28 Days Later

[CrazyD]

What did you folks think of this one?

Personally I thought it was a good movie. Visually it was good except for the fact that you never got a really good look at the zombies. Story Wise it was a little too Resident Evil for me. In all honesty this should of been a direct to video here as it has been out on DVD for a year or so in the UK.

You cold also tell that it was sot using DV but it had the grainy effect that made it look like I belive Kerouac said 16mm. It wasn't a scary film but htats how it is portrayed in the media. THe character development was almost nonexistent and ther was way too much use of the concept of the main character waking up and findig himself all alone. 2 or three times was just alot.

Let me know what you thoght I anm still alittle unsure.

[ClarkParker]

I thought the movie was brilliantly shot, and well put together. It almost gave the feeling of being in a dream, especially all the parts where Cillian Murphy is walking through the city all alone. Cool stuff. The soundstrack was also kickass, and helped the movie flow perfectly. I really loved how this movie was going. Alas, it fell apart in the last half hour, and the ending ws a big disappointment. You cant have a happy ending to a movie like this, it just doesn't work. Near the end once they reach the house and the soldiers, the movie picks up a boring and nonsensical subplot that completely changed the direction of the film. For the worse. Nevertheless, I still liked this movie. True, it wasn't very scary. But movies rarely every scare me, so I wasn't expecting it to. Watch this movie. It's really good, even if the ending is dodgy. Still a worthwile way to spend a couple hours.

[carl]

Ah at last, the film has finally been given a release in America. I was thinking of writing another review for the film once that happened, one that contained a lot more spoilers, so that I could get accross the films message, because so far it seems that a lot of people have misunderstood the film. I know I did when I first saw it, but back in November that happened a lot more then it does now, dunno what changed. :?

Anyway first things first the film is NOT a zombie movie. For that to have been the case the film needed some zombies, and there is not a single zombie in the entire movie. The "Infected" are still alive, the virus doesn't kill them, and it doesn't reanimate the dead, but rather it amplifies the violent urges of the original. That's why when the girls dad was shot he died, and when the little boy was beaten he died. Had they already been dead then it would have been far more difficult to kill them. 28 Days Later was not about what happens when Zombies attack, it was much closer to what happenes when a group of British people roll out of the pub. It makes a comment on the violence in society. Those moments in the deserted London were, and Scorsese will back me up here, the best times London has ever seen, because the violence was off the streets.

The moment with the soldiers was not bad though, it was essential. It showed how, in order to restart the human race, humans were capable of much worse than the infected. It developed the character of Megan, who like the other 2 had her whole way of survival changed. (The girl was relying on her dad, The guy was relying on the goodness of human kind and Megan was relying on herself, she would abandon anyone who slowed her down, but that changed as she decided to protect the girl.) It showed the soldier tied up outside, when the characters were far enough away that he couldn't get near them he looked pitifull. There was still humanity behind his eyes, and how Cillian Murphey protected the girls by going into the same state as the infected.

There was too much going on in the second half for me to comment here, but needless to say the film would have been much worse off without it, it's a film designed to comment on the natural violence of society and before the soldiers, it was very much a simple tale of survival.

The ending was ambiguos too. All you see at the end is the characters smiling, but you never see them being rescued. There are 2 possibilities, 1 is they are picked up by a war plane, and go to America to live normal lives of violenbce and death that could happen anywhere. Or 2, and this is my choice, the plane leaves them there. Over the course of the film you find out the story's of infection in other countries were made up in order to prevent it from spreading. They had abandoned the people of Britain, and now to pick up 2 survivors would be too great a risk, because they don't know if any of them are possibly immune. Then they could still be carrying the virus without showing symptoms and it would spread. Besides which the pilot is unaware that characters are asking for help, but he instead learns taht Britain is hell.
http://streetpreacher.privat.t-online.de/movielist/28hell.jpg
Either way it's not a happy ending. I stand by my 5 stars. :D

[scorsese_fan]

Carl, I totally agree with you. Both about it being the best times London has ever seen, (though, I really did enjoy myself there), and with the ending. I loved every second of 28 Days Later. You could say it disintegrated into formulaic horror film shlock near the end, and I won't retread what Carl already said too much, but it was just an essential part to the almost satirical message of the film. Wonderful stuff. And having been there, I got alot of the in-jokes alot of people may not. "Do you have any Tango?" It may not be a joke, but I tasted it, and it made me relate better. Maybe that was the problem with a film like that in the first place. Having it set in London alienates alot of U.S. viewers, and may have something to do with their dislike of it. Take note, that wasn't directed at ANYONE on the boards, but I know alot of people personally who dislike the film, and that's all I was referring to, before someone takes that the wrong way. Just thought I'd clear it up.

[ClarkParker]

Don't get me wrong. I did really like this film. I just couldn't buy into an ending that had so drastically turned its back on the entire direction of the rest of the film. I agree on the point that it was a well done satire, but to me, it felt like they just got lazy towards the last half hour, and cheeseballed it into a tpyical hollywood horror film, which is exactly what I didnt want.

[scorsese_fan]

That rushed ending syndrome is just something that happens so often I've recently lost count how many times I've felt that way after seeing a film. It's just one of those things that you get used to after awhile and let go. Sort of like how every Spielberg film seems to end five times, but keeps going for a sixth. You just sort of accept it after awhile. But the only part I felt was rushed was AFTER they got out of the soldier house. They took care to create real tension in that whole sequence, something unique to the genre these days. No one died any ridiculous deaths, and it just seemed right the way everything was taken care of. But even if that wasn't the direction everyone wanted it to go in, it did, and the ending we have is the logical conclusion to that road they decided to take. Like it or not. I happen to be in the minority, and do.

[Brian]

Saw this flick tonight. Thought is was great. We need more zombie films in this vein.

[scorsese_fan]

I'm going to save Carl the trouble here, they're not zombies, they are infected humans. :lol:

[Anonymous]

I know they were infected humnas, but come on, we all know what's really going on here. And notice how I said we needs more Zombie flicks like this, not really implying but kind of sort of implying that this was a Zombie flick. :D

[Brian]

Whoops....that was me. Forgot to log in!

[scorsese_fan]

lol... Believe me, no one cares less then I, but it was fun to give Carl a hard time, cause he's corrected about five people already on that. Nothing personal Brian.

[carl]

lol... Believe me, no one cares less then I, but it was fun to give Carl a hard time, cause he's corrected about five people already on that. Nothing personal Brian.
Don't mind me, it just really irks me that so many people will bag 28 days later for being "Just another zombie movie with cool camera's" when it was aiming for more.(noone here though) By implying that "The Infected, that's people who are infected, are zombies is to rid the film of it's theme. The infected are people. :lol:
That people are capable of doing those things, and that it was just natural human rage being made exclusive by the virus. Zombies would mean that they were now mindless creatures looking for food, and the message is gone. :wink:

[scorsese_fan]

Too true. Just another reason 28 Days Later is already one of my picks for one of the best films of 2003.

[carl]

Too true. Just another reason 28 Days Later is already one of my picks for one of the best films of 2003.
Really. It was ne of my pics for the best film of 2002. That's when it had it's first release. November 2002. :wink:

[scorsese_fan]

Yeah, I saw it on DVD in a Virgin Megastore over there across the pond, and I would have bought it if I had a region-free DVD player. But since it was released here in 2003, that's the way I'm going with it. Because this movie season, although it's had a great summer, isn't looking to good for the Holiday season. It's like everyone wore themselves out last year, and now, no good films are ready for the fourth quarter. Kind of sucks, really.

[Snatchtastic]

The movie was a nice change from the mindless paw on the glass window and drool on your shoulder type of zombie. I nearly crapped myself when the first set of zombie's come in the house and Selena hack's them up with the machete. Then Kills Mark due to the infection in his cut.

Woooooooooooo!!!

Did anyone see the alternate ending which was just compiled of a bunch of story boards that took the group of kids back to the cambridge Primate Facitlity where the infection began? Frank still got infected but he wasn't killed by the Army. He gets tied up and brought with the group where they meet a scientist who tells them how to cure the infection.

Turns out that you can only cure the infection by cleaning out the blood entirely. Full body transfuion sounds fun to me.

I'm glad they didn't have this ending.

[Kerouac]

Finally saw this again last night thanks to the DVD coming out.

After this viewing, it now seems as if there are 2 messages inherent in this film:
1. The oft talked about message of the violence rampant in society today. Yada yada yada... we've alreday discussed it ad nauseum.

2. The ARROGANCE of humanity to think that infectious disease could never really be a threat outside of a 3rd world country. That's why nobody was prepared for it. That's why scientists would carelessly play god with those chimps. That's why it spread so quickly and so vasty.

Now, my only problem with the film after watching it again is that the social commentary about the violence in society is that it unravels at the end. Why? Because Jim has to use his OWN RAGE to get everyone free. Instead of the filmmakers finding a way to have Jim rise above the rage, thus making thier commentary more potent, they painted themselves into a corner, and could only get out by having Jim go apeshit, acting much like the infected himself. And because of that, the message is simply that the human condition is doomed to it's rage, never having the ability to rise above it.

Either way, great flick. And now that I think about it more... no, it certainly is NOT a zombie film... (but it sure likes to act like one!!)

Oh yeah, and it looks SO MUCH BETTER on DVD than it does in the theater. I used the EXACT same camera to film my movie, so I wasreally interested in seeing how it turned out. Granted, they tweaked it a lot to give it that grainy, 16mm look, but I still liked it. However, on DVD it's MUCh crisper.

~ Kerouac

[ClarkParker]

Glad you liked it, however...

Because Jim has to use his OWN RAGE to get everyone free. Instead of the filmmakers finding a way to have Jim rise above the rage, thus making thier commentary more potent, they painted themselves into a corner, and could only get out by having Jim go apeshit, acting much like the infected himself. And because of that, the message is simply that the human condition is doomed to it's rage, never having the ability to rise above it.

...IMO, that was the point. The social commentary was showing the innate nature of humanity that it is impossible to escape from. Either way, youre right...great film. Although I sill have gripes with the ending.

[Kerouac]

The social commentary was showing the innate nature of humanity that it is impossible to escape from.

Here's the problem with that. (just watched it AGAIN last night)
I agree... the movie moves along as a social commentary about that very thing. However, once you reach the end, if it was to stay true to being a social commentary movie, then *SPOILERS* Jim should have died, and the soliders should have kept going with the girls as their captives. THAT would have been a social commentary. The MINUTE you have Jim saving the day,it stops being a social commentary movie and starts being a MESSAGE movie. And is a movie like this, the message would be: how you overcome the innate RAGE present within all of humanity. Here's where they falter as filmmakers in this one... The only way they could finish the film was to have that very same rage manifest itself within Jim so he could save the girls.... So, essentailly, the only way to defeat RAGE is to accept that RAGE within us. Not a very effective message, and it upstages the social commentary they worked so hard to build up.

It's just a case of Alex Garland and Danny Boyle painting themselves into a corner and not being able to find an effective way out. Too bad, really. I love the movie up to the end. And I think the end is really well done, it just plays against the setup of the rest of the film.

~ Kerouac

[ClarkParker]

I agree with you, Kerouac. I thought the movie fell apart at the end, too. I'm interested in watching the alternate endings, and hoping that one of them stays truer to the tone of the rest of the film.

[Hulkster]

Thought this was a good movie and worth the time and money.