I liked it. Impressive for a British horror. I mean the scenes in London were great and obviously took allot of planning. Wasan't really scary. It actually made me laugh a bit. For instance when he goes to open the silver Mercedes and the alarm goes off....Well it made me laugh.
I enjoyed the end were he storms back into the mansion on a sadistic killing spree. Particularly were he is plucking out the soldiers eyes with his thumbs. Yummy. I'd rather see that than Jordan with spiders all over her face in some stupid reality T.V show.
Well thats it really.
And your views are....
> It would have made an impact. I'd have liked to see the effects that
> the "Rage" had on society as it spread. It could have been
> a more subtle build up to the (self) annihilation of the people of
> London and Britain. People suffering from extreme road rage, fights
> breaking out sporadically for no apparent reason...supermarket cue
> An exaggerated version of modern society. I guess that this may be a
> pants idea and the budget was prohibitive, but a gradual
> transformation of "normal" people into "monsters"
> would be shocking. Imagine there was a scene were someone is in
> confessional with the priest and he gets so angry with what he is
> hearing he attacks the confensor.
Quick jump back in. Aye, I'd have loved to have seen that. Budgets smudgets. give me the collapse of modern civilisation.
Rightyhoo. Off for a while.
http://www.res.com/magazine/articles/ (space) 28dayslateraninterviewwithdannyboyle_2003-05-21.html
Interview with Boyle and Garland. Basically exaplains what I'm trying to argue in a far better way (with them being the writer and directer and all)
> I’ve recently watched “Wrong Turn” If this is the best Hollywood can
> do, I’ll stick with Boyle and Garlands low budget English visions
> thank you.
Yup it was another totally derivative horror movie.
> The only thing I wished they had changed is keeping the original
> “hospital” ending of the movie, where Jim dies, and Selena and Hanna
It would have made an impact. I'd have liked to see the effects that the "Rage" had on society as it spread. It could have been a more subtle build up to the (self) annihilation of the people of London and Britain. People suffering from extreme road rage, fights breaking out sporadically for no apparent reason...supermarket cue rumbles.
An exaggerated version of modern society. I guess that this may be a pants idea and the budget was prohibitive, but a gradual transformation of "normal" people into "monsters" would be shocking. Imagine there was a scene were someone is in confessional with the priest and he gets so angry with what he is hearing he attacks the confensor.
Urm to sum up: good film, enjoyed it a lot (can't believe that the actor playing Frank was Irish-his subtle cockney-english-nice bloke accent was superb) and looking forward to the sequel...
28 days and a little later
> I don't see the problem then? Why are we even talking about it if we
> both agree that it is totally unoriginal in every way? You say it is
> meant to be that way because it is a genre movie and I say that I
> don't care if they meant it to be that way it is still a load of
> unoriginal guff with poorly disguised Zombies.
What I'm arguing is it's fairly original in the context of the genre its set in. Not that it is unoriginal at all. There is a subtle difference.
"League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" could be argued to be unoriginal, as it uses exisiting victorian characters, but creates its own story with them.
They could have gone with traditional zombies, they didn't, they tried to do something a little different and more in fitting with the modern climate. It worked, and worked well in my opinion.
Since you don't like the movie you belittle it on all counts and see no good in it. Fair enough, thats your call.
> I would but it was soooooo much easier to expose how unoriginal it was
> in my own words.
Well, you'll have found I mentioned that the traditional zombie elements appeared in the movie, but in different ways.
Its not MEANT to be original. Its a genre movie, which by the very nature of genre movies are NOT meant to be original. Its a different way of approaching a cliched subset of movies.
Jesus, get OVER it.
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> Its a modern spin on the idea.
> Exactly that's all it is. They basically decided Zombies weren't
> deadly enough for this fast paced horror movie so they took away all
> the weaknesses of Zombies
What, like being undead and virtually indestructable and all?
> which you have mentioned in an attempted to
> make them a lot scarrier.
I personally find the idead of a person out of control with blind rage more frightening, specifically in the way its a lot more likely to happen than Zombies. Cut someone up on the motorway and get a knife in the chest for you efforts? Rage?
> It's exceedingly unoriginal when you think
> about it. Take a powerful enemy like one that is already dead and
> take away it achille's heel.
Making it mortal?
> Oh that's hard to do. And while your at
> it why don't you increase all it's other deadly powers
> like instead
> of infecting them gradually becoming a zombie, do it in a matter of
> seconds! God they must have pulled an all nighter thinking up that
Why does that sound exceedingly bitter?
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> * We’d have a “why are the dead returning to life” speech between
> characters, or possibly a sky news personality doing the same.
> That was in 28 Days later when they were explaining to the guy why
> people were acting that way.
"All of these themes are in “28 days later”, but since “Infected” are used and not traditional zombies, they appear, but in a distorted and fresh way. It’s not original by any stretch of the imagination, but it offers far more bang for your bucks IMHO."
Read what I posted.