Carigamers
Off Topic => Media => Topic started by: Vexx on September 25, 2003, 11:58:15 AM
-
ok ppl
ah know that meh name is Vexx
:evil: but this time i real Vexx...that movie sucked
It was a low budget film with no more than a 6 charaters at a time
and if they introduced a new person!...one have to die!
:roll: oh and the lead role was given to a man whose key word throught the entire movie was!.....HELLO!
:o i tell you don't go to see that sh__
if you want to experience the most boooooooring movie of the century well then be my guess!
-
yeah it was isht eh everyminute he sayin hello and they actally show he nutz dred oh yeah btw it had a second ending after the credits it go make yuh steups even more
-
This has to be the worst movie of the year!
a bunch of H0Rn_Y army guys trying to re populate the world
oh wait...before they find a cure for the infected!
isht huh!
-
I liked it. You have to have an eye for the art of Danny Boyle (director). Music very appropriate to film. Script not bad at all. Cinematography bloody fabulous. I lovvvve the rawness. Pure, bloody, violent. Range of characters. Lol @ no appreciation for Indie films. Wouldn't expect many of you to anyways. Sad.
No one likes Trainspotting I imagine.
Youngies :P
-
lol @Lovyan well we not really into low budget movies yuh know so gih we a chance
-
me et know what wrong with allyuh that movie was mad ah real like how the woman conduct it the man get infected before the man could answer chop him up plus yuh see the leading male he was a pure killer
that movie was good
-
Lov....i do appreciate your Opinion...but i do have an Eye for D.B. movies
for eg Trainspotting which rated 4.5 stars..... :shock:
which is about unrepentant heroin addicts In Edinburgh , the film's blend of hyperkinetic humor and real-life horror is constantly fascinating...So i do support his movies!
and what about
Shallow Grave :cool:
Which begins with three obnoxious roommates mockingly interrogating applicants who want to share their spacious flat. The guy that they finally choose doesn't last long--they find him dead from a drug overdose along with a suitcase full of money that he no longer needs. They decide to keep the money; this of course requires that they discreetly dispose of the body, which proves to be a gruesome, traumatic business......yada yada yada
but i must say that the the clever cinematography and macabre humor make Shallow Grave worth watching. :-) did you see it ( you should) :o
But what baffled me was the way he Portrayed this movie (28 days later)
which was so appalling and frail that i did not approve of it!
so although i respect your opinion, do try to look at it from another angle
laterzz! :smile:
-
This is the critics point of view
they gave this movie 3.5 stars
A welcomed breath of fresh air to an usually stale genre
From the critically acclaimed director of Trainspotting and Shallow Grave, comes a terrifying experience in which many have called a revolutionary to the horror genre. While I do not agree with that assessment wholeheartedly, but I must admit that I had one thrilling ride sitting through 28 Days Later. That's saying a lot, since truth be told, watching scary movies is not exactly my idea of a good time.
Set in modern day England, a group of animal rights activists breaks into a laboratory that uses chimps as test subjects. Believing they are doing the right thing in freeing these helpless creatures, their act results in the release of a deadly virus called "rage" into the world. Fastforward to four weeks after that pivotal event, a comatose patient name Jim suddenly wakes up in a deserted hospital. Not sure of what has transpired since his accident, he roams the eeriely empty streets of London looking for any signs of life. As daylight turns into dusk, Jim stumbles upon two individuals, Selena and Mark. It is then he finally discovers that the whole country has been evacuated due to an outbreak of the virus. With no outside information coming in, they have no way of knowing if the same thing is happening around the globe.
Thus begins the journey of this ragtag band of normals trying to stay alive and uninfected, but to what end? That was one question I kept asking myself as the movie progressed, since there was no cure and for all they knew they could be the last people left with no chance of being rescued, wouldn't survival be meaningless without a goal? Fortunately, the film does eventually address this concern in the final act, better late than never I suppose, however, the damage is already done and the pointlessness of the whole first part is only alleviated partially.
Although many are dubbing 28 Days Later as a zombie movie, but do not let that mislead you or your expectations. Granted I am no expert on the subject, but I failed to see any similarities. The infected people are neither mindless drones craving for human brains, nor are they the living dead. In actuality, their purpose of existence is very simple, and that is to pass on the virus to others. This is where one of my main concerns for 28 Days Later comes in. I realized that "rage" is most likely just a means to an end, to put this group in a seemingly hopeless situation. Yet for a movie to used a device so prominently in the telling of its story, the writer has a responsibility to explain the scenarios he introduced. For example, why in the world would someone have the need to research a virus like this, what possible good can come out of it? Furthermore, if the effects of the infection manifest themselves almost instantaneously with no antidote available, why would it be kept in such a low security place? These unresolved issues do not necessarily ruin one's experience while watching the movie, but they certainly do not help to make it better to just gloss over them.
Director Boyle's choice to shoot 28 Days Later with a digital video camera is probably more of an economic decision rather than an artistic one due to the low budget. Whether it was intentional or not, the resulting effects were quite significant. The washed-out and grainy look of the movie contributed to an already creepy atmosphere, the sense of dread and despair was almost oppressive at times. The beginning scenes showing an abandoned London was quite a sight to take in, even though it was kind of illogical to not encounter a single dead body when you think about it, nevertheless, the sequence was effective in drawing the audiences into the plot. Another noteworthy aspect is the score, especially the absence of it during a few key moments, sometimes the silence is more desirable than contrived loud noises aimed at scaring the viewers. There were a couple of cliched elements common to many horror films present as well, such as a person would enter a darkened building for no apparent reason at all.
Character developments in 28 Days Later is a mixed bag. Cillian Murphy gave a good performance for most of the movie as Jim, but somewhere in the middle someone decided to turn him into a killing machine. This complete one hundred eighty degrees change in his personality may be necessary to resolve the situation he found himself in, but it felt completely unconceivable when you compare it to his earlier behavior. He was out of shape, still recovering from his injuries, and for all we knew had never taken another human life before, but now we were expected to accept that he can outsmart and outmaneuver a group of trained military soldiers. My suspension of disbelief can only go so far. Naomie Harris's portrayal of the strong-willed Selena was decent but forgettable, but her character also suffered from inconsistencies. We were led to believe that she was supposed to be this tough fighter who can make all the difficult decisions without a second thought, but towards the end she was reduced to a damsel in distress needing Jim to rescue her. It is a shame to see these personas ruined by careless writing.
Despite of all the problems I have with 28 Days Later, I still think it plays very well as a horror film on many levels, I am just a bit disappointed that it is not as polished as I hoped it would be. Danny Boyle did an excellent job filling the audiences with angst and anticipation, the experience is so intense that you cannot let your guard down even during moments of respite, because you can never be sure if the director will have something sinister planned behind those light hearted scenes. As I have mentioned before, I am not a big fan of scary movies, and if I managed to find something enjoyable about 28 Days Later, I can imagine you will as well.
think about it! :cool:
-
Critics suck arse. They see things they want to see and what they expect - not what is presented. The character developments may be off a tad...at least in my pov. I'll get into it a bit more later though - I'm rushing off now.
-
awaiting your response!
i know that i can't beat you when it comes to inde movies
because i'm no expert!
but this was not one of his best movies!
-
Sadly I haven't even seen Trainspotting yet (I need my own personal copy dangit!) or Shallow Grave so I can't be quite sure. I don't think I want to compare other works. I rather look at each movie as a single entity. One can always say "oh this was better than his last movie" etc etc but somehow I don't think it's quite fair. As artists/directors you are pretty much experimenting as you go along. You are more than likely doing what you enjoy. If you come up with a sudden brainstorm and put yourself into it then that's your life. You want to make that certain statement.
Here I go with my analysis of that whole crappy review.
That was one question I kept asking myself as the movie progressed, since there was no cure and for all they knew they could be the last people left with no chance of being rescued, wouldn't survival be meaningless without a goal? Fortunately, the film does eventually address this concern in the final act, better late than never I suppose, however, the damage is already done and the pointlessness of the whole first part is only alleviated partially.
You've got to be completely stupid not to think that maybe there is hope left. It's something human of sorts. Selena is bent on surviving no matter what - just because it's something to do, there isn't anything left to do, may as well try to survive. If she's all alone at the end then so be it, but at least she accomplishes something otherwise thought impossible.
This is where one of my main concerns for 28 Days Later comes in. I realized that "rage" is most likely just a means to an end, to put this group in a seemingly hopeless situation.
Huh? What is that?
Yet for a movie to used a device so prominently in the telling of its story, the writer has a responsibility to explain the scenarios he introduced.
Why should he? Why can't you figure it out for yourselves you lazy bastards? Come on! Where's your gray power? It's purpose is to make you think!
For example, why in the world would someone have the need to research a virus like this, what possible good can come out of it?
Let's see. Rage can be considered a virus right? So what's a virus without a cure? Why NOT research it?
Furthermore, if the effects of the infection manifest themselves almost instantaneously with no antidote available, why would it be kept in such a low security place?
Who said it was low security? Do you know that for sure? It's important these things, but if it was a high security lab there would be no movie.
These unresolved issues do not necessarily ruin one's experience while watching the movie, but they certainly do not help to make it better to just gloss over them.
Please. They do that in most movies. Gloss over the little things. You're generally supposed to concentrate on the bigger picture. I'm not saying that details aren't important - definitely they are, but I don't think they are in this case. Speculation in this genre is much more fun.
Director Boyle's choice to shoot 28 Days Later with a digital video camera is probably more of an economic decision rather than an artistic one due to the low budget.
Right. Key word probably. Doubtful somewhat. Course it's all speculation. You can't ever know what the artist meant unless he says something himself.
Cillian Murphy gave a good performance for most of the movie as Jim, but somewhere in the middle someone decided to turn him into a killing machine.
Why not? True that it's a total 180 but hey the storyline's somewhat far-fetched too. After all it's fiction...right? Maybe not.
Naomie Harris's portrayal of the strong-willed Selena was decent but forgettable, but her character also suffered from inconsistencies. We were led to believe that she was supposed to be this tough fighter who can make all the difficult decisions without a second thought, but towards the end she was reduced to a damsel in distress needing Jim to rescue her.
She's human. She's a woman. If you were in that situation how would YOU feel? After a while it would get to you and you're tired of the bs and perhaps you think it's hopeless now. Maybe. Maybe not. Was it really bad writing to "ruin" the characters? Think about it.
Despite of all the problems I have with 28 Days Later, I still think it plays very well as a horror film on many levels, I am just a bit disappointed that it is not as polished as I hoped it would be.
The genre is horror or sci-fi? Hmm. I thought about this as we went through the movie. How would you have polished it off? Tell us..really! Critic idiota.
My main point though after dissection of that critique is that you'll always have your opinion. There will always be differences. There'll be the haters and the lovers of the work. Whatever you interpret. Thing is that maybe sometimes you need another perspective, to make you think a little bit about what's going on.
-
ok i will go see this movie just to come in here and fight over if it was good or bad
-
lol. who's to judge what's good or bad?
-
ok lov.....
another perspective indeed
i see where you're comming from!
although i agree with your opinions.....i still don't fancy this movie!
maybe it was left for us to try and create a story arround the baisis of this movie....try and figure it out! maybe!
anyway
off to find another movie to argue over
laterzz!
-
:? Wat u mean it suckz ............ppl says it waz a good movie .....but i guess ppl have there own opinion of the movie 8)
-
that movie was cool...
looked like a night of the living dead spinnoff though, but it was goofd for what it was...
Even Killjoy jumped out his seat once
-
d trailer wasnt to nice either.and the british scene...no.brit movies arent all that.and jus by showing one character isnt goin to draw people to see it.
-
*laugh* people are drawn to different things.
why would one not be drawn to one character? there wasn't even one character in this movie. did you even see it?
-
lol @ killjoy
still ain't see the stupid movie i have to rent it
-
the opinion of the movie should be based on what one as a individual likes. not because one person says it is good or bad should form the overall conclusoin or opinion.the movie was ok but could have been better.
-
lovyan
i think yu should reach for dat butter knife for men girll
cause this movie was blooooodyy fabulous!
THIS IS THE BESSTTTT CINEMATOGRAPHY IVE SEEN IN AGES!
IAM STILL AT AWE AT THE SITE OF THE WHOLEEE OF ENGLAND, JUST EMPTY~!!!
for the dumbass that was criticizing thae fact ath no more than 6 people were in a scene at one time
DUHHHHHH DUMBASSSS!!!! MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THE MOVIE WERE DEAD! OR HAD LEFT ENGLAND!
the music was bloody exxcellent
and at first the hello thing was irritating me cause it caused problems everytime he said it
but that ending with the hello was masterfull!
bunch ah wankers!!
THIS MOVIE WAS PERFECTLY MICKEY MOUSE!
-
to each his own...........
-
i never see the movie.i hear it was dred.must see for myself
-
what was de movie about