Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    190

    who's gonna see 28 Weeks Later this weekend?

    I'm gonna try. Did anyone see Intacto? I never did but I heard good things. Anyway, here's hoping that this doesn't suck...

    -Coop

  2. #2
    Sgt. At Arms Worf101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Troy, New York
    Posts
    4,288

    Thanks Coop

    Me and de ole lady are sans crumbsnatcher tomorrow night. I was lookin' for something to see. That just might have the ring of goodness to it. Thanks..

    Da Worfster

  3. #3
    nightflier
    Guest
    I think that's a DVD-selection for me...

  4. #4
    Suspended PeruvianSkies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald Cooperberg
    I'm gonna try. Did anyone see Intacto? I never did but I heard good things. Anyway, here's hoping that this doesn't suck...

    -Coop
    Not interested in the least. I thought the first film was mediocre at best. Everyone acted like it was 'something new' and I thought it was the flavor of the week that has been done again and again. I thought it was OUTBREAK meets DAWN OF THE DEAD/NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and nothing new in the least. I 'might' be inclined to see this when it's on TV for free, even then it will have to be if nothing else is on.

  5. #5
    Rep points are my LIFE!! Groundbeef's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Somewhere on Earth
    Posts
    1,959
    The only reason I watched it on DVD was because of an interview the director gave on NPR. The film itself (28 days later) was really, really LOW budget. It was made on something like under 100,000. Closer to 50K if I remember correctly.

    The got (film production) NO permits to be filming anywhere in London. Everything was done very quickly, and most scenes in the city were done at night. This was because traffic was lighter, and without permits, they couldn't very well stop traffic. They used people off the street without payment (just asked them if they wanted to be in a movie, shot the scene very quickly, and left).

    So on a whole, it was a pretty good flick considering the tactics they used to get it done.

    But now, I think the next installment is going to be something of a "blockbuster" type film. It is going to lose (IMHO) the very element that made the original fun to watch.

    I may rent it, but there are so many other films I would rather see.

    BTW about the same time the remake of Dawn of the Dead came out. For a big budget film, I didn't think it was any better than 28 days. The original was MUCH better.

  6. #6
    Suspended PeruvianSkies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Groundbeef
    The only reason I watched it on DVD was because of an interview the director gave on NPR. The film itself (28 days later) was really, really LOW budget. It was made on something like under 100,000. Closer to 50K if I remember correctly.

    The got (film production) NO permits to be filming anywhere in London. Everything was done very quickly, and most scenes in the city were done at night. This was because traffic was lighter, and without permits, they couldn't very well stop traffic. They used people off the street without payment (just asked them if they wanted to be in a movie, shot the scene very quickly, and left).

    So on a whole, it was a pretty good flick considering the tactics they used to get it done.

    But now, I think the next installment is going to be something of a "blockbuster" type film. It is going to lose (IMHO) the very element that made the original fun to watch.

    I may rent it, but there are so many other films I would rather see.

    BTW about the same time the remake of Dawn of the Dead came out. For a big budget film, I didn't think it was any better than 28 days. The original was MUCH better.

    That's NOT true. The film had a 8 Million Dollar budget and was shot just like any film was with permits and everything else. It was shot with both 35mm film and digital, that alone would make the cost over 50K.

  7. #7
    Rep points are my LIFE!! Groundbeef's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Somewhere on Earth
    Posts
    1,959
    Your right. I went on the web and double checked. I apologize. I cant remeber what film was being discussed on NPR now. But for a low budget (relative) to other horror films that were out at the time, it really was no better or worse.

  8. #8
    Kam
    Kam is offline
    filet - o - fish Kam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,770
    i saw it. eh.
    i like robert carlyle a lot, but he really didn't have much of a role. actually, after the first 15 (or 10?) minutes, the movie pretty much sucks. BUT... the opening in the house and the chase sequence away is VERY well done. this prologue, if it was just a short film, would have been outstanding, unfortunately there was an additional hours worth of contrived movie after it.
    /create

  9. #9
    Suspended PeruvianSkies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,373

    this is what I would have expected...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kam
    i saw it. eh.
    i like robert carlyle a lot, but he really didn't have much of a role. actually, after the first 15 (or 10?) minutes, the movie pretty much sucks. BUT... the opening in the house and the chase sequence away is VERY well done. this prologue, if it was just a short film, would have been outstanding, unfortunately there was an additional hours worth of contrived movie after it.

    I had a feeling that this is pretty much how it would go. Most of the times these films are made on a small idea, even a good one at that, but the problem is that they don't know how to expand that idea into a full-length feature.

  10. #10
    Kam
    Kam is offline
    filet - o - fish Kam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,770
    Quote Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
    I had a feeling that this is pretty much how it would go. Most of the times these films are made on a small idea, even a good one at that, but the problem is that they don't know how to expand that idea into a full-length feature.
    actually the prologue, other than setting up the relationship of the father to the kids, has nothing to do with the rest of the movie. the movie just expands on 28 days later, quite literally, into weeks. the "virus" they believe has run its course and killed itself off, so they start repatrioting london, only to find that WHAT??? the virus is still there!! oh no!! one little biology 101 twist in the story and its start all over again, zombies running like crazy, yada yada, kill nearly everyone, running crazy zombies and done and done.

    i liked 28 days later. not the best movie, but i thought it was the first 'fast-zombie' movie to come along. not that that is 'groundbreaking' but a nice addition to the zombie genre.

    but the prologue is brilliantly executed and could easily stand alone without even knowing anything about 28 days later. as a standalone 10 minute short, it woulda been incredible.
    /create

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •