Lifestyle

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

765 | 766 | 767

 ... 944

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

2ifbyland

2ifbyland

Iraq
May 2003

JUN 28, 2003 11:12 AM

what did you think?

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

lucenteen

lucenteen

Bristol, TN
February 2003

JUN 28, 2003 11:15 AM

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

2ifbyland

2ifbyland

Iraq
May 2003

JUN 28, 2003 12:00 PM

animal rights activism = human genocide

ebin

ebin

Mexico
March 2003

JUN 28, 2003 05:24 PM

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!!
puke

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?
skull surreal skull

Beastie_Boy

Beastie_Boy

Van Nuys, CA
January 2003

JUN 28, 2003 07:10 PM

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.

lil_tuffy

lil_tuffy

MODERATOR

San Francisco, CA

JUN 28, 2003 07:38 PM

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!




Ok. I liked the film quite a bit but I had some issues with it.

1. The quality of the film left a little to be desired.
2. The premis is a lil hard to swallow - infecting monkeys with 'RAGE?'
3. A blood born pathogen that infects you with 100% symptoms in under a minute?
4. There should have been more bodies and carnage and cars everywhere. It bothered me that London was completely empty. For an epidemic that acted so quickly and a nationwide evacutaion, the city should have been clogged with the dead.

Other than that, I thought it was pretty good. Kept me tense the whole time. well directed and well acted.

Lil_Tuffy

Vayeate

Vayeate

Allentown, PA
December 2002

JUN 28, 2003 07:50 PM

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.

Beastie_Boy

Beastie_Boy

Van Nuys, CA
January 2003

JUN 28, 2003 08:09 PM

lil_tuffy said:


1. The quality of the film left a little to be desired.



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.

williamj

williamj

Ooltewah, TN
June 2003

JUN 28, 2003 11:36 PM

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.

fiendish

fiendish

USA
December 2002

JUN 29, 2003 05:41 AM



[Edited on Jun 29, 2003 by fiendish]

Cherry

Cherry

SUICIDEGIRL

British Columbia, Canada

JUN 29, 2003 05:50 AM

This thread makes Cherry cry.

fiendish

fiendish

USA
December 2002

JUN 29, 2003 05:57 AM

fiendish said:
reminds me i need to get "12 monkeys" on dvd
except in 28 days later the people become infected and zombies bok

for more zombie carnage in london check out "lifeforce"

[Edited on Jun 29, 2003 by fiendish]



zenhell

zenhell

Sri Lanka
January 2003

JUN 29, 2003 06:09 AM

Cherry said:
This thread makes Cherry cry.



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

[Edited on Jun 29, 2003 by zenhell]

Cherry

Cherry

SUICIDEGIRL

British Columbia, Canada

JUN 29, 2003 06:10 AM

zenhell said:

Cherry said:
This thread makes Cherry cry.



nothing like the literalistic concretist approach to shred the soul eh?



Huh?

zenhell

zenhell

Sri Lanka
January 2003

JUN 29, 2003 06:17 AM

Cherry said:

zenhell said:

Cherry said:
This thread makes Cherry cry.



nothing like the literalistic concretist approach to shred the soul eh?



Huh?



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

Prudence

prudence

I'm lost
October 2002

JUN 29, 2003 06:18 AM

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]

black_tar_heroin

black_tar_heroin

I'm lost
January 2003

JUN 29, 2003 06:38 AM

that would have been amazing.<

[Edited on Jun 29, 2003 by black_tar_heroin]

[Edited on Jun 29, 2003 by black_tar_heroin]

delirium_faerie

delirium_faerie

Atlanta, GA
April 2003

JUN 29, 2003 01:06 PM

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

BettieTwoGuns

BettieTwoGuns

Detroit, MI
September 2002

JUN 29, 2003 01:15 PM

i loved it.

FrozenFoodGod

FrozenFoodGod

Canada
OLD SKOOL

JUN 29, 2003 03:13 PM

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]

FrozenFoodGod

FrozenFoodGod

Canada
OLD SKOOL

JUN 29, 2003 03:18 PM

..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.

lil_tuffy

lil_tuffy

MODERATOR

San Francisco, CA

JUN 29, 2003 04:52 PM

lil_tuffy said:
1. The quality of the film left a little to be desired.



Beastie_Boy said:

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.



Hmmm.... like a camcorder? Digital video usually looks better than that. It was inconsistent and grainy and out of focus.

Anyway, it was minor and I got over it.

Lil_Tuffy

FrozenFoodGod

FrozenFoodGod

Canada
OLD SKOOL

JUN 29, 2003 04:58 PM

lil_tuffy said:

lil_tuffy said:
1. The quality of the film left a little to be desired.



Beastie_Boy said:

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.



Hmmm.... like a camcorder? Digital video usually looks better than that. It was inconsistent and grainy and out of focus.

Anyway, it was minor and I got over it.

Lil_Tuffy



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.

Beastie_Boy

Beastie_Boy

Van Nuys, CA
January 2003

JUN 29, 2003 05:01 PM

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

StickyRice

StickyRice

Atlanta, GA
January 2003

JUN 29, 2003 06:13 PM

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]

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next