Hey, thread starter...lay off the dudes who don't like "28 Days Later"...you're ruining the point of your own thread...
...and BTW, it was absolute crap, and some people think I'm crazy for not liking it.
Another was "Fight Club"...EASILY, EASILY the most overated film in movie history...I don't think it's a bad film, but it doesn't do it for me and I can't say I like it...and people think I'm crazy.
You'd have to understand it to dislike what they were doing, maybe.
People dislike the first part of The Matrix trilogy, now whether you love or hate them, it's hardly a single-layered film and there are references and ideas that average people simply won't get. It doesn't mean they can't dislike the movie.
That said, the second and third in that series were bollocks. The second was shit, the third was Star Wars.
-AC
Originally posted by C-Dic
Anywho, I'm in the same camp as the rest of you regarding POTC. I just couldn't get into it, and I tried a couple of times. Of what I saw, Johnny Depp was amazing. The rest was garbage.
Agree with you their.
Although I did find the 'Skeleton Underwater scene' very well done.
Godfather pt1 : Shitty graphics (even for a 70's movie)
AOTC : What the hell !! , what is this shit . This is NOT a Star -Wars film. This is a piece of crap that stinks of retcon.
Boyz in the hood - Bullshit , anyone who finds this stereotypical piece of crap 'Emmy worthy' is obviously retarded
Originally posted by diabloman
i dont know why some people disagree with me saying ultraviolet is an awseme fighter. others has said shes lame and all that. but out of all the movies ive seen so far i say shes the best fighter
Dude. You're kidding right? Were you and I watching the same film? Sure the trailer was nice, but the film itself was utter shit. Action sequences pulled STRAIGHT from the Matrix, and it doesn't help that Milla can't act worth shit.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You'd have to understand it to dislike what they were doing, maybe.People dislike the first part of The Matrix trilogy, now whether you love or hate them, it's hardly a single-layered film and there are references and ideas that average people simply won't get. It doesn't mean they can't dislike the movie.
That said, the second and third in that series were bollocks. The second was shit, the third was Star Wars.
-AC
Let's not throw any more spin on this than necessary. There's a huge difference between not understanding a movie, and making outright false claims that are all too obvious. There are no hippies in "28 Days Later". Jim is not a hippy. Jim did not start the "rage" virus. Jim was in a coma. Jim woke up to the deserted London. The soldiers weren't nymphomanics. The soldiers were looking to boost morale. The soldiers were delusional enough to think they could single handedly re-populate London.
"28 Days Later", the plot, simple simon. There's a plague, survivors, bad people they have to fend off, and an ending. The rest is another discussion.
I liked Apocolypse Now, I think people don't like it because they try to view it as a war movie. It is not. Its a Journey into self. Its about the darkness resting inside Men's souls. About what happens if you have no consequenses for your actions...
And if you get that and still don't like it. Well, whatever, that's your opinion, and I respect that.
I also liked The Godfather, but not Part 2.
Ok now my movies that I don't like:
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
I thought it was very tiresome, boring, repetitive, pointless in many parts, and the whole lack of music thing annoyed the crap out of me.
Napoleon Dynamite.
Yea, nuff said.
Most classic Movies.
Casablanca, overrated,
Citizen Kane, Brilliant cinematography, but weak and way to obvious plot, no subtly.
More if I think of them.
Donnie Darko
First let me say that i DID kind of like the movie, but I do not understand why people have went crazy over it. What did it say on the DVD wrapper .. something like The best movie in the last 10 years .. that is some marketing bullchit.
the way scenes were shot is excellent, the presentation is great too. I liked the actors and character types and some good dialog.
*spoilers"
The plot is really what did not impress me. I have read full movie/book critiques and explainations but it just does not impress me. In short its the classic: alter natural flow of time and disaster strikes, must set it back to natural flow with time travel and sacrifice self.. sure its religion driven .. but its nothing really NEW.
If you meet any 25-30 year old "modern, hip" person and tell them you don't like any of the Clerks series, they look at you like you have a growth coming out of your head. I just thought the movies were overly simplistic, forceful with their dry & lame characters, and, in a nutshell, stupid.
Oh, and cocky. I hate movies that are so full of themselves. I wanted to bash that Jay dude's head in every time he was in frame.
Originally posted by C-Dic
Let's not throw any more spin on this than necessary. There's a huge difference between not understanding a movie, and making outright [b]false claims that are all too obvious. There are no hippies in "28 Days Later". Jim is not a hippy. Jim did not start the "rage" virus. Jim was in a coma. Jim woke up to the deserted London. The soldiers weren't nymphomanics. The soldiers were looking to boost morale. The soldiers were delusional enough to think they could single handedly re-populate London."28 Days Later", the plot, simple simon. There's a plague, survivors, bad people they have to fend off, and an ending. The rest is another discussion. [/B]
All I did was reply to your thread here which is clearly label "Movies That People Think You're Crazy For not Liking" How unfortunate that I touch on one of your favorite films. Then all you done is try to make a case for your 28 days later flick. What's the point of telling the names of the movies that we don't like (and giving a brief explanation) so that you can come here and tells us otherwise based on the fact that it is your favorite flick?
We've talk in the past about the protestors stormin into the lab...free the infective monkey. Which I will point out for 100th time that the IDIOT was told NOT to open the cage where the monkey was concealed. There were clear signs on the cage saying "DANGER" What kind of an IDIOT doesn't understand that?
Even to this day people can't come to the conclusion if they were Zombies or Infected ones. There is thread in the horror forum search for it. If they're infected then they flop the storyline. The infection causes people to sweat, foam at the mouth, dehydrate....and they still can run after you...how does that work? How can they replenish the lost of valuable liquids and STILL survive 28 days later with a deadly desease??????
The film came at a time when horrors films were on a low down and this was the only decent horror flick at that time. It is understandble that people try to defended and claim is good movie. But get over it! It wasn't that good. It wasn't the best...that time has passed. Romero has return with his zombies genre and good luck with that.
Backfire-yeah...Land of the Dead.
Originally posted by Ichabod
i hated The Incredibles. i dont think i even laughed once.
i ALSO hated the incredibles! im not too fond of animated cgi kids movies neither. theyre all too similar.
especially when you hear things like madagascar ripping off a Family Guy joke (tom hanks/wilson:Castaway) thing.
Originally posted by Zilverz
Donnie DarkoFirst let me say that i DID kind of like the movie, but I do not understand why people have went crazy over it. What did it say on the DVD wrapper .. something like The best movie in the last 10 years .. that is some marketing bullchit.
the way scenes were shot is excellent, the presentation is great too. I liked the actors and character types and some good dialog.
*spoilers"
The plot is really what did not impress me. I have read full movie/book critiques and explainations but it just does not impress me. In short its the classic: alter natural flow of time and disaster strikes, must set it back to natural flow with time travel and sacrifice self.. sure its religion driven .. but its nothing really NEW.
As for the quote on the casing, you can find that on a lot of movies. If any published film critic says something good about a movie, it'll make the cover. In particular, if Ebert and Roeper have anything positive to say about a movie ("Two thumbs up"😉, it'll make the cover.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
All I did was reply to your thread here which is clearly label "Movies That People Think You're Crazy For not Liking" How unfortunate that I touch on one of your favorite films. Then all you done is try to make a case for your 28 days later flick. What's the point of telling the names of the movies that we don't like (and giving a brief explanation) so that you can come here and tells us otherwise based on the fact that it is your favorite flick?We've talk in the past about the protestors stormin into the lab...free the infective monkey. Which I will point out for 100th time that the IDIOT was told NOT to open the cage where the monkey was concealed. There were clear signs on the cage saying "DANGER" What kind of an IDIOT doesn't understand that?
Even to this day people can't come to the conclusion if they were Zombies or Infected ones. There is thread in the horror forum search for it. If they're infected then they flop the storyline. The infection causes people to sweat, foam at the mouth, dehydrate....and they still can run after you...how does that work? How can they replenish the lost of valuable liquids and STILL survive 28 days later with a deadly desease??????
The film came at a time when horrors films were on a low down and this was the only decent horror flick at that time. It is understandble that people try to defended and claim is good movie. But get over it! It wasn't that good. It wasn't the best...that time has passed. Romero has return with his zombies genre and good luck with that.
Backfire-yeah...Land of the Dead.
"28 Days Later" isn't one of my favorite movies. I enjoy it and I own it, and that's the extent of it. Your assessment of the movie was off, and all I bothered to do was clear it up. I never expected said explanation to result in you magically liking it. I figured maybe you'd atleast understand it, had I made sense of it all.
The activists (whom I assume are the hippies you referred to 😂 ) were not the main characters, although, they did start it all as you claimed.
28 Days Later- Out of all the main character and heroes I've seen in Zombie flicks...this film feature an idiotic hippie as the main character...irony of all, he starts the whole disaster and walks away safe. Then they depict the military as a bunch of sex maniacs whereas the idiot becomes the hero...
See where I am coming from now? Jim was the main character afterall, he was in a coma, he was never one of the activists, just a bike courier.
Most people have accepted that the "infected" are precisely that, having been infected with "rage", a disease, they never died nor were re-animated. Simple as that. You don't call AIDS patients "zombies", nor people with anger management issues. That's especially important when the plot of the movie was so heavy with that exact social commentary. As far as side effects of the ficticious disease, the only one I recall being mentioned was the coughing up of blood, which was how it was spread (again, the AIDS allegory). That's it.
I'm not out to attack you, but you really sound like you're just throwing things to the wall, hoping they'll stick. Looking for logic in a Science Fiction film? C'mon, man. And 2003 was a bad year for horror films?!?
2003 saw the releases of Bubba Ho-Tep, Irreversible, May, The Eye, Suicide Club, Final Destination 2, Tattoo, Freddy vs Jason, Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Remake), the theatrical re-release of ALIEN, Cabin Fever, Underworld, House of 1,000 Corpses, Beyond Re-Animator and a few other solid titles.
You're making it sound like I wrote and directed it and feel obligated to defend it when all I ever did was point out some misconceptions and misunderstandings that could possibly effect yours and others views, not that I would mind either way. You're presenting your opinion as fact, suggesting we "face it", that it wasn't a good movie. "Bad" movies aren't made for $8 Million dollars, make that back 10 fold, with most of that being made in America which is significant for a UK film, when it's usually the exact opposite, and enjoy great success on DVD.
Just saying...you're disputing the undisputable.