28 Days Later.

[Zasz Grimm]

I've seen the trailer more than once now, so I figured I would make a topic.

Any opinions on it?

Just looks like a remake of 'The Omega Man' that starred Charleton Heston to me.

:\

[Vega Van-Derveld]

We have the DVD downstairs right now. I think my parents are watching it.

Anyhow, I didn't hear anything good about it (it came out here ages ago) but the people at the video rental shop seemed to think it was liquid candy. Meant to be the best british horror film in the past 30 years.

I know Nup has seen it. Ask him :)

I think it's got zombie monkeys, so if anything watch it just to see them tearing people up (if they don't do that, just imagine they are doing it - it will make ANY movie fun, I guarantee).


(little trivia point for those who go to meras.org - the fascinataru main banner is made up from the 28 days later poster :D)

[Seteth Morters]

cos i gave you the eyes for it.

gotta love those zombie flicks. [undead grin]

this one was good, up until the point where it became predictably sickly-sweet, but in retrospect, that made the rest more shocking.

the ending sucked - it was too feelgood-filmy. but the scenes in a totally deserted London at the start were wierdly unnerving....

and yeah, zombie monkeys at the start - not much on them though.

[Lann Kirauc]

I love zombies and survival horror. Plus Dawn of the Dead is no longer available on DVD. Can't afford it now.







*sniff,sniff*

[Gurney Devries]

The first half of the film was incredibly good. It conveyed an amazing sense of desolation and isolation. It felt panicky, fresh and, most importantly, real.

The second half was still pretty good but... as Seteth stated, it was kind of predictable. It had been done before. And it got away from the things that made the first half so good.

Still, if you've seen the trailer and it looks like your sort of film, it's worth a watch. While there's not exactly "zombies" per se in the movie, it's still what I would consider a modern zombie flick. And a pretty darn good one at that.

[Seteth Morters]

they move too fast to be properly zombies, and of course, you cant mention the "z" word [they're called The Infected]

btw, did you know that since they couldnt get a liscence to close down half of london for shooting, they just had to get up at four am, and ask the commuteres nicely to stay out of the camera frames?

[Ka' el Darcverse]

Saw this movie tonight and I must say I was quite impressed. Was genuinely scary and full of things that made you jump. It was a Zombie movie along the lines of Night of the Living Dead and others among the first generation movies, just with better special effects and a somewhat believable storyline.

Anybody else have thoughts on this?

[Dyan Kharis]

Alot of people are calling the film quite remarkable even brilliant. Roger Ebert gave it a very positive review. But 28DL didn't do anything for me. A rather absurd movie with a very unoriginal premise highly influenced by Richard Mathiason's 'I am Legend' and other cinematic predecessors like The Last Man on Earth (starring Price) and Omego Man (starring Heston). Strong elements of Romero too. Though despite bearing in mind this is indeed a horror movie but it is one that takes itself too seriously, yet how could it fail not to deal with clinical and logistical aspects of it's story with greater intelligence and realism? A very dumb 'smart' movie. OMG, I called it smart. Shoot me. The only positive thing was the performances of the actors.

[Dyan Kharis]

BTW, if you wanted to get genuinely scared out your wits by films of a somewhat similar vein, try Don Siegel's 1956 classic Invasion of the Body Snatchers starring Kevin McCarthy and Dana Wynter... or Kaufman's 1978 remake starring Donald Sutherland, Brooke Adams, and Jeff Goldblum. Now there are some creep-out nailbiters. ;)

[Vega Van-Derveld]

We talked (http://www.sw-fans.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29520&highlight=days+later) about this a little while ago, and the views were pretty mixed.

[imported_Jacali Danner]

I saw it, guys and your're right it was weird and unnerving and I agree the ending sucked.:)

[Dyan Kharis]

The movie was utterly pure rubbish. How can anyone intelligently digest this? One question, why do the infected only attack the unaffected? If they are driven by rage why didn't the infected just mindlessly wipe each other out?

[imported_Terran Starek]

It wasn't a bad movie, but I thought it wasn't that scary. There weren't any scenes that made me jump. I liked it, though. I think because it wasn't so crazy-scary, it made it a better option as a movie overall. Stand alone--as a creepy type thriller--it was pretty good.

But I wanted to be scared a bit, and that didn't happen. :)

[Dyan Kharis]

I love horror movies simply because people are thrust into extraordinary circumstances and plus everyone enjoys a good scare if the movie can pull it off. My love for the them runs deeper than that though. But rather than elaborate on that, I was fairly disappointed with 28DL. But now, I am highly anticipating the premiere of the aussie Spierig brothers production of...

Undead (http://www.undeadmovie.com/)

Appears to be a zombie flick of a more traditional vein but with new twists. Though 28DL was not a true zombie movie at all. ;)

[sirdizzy]

wow talk about an odd movie, i mean it was good and all that with really good suspense and action sequences


but odd very odd

[sirdizzy]

28 Days Later (2003)


Science Fiction/Fantasy, Thriller and Art/Foreign
1 hr. 48 min.
MPAA Rating: R for strong violence and gore, language and nudity.
Release Date: June 27th, 2003
Starring: Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Megan Burns, Christopher Eccleston, Brendan Gleeson
Directed by: Danny Boyle



Jim is a bicycle messenger that gets into an accident and is taken to a hospital to be healed. But little does he know that while he is out of it for 28 days a terrible tragedy is about to befall the world. A virus that locks those infected into a permanent state of killing rage has been accidentally released from a British research facility when some animal activists try and rescue some monkeys that have been infected with the virus. Carried by animals and humans, the virus is impossible to contain, and spreads across the entire planet. Jim wakes to find himself alone in the hospital with nobody around confused to what has happened and no clue to the dangers that are about to befall him. As Jim wanders the abandoned streets alone he is about to find out that he is not alone, for not only has a few uninfected humans survived but so has a host of infected humans hell bent on dragging all humanity down with them. Twenty-eight days later, this small group of survivors whom some Jim befriends will find themselves trapped in London, caught in a desperate struggle to protect themselves from the infected whom seem to be everywhere. And as they attempt to salvage a future from the apocalypse, they find that their most deadly enemy may not be the virus or those infected with it, but other survivors.

The first part of this movie is almost surreal and most definitely eerie as Cillian Murphy wanders the streets of London with no one in sight and humanity seeming to have totally disappeared. It gives a feeling and a mood that sets the stage for the rest of the movie as there are other survivors but they are locked in a desperate struggle to keep all mankind from being wiped out. This is what you might call your traditional zombie movie and maybe the feeling Resident Evil should have tried to go with in its release. While the movie does end exactly as you would expect it to with the traditional sappy and predictable ending this movie is more about getting to the end rather than the end itself. The movie does a great job at inflicting many emotions throughout such as terror, suspense, excitement and an over all feeling of eeriness. Cillian Murphy does a good job and portraying a confused and emotionally impacted human struggling for survival but I was quite disappointed in Naomie Harris acting job, as she never really draws you into her character. That being said this movie is a great suspense and thriller that keeps you enthralled and thirsting for more as it makes its way to the eventual and predictable end it seemed to be aimed for. This movie may not be suitable for the queasy or impressionable youth.
3.5 stars out of 5

[Droo]

I rented the DVD tonight. Watched it with Peter and we both thought it was superb. I would go as far as saying it's the best British film I've seen in a long, long time. It doesn't polarise the audience quite as much as the Blair Witch Project but it seems most people I've spoken to either love it or hate it.

I have two more movies to see this week and I have a feeling I'm going to love both of them; Donnie Darko and Requiem for a Dream. Vive las peliculas independencias!

[Charley]

Save the money and get the same effect of watching Requiem for a Dream by hanging yourself with a necktie. You'll be glad you were frugal at least.

[Darth Viscera]

This movie was british? O.O I thought it was Finnish because of the end scene. The pilot asked his control if they should send a helicopter, but I'm pretty sure he asked it in Finnish.

I thought it was excellent, except for a few things:
1)What happened to the premise that the affected die after 20 seconds?
2)As was said before, why were the infected people so unbelievably discriminating in targeting their victims?
3)If you make a monkey watch CNN he'll generate a highly infectious disease? I've been watching CNN non-stop for coming on 2 years now.
4)Why was our hero Jim so keen on the idea of wiping out the last vestiges of civilization, the Royal Army guys under Major West? They were the only ones who knew how to survive the wacko infected idiots, and they were doing quite well for themselves until Jim came along and single-handledly doomed the last hope for the Britons!
5)Shouldn't a laboratory with this Rage virus have had some security?

And Also, I'd just like to point out that it's about time someone showed off the blunt idiocy of animal rights militants.

[Dyan Kharis]

Darren Aranofsky's Requiem for a Dream is a masterpiece, deeply explores it's characters while avoiding common pitfalls. Escaping the typical hollywood melodrama that usually coincides and follows such films. Original and powerful. Burstyn, Leto, Wayans, and Connelly put forth four-star performances. And quite a study in ummm... well watch the movie and see for yourself.

[Agden Ithrin]

Still, Charley is right in saying it is very depressing to watch.

[Dyan Kharis]

Shhhh! ;)

[Charley]

No, a good movie has peaks and valleys, and THAT is what drama is made of. Its the uncertainty in whether there's going to be a turn for the better or a turn for the worse, and what's going to happen.

Requiem isn't a movie. Its a really really good anti drug ad. It excels at that job. It sucks at being a good movie, because the mood of the movie plummets a billion miles south and never once thinks about turning in the general direction of up.

I wouldn't wish Requiem on my enemies. Its awful...but I guess that's a whole different tangent.

[Dyan Kharis]

I found the movie to be far too honest and the performances too great. It certainly exposes the consequences of drug abuse. But the movie focuses on the characters rather than reduce itself to any blatant Hollywood preachiness or redemption cop-outs. Requiem is brutal and holds nothing back. An extraordinary and beautiful film. Aranofsky is quoted as saying the 'drug addiction' is the hero in this movie.

[Diego Van Derveld]

Thats nice, but it still is as much a movie as an Afflac commercial.

[Dyan Kharis]

It is a movie that contains superb character depictions of people fallen into desperate decay. Never has an addiction film ever been more poignant. I love the movie.

[Diego Van Derveld]

Good for you.