Re: Movies That People Think You're Crazy For Not Liking
Originally posted by C-Dic
Apocalypse Now - Just overrated as hell, IMO. Brando's screentime was worthless.Raging Bull - Where's the appeal? I tried to watch this twice, and to no avail.
Taxi Driver - The last 10 minutes were great, but up until that..it's a bitter veteran who doesn't do much of anything except live an exercise in misery and self pity.
🤨 You ARE crazy, ese!
Those are 3 of the greatest films from the 70's.
Wow I cant believe there are some people here that actually dont love Pirates.I got to say I am totally shocked.Grimm 22 and Myth.I love you for your dislike of the spider-man films.
For me,I have never liked E.T. and it always amazes people when I tell them I dont like it.They always say-Your the first person I have ever heard say that.
Originally posted by Cerberus
Everyone at my school STILL quotes that damn Napoleon Dynamite movie. I swear to God Almighty, if I hear "Ugh! Friggin Idiot" one more time, im gonna EXPLODE!! blowup
Originally posted by C-Dic
"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.
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 [b]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. [/B]
I wouldn't look for logic in a Science Fiction film. If the film itself didn't dig a hole too deep for itself with tampering with diseases and plagues and all that stuff. You trying to cover it up and plant flowers to make it look good. If the film would have stuck itself to the simple idea of zombies coming to life to kill humans that's good enough...oh wait! It is still not clear if they were zombies or not...they can't be infected people for it will contradict itself. The story is trying to tell us the infected people can last for days? But that doesn't matter somehow they replinish all their valuable liquids in some magical way for 28 days.
See if this movie was made by Tromaville I would have NO problem with the opening of the monkey cage and releasing the infect chimp. Because you can only find that kind stupid writting from a troma film. However, since this isn't a troma film so it must be taken serious. To say it shortly...it is poorly written how the infection got out...MMkay?
I'm glad you mention you're not out to attack me. I know you aren't and rest asure I'm not either. I think is fair that we finally buried 28 days later for good. It's not the film some people overhyped. Here is the real fact about 28 days later (which may apply to others as well) some people like it others....didn't. We stand in two different sides of the fence.
I don't see why some fanatical animals rights activists stupidly releasing an infected monkey is poorly written. It does make sense, fanatical animal rights activists do shit like that in real life all the time. They only care about their cause, nothing more, they don't think aboutt the immediate consequences that their actions could do, they just want the animal to be free from "cruelty". It was a very apt satire and condemnation of fanatics, is all.
It is still not clear if they were zombies or not...they can't be infected people for it will contradict itself.
Zombies are re-animated corpses. The people that were infected in this movie never died. The social commentary behind it explains it all. Those "infected" persons (see; ignorant) sole purpose is to spread the disease (see; AIDS, hate, anger).
It's more obvious to some than others, I understand, but in the horror arena, most everyone who has seen it knows they're not zombies. If they don't eat or drink, 28 days after infection, they're dead anyway. Apparently the infection changes someone's body chemistry to where they don't need to eat or drink in that 4 week span. It's not something I want to get into, because it's geekish fanboy territory.
Originally posted by C-Dic
If they don't eat or drink, 28 days after infection, they're dead anyway. Apparently the infection changes someone's body chemistry to where they don't need to eat or drink in that 4 week span. It's not something I want to get into, because it's geekish fanboy territory.
Where in the film does it say the infection changes their chemistry to be able to last for a span of 4 weeks? I don't recall such thing stated. They mostly concetranted on how fast the infection can attack a body. Remenber the father getting blood in the eye and goes raving mad? I don't it's possible for the physiology of the human body to do that.
See, for me the zombie mythology belongs to the exclusive Dark Fantasy storytelling. It doesn't need any scientific explanation. It's what makes the mythos so occult and mysterious. Whereas the infected zombies, people, whatever does require a solid basis of science fiction storytelling. 28 days isn't the only film I apply this rule to...I did it also with The Omega Man and Attack of the body Snatchers.
On personal note...I don't mind entering the geekish fanboy zone. I'm a proud total Fantasy nerd and Comic book geek. I'm also a movie fanatic so this stuff can go on for days for me. Just having a social discussion...that is all.
Originally posted by C-Dic
If they don't eat or drink, 28 days after infection, they're dead anyway. Apparently the infection changes someone's body chemistry to where they don't need to eat or drink in that 4 week span. It's not something I want to get into, because it's geekish fanboy territory.
So, I guess I'm a geeky fanboy. 😛 The whole premise of "28 Days Later" goes to show what happened exactly 28 days after the fanactic activists released the monkeys. Thats all. The monkeys were infected with "rage", or whatever the f*ck it was, and the entire island of England was infected, then the main character wakes up 28 days later after the catastrophe.
Day 1: Exposure
Day 3: Infection
Day 8: Epidemic
Day 15: Evacuation
Day 20: Devastation
and then the 28th day, Cilian Murphy wakes up.
As far as the whole "Zombie thing goes, you're right. They're still living and human, but they're mindless "rage" cases. But I'm getting off topic........................I like this movie, and I own it.
Re: Movies That People Think You're Crazy For Not Liking
Originally posted by C-DicApocalypse Now - Just overrated as hell, IMO. Brando's screentime was worthless.
Raging Bull - Where's the appeal? I tried to watch this twice, and to no avail.
Taxi Driver - The last 10 minutes were great, but up until that..it's a bitter veteran who doesn't do much of anything except live an exercise in misery and self pity.