PDA

View Full Version : Ghastly fun Chilling and sharp (spoilers!)



stevetseitz
06-28-2003, 03:34 AM
Danny Boyle tips his cap to George Romero's "Dead Trilogy" and Boris Sagal's "The Omega Man" a highly underrated sci-fi film starring Charleton Heston. "28 Days Later" is a crisp horror movie. It has the positives of being a gritty, realistic low-budget film without the drawbacks of bad acting, cheap thrills or pretentious ham-handed preaching.

I think great horror movies must have some of the "three levels of fear" They should have "jump" moments where something happens suddenly and unexpectedly to startle the audience. They should have the "rising dread" situations where the audience or the characters (or both) know something horrible is about to happen. Then there is the "pyschological concept" fear the basic human understanding that a situation is "screwed" or irreparable.

Spoiler time:


There are a few particularly horrifying (startling) moments in the movie including the scene in the church, the "candle" scene, and the stairwell scene. On another level of fear: Excellent tension is sustained, both in leaving the city (an eerie tunnel sequence pays homage to Stephen King's "The Stand") as well as the strange quirks of the rag-tag military group. The final level of fear is the societal implications. Are we truly a society of consumer-crazed aggression? Is everybody else a danger to us? It certainly puts the condition of our species under the microscope. There is a scene in the film (in the store) straight out of "Dawn of the Dead" and the captive "infected" is reminiscent of Bub in "Day of the Dead". The acting is quiet good for the most part and adds to the realism. Definitely worth seeing in a darkened theater to heighten the impact.

pmw
07-12-2003, 11:23 AM
Boyle definitely hits fear on all 3 of the levels you mention. That and a host of interesting criticisms (on activisim, the nature of the undiseased etc) make for a very compelling narrative. I loved it.
P

Oh, and fantastic zombies.

Demdok
07-14-2003, 05:33 PM
The infected in the movie were not undead. They were living people, just in a murderous rage. They are more like berserkers then zombies. There was no half bodied dead creatures crawling around. They would be exactly like fighting someone who is high on tons of drugs, they feel little to nothing, but if they get shot in the heart, they die. Head smashed in, they die. you get the idea.

stevetseitz
07-14-2003, 06:40 PM
Maybe they weren't technically "undead" but come on! In some zombie films ANY part of the zombie is capable of movement as in "Return of the Living Dead". In others (Romero's trilogy) if you sever the spinal cord or impact the brain with sufficient force they "die". "Infected" is just a politically correct way of saying "zombie". The creatures in "28 Days Later" were not capable of being cured and had no free will or ability to reason therefore they ceased their human existence, but continued living thus they were "undead".

Demdok
07-14-2003, 07:34 PM
All they can think is anger and just blind rage towards anyone who isn't infected yet. It's their will to chase people to kill them to release some of the anger. If they couldn't reason I think it would be a bit harder for the black guy to get to the window to attack the other soldiers, otherwise he would have just stood there in the courtyard till someone actually came out there. If it doesn't involve releasing their rage, the infected won't care about it, like eating. They don't feel the pain of anything, just rage, so they don't know they are starving.

When something is undead, it has to die. Itís a reanimated body. Their mind is full of rage, they aren't dead in anyway. The original definition of zombie is a soulless, mindless body brought back from the dead using voodoo. One of the main things is it has to be UNDEAD, not living. Do you even know what a berserker is? If you don't then there is no real point in trying to act like you understand this movie at all.

stevetseitz
07-15-2003, 01:24 PM
First of all, I can't believe I'm having this discussion and secondly I can't believe you are acting as if you are some sort of "expert" on zombies which is pretty retarded if you think about it.

>>All they can think is anger and just blind rage towards anyone who isn't infected yet. It's their will to chase people to kill them to release some of the anger.<<

That isn't free will. It's instinct. That's why the f-ing infection JUMPED SPECIES. Chimps aren't humans and don't have free will or advanced intellect!!!!! Chimps have basic emotions (fear, anger) and basic reasoning: they can figure out how to use doorknobs and simple tools what they can't do is deal with abstract concepts like "Why am I here?" etc.


>>If they couldn't reason I think it would be a bit harder for the black guy to get to the window to attack the other soldiers, otherwise he would have just stood there in the courtyard till someone actually came out there.<<

No, any instinctive predator will seek to find a way to get to it's prey. If he had reasoning skills the miltary zombie would have understood the chain would not alllow him to reach the people at the very end of the yard, thus he wouldn't bother to charge every time.

If it doesn't involve releasing their rage, the infected won't care about it, like eating. They don't feel the pain of anything, just rage, so they don't know they are starving.

>>When something is undead, it has to die. Itís a reanimated body. Their mind is full of rage, they aren't dead in anyway. The original definition of zombie is a soulless, mindless body brought back from the dead using voodoo.<<

Actually in voodoo, a zombie was one who had been poisoned into a state simulating death and later exhumed and used as a brain-damaged slave, so ithe person never was truly dead, at least, not brain dead.

>>One of the main things is it has to be UNDEAD, not living. Do you even know what a berserker is?<<

Dude don't even try and patronize me. A berzerker is traditionally a class of warrior in norse folklore who drunk themselves into a battle rage and fought with no shirt (thus the term berzerk which is translated as "no shirt") They were supposedly fearless, felt no pain and quite hard to kill in that state. What that has to do with zombies in your vaccuous feeble brain I'll never know. The berzerkers were normal humans. The zombies in this film are no longer humans.

>>If you don't then there is no real point in trying to act like you understand this movie at all.<<

Look, I was discussing "28 Day Later", a movie we both apparently liked. If you have nothing better to do than try and start flame wars congratulations you're a loser! If you actually bother to read about some of the things you have mentioned like zombies in the voodoo culture and berzerkers you may become a more educated person with lots to offer to the discussion.

tabuno
07-20-2003, 11:35 AM
In an otherwise excellent, superlative horror movie, one of the best, 28 Days Later did contain some logical weaknesses that perhaps are required in horror movies. The "candle" and "tunnel" scenes are both plot points that I consider really, really dumb, hocky and downright required script elements of horror movies but I wish they'd figure some other smart way around them.

For as intelligent as these people seem, the father in particular, it's just irritating to know that you don't light "candles" for the boggie man will come and that you don't (just like "Scary Movie" parody) don't go into tunnels and somehow bounce on top of wrecked cars. For as intelligent as this movie is, it still needed some fine-tuning. Anybody for neatly presented grocery store in the time of a holocaust? Oops.

But no, this movie really shines way above any in recent years (except for those audience members that slept through it).