[Rob Babcock]

I finally got around to watching that DVD last night, and I really liked it.  Sure, it had a few plot holes and inconsistencies (and cheated a little, a pet peeve of mine ); it also seemed like it was 75% Resident Evil blended in with 25% Lifeforce.  Still, very entertaining.

The best compliment I can give the movie?  I actually had nightmares last night after I watched it!   That's the sign that a movie really made an impression on me.

[mca]

Yeah, the zombied out infected people were a little cheezy, but the basic premise of the movie combined with the dark, grungy way it was shot gave me the creeps!

[Hantra]

You know what I liked about it?  

Sure, it was kinda strange, and there were inconsistencies. . BUT. . .IF that DID go down, then that is EXACTLY how it would go down.  That's what amazed me.  

IF there was a disease that was horrible unleashed on an island, that is exactly how it would play out.  

B

[Rob Babcock]

WARNING:  SPOILERS!  Don't read if you haven't seen the movie.


It bugs me a little when they "cheat."  For example, by the end we see that the Infection is limited to a quarentined Britain:  so why could they recieve no Continental radio signals?  Just to keep us guessing, that's why.  Ditto for the contrails- why would no aircraft surviel the land until a month after the outbreak?

And the military guys bugged me:  why would the Continental agencies (eg the U.N., etc.) have no contact with them?  Surely there'd be protocols.  It was apparent that that Army squad believed they may be the only survivors uninfected.  You'd think with their satellite communications equipment they could quickly verify that it wasn't so.

Still, the movie worked, and I'm just picking nits about the other stuff.  I loved the "20 second incubation period", pure genius.  Of course, that's another reason such a plague wouldn't be likely to spread too far or get off the island; you could instantly spot the Infected.

Good flick, very very creepy!

One last complaint:  why does the camera have to linger on Jims johnson, and why is he repeatedly nude, while the very foxy black companion of his remains clothed?  Yuk!

[Hantra]

HAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!

The nude thing got me too. . .Sucks. . .

Lots of CLOSEUPS on his grill too. .  

[navi]

hi!

what really bug me was that it was shot on video apart from that i thought it was a very good film.

[bubba966]

hi!

what really bug me was that it was shot on video apart from that i thought it was a very good film.

Ahhh! So I'm not the only one...

One of my biggest annoyances with the movie was this. I first watched it on DVD (before it hit theaters here) and had to convert the video signal (it was a UK disc). It looked like ass that way.

Then I saw it in a theater. Then it looked like shit squared!

I'll have to see it on a US release. Maybe it won't look quite as bad then. Though it'll still be obvious that it's DV.

[azryan]

This was a much better flick when it was called "Dawn of the Dead" from 1978.
And that film's poor sound and picture quality seem to actually be BETTER than this awful looking and even worse sounding 28 Days DVD!! Yikes!

Japanese anime 'A Wind Named Amnesia' is another great movie that 28 Days appeared to be a rip-off of. Even down to the 'big guy' father protecting his young daughter and meeting up w/ a guy and a chick who had just themselves met eachother.

And along w/ the flaws you guys noticed...

SPOILER WARNING!

28 Day's Later's 'zombie's' weren't actually zombies (that's not the flaw though). They were just people infected to go beserk with rage.

Meaning (here's the flaw)...

Unlike zombie's in 'Night of the Living Dead', 'Dawn of...', 'Day of...' that only attacked the living 'cuz they fed on their LIVING bodies (as they themselves were 'undead')... which killed the living and then turned them 'undead' too...

28 Day's infected LIVING people should have been going beserk killing other infected people too!!
Yet they only attacked non-infected people??

And despite them being beserk w/ maddening muderous rage, once they attacked someone puking infection on them, they almost always just left the person alive and otherwise totally unharmed. But then infected... they sadly turned into beserk people themselves.

So they stole the Zombie idea, but screwed it up trying to change it to pretend they didn't rip it off (or to pretent they came up w/ something original).

Check the DVD's extras too for the 'Radical Alt. Ending' told through storyboards.

They get to a point where they trip themselves up so stupidly that they had to just stop and totally scrap that whole idea and go w/ the third act that was in the actual film. LAME.

If they'd have thought it through beforehand, they'd 've never gotten that far to actually start storyboarding that idea.

Also note in the end of the film, the screen goes black and says 28 Days Later...
And AFTER THAT they flash shots of those chicks trying to save Jim from his wound.

Uh....hehe... if that WAS 28 days later... he'd be dead guys. That's a BIGTIME moron editor!

Also...

Think about it... the first human infection was 28 days ago from the bulk of the story. It took at least a few days before it really started making things insane all over.

So say about three weeks to really start effecting those soldier's lives.

And in that time all (but one) solider was so hyper to get laid that they had been already trying lure women to this house and were all set to rape even a little girl???

Damn. I could see madness like that maybe after a longer time, but not after 2 or 3 weeks!?!?
Even if you say 'well, they thought they were the last people on Earth and wanted chicks to make like worth living.'

Not in such a incredibly short time period. Not even if you say they all went nuts from all the death and maddness around them.

Nope. B.S.  I think.

And why did they shoot so many bullets into the charging infected? Unlike zombie films where the 'rule' is you gotta shoot 'em in the head to kill 'em. Just shooting an infected person w/ a bullet that'd take 'em to the ground would be enough to keep them from being a danger.

They could just lie there dying. You just have to keep away from 'em.

Why the hell would you waste bullets just to shoot a body w/ dozens of rounds?

It also sucks that they really don't explain at all how far the virus spead or if it actually WAS just all of England. That was just lack of 'trying' IMO.

It'd be so dangerous to the world and already so 'almost' totally wiped out England's people... why didn't the U.S. napalm the whole country to make 100% sure the rest of the world could never get infected?

This is a great example of a film w/ a very clever idea (sadly almost totally a rip-off of other movies though) but the writer/s themselves weren't up to snuff to handle all the details.

Momento's another good example of this IMO. Great idea... terminally flawed execution.

Sad too how they didn't explain the point of the violent TV screens playing for the chimp at the begining.

I guess we can assume it was part of the experiments to test rage/hate in mammals and how/why the virus was developed... but that shouldn't be for ME to invent. It's their story, so it's for them to write!

I hate cop-outs like that where people say -'That movies makes you think.' when the only reason is 'cuz they didn't bother to explain things they put in the film.

This film is proof yet again that Fat Ebert has both him thumbs firmly up his own butt! hehe

[Rob Babcock]

Yeah, I was laughing at that too: how come the Infected only attack uninfected people?  And why do they attack at all?  The disease is "Rage", so I assume it taps into the centers of the brain responsible for aggression and violence, but you'd think the hostility would get vented on other "zombies" too.

As far as them "ripping off" other movies, well, there are maybe 10 original stories in human history, IMO.  All the other ones are permutations and retelling of those.  That's the essense of mythology.  I do think they had some novel ideas, but I also think they sorta dropped the ball.  

Despite the movies many faults (and many shot's of Jim's 'unit' ), I really did enjoy it.

BTW, the shot-to-vid element and bad picture didn't bother me.  I think that was part of the atmosphere of the movie, kind of like "The Blair Witch Project", another flawed film that had some enjoyable elements.

[viggen]

How about the tunnel part where the infected boies were running like a bunch skater punk teenagers.  I didn't know rotted flesh can move like that.

[azryan]

Rob,

As an escapee from WI I like your avatar. hehe Piss on those Green and Gold wearing fools!
Did you know it's a law that you HAVE to wear at least one item of Packer's clothing at all times if you live there? Sad.

I get the gist of what you'er trying to say here -
"-As far as them "ripping off" other movies, well, there are maybe 10 original stories in human history, IMO. All the other ones are permutations and retelling of those.-"

I think that's a bit too simplistic. Good stories that people call 'original' are usually made up of lots of diff. bits. So many that the new story appears to be 'original'.

This film's a rip-off 'cuz it so VERY heavily steals from a few clear sources. 1# by far being 'Dawn of the Dead'.
You didn't mention 'Dawn' in your post, so I'm guessing you've never seen it. If you had, you'd see just how much it's ripped off in this.

It's good. You should see it.

It's always extra pathetic when a rip-off 'movie' is stealing from another 'movie'.
Like stealing your neighbor's truck and then parking it in your own driveway... Not too clever, and you're gonna get caught.

"-That's the essense of mythology.-"

Not sure for sure how you mean that but as I take it I have to disagree. You seem to equate Myth with all story telling or something?

"-I do think they had some novel ideas, but I also think they sorta dropped the ball."

What ideas? If you tell me, I bet I'll tell you it was in 'Dawn of the Dead'.

'Dawn's' a pretty famous movie too.

Like say.. a horror novel that so obviously rips off a Stephen King book....You're just not going to get away with it w/o people noticing and crying foul.

"-BTW, the shot-to-vid element and bad picture didn't bother me. I think that was part of the atmosphere of the movie,-"

I give them the benefit of the doubt on that one though Trainspotting is just as bad.
But the audio was so awful I just can't accept that one.

-"kind of like "The Blair Witch Project", another flawed film that had some enjoyable elements."

I'll just pretend I didn't read that. heheh
Scream like a banchee (there's some Mythology for ya! heh) and say 'What the @#%@ is out there!?!' for 90 min. w/ this flashlight under your chin. Perfect! heheh

viggen,

You're thinking of actual zombies. These weren't 'rotting flesh' zombie people. They were normal living people infected w/ a virus that made them go mental. Hence their perfectly understandable skater punk type speed and agility! heh

But actually in that scene...

You'll see that the infected reach the car before it takes off, then they cut to the car having some distance from the crowd of maniacs. It looks too like that Jim is outside the car and sliding in through the window meaning he shoulda easily been grabbed by some infected crazy before the car could take off and at the least woulda had to fight them off.

Maybe not an actual 'flaw', but it's bad direction and/or editing.

[Rob Babcock]

I must clarify, Azryan (hey, I spelled your name right! ), I didn't really care for "Blair Witch", but I think from a 'technical' standpoint it had some interesting elements.  Certainly from a perspective of doing a movie on a budget of almost zilch, yet drumming up enough buzz to make it a huge hit, they did a fantasic job.

Yeah, I saw "Dawn of the Dead," but it's been many years.  I didn't much care for it, but I'm not a big Zombie movie fan.  I don't deny they "rip off" a lot of that one.  As far as the amount of original stories go, I may have exagerated a bit, but not by much.  In broad strokes, most movies/stories are about the same things.  Sometimes they're in space, sometimes it's a western, but the same themes recur.  

I think the interesting thing about 28 Days, although not unique to that one, is the "social commentary."  The parallel in zombie flicks, disaster movies, etc. is the idea that beneath the thin veneer of civilization and intellect, there's a monster waiting to be unleashed.  The monster isn't a zombie or creature, it's us, our beastial nature.  I'm not saying they're right, just observing that in most of those types of movies we see a rapid breakdown of social order centered around some type of disaster.

It's doubtful that the British soldiers would be going batshit and forming rape gangs after 3 weeks, but I am fascinated by human behavior under stress.  Some movies portray the noble elements and our will to survive (eg "Alive"), while some focus on what happens when our "rage" takes over.

At any rate, I'll concede the movie isn't wholly original, but I'm less preoccupied with that than whether the flick is entertaining.  To me it was.

I like your insights on movies, and it's cool to talk to another die hard movie buff and see how they think.

Rob

[viggen]

I just learned that the body goes through a total cellular replacement process in 28 days.