*** Official 28 DAYS LATER Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Jim Peavy]

I agree, Walter; but then many films (not shot on video) I've seen in the theater lately suffer from this.

Whenever they'd cut to a big, panoramic shot in Matrix: Reloaded it would look flat, washed out, and lose all detail. To the extent I'd think, "what am I looking at?" Same with 28DL. The wide shot of Jim looking at the bodies in the cathedral was that way. Could barely tell what I was looking at.

I tend to think many modern screens are merely too big. You just can't splash a 35mm print across a field that big and expect it to hold up quality wise. It doesn't appear to be out of focus, the quality of the big, panoramic shots just starts to break down.

Anybody shed more light on this? (No pun intended :b !)

 

[Quentin]

"A Boy and His Dog" is a good one to bring up...and it's done much better, IMO, than "28 Days Later". Also, anyone here seen Romero's "The Crazies"? If you can get past some bad acting and LOOOOW budget problems, I think that script did what Boyle was trying to do, only about 10 times more effectively.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Estimates courtesy of www.BoxOfficeMojo.com:

$9,730,000 weekend

$7,722 average in 1,260 theaters

Not too shabby!

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

I think it's kind of sad when people see and write an entire movie off because they weren't scared.

But if a movie purposely markets itself as a scary movie and then fails to deliver...what are you supposed to think? You go into the theater expecting (ok, hoping) to be scared but aren't, the natural reaction is to feel let-down.

Bruce

 

[Hunter P]

Good movie overall. I kept thinking to myself that this movie takes off where Resident Evil ended.

There were a lot of tense moments in the movie as Boyle kept the pace of the movie methodic and loaded with false scares.

Unfortunately, like most horror flicks, the characters often act like complete idiots. But I guess if the characters played it smart and safe then we wouldn't have a movie then would we?

It still pisses me off though when the hero has a perfectly good gun and leaves it behind so that he can wander around the house unarmed. Why does it always happen in these types of movies?

The movie had a lot of these horror cliches but thankfully it wasn't too distracting.

 

[nate n]

I did not care for the movie. The acting was good, but the characters were not developed well. The movie even began to drag a bit. The final act was just ridiculous. Please do not go into this movie thinking it is a horror movie because you will be sadly dissappointed. I'm just glad I didnt have to pay to watch this one.

 

[Quentin]

Well, I didn't notice a problem with "Matrix: Reloaded" at all.

But, this film was shot on video, not film. So, the quality is pretty bad to begin with, and you lose some more transferring to film.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Whenever they'd cut to a big, panoramic shot in Matrix: Reloaded it would look flat, washed out, and lose all detail. To the extent I'd think, "what am I looking at?" Same with 28DL. The wide shot of the Jim looking at the bodies in the cathedral was that way. Could barely tell what I was looking at.

I tend to think many modern screens are merely too big. You just can't splash a 35mm print across a field that big and expect it to hold up quality wise. It doesn't appear to be out of focus, the quality of the big, panoramic shots just starts to break down.

That's because The Matrix Reloaded had so much CGI and 28 Days Later was shot on digital video. Neither have the resolution of 35mm film. The problem isn't the size of the screens or the quality of 35mm, but rather that CGI and DV aren't up to snuff.

DJ

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

This is much more SF/Apoc than straight horror, and as such its a great treatment.

I agree. I have no idea why they always try to pass "everything" off as horror these days.

 

[Cary T]

I think it's kind of sad when people see and write an entire movie off because they weren't scared.

Don't know about the others, but in my case, I didn't have any expectations going into the movie. I often don't know much about a movie I'm about to watch in theaters. Try to avoid all reviews or previews of a film I'm going to watch. I was responding to the huge amount of people posting how scary or creepy the film was.

Nate, I hated the last act as well.

 

[david stark]

I enjoyed the film. I didn't realise that this was supposed to be a 'horror' film or I probably wouldn't have gone to see it. I thought it was very well done, It had a story and characters. the infected people were done well and were scary - ok, I don't mean I was hiding under my seat in fear, but that they were scary as in that they were believably dangerous. They moved fast, were very vicous and appeared in numbers.

Other stuff I liked about it was the change in the charaters views, particularly selinas over the course of the film. This reminded me partly of vin dielsel in pitch black.

As for the negatives, was the picture quality (noted by several people above which is due to it not being shot on 35mm).

and finally I think someone asked very near the beginning, I believe the jet at the end was British, I'm damn sure it had the RAF badge on it.

 

[BrianB]

and finally I think someone asked very near the beginning, I believe the jet at the end was British, I'm damn sure it had the RAF badge on it.

I've seen reports saying it's Finnish.

 

[JasenP]

I was so pleased with this film. For many reasons.

It took it's time developing the characters so that I actually give a damn about them. When one of the group was infected/killed I actually cared that ther were dead. I can't say that about many films in the "horror" genre.

I actually liked the DV style, it gave a softer focus feel, almost dream-like. I have a feeling that if this film were a big budget beast, it wouldn't have worked nearly as well.

That being said, the film borrowed heavily from last-man-on-earth films like The Omega Man and Dawn of the Dead I couldn't help but think of these two films in particular while watching 28 Days Later.

Also, I would have preferred a grimmer ending.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Something else about that jet at the end. WHY would they bomb them? That makes no sense at all.

A) Island is safely quarrantined.

B) It might be visible to outside observers that the infected are dying from lack of food.

C) Clearly they displayed active intelligence proving they were not infected.

D) Even if they were infected, see B.

E) They pose ZERO threat to the outside world. It wasn't like they were on a boat, building a balloon, etc.


Ebert and others that expected such an ending are the ones with their brains turned off while watching the film because it makes no logical sense for the pilot to take such an action.

It might be true that no rescue is coming and that perhaps no one will be returning to England for some time, but why waste a bomb on an ant, on something with virtually no effect on the rest of the world? That comes from the most cynical viewpoint I can imagine, pure murder simply for the sake of it.

Now perhaps someone like Jason (above) wanted the film to end in another way entirely, which is fine. I'm simply saying that as depicted there is no reason for that jet to take action against 3 helpless people. No definite reason to help either, except a sense of humanity.


I think the ending as chosen also fits very well with the bookend approach using the film's title and theme - 28 Days Later. The first time it shows England becoming hell in 29 days, the 2nd England/hell turns back into "heaven" in 28 Days. It's an interesting parallel in how fast your entire life can change, both for worse and for better.

 

[Hunter P]

I read an interview with Boyle that said this was intentional. They borrowed from these two films.

 

[Alex Spindler]

I'm with you Seth. I really liked how the word Hell (from Jim's delusional wakening) was transformed into Hello. A great summation of what they've all gone through.

Perhaps people just expect a twist ending these days, so one with a straightforward conclusion (even one that is a bit more open ended as this one) makes people feel like there was a lost opportunity.

 

[John Thomas]

A few things that came to mind while walking out of the theater..

For example, why didn't the zombies turn on each other? It's understandable in other zombie movies that they don't ("I smell your brains!").

Also, the plane that flew overhead, was nation was it from? I've heard that it was Finnish but I couldn't help but think that it were more soldiers looking for more uninfected women.

I thought that it was generally well put together. However, the last 1/3 of it seemed to dawdle with the idea of physical corrosion vs. mental corrosion and which was worse.
Making more antagonists that late into the film didn't really work for me, especially in this genre.

 

[Andrew_Sch]

One thing that bothered me: If they were English, how come Jim had a baseball bat instead of a cricket bat??

Edited because I'm an idiot.:b

 

[Bill J]

One thing that bothered me: If they were English, how come Jim had a baseball bat instead of a rugby bat??

I think you mean cricket bat.

 

[Bill J]

Maybe I need to see the film again, but how do we know that the virus is contained only to England? One of the radio broadcasts said that the virus spread to Paris and New York (but that could have been a hoax). Also don't forget that the virus can be spread through animals.

In my opinion you really don't have enough information to determine whether or not it was logical to bomb because the film is told from an extremely narrow point of view.