|
Post by Flesh Eater on Aug 10, 2008 20:44:00 GMT -5
A great zombie flick. Very well done, in my opinion. A man runs through a city now infested with people who have sucumb to an "infection." Great gore as well as story line. One of the few movies that I enjoy Cillian Murphy. A story of survival in a world of rage infested zombies. One of the few zombie movies that address blood as a means of transfering infection. I'm sure everyone here has seen it atleast once.
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Aug 10, 2008 20:46:23 GMT -5
Didn't really care for this one. I've seen a lot worse though.
Didn't bother with the sequel.
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Aug 10, 2008 20:47:57 GMT -5
I haven't seen the sequel. What about it didn't you like?
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Aug 10, 2008 20:52:46 GMT -5
I'm not into the whole raged infected humans & shaky cam shtick.
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Aug 10, 2008 20:54:48 GMT -5
The shaky cam does suck, period. I hate the whole idea of it. I do enjoy the "rage" aspect, I thought it was another twist on the idea. I relate the "rage" to how we have running zombies nowadays. Film makers have to evolve the idea to draw an audience. I don't think it's something that is always needed, but money talks.
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Aug 10, 2008 21:23:46 GMT -5
The first time I saw it, I'd purchased it on DVD without having seen it...and liked it very much.
In terms of overall concept, it has alot in common with the original Day of the Dead (as in the Army guys threaten more than they offer, and are a worse threat than the zombies), and it's very British...but I still liked it.
I remember seeing the ad campaign, mentioning in Fangoria how it was actually a horror flick that was scary for a change. Why was it scary? Because the zombies in this one had strength, could run, and were pretty fierocious.
It hasn't held up for me after repeated viewings, though. Unlike the Dawn remake--which I think did the whole running zombies thing much better.
Haven't seen the sequel.
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Aug 10, 2008 22:15:27 GMT -5
Well first off, they're not really "zombies". They're just rage-infected human beings... not reanimated corpses. I think that's very important to note.
As for the film itself, I actually really love it. I absolutely ADORE the beginning sequences in the hospital and city... very empty and desolate. Sets the mood perfectly. I love Cillain Murphy in this role as well. There isn't much about the movie I don't like, other than toward the end at the military base.
Personally, I think it's a really great film. The sequel is decent also, but not quite as good. I own both on DVD and watch them (the first more) once in a while.
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Aug 10, 2008 22:23:10 GMT -5
Well first off, they're not really "zombies". They're just rage-infected human beings... not reanimated corpses. I think that's very important to note. Well, in all fairness--neither are GAR's ghouls. If you think about it, when he ripped off The Last Man On Earth, all GAR did was give us a modern update of the old vampire mythos.
|
|
|
Post by blackknight273 on Aug 10, 2008 22:42:31 GMT -5
Well first off, they're not really "zombies". They're just rage-infected human beings... not reanimated corpses. I think that's very important to note. As for the film itself, I actually really love it. I absolutely ADORE the beginning sequences in the hospital and city... very empty and desolate. Sets the mood perfectly. I love Cillain Murphy in this role as well. There isn't much about the movie I don't like, other than toward the end at the military base. Personally, I think it's a really great film. The sequel is decent also, but not quite as good. I own both on DVD and watch them (the first more) once in a while. That was the point I was going to make. People cried and whined when this movie came out because it had "running zombies". I kept wanting to scream at these people that the infected in 28 Days/Weeks later were not zombies - they were just infected by a virus. Zombies walk around until the rot to a puddle of sludge. The infected in 28 Days/Weeks eventually die of starvation. There is a big difference. And I would highly recommend 28 Weeks Later. Very well done movie IMO
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Aug 10, 2008 22:56:01 GMT -5
Well first off, they're not really "zombies". They're just rage-infected human beings... not reanimated corpses. I think that's very important to note. That's true, I don't think that they actually die after being infected, like a typical "zombie."
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Aug 10, 2008 22:59:12 GMT -5
Again, though...who's really to say what's a zombie? If you wanna get technical, zombies are from voo-doo lore--reanimated corpses brought back to life to work as slave labor on plantations and in bakeries. There are many different takes already just when dealing with that--I honestly don't think that calling 28DL a zombie flick is really that much of a stretch. In most ways, it fits the parameters of the genre--especially from the apocalyptic angle. Everything happens for a reason. And, I'm thankfull for this flick because it effectively brought zombies into the new millenium--even more so than RE.
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Aug 10, 2008 23:00:48 GMT -5
Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Aug 10, 2008 23:08:31 GMT -5
Like I said--look at GAR's ghouls.
When he ripped off LMOE, all he did was give us a modern update of the old vampire mythos.
Until Lord Byron and Dr John Polidori updated the old vampire mythos to a "modern" setting in 1812 (creating what would become the "baroque vampire" with their character, "Lord Ruthven"), vampires really had more in common with GAR's ghouls than they did the suave mother-fuckers in capes that we all know and take for granted. Those creatures of ages past were rotting corpses that dug themselves out of their graves every night in search of blood.
Now, back to LMOE. If you look at that flick closely, you can see just how much in influenced GAR...practically to the point of plagerism. In fact, with the grainy, black and white photography of shambling, white-faced ghouls....you could almost seemlessly edit parts of LMOE into NOTLD, and vice versa.
GAR saw that, and simply took what we now know in science and applied it to vampires, creating his ghouls.
In the old days, people thought that the heart was the most important organ. Now we know that it's the brain. Hence, a stake in the heart became a bullet to the head. Fire can kill anything. In the old days, people thought that a person's energy came from blood, and it was often called "life's blood"--that's why vamps drank it. GAR simply decided to go a step farther--to make it more gruesome, probably. He kept the whole "living dead" angle, and figured (wrongly) that rigor mortis would make his monsters stiff. And, he decided to ditch the whole "sunlight and holy relics" angle altogether.
Hence, an all new take on an ages old monster gave us what we have now. ;D
And, with the new stuff...they're taking it farther, and (sometimes) in different directions--all the while giving us zombies.
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Aug 10, 2008 23:18:06 GMT -5
I started to watch LMOE last night and had to shut it off. The copy I have is so bad that when you project it onto a 52" TV the grains, lines and specks look like rope and boulders. I will have to watch it on a smaller set. The way things are going these days, everything has to be faster, smarter, uglier and more brutal.
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Aug 10, 2008 23:22:04 GMT -5
I saw it as a kid, and was unimpressed.
Then, years later, I got it in one of those cheapie 50 movie packs.
It was for shit and quit working at one point.
I gave it another shot about a year later, and it worked. It was okay...but the real draw to it for me was just how much it influenced GAR to do NOTLD.
He usually claims that he ripped off Matheson's book, "I Am Legend"....probably because it makes him look more intelligent, and less of a rip-off artist in terms of movies.
But, as I've reiterated...anybody who watches LMOE can see where he got the ideas for NOTLD from! ;D
|
|