Poll
55%
45%
Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
I totaly disagree on "28 Days Later" originality factor, since I have said before, it's disease premise is ridiculous, and it's just a modern day "Omega Man" w/ hints of "Resident Evil".If I have to pich, I'd say "Dawn of the Dead", just overall more enjoyable for me.
I never claimed that 28 Days Later is really unique it it's basic premise, it isn't. The story is typical. However it is original in the way that is keeps us watching by actually developing an emotional attachment to the charachters, rather then simply using tired, and generic scenes of action after action like the new Dawn of the Dead did. Plus 28 Days Later didn't have any overly stupid scenes like Dawn of the Dead did (zombie baby knocked about 3 points off of Dawn of the Deads score for me).
Irronically, what you said about 28 Days Later could very easily be said about Dawn of the Dead, it very loosely took the premise of the original, minus all of the skilled storytelling and social commentary that was infamous in the original, and threw in some ridiculously hyper 28 Days Later style running zombies that weren't nearly as believable. In fact, one of the Dawn of the Dead zombies actually defied gravity at one point. The little girl zombie at teh beginnign of the film pulled some matrix finesse out of nowhere and managed to levitate herself after falling down. Pretty cheesy if you ask me.
28 Days Later succeeds in taking a generic premise, and having some of the best zombies that are both intense and believable, and actually developing the small group of characters in the film, which Dawn of the Dead didn't do. In fact, I lost track of the large cast of Dawn of the Dead, most of which simply weren't even necessary.
Well, "Dawn of the Dead" was never billed as some director's though provoking personal platform to express his world views. It was a fun, brainless horror movie.
To say that seeing Cillian Murphys wang, and watching a loaded taxi cab of people literally go "Bigfoot" over mounds of cars weren't two of the absolute stupidest, pointless, and in the taxi's case, impossible scenes of "28 Days Later" is ludicrous.
The zombies were nice, but rehashing 1,000's of movies, setting with a pretty London backdrop, then going as far as calling is "scary as hell"?
Folks, the movie has it's flaws.
No one claimed it was flawless, just a better overal film then Dawn of the Deads typical mumbo jumbo that will be forgotten in 4 months.
And the scene with the cab going over a mound of cars may be silly, but it pales in comparrison to the overwhelming stupidity of the zombie baby in Dawn of the Dead.
You proved my point with your first sentance though, it's impossible for a stupid brainless film like Dawn of the Dead to be better then a thought provoking film with social commentary that took at least some skill to come up with and make.
If you look a little deeper, there's no real skill in someone hiding their own personal agenda in a movie. It happens all the time, they're called independent films.
What was Danny Boyle's message anyway? Is he part of Greenpeace? Is he against animal testing? Is he foreshadowing a POTA like uprising?
His "messages" are a little heavy handed, and most of us don't need movies, nor directors telling us how to live our lives. I think we learned these same "appreciate life" messages from all the movies "28 Days Later" ripped off, like "Dog Soldiers", or "Outbreak" or "The Omega Man" or even "Dawn of the Dead".
Putting an old toy in a shiny new package doesn't make it new.
As mentioned before, it's still not a fair comparison. But aside from the "infected persons" (Boy, could AIDS sufferers have a field day with this movie) there isn't anything groundbreaking about it.
BTW, am I the only one to understand/appreciate the signifigance of the zombie baby? How many babies, zombie or not, are killed in horror movies, much less any movie? It was done as a statement for the movie, that a zombie is a zombie. Besides, it was like a 5 second shot.
I understand what the zombie baby was supposed to symbolize, but it's still a stupid way to try to portray that message. It's simply too cheesy to be taken seriously. Plus it was hella predictable, the moment I saw the pregnant woman I groaned out loud and leaned over to my friend and whispered "If there is a zombie baby in this movie I'm walking out". Granted I didn't walk out, but I was very disapointed that they actually went through with something so dumb, especially in a film that wasn't meant to be taken as tongue and cheek, like Dead Alive, which has a zombie baby in it, but it goes with the whole feel and attitude of the movie. It was used as a humerous scene, where as the one in Dawn of the Dead simply brought me away from the atmosphere because of it's stupidity.
Anyways, the message in 28 Days Later is basically the same message that's standard in most zombie films with a brain of any sort. That humans bring about their own destruction in the end, the zombies are simply a by product of their own stupidity. However, it makes this message very clearly and poigniantly, arguably better then any past zomibe movie has.
It also has a very unique statement that has never really been brought up before in any of these "end of the world" type movies. And that's the films stance on women should a catastrophe like the one portrayed actually happen. Women would be viewed as objects for procreation and for continuing life, I was very happy to see a movie finally deal with this like 28 Days Later did.
Originally posted by Gabri_Krueger
i never seen both anyway
what a worthless post
For this debate. I think it would have been a better scene in DOTD if the pregnant infected girl was outside the mall... It show her pregnant in the first half .. and then later show a scene with her walking around senseless dragging the baby by the ambelical cord still attached. That would not have brought humor to the horror movie and maintained the aggressive/brutal nature it had going for it.
/drevil
..riiiiiight...
/enddrevil
Oh, I know the whole zombie baby bit was cheesy, but there is a little symbolism behind it, no matter how ridiculous.
As for the whole procreation issue, props on that observation. I think one of the main reasons it isn't too popular in movies such as this is because it, too, is virtually impossible.
Given the circumstances, an army of 9 or 10 men has 2 women. After 1 man supposedly impregnants one of the 2 women, they still have to wait an entire 9 months for the thing to even be born, while the world is slowly being overrun by zombies?
To critique it even furthur, what if they have a boy the first time around?
They have to spend another 365 days trying for another girl, that would STILL have to wait another 15-16 years to be fertile?!? They would al be dead by that time. They will run out of food, ammunition, and any other supplies, given the state of the world. On top of that, they wouldn't have any health care.
It's just an even more ridiculous premise than a virus being created by television watching monkeys. I can suspend reality, but I surely cannot, and will not suspend practicality when a movie tries so hard to be serious.
That, IMO, is why the whole procreation angle has never been played out. It's impractical.