View Full Version : 28 Days Later Review here (Minor Spoilers)
Alan_Mac
22-10-2002, 10:41
Last night I was at a special screening of "28 Days Later" at the UGC Glasgow. In attendance were the Director Danny Boyle, writer Alex Garland and star Cillian Murphy. They all took part in a Q&A session after the film.
Anyway onto the review.
The Film opens with a break-in at an animal test centre which goes awry. The animals have been infected with a "Rage" virus. The virus is extremely contagious and changes start to take place in 20-30 seconds of the victim becoming infected. The victims then become what can best be described as "zombies on speed" who rush at the non-infected in violent and frenzied attacks.
After we see the effects on the victims of the break-in the film jumps forward 28 days and we find a young man, Jim(played by Cillian), awakening in a hospital with no-one around.
Jim makes it out of the hospital and staggers around London's landmarks without encountering a single person.
After entering a church Jim is attacked by a number of the "zombies" but is saved by two non-infected people. Together they go on the run looking for other survivors whilst fighting the "zombies".
After encountering a father and daughter holed up inside a block of flats they head to Manchester and the source of a radio signal offering a cure...
I've intentionally missed out a few story points so as not to spoil the film for anyone.
Yes, it's a zombie movie, but the zombies here aren't the zombies of Romero's Trilogy of the Dead. These zombies are fast and are not out to "eat your brains". They just want to kill you, violently.
28 Days Later borrows ideas quite blatanly from a number of movies, in particular Omega Man, and Romero's movies as mentioned above.But like Dog Soldiers earlier this year these ideas are woven into an enjoyable ride of a movie that has some good "jump out of your seat" moments.
The acting is good all round, especially Cillian Murphy, who as Jim is the heart of the tale. Cillian has to endure all sorts of indignities and copes admirably.
28 Days Later was filmed on DV cameras and it gives the film a documentary style that sits really well with the tone of the movie.
28 Days Later is not going to win any awards, but as an enjoyable low budget horror with a twist, it's a great ride.:thumbs:
The Q&A session afterward was quite entertaining, with Danny Boyle telling the audience about the budget constraints and how it affected the production, including the use of DV cameras on the film. He also explained how he got London to look so barren by getting a bunch of students in yellow jackets to plead with drivers not to drive in to a shot.
Alex Garland talked quite openly about his creative choices when writing the film and the obvious inspiration behind some of the main story points. He did admit to "borrowing" from the films mentioned above.
Cillian Murphy talked about the strain of filming in the nude and in the cold and wet, but also how he enjoyed running about and killing people!!
Hope you enjoyed my first review. Be gentle.;)
Looking forward to this one very much indeed. Many thanks for the great review! :thumbs:
Steve
Cheers, good review. Helped by the extra little details from the director.
Look foward to seeing this, all I have to do is tell my girlfriend it's some sort of romantic comedy.
Have to admit that when I saw the trailer I thought of Omega man and Day of the triffids (cos of the way it starts with the character in hospital). But that said, I'm sure you can get most films and liken them to another one in some way.
And anyway, Omega man was taken from the book 'I am legend', in which everyone is turned into vampires apart from the hero. Good book by the way and well worth a read.
mention in another thread about an alternate ending involving the death of a character, that might make it onto the DVD release.
having seen a mega advance preview of the "complete" movie where there is what i would consider a death near the end can you confirm it is/isnt there in the now released version?
(trying to be vague so not to riddle the post with spoilers - if you've seen the movie you should know what i'm on about!)
I went to see this in Manchester, the Q&A session there was attended by Danny Boyle, Alex Garland, Andrew MacDonald, the editor Chris Gill and the stars Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris & Megan Burns (the actors all seemed very shy!).
The highlight for me was Danny Boyle shooting down a would-be-techno-geek-know-it-all who asked about shooting with "high definition" only to have Mr Boyle explain the difference between that and DV! And also that one is a bit cheaper than the other :lol:
Danny Boyle also made a sly comment about having to shoot superfluous material - to make sure one has enough for DVD extras! I don't think he is too keen on the crass commercialism aspect of film making. But it is one of the reasons he can be paid to make films.
All-in-all a very good evening.
I went to the Preview at Greenwich UCI filmworks last night. I thought the film was absolutely fantastic (BTW nice review, Alan Mac :thumbs: ). I consider myself to be pretty jaded when it comes to jumps n shocks in horror-type movies, but there was plenty in this film that had me on the edge of my seat or falling out of it.
As the screens at the filmworks are so massive, the picture quality was a little fuzzy due to the conversion from DV to film, but you soon forget about such trivialities once you get into the story.
This is one film that really wears it influences on it's sleeve (the aforementioned Romero films, Omega Man, even a bit of Apocalypse Now IMO), and Alex Garland and Danny Boyle were happy to acknowledge them during the Q&A.
The Q&A was with Alex Garland, Danny Boyle and Andrew MacDonald, and gave some very interesting insights into the ideas and concepts behind the movie.
After the Q&A I managed to speak to Danny Boyle (asked him about "Alien Love Triangle" and if it would ever see the light of day!). He was very friendly and down-to-earth and graciously signed my Trainspotting and Shallow Grave scriptbook for me.
I am a self-confessed zombie movie fan-boy, but for me this film really was amazing. This is one I will REALLY look forward to on DVD!
:clap:
I might actually watch this after reading your views on it. It got panned by Film 2002 earlier this week so I was going to give it a miss but after so many positive views I think it's worth checking out.
Saw it tonight via those lovely people at the Times. Must say its one of the most original films of the year. Love the music...may have to get the soundtrack.
Originally posted by 8-]
It got panned by Film 2002 earlier this week...Yes, I was quite surprised by Jonathan Ross' opinion of this film. I think his comment was28 Days Later... opens on Friday. Which is enough to make you wish the world really will end on Thursday.which was overly harsh, I thought.
His main gripe seemed to be that the direction was too showy which distracted the audience.
It may have distracted Mr Woss (cheap shot I know - I do normally like his reviews!) but I disagree entirely.
IMO it was a great film. I enjoyed the direction in particular, I thought it really complimented and enhanced the story. Cillian Murphy's performance was very good too.
I'm not convinced it was shot entirely on DV though - anybody know for sure?
---
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/worswicks/images/28_days_later_review_2large.jpg
Originally posted by 8-]
I might actually watch this after reading your views on it. It got panned by Film 2002 earlier this week so I was going to give it a miss but after so many positive views I think it's worth checking out. Saw it in Oxford and loved it.
Saw this last week. I thought the action was great and there were some brilliant shock moments (which actually made me wish that Boyle had stayed attached to directing Alien 3), but I thought the script was pretty ho-hum, with too much borrowed from other films (and I didnt feel this was a case of wearing its homages on its sleeve) and too much pondreous 'litterary' dialogue. I think Boyle stated in Empire that her wanted to make a kind of 'Ken Loach Zombie movie', which he clearly does try to do, but I just dont think those two styles sit together too well. And the music was so inappropriately used in places that it totally killed any suspense for me in places. It was a really odd choice of music, as though Boyle was conscioulsy avoiding a techno / horror score.
That said, I did enjoy it, and it was nice to see a balls-to-the-wall British horror movie. I think Jonathan Ross was a bit too harsh too, but I can see where he came from: Boyle has always been a tad too showy for me. There were defintely a few places in 28 Days Later where I was totally drawn out from the film by some 'clever-clever' film technique (in particular, Im thinking of a shot when they drive past a field of flowers).
Still, its worth catching in a loud cinema. And the last 30 mins is great adrenalin pumping cinema.
Morpheus2000
01-11-2002, 00:21
From the Director of Shallow Grave and Trainspotting comes the apocalyptic 28 Days Later. A group of animal rights activists break into an animal research laboratory in hopes they'll free the chimpanzees that are being experimented on. This plan quickly goes awry as the activists are attacked and become infected with a deadly virus.
28 days later a man awakes in a hospital not realising what is wrong with the city of London. He's soon out of the hospital onto the deserted streets. He's searching for any sign of life but he's having no luck. Later that night he goes into a church in hope to either find rest or salvation it's not very clear which. Unfortunately he got neither, as the priest wants kill him and he's soon on the run again.
He later joins up with other people that are not infected by the virus and he discovers that only a small group of people are left alive in the United Kingdom, as the virus has spread throughout the entire country. We discover that his name is Jim and his life along with others, are left only to fight for survival in an apocalyptic world where people are gone mad.
This is not your typical zombie flick, the zombies are very fast so the film feels very realistic since it's a virus that broke out due to man's incompetence. It's a very atmospheric film with a real sense of both death and absolute dread through the entirety of the film. The characters always refer to the attackers as infected there's no mention of the word zombie and the infection is extremely rapid.
The film is shot entirely on Digital Video, which gives the film a kind of fuzzy look. This adds first of all a very apocalyptic atmosphere to the film and secondly immerses the viewer into the film making them feel they're watching the proceedings on a CCTV camera from a secret location, this is also helped with the obscure camera angles. A truly amazing achievement by Director Danny Boyle, which makes this his best film.
The film is very character driven, with some very unexpected bouts of extreme violence. The acting in the film is fantastic, from all the cast. Cillian Murphy is perfect as Jim as he drives his character into oblivion fighting for survival. While Brendan Gleeson steals the show, where did he get the English accent? I would like to add that the brief shot of Manchester burning looked deadly, gave a strong impression of a world in chaos.
The film is inspired from films like The Omega Man and Dawn of the Dead, but it utilizes the idea of the infection to give it a realistic edge that we've never seen before in a zombie flick. I thought the plot was excellent with a little twist halfway through. This later presents on how the virus could possibly come about with man's growing intolerance to what goes on in the world.
This is the film of the year for me, while it's not exactly what I expected since it also robbed elements from Dog Soldiers, I would still consider this film to be a masterpiece. It should be worth noting that this is the first masterpiece I've seen made in the 21st Century, truly amazing stuff. I haven't enjoyed a film this much since The Matrix in 1999.
If anyone likes the music which is used on the trailer it is off Brian Eno's 'Apollo' album as was 'Deep Blue Day' which was used when Renton disappeared down the lavvy in Trainspotting.
ProgressiveScan
01-11-2002, 06:21
:thumbs: up from me.
Danny Boyle's certainly made up for the debacle that was The Beach.
I felt a let down by the ending though, just felt a bit of a cop-out IMHO.
Still a bloody good film tho, highly recommended, just for those "who the **** did they do those" camera shots of an empty London and motorway.
Saw this film last Friday - have to say it was THE film of the year.
It takes a lot to really scare me and I had nightmares 3 nights running after this film!
Johnny Vodka
01-11-2002, 18:29
I'd give this a 3.5/5, meaning I was slightly disappointed. As a fan of zombie/outbreak/apocalypse type films I was expecting to adore it. Of the films you could compare it to, it's on par with early Cronenberg (Shivers, Rabid), but not as good as Romero's 'dead' trilogy, from which it steals all over the place; that said, it still seems like its own film. The infected were SCARY at first, though, by the end, that speeded up effect had started to grate on me. Plus the editing was a bit crazy and I kind of disagree about the benefits of having a fuzzy picture.
I'd definitely recommend it, however (certainly to people who like the genre). There is plenty of tension, and it craps all over this year's other Brit horrorflick, Dog soldiers!
Excellent film! Probably my favourite of the year.
Every scene had tension and seemed to be very important to the film. It gripped me so much that I was absolutely dying for the loo half way through but managed to sit in immense pain until the end credits!!
:D
Michael Mackenzie
01-11-2002, 23:49
I just got back from it, and I found it pretty enjoyable, but not outstanding. I think overall it was a pretty solid and unique experience, but there were problems. My biggest complaint would be the fact that it was shot digital. This has to be the first time I've seen edge enhancement at the cinema ;), and sometimes it was blurry to the point of important details not being very clear. I thought the ending was a bit of a let-down -- a disappointment after the build-up.
Jimmyboy
02-11-2002, 00:30
It seems to be getting over whelmingly slated in official reviews.
Whether or not this is because the film is British and the British critics seem to hate home grown stuff unless it stars Hugh Grant as a babbling upperclass toff is anyones guess.
Im certainly interested in the film though.
Well, I for one HATED it!
I can't be bothered to write a "review" as such but here's the text of an email I just sent a friend [contains spoilers]:
well, I've just got back from seeing it and I was really, really disappointed! :-o
I really wanted to like it as I'm a fan of Danny Boyle's and of horror & "zombie" / virus movies in general but I just found it soooooo boring and tedious!
The deserted London opening is great (well, after that ridiculously lazy "monkey with silly 'rage' virus" prologue!) but then it all becomes such a stupid mess and the final third of the film is utter ****!
I mostly blame the crap writing - why are people saying Alex Garland's screenplay is so good? - it sucks on just about every level!
I lost all empathy for the characters when they knowingly drove into the infested tunnel in London - from then on I just wanted everyone to die for being so utterly retarded.
Good writing would have had them reverse out of the tunnel and opt for the "safe" route above ground - only to be confronted by a zombie mob made up of people who were "protesters" or some other organised group in their former lives.
I didn't like the performances either - the usually fab Christopher Eccelston was just all wrong and that girl playing Brendan Gleeson's daughter should just go work in Asda or something.
Anyway that's enough drivel from me! I could go on about it all night but as you can tell I just didn't like it!
I just get so angry when any film (that I was really looking forward to!) turns out so ***** and devoid of the merit that the premise held.
final score: 2/5
I must add to this:
There are so many pointless scenes and fluffed moments like the good 5 mins of screen time just COMPLETELY wasted "shopping" at Budgens. That scene adds nothing to the film that couldn't have been told in less than 20 seconds!
and the annoying product placement that some reviewers are trying to find ironic meaning in! Oh Please! :oh-hum:
and the feeble excuses to add "tense" scenes are just pathetic: like when Jim goes into the cafe during the not so 'perilous' stopping-to-fill-up-the-petrol scene for example! They've just been "shopping" but oh ho-ho! they "don't have cheeseburgers!" so he simply must wander (alone) into a cafe full of decaying bodies just so we get reminded that there are actually suppossed to be un-dead zombie types in this yawn-fest! - said scene provides a typical "character" moment later on when Jim is asked who he has killed in order to survive!
If he wasn't such a retard in the first place he wouldn't have had to "kill" anything!
And don't me started on the "soldiers"...
OH GOD THIS FILM IS JUST SO, SO AWFUL!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:
in fact my sig is very apt here!
ProgressiveScan
02-11-2002, 08:44
Originally posted by Richie
Well, I for one HATED it!
I can't be bothered to write a "review" as such but here's the text of an email I just sent a friend [contains spoilers]:
well, I've just got back from seeing it and I was really, really disappointed! :-o
I really wanted to like it as I'm a fan of Danny Boyle's and of horror & "zombie" / virus movies in general but I just found it soooooo boring and tedious!
The deserted London opening is great (well, after that ridiculously lazy "monkey with silly 'rage' virus" prologue!) but then it all becomes such a stupid mess and the final third of the film is utter EDIT!
I mostly blame the crap writing - why are people saying Alex Garland's screenplay is so good? - it sucks on just about every level!
I lost all empathy for the characters when they knowingly drove into the infested tunnel in London - from then on I just wanted everyone to die for being so utterly retarded.
Good writing would have had them reverse out of the tunnel and opt for the "safe" route above ground - only to be confronted by a zombie mob made up of people who were "protesters" or some other organised group in their former lives.
I didn't like the performances either - the usually fab Christopher Eccelston was just all wrong and that girl playing Brendan Gleeson's daughter should just go work in Asda or something.
Anyway that's enough drivel from me! I could go on about it all night but as you can tell I just didn't like it!
I just get so angry when any film (that I was really looking forward to!) turns out so ***** and devoid of the merit that the premise held.
final score: 2/5
I must add to this:
There are so many pointless scenes and fluffed moments like the good 5 mins of screen time just COMPLETELY wasted "shopping" at Budgens. That scene adds nothing to the film that couldn't have been told in less than 20 seconds!
and the annoying product placement that some reviewers are trying to find ironic meaning in! Oh Please! :oh-hum:
and the feeble excuses to add "tense" scenes are just pathetic: like when Jim goes into the cafe during the not so 'perilous' stopping-to-fill-up-the-petrol scene for example! They've just been "shopping" but oh ho-ho! they "don't have cheeseburgers!" so he simply must wander (alone) into a cafe full of decaying bodies just so we get reminded that there are actually suppossed to be un-dead zombie types in this yawn-fest! - said scene provides a typical "character" moment later on when Jim is asked who he has killed in order to survive!
If he wasn't such a retard in the first place he wouldn't have had to "kill" anything!
And don't me started on the "soldiers"...
OH GOD THIS FILM IS JUST SO, SO AWFUL!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:
in fact my sig is very apt here!
No no no, you've missed the point of the film, which actually makes more sense now after listening to Danny Boyle's interview on Five Live yesterday.
The beginning of the movie:
It's not a virus called "rage" the monkeys are injected with, but pure human RAGE, as in road RAGE, that's why the infected have red eyes and spew blood; it's a commentary on social rage of today and how we blow up at the slightest thing
The shopping scene in particular. You tell me you've never dreamed about doing that? I know I certainly have, and I have a Budgens where I live so it makes even more ironic sense - I agree unless you live in the South you'll not know about the Budgens chain. And the thing about the cheeseburgers is explained: all the perishable food has gone off, so it's reasonable to assume with no power all the meat has gone rotten too, that's why they're living on chocolate
Having heard the interview with Boyle yesterday, I didn't realise they filmed three different endings to the film, and chose the one they did at the last minute. I would've preferred a different ending to the one they picked, but on the whole, I think your comments are a little harsh; 28 days later is a fantastic movie from a whole host of viewpoints, not least the technology aspect; If I had the choice of 28 days of Mr Deeds, I know which one I'd rather see again.
BTW Boyle did say he was trying to get closer to Romero's "..of the dead" films, because of it being more of a social commentary than a straight out "resident evil" action flick. So perhaps those who aren't prepared to think a little during the screening won't like it. :lol: :rolleyes:
For those interested, there is one alternate ending, shown in mega-advance previews, where
Jim never makes it!
Having been shot at the mansion, they rush him to a deserted hospital and despite the best efforts of Selena and Hannah, he dies on the operating table.
So the final scenes are the two women at the house in the lake district and the military jet going overhead.
Thanks to tafkab for this info.
Wonder what happened in the third alternate ending?
---
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/worswicks/images/28_days_later_review_large.jpg
ProgressiveScan
02-11-2002, 11:35
[QUOTE]Originally posted by liamail
For those interested, there is one alternate ending, shown in mega-advance previews, where
Jim never makes it!
Having been shot at the mansion, they rush him to a deserted hospital and despite the best efforts of Selena and Hannah, he dies on the operating table.
So the final scenes are the two women at the house in the lake district and the military jet going overhead.
Thanks to [b]tafkab for this info.
Wonder what happened in the third alternate ending?
According to Boyle, the other ending was:
A kinda "middling" situation; he didn't elaborate, but it's prolly that they end up at the Cottage and live there as a family, and don't get rescued.
Johnny Vodka
02-11-2002, 12:31
Anyone see Mark Kermode reviewing this on Late Review last night? There was a couple of moments when I thought he was going to kill Germaine Greer (annoying artsy fartsy bint), especially - not connected with the review - when she made the mistake of dissing The Exorcist. :eek:
Originally posted by ProgressiveScan
No no no, you've missed the point of the film, which actually makes more sense now after listening to Danny Boyle's interview on Five Live yesterday.
The beginning of the movie:
It's not a virus called "rage" the monkeys are injected with, but pure human RAGE, as in road RAGE, that's why the infected have red eyes and spew blood; it's a commentary on social rage of today and how we blow up at the slightest thing
My reply:
NO,I haven't missed the point of the film at all!
It's obvious it's human RAGE not a made-up virus called "rage". I do think when watching movies you know!
In fact maybe the film has worked on me afterall! The monkey in the opening scene becomes mad after being subjected to violent images and after 2 hours of this utter tripe I wanted to murder someone too! :shocker: ;)
You shouldn't need an interview with the director to make a film make sense or be interesting!
Originally posted by ProgressiveScan
The shopping scene in particular. You tell me you've never dreamed about doing that? I know I certainly have, and I have a Budgens where I live so it makes even more ironic sense - I agree unless you live in the South you'll not know about the Budgens chain. And the thing about the cheeseburgers is explained: all the perishable food has gone off, so it's reasonable to assume with no power all the meat has gone rotten too, that's why they're living on chocolate
My reply:
The cheesburgers line has nothing to do with the fact that all perishable goods have gone off! It's a throwaway so-called witticism to get Jim into the cafe alone (a scene nicked straight out of "Dawn of the Dead" at that) - that's just bad writing disguised as character motivation! If he knows there are no perishable goods left then WHY would he go into the cafe ALONE? What a total retard! He deserved to die then & there!
And yes, even though I'm in the south I know Budgens! It's not ironic to see a shop you know get looted in a film! It was just filler.
Originally posted by ProgressiveScan
Having heard the interview with Boyle yesterday, I didn't realise they filmed three different endings to the film, and chose the one they did at the last minute. I would've preferred a different ending to the one they picked, but on the whole, I think your comments are a little harsh; 28 days later is a fantastic movie from a whole host of viewpoints, not least the technology aspect; If I had the choice of 28 days of Mr Deeds, I know which one I'd rather see again.
BTW Boyle did say he was trying to get closer to Romero's "..of the dead" films, because of it being more of a social commentary than a straight out "resident evil" action flick. So perhaps those who aren't prepared to think a little during the screening won't like it. :lol: :rolleyes:
My reply:
Well from the info about the other endings the one where Jim dies would have at least made logical sense!
For the record I hated "Resident Evil" too.
"28 days later" wants to "say something" about the human condition, well I'm afraid it doesn't say anything that hasn't been said better before.
In fact all it does say is that we Brits are so desperate for a home-grown hit that we'll dress it up any which way, no matter how inane it is.
I would never have gone to see "Mr Deeds" anyway which makes my experience of "28 days later" all the more disappointing! I was really wanting a film that scared me, made me think & had a British sensibility.
What I got was a film that fluffed the "scares" with ham-fisted editing, made me think what a shame it was that such a great premise was utterly wasted and made me angry that anything commercially "british" these days has to be full of offensive sterotypes and elements nicked from a long line of American product.
The Chad
02-11-2002, 15:59
Did anyone else get a strong feeling of product placement, I could murder a tango, lilt or maybe a Pepsi, I might pop down to budgens and get some :D . I thought the film was great, but i didn't understand why they walked everywhere when it surely would have been safer to drive? Definitely worth watching if you're a fan of zombie movies :thumbs:
Michael Mackenzie
02-11-2002, 16:01
Originally posted by The Chad
Did anyone else get a strong feeling of product placement, I could murder a tango, lilt or maybe a Pepsi, I might pop down to budgens and get some :D ."No more chocolate for me... EXCEPT FOR TERRY'S CHOCOLATE ORANGE!" :thumbs:
ProgressiveScan
02-11-2002, 16:03
Originally posted by Richie
Long and rambling post snipped.. [/i]
Look, I don't want to get into an argument..
You didn't like it, I loved it, thought it was a breath of fresh air before Harry Potter comes out :rolleyes:
Good god man, don't take things so seriously. :nono: sheesh, I despair at some people in this place sometimes..
I take it you didn't like Dog Soldiers or My Little Eye either then. :rolleyes:
Just justifying my opinion! ;)
I can't stand it when people say "it was great" or "it was crap" without knowing why!
I just wanted to let you know that I have my specific reasons for thinking it's a turd - I'm not just hating it for the hell of it!
but I'll shut up now! :D
ps. I LOVED "My little Eye" :D
not seen "Dog Soldiers" yet.
ProgressiveScan
02-11-2002, 17:19
Originally posted by Richie
Just justifying my opinion! ;)
I can't stand it when people say "it was great" or "it was crap" without knowing why!
I just wanted to let you know that I have my specific reasons for thinking it's a turd - I'm not just hating it for the hell of it!
but I'll shut up now! :D
ps. I LOVED "My little Eye" :D
not seen "Dog Soldiers" yet.
All right, we'll agree on My little Eye; I loved that too. :D
Arch Stanton
02-11-2002, 17:33
Well i'm with Jonathon Ross with this one.
I just didn't care about any of the charactars. The direction was far to showy and the action scenes a mess.( Digital filmings fine for setting a gritty mood but crap for action). The opening monkey scene was silly and not helped by Tony Le-mesmo from Alan Partridge playing the lab tech. The actress playing the daughter was awful and there wasn't much diffrence in her performance when was she was druged up then when she was fighting off Zombies.
Only really worth watching for Breendon Gleeson acting the socks off everyone else.
So Romero is still the Zombie king and Dog Soliders is by far the best low budget brit horror flic.
Mandrill
02-11-2002, 19:01
The girl seemed to have a wierd accent she couldent decide if she was a londerner or a brummie :D
Also if people were trying to get outa the country wouldent the motorway have been jammed with empty cars going outh bound towards dover and Stanstead and Heathrow airports?
Arch Stanton
02-11-2002, 22:09
Originally posted by Mandrill
The girl seemed to have a wierd accent she couldent decide if she was a londerner or a brummie :D
Also if people were trying to get outa the country wouldent the motorway have been jammed with empty cars going outh bound towards dover and Stanstead and Heathrow airports?
All the cars must have left thier handbrakes off and they rolled into the tunnel.
the_edge30
03-11-2002, 12:53
How do!
Saw this last night and thought it was very good!
Quite scary in places allthough the biggest scare was
When he went to open the car door at the beginning and the alarm went off!
Thought some of the scenes were excellent and it was well filmed, the sound was also quite cool!
Especially the bits with the zombies running, that was excellent and quite scary!
I mean okay, walking into the burger bar was a silly thing to do, maybe he just wanted to kill someone? But all horror films hve parts in it where u think to your self, he/she shouldnt be dong that, dont they?
Overall i thought it was good and i will be buying this on DVD when it comes out!
Cheers
CHRIS!
Johnny Vodka
03-11-2002, 13:18
Originally posted by the_edge30
I mean okay, walking into the burger bar was a silly thing to do, maybe he just wanted to kill someone? But all horror films hve parts in it where u think to your self, he/she shouldnt be dong that, dont they?
CHRIS!
Basically, that scene was a homage to Dawn of the Dead (IMO), where, if I remember correctly, a character wanders into a building at a petrol station and has to deal with a couple of zombie kids.
Arch Stanton
03-11-2002, 13:32
Originally posted by Johnny Vodka
Basically, that scene was a homage to Dawn of the Dead (IMO), where, if I remember correctly, a character wanders into a building at a petrol station and has to deal with a couple of zombie kids.
Basicly the scene was just a plot device so he can have the conversation with Christopher Eckleson's later on and set up the ending.
The Dawn of the dead homage was surley the super market scene.
Nautilus
03-11-2002, 16:43
Tomorrow night (Monday 4th November) at 00:15, Channel 4 are showing a 30 minute behind-the-scenes programme called "Pure Rage: The Making of 28 Days Later".
thanks Nautilus - that will be interesting to watch anyway (even though I hate the film with a passion I've not felt since "Titantic")
ProgressiveScan
03-11-2002, 18:32
Originally posted by Nautilus
Tomorrow night (Monday 4th November) at 00:15, Channel 4 are showing a 30 minute behind-the-scenes programme called "Pure Rage: The Making of 28 Days Later".
Sorry m8, you're a day out.
My TiVo has it on Tuesday @ 0015. :p
Johnny Vodka
03-11-2002, 18:54
Originally posted by Arch Stanton
Basicly the scene was just a plot device so he can have the conversation with Christopher Eckleson's later on and set up the ending.
The Dawn of the dead homage was surley the super market scene.
BOTH of those were homages to Dawn of the Dead. It can't be a coincidence that the two films have a scene where a character at a petrol station wanders alone into a building and has to deal with a zombie kid/zombie kids.
The whole soldier bit was a homage to Day of the Dead, especially with the captive 'zombie', and the way one of the characters gets their come-uppance at the end (though in 28 Days Later it ain't half as gory :( ).
IMO it contains homage's to all 3 Romero films (Strangly in order as well), Let me explain my theory : -
The Father + Daughter Stuck in thier flat = Night of The Living Dead,
The Car Re-Fueling scene = Obvious, Dawn Of The Dead,
Zombie Chained Up For Experimentation + examination = Day Of The Dead
Plus i'd like to add the fact i didn't enjoy this film, not knowing + hearing anything about it before i watched i found it un-scary and boring in most parts, and i AM a huge zombie + horror fan, before u start.
I'm going to watch it again on DVD when it's released, and maybe i'll enjoy after a second viewing, but until then i'm very very dissapointed.
Originally posted by Kain^
Plus i'd like to add the fact i didn't enjoy this film, not knowing + hearing anything about it before i watched i found it un-scary and boring in most parts, and i AM a huge zombie + horror fan, before u start.
I'm glad I'm not the only one!
Loved the film....bought the soundtrack. Great mellow tunes.
read the reviews in the times and the independent and they were completely polarised.
FreakyZoid
04-11-2002, 14:52
It was an okay movie - I wouldn't say great. Had some nice bits, a pretty decent soundtrack, some stupid horror movie bits where you feel like shouting "you're an idiot" at the characters, and a very weak second half and terribly dull ending.
And it's not scary (this from me, who scares pretty easily) or grusome - it's just got a lot of blood in places.
Still, I've seen much worse horror movies.
Dan Druff
04-11-2002, 17:38
I wouldn't be as crazy about it as Morpheus2000 (then again he loves post-apocalyptic movies) but would give it the thumbs up on a scare by scare basis, and for presenting to us a world in chaos pretty smartly.
I though the acting all round was very good.
Though after Brendan Gleeson gets killed the movie loses a certain momentum, he's such a fine actor
Wasn't sure how Jim suddenly changed from a wimp to a mad eye gouging good guy. I knew the soldiers would be made out to be complete scum..not a nice bunch of lads
Would recommend it, not as a date movie but at least its better than a lot of the crap hitting the cinema screens lately.
Overall 8/10
Loved the film, quite unnerving!
I thought the first part in London was the best - when they set off up north it seems to lose it a bit.
There were some silly plot points which for me didn't really detract too much but I thought I' drag them up here! Such as
The best weapons Jims rescuers appear to have is machetes and home made Molotov cocktails. Surely in the weeks they had been on the run they would have got hold of some BIG guns - even in London.
Why go through the tunnel when it would be swarming with rage victims and blocked by cars?
Did anyone else think it was a bit ludicrous the way they managed to drive a taxi cab completely over the blockage in the tunnel? Then they only get a flat tyre!
How far is it from London to Manchester - 200 miles? How long would that take on the clear motorways they had. Not more than about four hours I reckon - so why the need to camp overnight in a field?
Why were the roads and motorways so empty? If there had been panic then surely all the roads would be blocked by abandoned cars.
How come Jim turned into some sort on ninja killing machine taking on and whupping trained soldiers?
Then after killing most of the soldiers do they then get hold of some BIG guns - er no!
Still thought it was bloody good fun though - recommended.
Blenky - the answer to all of your questions / points is simple:
Alex Garland's screenplay is rubbish and full of ridiculous inconsistencies. Basically the guy doesn't have a clue about structure or pacing and more fool Danny Boyle (who IS a good director) for working from his material, not once but twice!
Michael Mackenzie
04-11-2002, 22:04
Originally posted by Blenky
How far is it from London to Manchester - 200 miles? How long would that take on the clear motorways they had. Not more than about four hours I reckon - so why the need to camp overnight in a field?Because they wasted so much time ******* about in the supermarket advertising Terry's Chocolate Orange. :D
Just come back from watching this - Loved it!
My sort of film really - low budget, gory, few jumpy moments etc
easily as enjoyable as Dog Soldiers
We're starting to get some good films out at last!
Yesterday I went and seen XXX - :oh-hum: - should've walked out
GAmbrose
07-11-2002, 00:19
Just seen it, It was ok for the most part and it did make me jump in one or two places which is the whole idea of a horror film.
That young girl was a terrible actress though, I thought she really dragged the film down whenever she opened her mouth.
And did those Zombies actually eat anyone? Sure they chase after you and spew blood over you and bite you a bit, but they never really seem to chomp down on a body, they just move onto the next living person. Those ones in the church weren't eating the dea dbodies or anything, they seemed to be just sitting there waiting for someone alive to come along
7/10 from me
Gary A
Originally posted by GAmbrose
And did those Zombies actually eat anyone? Sure they chase after you and spew blood over you and bite you a bit, but they never really seem to chomp down on a body, they just move onto the next living person. Those ones in the church weren't eating the dead bodies or anything, they seemed to be just sitting there waiting for someone alive to come along
Gary A
Not sure - maybe they did and all died of starvation at the end when they ran out of humans, or they were so consumed by 'rage' they didn't have the sense to eat and then died of starvation
Also another thing that occurred to me
When Jim was locked up, the soldier with him raved about the Britain being in quarantine while the rest of the world waited for the zombies to die. This seemed to be borne out when Jim sees a jet flying over head and then later rescued. My question is this. If Frank and his daughter could pick up a radio transmission sent from Manchester, surely they would have picked something up from non-quarantined Europe? Or have I got this wrong:nuts:
Arch Stanton
07-11-2002, 17:37
Basicly the film rivals Independance day for the amount of plot holes in one film.
GAmbrose
07-11-2002, 18:16
Yeah, I mean London is closer to Calais than to Manchester isn't it?
And France would have gotten the infection because of the Channel Tunnel, which then would have spread all over europe.
Gary A
Grrrr....
A cabbie would have known a fast alternate route to the tunnel - wouldn't he?
The M602 is 27 miles North East of Manchester? No wonder it takes me so long to get home...
2 days to travel from London to Manchester, on empty roads! 4 or 5 hours easy more like!
Ian
LOL this is all so funny... if it wasn't painfull to read.
Jeez lighten up guys it's just a Movie
*duck and runs in antisipation of flame throwers*
the thing with no name
08-11-2002, 00:18
enjoyed it - full of plot holes - but fun never the less.
Car bit at beginning made me jump through roof.
Also managed to get free tickets to another film as we complained about the picture quality!!;) :clap:
8/10
GAmbrose
08-11-2002, 00:30
Originally posted by the thing with no name
enjoyed it - full of plot holes - but fun never the less.
Car bit at beginning made me jump through roof.
Also managed to get free tickets to another film as we complained about the picture quality!!;) :clap:
8/10
You sure that wasn't just the fuzzy DV cameras used?
Gary A
The_Evil_Dean
08-11-2002, 00:50
I have to say being a huge zombie film freak myself, I too was disapointed in this film, I have to put it down to convincing myself it was going to be great before hand.
I mean the homages where a little too obvious to a zombie film fan, it seemed to take bits and peices from its favourite zombie films and slap some MTV style editing on it.
I saw a few bits in it that pandered to the americans so im guessing the will be sending the film over-seas.
But on the flip side there was a lot to like in it, I mean the "zombies" are suitably threatening and one or two of the characters are likeable, plus the effects of being a zombie are suitably graphic and a little unsettling.
5 maybe 6 out of ten.
( anyone else think we brits will be having horror onslaught similar to that of the gangster films since lock stock )
Morpheus2000
08-11-2002, 10:34
Originally posted by the thing with no name
enjoyed it - full of plot holes - but fun never the less.
Car bit at beginning made me jump through roof.
Also managed to get free tickets to another film as we complained about the picture quality!!;) :clap:
8/10
How will they know where to send them since you don't have a name?
BlueDwarf
08-11-2002, 13:10
I enjoyed it - couldn't care less about "plot holes".
One thing I did notice at the end we see the taxi parked outside the cottage, but I couldn't see any damage to the front. Was I being unobservant, or was it a continuity error?
Basically, that scene was a homage to Dawn of the Dead (IMO), where, if I remember correctly, a character wanders into a building at a petrol station and has to deal with a couple of zombie kids. [/QUOTE]
the whole movie was a rip.... sorry "homage" to dawn of the dead wasnt it? and did i read someone who said this is the most orginal filmhes seen all year, i just saw it, and all it does is copy other zombie movies, and badly, it starts off intresting then the zombies apear on screen then they just had no new ideas, and didnt even pesent the old ones in a way that they were enjoyable. Donnie Darko is the most original movie ive seen all year by a long way, its pobably the best too, this has to be one of the worst.
nicpillinger
08-11-2002, 14:58
Why has no-one mentioned Day of the Triffids? Is it just me or is the film exactly the same story with different bad guys? Admitedly I havn't read the book for a while but as far as I'm concerned Alex Garland has ripped off John Christopher, almost the entire plot (beginning, middle and finale).
That said I did enjoy it, yes its silly in places and has more plot holes than plot with lots of holes in but surely that was the point? Soundtrack was also ace.
Sorry folks I have read some posts to this thread but only a few.
I would just like to say that some people seem to be getting too caught up with the zombie theme. Whether or not boyle was making a zombie film or not (which I do not think he was) is besides the point. Or even if he was making homages? to older zombie films...so what. It's a great film in it's own right.
It is the most tense film I have seen in years (possibly ever).
From the moment he wakes up to the moment the movie ends you don't have a moments rest-bite that he, or anyone else, maybe suddenly attacked by the infected. The speed of the infected made zombies look like old age pensioners, no offence to old age pensioners. We'll all be old one day
Dawn of the Dead is my all time favourite zombie film ( and possibly is to many others) and it still is. Day of the Dead comes very very close.
28 Days Later was an excellent film but I need to see it again to make up my mind where it stands. Best survival movie ?
Ol' Blue Eyes
10-11-2002, 21:24
I'm slightly astonished how much I enjoyed this. I didn't go and see it with any real enthusiasm beyond a desire to support homegrown horror films. Not only have I grown to hate the murky, washed out look of blown-up digital video this year but I haven't liked any of Danny Boyle's previous films - I appreciated his skill as a film-maker but in Shallow Grave, Trainspotting and The Beach (I avoided A Life Less Ordinary) there's a combination of jaded, ironic detachment and misanthropy which I found off-putting.
Weirdly, 28 Days Later is his most humane film, with a strong, likeable cast of credible, ordinary people who are living in a nightmare. It's also a terrific zombie movie. OK, they're not zombies, they're "infecteds" but who are they trying to fool? They look dead, they have funny eyes and they want to eat you - they're zombies. There are scenes which remind you of George Romero's films but this is no rip-off and in fact captures that pervading sense of dread which characterised Romero's trilogy. Rare among recent commercial films, it's quite unpredictable. The advertising campaign has cleverly given nothing away and I won't either.
I could make the odd plot gripe like "why do the silly characters wander off alone at times and travel unnecessarily through a long tunnel?", "why does the human villain commit Dr Evil's mistake of arranging an over-elaborate and easily escapable death for his prisoners?" and "when was a certain character trained in the deadly art of the Ninja?" but my only serious complaint is the digital video which leaves you squinting throughout as it always does. I suppose it's a tribute to the film's effectiveness that you ignore it after a while but it's nastier to look at than any of the film's horrors.
^^^ actually that was one of my biggest complaints about the film that you never got to see what was happening when anyone was being attacked by the infected, it was all so fast and a blur of bodies fighting. ( All that said mind you I did love that fast action, when the infected came flying at them. Very effective, very scary, very tense. )
Not once did I see human flesh being consumed , so I never got the impession they were trying to eat anyone. Just kill them.
If someone was in a mad mad rage they probably would bite you, very badly if your the infected :)
The closest the infected got to being zombies was the fact that they never attacked each other, was that because they new they were already infected with the mad rage ?
I am going to stick with it but I do not think it was a zombie film.
Ol' Blue Eyes
11-11-2002, 10:12
I see what you mean but I got the impression that they were cannibals from the whole theme about waiting for them to starve to death. There was tons of food left so unless they were cannibals and there were no people left to eat, why would they starve?
have to agree .....very very disappointed - too many people trying to make this film into something it isn't....the only thing I noticed was there were so many people coming out saying how bad it was....
Originally posted by Ol' Blue Eyes
I see what you mean but I got the impression that they were cannibals from the whole theme about waiting for them to starve to death. There was tons of food left so unless they were cannibals and there were no people left to eat, why would they starve?
But in the zombie films they never starved to death, just kept marchin on. Or is that your point?
What about when zombies would be seen just sat down munching on an arm or leg, was that the piece of some recent victim or of another zombie.
For me zombies are defined as being the undead wandering the earth for flesh and had to be killed by severing the head whereas the infected are very much alive but completely insane and could be killed much like you would kill anyone.
I guess some of us will have to agree to disagree :)
One thing I'm sure we'll all agree on is that there's a very fine line going on here.
Still sticking by my guns though :)
theblairwitch
12-11-2002, 09:16
Saw it last night thanks to the Evening Standard free tickets and have to say thoroughly enjoyed it (maybe because it was free !).
Whilst the obvious homages have been ticked off - I'm amazed no-one has mentioned the debt it owes to "Threads" - the criminally over-looked TV masterpiece of the 80's.
On the subject on product placement - I have to say that I think it is not half as premeditated as "Minority Report" say and actually contextualised the film to its benefit. The fact (especially in Naomi's "shop" at the beginning) that everything was as is - lottery tickets, haribo penny sweets - made it far more "real".
If they had made up a super-market for Budgens (which is certainly the most popular small chain convenience store around my way) - or gone to hide the labels in the "Pepsi or Lilt" scene (which got the biggest laugh in the cinema) it would have lost the real feel that is has.
"Vegetable extract drink or tropical gnats **** ?" anyone ?
FreakyZoid
12-11-2002, 09:56
Originally posted by Ol' Blue Eyes
I got the impression that they were cannibals from the whole theme about waiting for them to starve to death. There was tons of food left so unless they were cannibals and there were no people left to eat, why would they starve?
Because they were infected, so all they thought about was finding uninfected people to infect. Which meant that they didn't have time to sit down and cook a lovely meal.
There were loads of bodies left lying around, and failing that they would turn on each other if they were cannibals, so they wouldn't starve to death in that situation either.
Ol' Blue Eyes
13-11-2002, 19:04
Originally posted by FreakyZoid
Because they were infected, so all they thought about was finding uninfected people to infect. Which meant that they didn't have time to sit down and cook a lovely meal.
Perhaps not but there's always time for a pop tart.
(PS - there weren't many bodies lying around, not in London anyway, another reason I assumed they were cannibals and had eaten everyone, otherwise there should have been corpses everywhere.)
(PPS - I'm probably wrong and they aren't cannibals but then the only difference between the "infecteds" and half the blokes staggering around Rochester High Street on a Friday night is they aren't carrying a can of lager and chanting about Gillingham FC)
Saw this tonight and thought it was a great film...
Gets a big :thumbs: from me....
Although the whole thing was stolen from Day Of The Triffids...
Replace the 'Rage' victims with plants and they are almost the same film.........
Saw this last night and thought it was really good (8/10). The idea of an almost deserted London, backed by a Godspeed You Black Emperor soundtrack was what drew me to it. I absolutely loved Shallow Grave, loathed the Beach and thought Mr Boyles other work was alright, so I was hoping he was on form for this.
Yes the film is totally riddled with plot holes (not a single infected pet on show and so on....) but once you're able to suspend belief about the premise in the first place, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to get past all the other parts.
What I liked most about the film was that it was the humanity of the surviving group kept them together and living, whilst it was those inflicted with another altogether human quality, rage, that stalked them down. For me, the 'infected' storyline and the ensuing chases etc were almost peripheral like to the story I was interested in. How would Jim cope? Could he bring himself to kill? etc etc
The scene were Jim wandered off alone into the burger bar was itself ridiculous but I guess Alex when writing the screenplay, couldn't think of another way to setup Jims first kill and it was absolutely neccessary that he did so, that we were shown it and that he suffered it alone. Surely it's a major plot point in the film, that he can kill a young infected boy but not be able to bring himself to kill the infected father, yet then go on a muderous rampage
Going slightly off track now but.... as Jim struck the mortal blow to the infected boy, did the boy shout out 'I hate you' or something??!?! Either he did (and I don't recall any other infected speaking), my mind is playing tricks with me, or someone was arguing in the row behind me.:D
I didn't mind the quick flash editing for the infected attack sequences. I think I just took them to be too savage and brutal that the speed with which they were committed couldn't be caught on camera. Contrast that to the most violent act in the film, that of Jims killing of the last soldier who was holding Selena........ I don't recall any of the same camera editing trickery as this was played out in full.
I didn't mind 99% of the blatant product advertising. That he preferred a Tango to a Pepsi or Lilt didn't ruin any of the film, and if anything added to the 'realness' of it. However what was with all the 'Sharp' dvd/video/whatever boxes in the stately home!?!? They had no relevance to the story at all, and was taking the 'ads in film' thing too far.
I liked the soundtrack. A typical Hollywood slash-horror Nu-metal/RnB backing wouldn't have worked at all. I agree about the girl who played the daughter, very poor acting. By far the worst scene in the film is as their all on the balcony of the flat. It was unfortunate for her because just as she was about to start her 'speech' a very cheesy intro of Ave Maria begins. I thought she was going to tell us that 'one day a little black boy and white girl will walk hand in hand' or that 'we'll fight them on the beaches'. On the whole though I thought most of the acting by the others was fine, Brendan Gleeson and Cillian Murphy especially so.
Final thing, was anyone else 'suckered in' or just plain stupid like I was (briefly:) ) when they crashed through the gate and it said 28 days later, at the bottom of the screen. For just a moment I was overcome with dispair (that probably would have become 'Rage') that the whole thing might have been a dream.
Anyhoo.... I'll be buying the Dvd.
Originally posted by MR M0BY
Yes the film is totally riddled with plot holes (not a single infected pet on show and so on....) but once you're able to suspend belief about the premise in the first place, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to get past all the other parts.
But surely the virus was aimed at primates. Hence the apes at the beginning.
Most viruses infect a particular species, don't they ?
Hated this.
To be honest I whilst I empathised with the social commentary aspects and found it to be challenging filmmaking it committed the cardinal sin for a film of this "genre." It was massively dull.
It simply wasn't scary and I agree with some of the posts about empathy. You expect a little more from people in a British film than walking into a dark diner or into a "short cut" tunnel. I wished death on them all at those points.
I did like the last 20 minutes for it's analogy with Jim's own position that you don't need to be infected to be equally powerful with the rage.
Still a wasted opportunity IMO.
The Beyond
16-11-2002, 22:36
Why has no-one mentioned Day of the Triffids? Is it just me or is the film exactly the same story with different bad guys? Admitedly I havn't read the book for a while but as far as I'm concerned Alex Garland has ripped off John Christopher
Errr.. That would be John Wyndham.
More book reading and less film watching is needed, I think :D
Gethinnadin
17-11-2002, 21:30
I'm feeling very bored by the constant pick pick-ing at films!.
People ask so many questions and think they are being clever by thinking of things that went wrong blah blah.
Anyway, onto the film. - I thought this was very good, its get my 8 out of 10. Not scary, one jumpy bit. What I liked was the continual 'dont hang around!', 'dont go in there' from the viewers mind. Very atmospheric, and it was worth the money just to see London like that.
The 'rage' only infected primates, this is why animals didnt get it but the monkeys and humans did. They werent cannibals. They were infected with 'rage'. When someone is in a rage, they attack (with the aim to kill in this instance). The nature of the infection meant that they didnt seem to kill, just harm and infect others.
No dead people in London (first of all, that would spoil the film wouldnt it?). Secondly, although some of the infected were seen in the light, it was said in the film that you're safer in the daylight. They generally attacked in the home, in the flats, in the tunnel, in the cafe - all dark places.
The army had salvaged all the electronic equiptment for their compound. They would need video players, tv's etc to entertain themselves whilst they attempted to re-build human life.
Jim found it hard to kill a child (obviously). Harder to kill the father because he had come to trust him and they were friends (also his daughter was watching!). Then went on a murderous rampage because he had probably hardened to the fact that he must kill, he knew the two girls were in danger, he knew there was normal life outside the UK and he knew the soldiers were no good. He did what he had to do to save the good guys.
We watched, we enjoyed (some of us anyway ;) ). If you watch a film close enough, the clues are there. Generally most 'mistakes' can be ironed out with a director's interview or commentary. People need to understand that cuts are made to the last edit of a film (usually by producers) and as a result, some things dont make sense. Ie. Talking cow in 'RatRace' and missing jacket in 'House on Haunted Hill' 1999.
EDIT: And let me add my ten cents about the 'product placement'.
a) Film on a shoe-string (any extra money would be gratefully recieved
b) Budgens - "Excuse me sir, can we film in your shop?", 'what do i get out of it son?', "we'll show your shopfront at least once. That free advertising sir", 'so it is, you're welcome to use my shop'.
c) Fanta/Pepsi thing. Thats not product replacement!. Thats things people say. If he'd asked for 'Rola Cola' no-one would understand!. These products are part of our lives. To include them makes for better realism (and if they extra funding on top, thats just a bonus).
d) DVD. VHS players in boxes. If they'd put 'Takawashi' on the boxes, we wouldnt have a clue what they were!. As above, part of our lives.
e) why did I do a list. I hate lists.
Another EDIT (to make this the longest post I've ever typed):
The man who played the father was undoubtedly the finest actor in the film. He got the character to a T. Fantastic!.
Also did it remind anyone else of Dog Soldiers? - on many levels I thought.
I promise you, I wont bore you anymore.
ickle yoda1
18-11-2002, 14:32
Well put me on the list of people who did not like this film. I felt the film was very slow and dull. I heard mixed reviews for this film before going to see it and was hoping it would be good but left the cinema thinking it was a total waste of time.
The film just seemed to fail on every level. The only "scary" moment I felt was the car alarm at the beginning! The zombies didn't bring any fear to the scenes at all. The cheeseburger scene again seemed to have no point except so the characters could talk about it later and there seemed to be a lot of pointless, filler, scenes such as the supermarket and the camping out scene.
The ending was dissapointing also, the main character totally changes which doesn't seem to fit with the rest of his character in the movie and the final scene was a total cop out.
Most of the people leaving the cinema seemed to share similar thoughts.
( for the record I enjoyed dog solidiers :p )
grounded_dreams
18-11-2002, 14:57
ickle yoda1, you may want to put the 'scary' moment in a spoiler, in case someone reads your post, who hasn't see the film yet :)
If they haven't seen the film yet, would they be daft enough to get as far as page 3 of a thread all about it? ;)
Saw it tonight, and felt like many others that it started off great, then lost it's way a bit in the middle.
One thing really annoyed me more than all of the other plot-holes.
They say that the tunnel is the most direct route, but obviously more dangerous, and the driver's a cabbie. Surely on the deserted streets, it can't have taken more than 5 minutes to take an alternative route and go OVER the river by bridge? :confused:
Originally posted by J M
They say that the tunnel is the most direct route, but obviously more dangerous, and the driver's a cabbie. Surely on the deserted streets, it can't have taken more than 5 minutes to take an alternative route and go OVER the river by bridge? :confused:
And where's the tension in that :rolleyes:
It's hard to be tense when you're just thinking "You plonkers" :)
zombieman
21-11-2002, 01:24
Originally posted by MR M0BY
I didn't mind 99% of the blatant product advertising. That he preferred a Tango to a Pepsi or Lilt didn't ruin any of the film, and if anything added to the 'realness' of it. However what was with all the 'Sharp' dvd/video/whatever boxes in the stately home!?!? They had no relevance to the story at all, and was taking the 'ads in film' thing too far.
I took that to signify that The soldiers had been looting in Manchester, and therefore it was them that set it burning.
nicpillinger
21-11-2002, 14:40
Errr.. That would be John Wyndham.
More book reading and less film watching is needed, I think
doh! yeah coz it was like the Tripods as well :lol:
ickle yoda1
29-11-2002, 16:30
Originally posted by grounded_dreams
ickle yoda1, you may want to put the 'scary' moment in a spoiler, in case someone reads your post, who hasn't see the film yet :)
Help! how do you put spoilers into the message?
nicpillinger
29-11-2002, 17:19
use the quote tag - the word quote with square brackets around it and close it as you would any other tag, /quote again with square brackets around it.
hope this helps
My review of this is now up at DVD Times, and you can read it by clicking here (http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/index.cgi?page=CinemaReview&id=158&story=3878) !
Zenith15
06-12-2002, 23:45
Originally posted by nicpillinger
Why has no-one mentioned Day of the Triffids? Is it just me or is the film exactly the same story with different bad guys? Admitedly I havn't read the book for a while but as far as I'm concerned Alex Garland has ripped off John Christopher, almost the entire plot (beginning, middle and finale).
That said I did enjoy it, yes its silly in places and has more plot holes than plot with lots of holes in but surely that was the point? Soundtrack was also ace.
Couldn't have said it better! I've read the JW novel recently and I have the 80's series on video from uk Gold and 28 Days Later cribs a lot from "Triffids" saying that I totally enjoyed it and haven't jumped so much at a horror movie for years!(And I've seen Thousands!!!) can't wait for the DVD release!:)
Thought this was excellent. Any film which makes you think for a couple of weeks later must have worked.
It had so many good moments which were pretty predictable. Like taking two females to a testosterone fuelled army barracks :lol:
only got round to watching this at the weekend and it really excited me.
not a typical romero zombie flick imho.
Obvious similarities, but at the same time it was fast, and some shots were just lush - loved the buckets on roof for example. Garland isnt a great writer, but i really enjoy boyles work. Its always interesting. i even enjoyed shallow grave and trainspotting despite the fact that its got that twit (sp ;) Keith Allen.
I didnt like the songs used in the soundtrack, but the way they were used was abso - flippin - lutely amazing. loved the build in speed, volume and how they matched on screen action so well.
Its not a fulci movie, a romero movie or a savini, but its a hell of a better more intelligent movie than the p*sh that was resident evil.
9 out of 10 - easy
davey1970
12-12-2002, 19:40
the best bits are an early scene of violence in a house, and the bird bit (always forget how to use spoilers so trying to avoid giving too much away).
great film but its always the case he loses it a bit (only exception being trainspotting).
for me the last 1/4 of the film lost it - zombies running around waving their arms everywhere looked more camp than frightening, and plenty of odd camera work that didnt quite work (that might sound weird considering its all filmed weird, but most of it worked i thought).
also, the kid being a really cool driver (right near the end), and a few other bits like that, smacked of it being trendy/hip etc... but actually just seemed naff.
that might seem overtly critical - its not meant to be - its a really good film but ever so near being utter class were it not for the faults mentioned.
d
Watched this the other night and really enjoyed it. Very unique and the tension was spot on.
Thought the lead actors were great.
Just wondering how they filmed the empty London scenes and for that matter, the empty motorway/road scenes?
edit: Will be watching 28 weeks later, is it worth watching?
SIMON ADEBISI
29-03-2008, 10:28
28 weeks later is well worth watching surprisingly enough :thumbs: A lot gorier too.
28 Weeks Later was about 100 times better, IMO. Thought the first one promised a lot (and I really enjoyed the first 30 mins or so)but failed to deliver, but the second delivers in spades. Better plot, more tension and sustained throughout the whole movie.
Cheers guys...will be definitely watching it.
Terribly_Mauled
29-03-2008, 11:22
Wa
Just wondering how they filmed the empty London scenes and for that matter, the empty motorway/road scenes?
edit: Will be watching 28 weeks later, is it worth watching?
Can't vouch for knowledge on the motorway, but the London scenes were done by filming at 5am in the summer with minimal road closures for short periods
Johnny Vodka
29-03-2008, 15:54
28 Weeks Later was about 100 times better, IMO. Thought the first one promised a lot (and I really enjoyed the first 30 mins or so)but failed to deliver, but the second delivers in spades. Better plot, more tension and sustained throughout the whole movie.
What he said. It's unusually violent and disturbing, though. Be warned.
RomerojpgX
29-03-2008, 16:15
Can't vouch for knowledge on the motorway, but the London scenes were done by filming at 5am in the summer with minimal road closures for short periods
With apprently loads of drunken clubbers trying to get home and all that waiting behind the closed of parts of the roads :D
cliff homewood
30-03-2008, 00:36
the sequel is very good but i think it depends on how you view the original. I thought the original was superb and cannot be faulted, others disagree. The sequel whilst very good does suffer from movie style plotting, and again like the original its best in its first half hour.
I preferred 28 Days Later to 28 Weeks Later.
I enjoyed the original right up until it left London. Then it turned into a completely different film for me and all sort of fell apart, as though it had been written by three different people or something.
28 Weeks Later was about 100 times better, IMO. Thought the first one promised a lot (and I really enjoyed the first 30 mins or so)but failed to deliver, but the second delivers in spades. Better plot, more tension and sustained throughout the whole movie.
After having watched both now, I would disagree. I thought the first one had more tension and a better plot than the sequel.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.