28 DAYS LATER

what did you think?

i liked it a lot. didnt quite love it. wish it had more gore in it, personally

tottally i wanted more zombies a little less story and more killing but all and all it was a good movie

animal rights activism = human genocide

I liked it, but expected more.

It was too well made to be a zombie flick. I'm used to the Fulci films with tons of gore, bodies being torn apart, etc.. The throw-up blood was awesome though..rrrrrrraaaalllllph!!


Also, it needed to be cheesier. That's good zombie!!!
I had more fun with 1,000 Corpses than with 28 Days Later.

Don't get me wrong, it's a quality flick, but you know what I mean??? Tell me you do???!!!

Your thoughts?

I loved it.

Like any good horror movie, the film realized that the real life every day stuff is far more scary than a bunch of red eyed homicidal maniacs.

The soldiers and their plans for the future were the scariest thing in the movie.

Absolutely brilliant.

I thought it was good. When I first left the theater, i didnt, but now that I've looked back it was good. Its a horror movie more in the sense of how it makes you think about our nature, instead of just showing scary zombies.

If you mean the actual quality of the image, the reson for that is that the film was shot on digital video which is why it has that appearance.

it was a good movie, i just expected more. i finally got to see it at midnight on saturday. i would have liked it better if i hadn't seen "the omega man". it's too much like a remake except the people are blood puking zombies and not psycho albinos.

[Edited on Jun 29, 2003 by fiendish]

nothing like the rationalist/literalist/ concretist approach to shred the soul eh?

[Edited on Jun 29, 2003 by zenhell]

rationalism concretism and literalism are all modes of
perception antagonistic to imagination(the perceptual mode of the soul)

i liked it. it held my attention for over 2 hours, which is all i ever ask of my movies, especially if i pay 9-fuckin'-fi'ty to see it!

plus, cillian murphy is an absolutely gorgeous man, even with a big zit on his neck which bugged the fuck out of me.

it made me think of too many other movies, though....12 monkeys, stephen king's The Stand, most any zombie movie....

edit: how many people, when first hearing the title of this movie, thought it was a sequel to that god-awful sandra bullock movie, 28 days?



[Edited on Jun 29, 2003 by Prudence]

that would have been amazing.<

[Edited on Jun 29, 2003 by black_tar_heroin]

[Edited on Jun 29, 2003 by black_tar_heroin]

i loved it. i want to go watch it again. i liked that it wasn't just a gore flick.

i loved it.

well, aside from it not being a true zombie movie it was allright. It borrowed alot of ideas from George A Romero films thus reducing its origionality but it was far better than Resident Evil and, to me, was more of a tribute to Romero than a blatent rip-off like resident evil was. The acting was very good which helped the film alot...

[Edited on Jun 29, 2003 by FrozenFoodGod]

..Also, how come all zombie flicks focus on the aftermath? I want a film that chronicles, by focusing on different groups of main characters all over the country, the actual collapse of society...the movie would have been awesome had it been 10 days later rather than 28. Dawn of the dead did that to an extent but only by focusing on a small group of people rather than the world at a whole.

Yeah, Session 9 was shot all digital (the frist movie ever actually) and it looked awsome. I am not sure why the video was so gritty in 28 days later but it did add a good effect I thought.

I think they grained up the image to give the movie sort've a docummentary feel.

A stupid novice to zombie movies, I was unclear about whether the Infecteds were trying to eat the Non-Infecteds or only bite them, throw up blood on them, or otherwise Infect them, or kill (and not eat) them. If the Infecteds were trying to eat the Non-Infecteds, why didn't they just eat each other? I must see more zombie movies.

Edited for confusion.

[Edited on Jun 29, 2003 by StickyRice]