28 Days Later - over 28 days since open release

mbilderback · Post by **mbilderback** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 11:36 am

Saw this video at home last night.

6 out of 10 stars.

The acting was good but not great. They definately did very well with the obviously limiting budget for such a big time end of the world view. The cities were produced well. However, the plot line had Mack truck sized holes in the physics, chemistry, and biology aspects. Personally, I'm not too happy about suspending disbelief for a movie that is based in the real world. That's all I will say to avoid any spoilers.

71-1085092892 · Post by **71-1085092892** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 12:31 pm

I liked it at 7/10.

It was different enough to be good, despite its flaws.

Post by **Leisher** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:08 pm

I didn't like it at 4 out of 10 stars.

It had some good horror moments, and I loved the first half of the film. Unfortunately it continued, and the storyline/characters/writing went so far downhill at a certain point in the movie that I went from being in a state of "interested and entertained" to "bored and couldn't wait for the movie to end."

However, the plot line had Mack truck sized holes in the physics, chemistry, and biology aspects.

Ha! That wasn't the only place it had plot holes. The entire second half of the movie was a joke. I'm not sure if the writer was a moron or if he was trying to make a political statement, but either way the second half of the movie sucked.

mbilderback · Post by **mbilderback** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:28 pm

Did anyone feel the writer was trying to make a statement with the animal testing in the beginning? It was shown for so short a time, he could have just been using it as a starting point to explain how it happened...so, beginning, statement or plot device?

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:29 pm

There are a lot of movies (mostly horror) that I want to know the stories to, but don't want to bother watching. 28 Days Later is one of those movies.

I read a pretty thorough summary of the plot here.

Post by **Leisher** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:39 pm

Did anyone feel the writer was trying to make a statement with the animal testing in the beginning? It was shown for so short a time, he could have just been using it as a starting point to explain how it happened...so, beginning, statement or plot device?

I believe it was totally a jab at animal rights people AND at scientists.

The scientists are bad for creating the problem, while the animal rights people are stupid for their blind faith in their cause no matter what or who it hurts.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:57 pm

The movie is really NRA propaganda.

3) If people don't have guns, criminals with guns will steal your women.

2) It started in England, where there is strict gun control. (If it had started in Texas it would have finished in Texas.)

1) D@mn dirty apes start the virus.

Edit: Your board censored the word ####. See! The #### thing did it again! D-A-M-N!

71-1085092892 · Post by **71-1085092892** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:40 pm

Paul wrote:2) It started in England, where there is strict gun control. (If it had started in Texas it would have finished in Texas.)

28 Days Later, in America:

"Wow, my head hurts. How long have I been asleep?"

"You were hit by a car. You've been in a coma for almost a month."

"Bummer... did I miss anything while I was under?"

"Not really. Well, there was an outbreak of a weird disease that turned people into homocidal maniacs, and it infected 15 people before police were able to bring the spread of it under control. It was terrible."

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:38 am

I skimmed through the 28 Days Later story and found some things that... well... maybe I wasn't going though the actual story. Anybody familiar with Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

"Ello. I'm Rupert Giles, this is my daughter Dawn."

"Hey, Spike... You mind sleeping in my room tonight...?"
"Sure thing, Buffy, I don't think Giles will mind," he answered.

“Sir, the feisty yank tried to give the girl some kind of medication, sir,” Riley Finn informed, “I stopped her though.”

From what I've read from other sites (none as thorough as this) the story is pretty correct.

Oh crap, I just read the begining of the story. I am such a retard!
In my defense, I read the first half of this story on some other site (it was actually based on the movie). They never posted the second half, so I kept searching until I found this which had what I assumed was the second half.

I am such a tard.

Post by **Leisher** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 3:20 pm

I kind of scanned that site you linked. Am I wrong or are they simply rewriting the movieusing the same scenes and most of the same dialogue and then taking credit for an original story?

If so, then I now know where Hollywood trains its screenwriters.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 5:41 pm

I never saw the movie. Actually, I saw a few minutes of when the guy jumps the wall and blows an air-raid siren on cable. But that's all I've seen.

From what I could tell, it was the actual movie, scene by scene, but with different character names, but I don't have much to compare it to.

Post by **GORDON** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:50 pm

It is playing on AMC right now. They play scary movies in October.

I just heard the "The answer to the plague is here!" guy on the radio.... his name sounded familiar.

Yep, it was Eccleston, the 9th Doctor, playing that psycho army major that tries to kill the males and rape the females. For context, this movie was 2002, he played Doctor Who in 2005.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:17 pm

Ugh, I've been trying to forget the trainwreck that was the last part of that film.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:54 pm

I saw some on AMC.

Dr. Who gets eaten.

Post by **GORDON** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:28 pm

I don't think you're allowed to abbreviate his name like that.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 7:55 pm

GORDON wrote:I don't think you're allowed to abbreviate his name like that.

Feh! It's not his real name anyway.