Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
After days of reconsidering I decided to watch this film again. So I did watch it last night. This time I decided to be more open to the movie, and got rid of my earlier reviews. I sat down and watch it again......Oh boy! What a mistake I made! I still don't don't find what's so great about this movie. Maybe I'm not the horror fan I think I'am, but seriously this movie is a prime example of flick trying to be smart, and ends up being stupid!
As I mention once before the only characters that ever appeal to me were the little girl and her father. I didn't care for the ridiculous love story portrayed in this film (as matter of fact, What the hell does a love story is doing in this movie? No need for it!) The soldiers despite their military look more like members of a boy band. Setting that aside I'm not saying the other characters aren't interesting, but they certanly don't seem interesting whatsoever.
What were some of the things that bother me about the film? Here are a few:
-The Taxi going over the pile of cars (Talk about 4 wheel drive)
-Jim not picking up the newspaper (Read the news it might tell you what has happen)
-The mercedez scene (Product advertising, great I though only Hollywodd did that)
-If the people are infected, shouldn't they dehydrated after 28 days
later?
Honestly, I don't hate movie. It just never appeal to me. Some ppl are debating whether this movie is zombie movie or not. I really not going to complicate myself about that. Why should I? This is only a movie, I felt that it was not that great. The story seem good, but it got me bored the last 30 minutes of the film.
__________________
Last edited by WanderingDroid on May 7th, 2004 at 02:42 PM
There's a pretty solid underlying meaning in the film. It may be a little too vague for some, but alot of us caught it in the end. It was basically going to show how two major social deviances, diseases and violence in general can ultimately destroy the world. It's just masked as a clever horror/zombie/apocalypse movie.
I don't remember a love story? Jim and Selene kissing may have made you think that, but it was only 5 seconds out of the movie. I didn't find anything else to imply it, and I think even that was one of those spur of the moment "thank you for saving me" type deals.
I didn't feel the need to be superficial with the soldiers. They were a bunch of young Brits. They were sleazy, and I am sure they only had one thing in mind when they were luring people to their camp with promises of salvation. They played up being manly, shoot 'em up, kill 'em all, oversexed (or undersexed, given their demise) soldiers.
- I was put off by the Taxi at first as well. It was just silly.
- There was a scene where a newspaper that read "Evacuation" was shown. Having Jim NOT pick it up just added to him being even more totally clueless. Besides, I think that Selene knew more, given that that newspaper was probably published at the beginning stages of the epidemic, with little to nothing being known.
- I don't think there was any legitimate product placement. If there was, you missed the Pepsi scene, the UK lottery in the snack stand, Terry's Chocolate Orange reference in the grocery store, and the huge United Colors billboard in the square.
- Dehydrate? I don't know that they need water to survive. That falls under the whole feeding issue that was halfway resolved, left more so open to speculation.
The last half of the movie was a little slow, but I think it wrapped up what it set out to do, and that was to show how low people would go when faced with the most dire of straits, and the most unimaginable of circumstances, being a 2nd coming of something like the Black Plague. How people would really act in desperation.
I for one just liked seeing all the disgusting soldiers getting offed.
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
Again, I'm not going to complicate myself with the film or the underlying meaning about society or politics or whatever. The film didn't appeal to me.
So when they arrive at the Market store, they didn't bother to check the magazine and newspapers section? Seem logical to do that. Since it might tell them where to go for refuge. But instead they pick up chocolate. Yeah! very interesting.
I didn't missed, I just chose to ignore it the second time. First time I saw the film it bother me. Second time I chose to ignore it. But is hard to ignore the Mercedez scene.
Well, since the Rage virus makes a person vomit and lose blood it might seem interesting how the body replenishes the lost of precious liquids. The infected victims run and jump right? Doesn't that make the body sweat? I'm also sure that since it's a virus you might have fever symptoms. That requires lots and lots of water I believe.
Nothing new here. Romero did that in his Zombie movies.
__________________
Last edited by WanderingDroid on May 7th, 2004 at 05:48 PM
Well, you've got plenty of points reguarding practical science and biology, but we shouldn't be so analytical.
I can't draw any direct correlations between the two when it comes to human nature and extreme circumstances. In "Dawn", a biker gang ravaged the mall because they was no governing body to stop them from causing mayhem.
Roger's crew took advantage of their situation, facing almost certain death. When faced with the biker gangs infiltration, they let their greed overcome them, and shot at Savini's gang, running the remaining bikers out, so they could have it all for themselves.
If what you say were true, with Roger dead, Fran would have to prepare herself to deal with whatever sexual/beastial implications come with being the last remaining female.
However, that was only covered in "28 Days Later", as the soldiers were hoping and praying females would come along, for "entertainment/pleasure ", and even a far fetched idea of procreation.
Romero covered the socialistic/greed side of what would happen in extreme circumstances. Boyle covered the nasty, more realistic part.
Atleast in "28", they left behind a credit card, instead of robbing the place blind. I liked that.
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
I've notice you brought up some points from the original DOTD. But let's not put these two movies next to each other. In my mind 28 does not belong anywhere near the original DOTD.
The reason I mention the scientific biological comments is because the movie brought them in the first place. It is the movie fault that science was brought into the topic. If the director wanted to avoided the science behind the zombies, he should not brought the idea of a virus. Many of us know what a contagious virus can do to the human body. In this case the virus spreads out quick. A person cannot possibly survive within 24hrs after being infected.
I would have prefer keeping the idea of a virus out of the picture. I had the same objections with Resident Evil. But, Resident Evil had no choice, since the video game dictates the movie. In 28 the idea of an infecting virus was made so in my opinion the virus should have been kept out.
What is wrong with you guys. 28 days later sucked. Talk about boring!!!
I cant believe it is MA15+, I should have been PG. Only like 5 people died in the whole thing. It should have had low level violence. I thought it was a really shit movie.
As opposed to Van Helsing and Freddy vs Jason? Come on. You obviously know nothing of what a good horror film is. You don't need blatant violence for a horror film to be good. The best horror movies aren't all that violent, they imply the violence rather then showing it. The fact that you use the "it wasn't violent, so it sucked" defense shows your ignorance to the horror genre.
I was not saying that at all,
EDIT
Iwas
saying that It was not worhty to be called horror if there is no horror in the bloody thing. It is boring.
EDIT
KMC Community Forums
May 6th, 2004 11:43 AM
