Sqeeeeeeeal!
pleasebegoodpleasebegoodpleasebegood! :D
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
And the prequels, 28 Hours Later, 28 Minutes Later, and (the dreadfully boring) 28 Seconds Later.Is this going to be a sequel to 28 DAYS Later or something?Yes. It will then be followed by 28 Months Later, and 28 Years Later.
Interesting.... so I presume that the director is a student of the George Lucas School of Cinematography?
Saw this last night. I would describe it as being to 28 Days what Aliens was to Alien.
It was pretty gruesome, gratuitously so I thought. But then again I can't complain about that, it's what you sign up for when you go see a zombie flick!
I don't know whether I liked it or not, to be honest. It was a good film technically and pressed all the right buttons, but like the first one (and zombie movies in general bar Shaun) it was so bleak and unrelenting that I'm not sure if "enjoyed" is the right word to describe my reaction to it. More like "endured."
Rose Byrne was good. A great young Aussie actress, though as usual putting on an American accent...
When the soldiers were vainly trying to pick the infected out of the crowd of running people, surely they would have thought of something better than "try and spot them and then when that doesn't work kill everyone." They had trained and planned for this situation and were professionals. The outbreak could have been contained right at the start if they just pulled out a PA and said "get down on the ground or you will be shot" and then shot everyone who was standing up/snarling and eating people. But then there'd be no movie.
And how come the kid's dad seemed to be a zombie with a brain? And how the *&%$ did ducking behind a brick wall protect him from an aerial firebombing? The thing that makes sci fie great is when you leave thinking "that could have happened." I didn't leave this movie thinking that.
And the prequels, 28 Hours Later, 28 Minutes Later, and (the dreadfully boring) 28 Seconds Later.Is this going to be a sequel to 28 DAYS Later or something?Yes. It will then be followed by 28 Months Later, and 28 Years Later.
Not to mention surprisingly short!
Saw this last night. I would describe it as being to 28 Days what Aliens was to Alien.
It was pretty gruesome, gratuitously so I thought. But then again I can't complain about that, it's what you sign up for when you go see a zombie flick!
I don't know whether I liked it or not, to be honest. It was a good film technically and pressed all the right buttons, but like the first one (and zombie movies in general bar Shaun) it was so bleak and unrelenting that I'm not sure if "enjoyed" is the right word to describe my reaction to it. More like "endured."
Rose Byrne was good. A great young Aussie actress, though as usual putting on an American accent...
** spoiler omitted **
Saw this Saturday night, I enjoyed it.
Have to agree with most of Kahoolin's Observations especially the spoiler part.
I think what spoiled this film slightly more, was a focus more on the "effects" than the characters, like the first film had!
I still enjoyed the film lots, but preffered the first film.
Can't help but feel the "waiting" for the infected to come back, was more a hindrance than a boon to the story.
I didn´t know there was a sequel to 28 Days Later. I got surprised when I discovered this one has been directed by a Spanish :D
daedel, el azote.
I really really liked the sequel. Actually, I thought it was better and would make the Alien's comparision.
Waiting to see how the infected would come back, seeing how the military would react, and what would happen to two innocents caught in the crossfire all made for some extremely tense movie scenes. When the entire theatre is yelling at a character not to do something, you know that the movie's doing something right.
The scenes with the military reacting to the outbreak were absolutely chilling, mostly becuase they were life like. I'm hesistant to make the comparison of how the US dropped the atomic bomb in order to save more American lives but it's the only one I can think of. I don't scare easily, honestly, but one thing that always gets me is when the military has gone completely crazy. And I was worried about the kids!
My one problem with it was the last couple scenes in the subway tunnels. Those were just dumb.
Did anyone else think that the dad reappearing was just a hallucination brought on by the stress of the situation? I think that he would have been much more effective as a metaphor instead of a real infected. Besides, I doubt he would have escaped the fire bombing by hiding behind a wall.
It was pretty gruesome, gratuitously so I thought. But then again I can't complain about that, it's what you sign up for when you go see a zombie flick!
I don't know whether I liked it or not, to be honest. It was a good film technically and pressed all the right buttons, but like the first one (and zombie movies in general bar Shaun) it was so bleak and unrelenting that I'm not sure if "enjoyed" is the right word to describe my reaction to it. More like "endured."
Rose Byrne was good. A great young Aussie actress, though as usual putting on an American accent...
** spoiler omitted **
I thought it was ok, not great, not crap –just ok.
I will buy it and watch it again. Ended up thinking pretty much the same as you in regard to the spoiler part you posted.
I wish it has been less army related stuff and more 'poor people outwitting/running from the infected' instead. The first 15 mins of the film are the best then it goes down hill a bit. The characters were not really developed very well so I didn't care about them much at all. I'd have prefered a whole movie set in that cottage with those people!
Greatly prefer the first one. Wish Danny Boyle had directed this sequel. Wonder if their still gonna let channel four do the rumoured series deal?
And as for the ending:
I was pleased beyond measure. I was giddy, but also deeply nervous going into the movie, but it was awesome. The director wasn't the same--and that absolutely had me sweating ingots of lead but the new guy was seemed deeply respectful of the ideas. I love that "young Valerie" from V for Vendetta and "Link" from the Matrix were in the show--stars enough with enough goodwill that you really care about them but not such celebs that it breaks the settting. I loved too that they kept similar themes with the first without it feeling like a restart rather than a sequel. I thought the idea for how to get things started again was great. I saw the weaknesses in the plot everyone else did, and they raised the same question marks over my head that they did for everyone else--but they didn't seem like irreconsilable problems. I figured them out along the way for the most part to my satisfaction
The surge of people and not being able to tell infected from non-infected is a staple from the first film--that a crazed zombie and a traumatized civilian tend to look and act the same I find an interesting psychological note. As for the justification, I can see the rationale going like this: there's a few hundred people in a controlled space. The snipers are starting to hesitate and more and more of them are getting infected. Who knows how many of these are carriers like the mother? If any infected get out of the area, the contagion could become international--maybe even global. I could see a call like this being policy, an order given in the heat of the moment or even an order he recieved when he was stationed there.
You want to know the one that bothered me? You isolate all the civilians in an underground bunker right? To keep them safe from infection? Why in the world do you not post guards at every single entrance? Why in the world would the doors have thin glass windows that a zombie can get through? Why in the world make them so that a concerted effort of refugees can bust through them by surging? I mean, really the point here was to have some great WWII symbolism of refugees being lead in long lines past soldiers into "shower rooms". That was the point. It was pretty silly though from a pragmatic point of view.
As for the dad being the alpha zombie. I loved it. I loved that his betrayal of his family went from something very distant to something very direct--and that his wife's "revenge" was administered completely involuntarily and to her own dire ill. I love that. Was it wonky that the guy could escape a carpet bombing? A little. I mean you never really see where he is--and I could imagine him off at the periphery of the blast, so the flames blew past him but didn't follow the alleys. Sure, whatever. No big deal--though it did make me arch an eyebrow at first. I love the theme of betrayal though.
I honestly found 28 days later to be a terribly grim film.
I especially found the underlying subtext disturbing. That people, infected or not (the zombies and soldiers),can turn on you LIKE THAT and in such circumstances it's best to DESTROY them with un-thinking savagery in order to survive.
HOWEVER...my wife took from the movie the complete opposite feeling given how the young surviving Irishman (well,Irish actor Cillian Murphy) refused to act like that and in doing so rose above the situation( BIG car-journey conversation between the 2 of us recently.
We also had differences on the manner of infection. I felt it supported the idea of fearing humanity. She figured it for merely a context to put the characters under stress and push the story along.
I still find the idea of HAVING to kill people utterly repugnent and refuse to consider it a justifiable action. Nobody ever HAS to be killed and no real life scenario would ever require a military attack against unarmed people (unless you already had your speech prepared for the war crimes hearing).
Which is a long way of saying I won't be spending my $$$ to go see the sequel anytime soon.:)
Well Shrek 3 is out soon. :)
Saw it Saturday and have to agree with most of you. It was good, but not great. I thought it dragged on a bit towards the end too. It was supposed to be grim and merciless, which it was. I kept being pulled "out of the movie" by some little things (mentioned in other posts) so that took away from the experience for me.