - AM180
Thanks, i have the soundtrack.
Chut up!
that shopping scene was pretty lame. so was the music.
and the 'picnic' scene, lead character talks with food in his mouth HAHAHA.
Bad news on the upcoming DVD.
From //www.dvdreview.com:
"28 Days Later" was originally shot on digital video to create a particular realistic look that is different from the look of tradition celluloid. However, I feel the attempt has backfired – even more so on DVD. The image is simply a mess. Blurry and out of focus at many times, the image lacks definition and oftentimes degrades into a washed out mess with strokes the size of lamp posts. Edge-enhancement is excessive throughout – a result of shooting the film using cheap digital video equipment – creating massive halos around every contrasting line on the screen. Banding is also prevalent, and black levels are washed out, never allowing the image to create deep shadows with any sort of definition. While much of this was done deliberately to create a certain look for the film, I found it utterly distracting. There were too many cases were my eyes unconsciously locked onto an artifact or where I tried to figure out what it is that I am seeing. It destroys much of the suspense of the film, I'm sorry to say, and makes the film look like an inept film school attempt despite its other merits.
I don't know, I first saw it on an impoted UK DVD, and I personally liked it more there then on the big screen. I imagine it may have been reincoded for domestic release, though.
The DVD has a very crisp transfer and does look better on the TV screen than in theaters; great sound too.
I think I would have preferred that Radical Alternative Ending. I like the idea of staying with the four characters and not add the whole military element.
Quote from: meatballdon't forget the.. horny military element. :roll:
Yeah, what next, porn on the internet?
just watched the movie and really liked it... i was afraid it was one of those pointless scary movies that you're just jumping off your seat because of a moron with a chainsaw... but this movie is really good!
its great the way they filmed it, and i think the music adds a lot too... its funny how even when the shittiest thing happens in the world, all that men want to do is fuck :twisted:
Quote from: andyk... its funny how even when the shittiest thing happens in the world, all that men want to do is fuck :twisted:
If by 'fuck' you mean, preserve the human species. :roll:
Quote from: markums2kQuote from: andyk... its funny how even when the shittiest thing happens in the world, all that men want to do is fuck :twisted:
If by 'fuck' you mean, preserve the human species. :roll:
Do you really think that's what they wanted, you smug eyerolling fuck?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogsmithmedia.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2007%2F02%2F28dayslatersedvd.jpg&hash=c6a1ac66137bfb6dddc8a32e2a4281568265fc0c)
28 Days Later -- Just in time for 28 Weeks Later comes a second platter that only the hardcore fans will need to own. Apparently all the extras from the first Fox DVD will be included; new goodies include a behind-the-scenes peek at the sequel, an animated short that'll bridge the two flicks and one free ticket to 28 Weeks Later. May 1 is the DVD release date; May 11 marks the sequel's arrival in theaters.