Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Dean Kousoulas, Oct 22, 2002.
Is this movie going to see a US release?
Congrats! You're the fifth member to start a 28 Days Later thread! Here's your prize!
Just jokes, Dean. I'm dyin' to see this flick too!
Q1 (probably late January) from Fox Searchlight. I read the script and it was scary as hell.
November 1st for the UK. I know a few people who have been to advance screenings already, and its getting great word of mouth. The only minor complaints so far are from those who don't seem entirely happy with the idea of zombies that can run - its like bad form, or something.
Zoombies ran in Return Of The Living Dead (Scared the hell out of me as a kid too). I can't wait for 28 Days Later.
I'm looking forward to this one as well. I've been hearing some good things about it. I'm going to see if I can find the script and give it a read.
Saw this last night. Good movie. Not great. Good. Here's a very short review in bullet-point form.
-Brilliantly shot. They've really used the DV medium well.
-The deserted London sequence is stunning. Some amazing shots.
-The zombies are amazing. Really scary, without being gory. Lots of hissing and discoloured bodies rather than rotting flesh. The red eyes work very well.
-Decent performances. There's very little room for 'big' perfs, but the actors acquit themselves well.
-Despite the 3rd act being disappointing (see below), the action side is brilliant.
-Superb editing. They've really created a disturbing world, mainly through editing and sound effects.
-Opening sequence=bad. Virus name "rage"=bad.
-The 3rd and last act is focused on a group of soliders
, and is rather weak. The characters are drab, and the humour is pitiful. It's badly written, while the first 2 are much better.
-Bad soundtrack. A lot of it works well as background ambience, but some is really jarring, and distracts from the on-screen action.
Certainly worth seeing, but no masterpiece.
I love Zombie flicks! I can't wait to see this one.
What's wrong with zombies that can run? Just because Night of the Living dead set them up that way, doesn't mean that every film should treat them the same way. Makes them much scarier in my opinion. When they're just ambling about, and easily pushed away, they're not that frightening unless there's a bunch of them. But a zombie that has the same abilities as a normal person, while craving human flesh, is freaky to consider. (They do crave human flesh in this one, right?)
The made the sequel to that Sandra Bullock movie into a zombie movie?
On second thought, I can see that...
Paul, a couple of questions...
How is the gore factor? Any shots of zombies eating victims and such?
Are these actual zombies (reanimated dead) or just living people infected with a rabies-type virus?
Thanks for the info Paul.
Saw this tonight. Liked it. There was one really nasty bit where one character sticks his thumbs into the eyes of another character, all the way in, my girly couldn't watch it and looked away, the scene just went on a bit too long I thought, at least half a minute of digging into someones eyes with blood and screams. Not a pleasant film, but effective.
It's a scary version of Resident Evil. Same plot.
well seen this tonight and I really enjoyed this it.........
first thing I liked about it was that it was'nt about Sandra Bullock going back to the Rehab Centre.
But it was a apocoliptic (cant spell) film, shot on DV cameras and gave the whole thing this very energetic, kenetic style which would probably put most people off, but after 2 mins it really hooks you in and makes you interested, because.........
It's not the norm for a film. And this is no Blair Witch Project. The film IS just shot normally but with DV cameras.
I'm sure most of you know what the thing is about: Guy wakes up in hospital, finds nobody about, walks out of hopital, finds London deserted. Descovers that people have been wiped out with a virus of some kind and the film just takes off from there and doesnt stop and actually is like "Apocolispe (cant spell again) Now" towards the end.
I thought that everything in this went together great and after The beech was thankfull that Danny Boyle has went back to doing edgy and dangerous projects. I hope he stays on this path for his next film as it's very exciting as mainly becaue of the way this film was approached you dont really know whats going to happen, and thats what i thought was really good about it. Plus the soundtrack was great as well.
If any of you have seen Traffic or Heat then it is kind of the same eclectic type of music was used for this as well. Most notably Brian Eno's "an Ending" (which was played over the end credits on Traffic) and makes a reappearance here, it's really a beautiful peice of music and gave 28 Days Later a bit of humanity amid all the nastyness of it...............and belive me this has some very nasty parts.
It's better that you dont really know much about what happens in this so give it a try, you might like it you might not, but you can't deny that its different.
As for the gore factor, it kinda the Texas Chainsaw massacer effect were you dont see much but you THINK it's gory by whats suggested, and what you think you saw is often more gory than what could have seen.
Might go again, but definitley getting the DVD.
I'm sorry but this question has been answered before. I live in Canada and I have seen no advertisments or release dates for this film. Mabye this will be another Below where the film doesn't even come out. Anyone know what the wide release date is?
As far as I know, the North America release for this one was bumped to early 2003; no specific date is set.
Hope this one doesn't vanish for 5 months before popping up on DVD!
Another thing, the sound design or soundscape of 28 Days Later is incredible, fantastic use of the surround speakers, gunfire is reproduced with amazing crystal-clear clarity, the bullets zinging everywhere, the sound of rain and thunder at the finale is so realistic you can't help looking around the theater, the sudden growling/snarling sound the 'zombies' make will make you jump out your seats, see it at a theater with a good sound system, it doubles the films effectiveness.
I saw this last night and I enjoyed it. Although am I the only one who didn't like the fact that it was shot on video? I didn't really see any stylistic reasons for this and I just kept thinking how much better this would have looked on film.
I did really like the deserted London shots though.
This is more like Day of the Triffids than a pure zombie flick. I found it to be an interesting take on the genre(s). It's definitely a film of two halves (the first is much better).
I thought the soundtrack was excellent, and very well suited to the film, especially over the terrific shots of London.
OK, first off - I'm back home.
This is my first official HTF post since returning from Sundance / Slamdance Film Festivals. I have several cool stories to share, but my first stop had to be this thread.
Settle back for a long story.
I was unable to acquire press credentials for precisely ONE movie during my week-long visit to the beautiful Utah village of Park City. Ironically, it was the one flick I was most ravenous to devour:
Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later
Disappointed but not nearly discouraged, I showed up in the wait list line at 6:00 PM.
For a 9:00 PM show.
There were already 40-some people ahead of me.
Discouraged but not nearly beaten, I (and a good friend who hates horror movies yet still stood faithfully by my side) took my place at the cattle ropes and had conversations about movies with anyone nearby. Ninety minutes crept by.
A well-meaning and hard-working (yet nonetheless confrontational) Sundance volunteer enters the narrow hallway and informs us the following:
"This flick is a hot ticket. What that means is that most of you will not get in. If you have other things you could be enjoying right now, I'd call that the safe bet. To those who remain here, I wish you luck."
He then departed, leaving the sheep to gape guppy-like at one another in seemingly telepathic disappointment. A few people left, but not enough to raise my chances all that much. Still, I was glad to see them go.
It was precisely one hour before the show would begin that I learned the following:
I was not in the second of two lines, but the third of three. To explain this Utah phenomena in any further detail would require a degree in physics and spatial equilateral equilibriums. On both our parts.
Suffice to say that things looked grim. And here I'd spent two hours without sitting or eating. Ugh.
Me and my fellow loser slobs were then given yellow tickets, ones not unlike those found at a delicatessen. The irritated volunteer stopped back in and screamed:
"If you have numbers 1 - 50, you have a somewhat good chance of maybe possibly getting a ticket if we have a few cancellations."
My ticket was 69. Normally, that would be a humourous numeral.
The volunteer told the now-numbered masses that they could roam for one half of one hour, but...
"If you are NOT back here by precisely 8:30, your numbered chit is NO longer VALID and you will be PLACED at the end of LINE."
Needless to say, Yassir Arafat would have a better chance of seeing this movie than would someone at the end of the line.
We trundled off to stand on a corner and pontificate the joys of simply standing in line for eternies on end before returning back to the line.
(It's at this point I should mention that the woman directly behind me was A) criminally attractive, B) a yoga instructor, and C) fielding cell phone calls from potential suitors every 85 seconds.)
As we who were numbered shuffled back into our now-familiar positions, we stood next to a massive (and growing) queue of well-dressed and grumpy-looking people: the ticket-holders!! These were the ones we wanted to catch cold or have a fender-bender; anything to keep them away from the theater. The fur-clad, pot-bellied, and over-collagened kept filing in. I cursed the universe.
Though you've probably already predicted that I did make it into the screening, I hope that I'm a skilled enough writer to have made this tale at least a little suspenseful. (Probably not.) But the bottom line is this: me and my ever-chipper (yet now terrified) companion did indeed get into the theater.
Final score? Numbers 1 - 74 made it in. We were 69 and 70. Yes, the hot blonde made it in too, but the sweet-faced busybody promptly clicked her cell phone off before she went in. Her name was Daniella.
So Danny Boyle bounds onto the stage. Since I'm at these festivals in a professional capacity (at least that's what I tell my editors and friends), I try not to clap fanboyishly. Instead, I clap loudly.
Danny Boyle (director of Trainspotting, Shallow Grave, A Life Less Ordinary, and The Beach): "Hello and thanks for coming. 28 Days is a Sandra Bullock film about one woman's ability to overcome alcoholism, the importance of friendship, and the healing power of love. This is not the sequel."
He smirks as he bops off the stage to appreciative laughter and a little more applause.
Now, before I kick in with my analytical ideas of the film as a whole, its assets and its flaws, its concepts and its delivery, the music, the acting, the sound, the look, the feel, and all that important stuff:
This movie scared the fuck out of me. More than once.
I'm not about to sit here and tell you I've seen thousands of horror movies. You all know I have. So have most of you. In other words, I consider myself a tough nut to crack, scare-wise.
This flick had me jolting northwards in rapid succession. Like shock therapy. Like uncontrollable spasms of the ankles and lower back. Like being scared when you were little.
Overhype cool-down: Is this the best horror movie I've ever seen, a flick without flaw or misstep, one that will overwhelm every single person who checks it out?
Of course not. (A common complaint among some is that Act II sags and lurches almost visibly, and I halfway agree with that relatively minor gripe.)
But the damn thing gets five stars from me, I absolutely cannot WAIT to see it again, it has reignited my passion and patience for the entire genre of horror. And it's certainly one of the finest 'end of the world' movies I've ever seen.
Fox Searchlight half-bankrolled this one and has worldwide distribution rights. Flick cost between 4-6 million pounds and grossed double that in the UK. After the movie ended, Danny Boyle, screenwriter Alex Garland, producer Andrew McDonald, and cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle took the stage for a 15-minute Q & A session with the audience.
I got to ask two questions:
"When's it set for a U.S. release?"
McDonald smiled and said I should probably ask the people in the back row. I took that to mean there were some Fox suits in the house. (I later asked a Fox representative over at the press center and she said "tentatively? July.", whereas Greg Dean Schmitz of UpcomingMovies.com said he heard "probably August".) My question is this:
WHY NOT NOW? You're looking at a well-received and critically acclaimed horror flick, one that's already doubled its budget back with the home-field advantage (Brits know good movies.) If a movie like 28 Days Later has a shot at turning some solid U.S. coin (and I really think it does)...why not release it opposite Kangaroo Jack, National Security, and Just Married? If January is already a dumping ground for the stankiest studio refuse, why not toss this funky little import into 1,500 screens and let the brave folk go see it?
On the other hand, the Fox people could A) be smarter than I think they are, B) really love the movie, and C) are willing to give it a major summertime push. Still, not a great idea. Have these guys SEEN the July/August lineup? This flick would get demolished like a Krispy Kreme after bongtime.
(My second question was on how-well received the film was in its native land. Boyle happily informed us that 28 Days Later bumped XXX from the #1 spot and remained there for a few weeks before James Bond traveled across the pond.)
Fortunately I had my mini-recorder with me for the whole session. The filmmakers discussed gore, alternate endings, and plans for the eventual DVD release. You can expect that transcript some time in the next few days.
And here's a little treat to wet your whistle:
Whew, nice to be back.