28 days later

[krtshadow]

Who's seen it? What did you think?

Personally, I loved it. Great twist on the zombie thriller theme. It also went big on meaning, something I didn't really get from Resident Evil. The hyperkinetic effect on the infected made it really creepy as well. Not just your shambling dead guy.

Seeing the movie, I had also suspected that DV saved them a ton in behind-the-camera costs. I read an interview with what's-his-name (Boyle?) who confirmed it. The empty London shots would never have happened.

By the way, anybody seen The Eye? It's the new Japanese horror film that everyone's talking about. It isn't showing anywhere near me.

[sightsunseen]

I, personally, loved it as well.

It was refreshing to see something that even if not entirely new...felt different.

I didn't get the zombie connection people keep making...more along the lines of "the Crazies", also a must see.

I'd recommend both these films to anyone who's tired of these 90's "Scream" knockoffs.

[Airk]

Scream sucks. i really do not prefere those movies, but i will definatly check out 28 days later it sounds cool. and looks good.

[armagecko]

WARNING: Spoilers appear in the comments below. If you haven't seen this flick, then you may not want to read this post.

Overall, I really liked this movie. LIKED... Not loved.

I thought the set-up to this movie was very clever: A group of militant animal-rights activists setting free contaminated monkeys. A true stroke of genius, including the shot of the monkey wired to a panel of TV sets. That shot prepares you for a bit of social commentary, like the afore mentioned, unsuccessful, but still classic, 'The Crazies.' Unfortunately, Boyle's commentary or statement, if there ever was one, is lost in the tale that follows.

About twenty minutes into the movie, I found the pixelated look of Danny Boyle's digital video obnoxious and even hard to watch. (And this is coming from someone that works extensively with video!) He had to go out of his way to get his image to look that bad. 'Tadpole' and 'Bamboozled,' both of which were shot on video, never looked like this. I've seen amateur video with less blur. I know he was going for the whole apocalyptic effect, but I know there are ways to accomplish this without sacrificing so much visual quality. BTW, I would like to read the interview you mention, Kevin, because I didn't see ANY 'deserted street' shots that could not have been done (and done better) with 16 or 35mm. I mean, seriously, once you close the street, what difference does the size of your camera make? It's not like he and the actors sneaked in at some 'odd hour' and grabbled these shots. It was a large coordinated effort between the production team and the local officials that got those streets closed.

I really liked the look of the Infected. They truly looked, well... infected. However, I hated the choppy editing that Boyle used for the action sequences. You could never tell what was really happening. I'm not someone that must see every gruesome detail, but after several attacks, I found myself totally confused - like, "who killed who?". Some girl behind me obviously shared my sentiments, as she kept asking her friend, "What just happened?" Jeremy Heilman, at Moviemartyr.com, concurs by saying, "Apparently the legacy of the Blair Witch phenomenon is the belief in filmmakers that visuals aren’t important and incoherency is scarier than anything viewers can actually comprehend." I must sadly agree. More Hitchc*ck, less MTV, Danny boy.

I also loved the moment where the only decent soldier hints to the lead character that only England is infected with the virus, and later he sees an airplane flying overhead, thus providing evidence that the soldier was correct. That proved to be a great twist, in my opinion. However, other plot moments seemed very contrived, and illogical. Like when our protagonist sets free the infected monster who later kills several soldiers. How does he know that this freak won't attack the same girls he is trying to find and save? And what about the soldiers and their plans for perpetuating the human race? Ridiculous. I mean, we're talking 28 DAYS people! In less than a month, these guys have resorted, not to constructing a plan to leave England, not to finding and helping others like them survive, but to finding women to rape. And even if I could buy that kind of savage reversal of societal order, there's no way that I would swallow the soldiers forcing the girls to put on red dresses. It amazes me how many good writers don't know how to use irony. This flawed attempt at surrealism is akin to Marlon Brando's ridiculous portrayal of Dr. Moreau in the John Frankenheimer flop. Alex Garland should have known better.

In the end, I think this movie had awesome potential, but never really lived up to it. However, story and context always rank high with me. The story as a whole was surprising, edgy, and fairly well-crafted. Plus, the other horror 'crap' that I have seen this year easily makes this movie the best of the lot. I'd give it a B.

[sightsunseen]

I agree with the problems regarding the desperation of the soldiers after only 28 days...
But they never really said that they were "real" soldiers...just survivors who've joined the group.
Still, it doesn't explain the criminal behavior of the group, maybe if there was a subtle camera cross past a sign near the building that read, "Asylum" eh?

But you forgot the big one that really didn't fit.

What was up with the Christmas lights?
Why would a father set himself and his daughter up like that?
I mean really, a candle brought about an attack earlier on in the film...it pulled me out of the film.

But...unlike some,
I liked the crap footage feel.
It took me back to the old sci-fi horror movies that
always were lit wrong, filmed poorly, and recorded almost as bad...it didnt' phase me a bit.

[krtshadow]

WARNING-SPOILERS

I've read one online interview off Cyber Film School. Another, I can't remember, but he made it clear that the movie wouldn't have happened if it was done on film. What I like is that he used the Canon XL-1, I believe, to shoot the movie.

The empty London scenes were done very quickly. Obviously it was early morning, and they hasd about fifteen minutes to block off streets. So basically every crew member had a camera and they shot every possible angle at once.

I didn't seem to have too much of a problem following the action. There were some points where you're not quite sure who is where, blah, blah, but that could be a device on its own. I think the point was to put the audience inside the confusion of the scene. I had an easier time following this movie than Black Hawk Down.

Everybody has a problem with the number of days. I agree with the soldiers giving up hope already, maybe it makes sense if there were other endings (there were, one ends with England being nuked) that are more bleak. Maybe the soldiers were calling for help and being ignored. (which doesn't make a case for the jet at the ending, I know)

There were some awesome scenes in this movie, though. My jaw dropped when the girl waxed their only other companion at the beginning. The infection of the father was done really well, too.

Anyway, I'm not completely defending the movie. Holes there are. I loved it because, I said before, it wasn't just about holing up somewhere and defending against waves of slow, stumbling, basically stupid, zombies.

[armagecko]

I totally agree with that last statement. That's interesting that he shot with a Canon XL-1. In that case, I think Boyle's movie is a great advertisement - FOR SONY! I am a huge Canon fan and have used these cameras many times. They are capable of a much better picture than what I saw in 28 Days Later. I suppose, if he did indeed shoot early in the morning with no additional lighting, that might explain the blurry, degraded images that appeared in some of the 'deserted street' scenes (and throughout).

This is what I thought about the Christmas lights: I think that the father was using them to try to signal any human survivors. Remember, he knew that he was running low on water and that his and his daughter's only chance was to leave. He also knew, as he explained, that they could not make it alone. Yeah, the lights might have attracted some infected, but, remember he was ready in defense when our protagonists showed up. Obviously he had been able to fight off any infected that were attracted by the lights. But he still used them to signal for help. That's my take on it.

Like I said, I didn't hate this movie, and I agree there were some excellent moments. I enjoy comparing 28 Days to Wrong Turn, one of the worst horror movies I have seen to date. (How strong of an insult is that?? ) Check it out: Wrong Turn had a budget of $10 mil, similar to the $15 mil for 28 Days. Wrong Turn has been released for about six weeks and has made $14.3 million. 28 Days, on the other hand, with a budget of $15 mil, has been released for only 2 weeks and has raked in $23.5 million. And to top it all, Turn was shot on film and Days was shot on video. Now, what do these numbers tell us faithful at the Low-Budget Horror Film Society? To me, they prove that just because you are making a low-budget movie does not mean that you are making a 'B' movie. 28 Days did not have a film-quality image and it didn't have Stan Winston Studios doing its effects. What it did have was a clever and well-constructed story. And that's the very thing that Wrong Turn didn't have. How much does that mean to the audience? You've got the numbers. See for yourself.

This is a real pet peeve of mine. (I promise not to rant too much. The whole "Video Revolution" allows directors to make movies for a fraction of the cost of film. The accessability of CGI software allows a production team to construct affordable visuals that could NEVER be created with previous constructable materials. So, why are we stuck watching crap?? It seems to me that although the "Revolution" has given everyone the ability to shoot a movie, nobody can TELL A GOOD STORY! (I can't truly say 'nobody' because I have seen some gems, but you know what I mean. This is a rant. Play along.) What it comes down to is that, even with the proper tools, you still need a CREATIVE and STRUCTURED and DISCIPLINED mind in order to write (and shoot) a successful story. This is my advice to Alan McElroy, screenwriter for Wrong Turn (I'm sure he is 'all ears' : The structure of good storytelling has never changed. Anyone who is considering 'telling a story,' should first sit down and read and learn from those who have gone before. Screenwriters like Frank Darabont (Shawshank Redemption) and Julius Epstein (Casablanca, Man Who Came To Dinner, and others), and authors like Nathaniel Hawthorne (Scarlet Letter and tons of great short stories), William Faulkner (Absalom, Absalom, and tons of other novels and short stories), and Poppy Z. Brite (the reigning queen of modern horror, try her collection of short stories, Are You Loathsome Tonight). Okay, that's my Literacy plug for the month. Fire at will.

[krtshadow]

Well, the way the deserted London stuff was shot just seemed very guerrilla-style for someone who's at the high end of the game.

I forgot to comment on the Christmas lights before but I am in agreement with you, gecko. It's not like everybody has riot gear kicking around their apartment, right? I suspect all the piled carriages were his early warning device as well.

Wrong Turn...where does one begin? I think, more than anything, that it shows what an advertising company can do, and what throwing a couple of beautiful "B" stars in a bad movie WON'T do...sell. Really, it didn't even seem like one person wrote it. It was more like a bunch of suits sitting in a boardroom saying, "Well, we need a summer horror flick, Jones, any ideas?"

"Well, sir, the woods are scary."

"Right, we have Eliza Dushku in our pocket. Get her and run with it."

[krtshadow]

Oh, and The Shawshank REdemption was initially a novella calle Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, by Stephen King. The screenplay is a very faithful recreation of the original.

[sightsunseen]

Hate to disagree with you guys but I truly love the action/horror/thriller genre and...

Wrong Turn was fine...
and I was actually pretty happy to see another horror film selling so well.

We don't go to horror movies for an incredible plot...
that would be the Drama genre no?

I mean really, some of our favorite films (I mean moviegoers in general) are "Friday the 13th" (not a big plot workload there), "Nightmare on Elmstreet" (ok, it started with a premise but went for sales didn't it?), "Child's Play"...do I have to go on?

I'm a little curious as to why independant filmmakers who say they love the genre are always jumping down it's throat everytime something comes out. These are simply rollercoaster rides and aren't meant for too much analytical thought...just enjoy the friggin' ride already.

[krtshadow]

I really need to disagree with your disagreement...

The reason I love horror is for the movies that are so good they transcend ANY genre. Now, I'm down for a good ride any time, and admittedly Wrong Turn never attempted to be anything other than another throwaway horror flick, but there are others out there trying to make real art and tell great stories within the horror genre.

Some of my favorites don't even really play all that much on SFX. The Changeling, Sixth Sense, The Others, none of these movies used challenging sfx and still managed to scare the pants off me. And it was done with good storytelling. Alien is another great example of kick*ss story. The story being so good you didn't NEED to see the alien.

And really, it's the public's money, they can spend it on what they want. I'd rather it be something a little fresher and smarter, but hey, trying to educate the world is like banging your head against a wall.

I don't think anyone from Wrong Turn will be practicing their Academy speeches for that one, that's all.

[armagecko]

Movie-goers come in all sizes and flavors, and they like their movies for a myriad of reasons. But, I, too, must disagree with sightsunseen.

The point of my comparisons of 28 Days Later and Wrong Turn was to show that PLOT (or STORY) DOES MATTER - IN ANY GENRE. Wrong Turn is NOT "selling so well." It is my belief that this is due to its weak story.

I'm not sure who the WE is in your post, sights. If you are referring to movie-goers, then obviously WE are going to the better-told story of 28 Days Later RATHER than the half-baked Wrong Turn.

All three of the movies you mention are horror classics. All three had successful box office runs. AND all three had clever, original, well-spun stories. BTW, 28 Days Later has already (in 3 weeks) eclipsed the TOTAL box office gross for all three of these movies, while Wrong Turn has brought in about as much as Jason X, the worst-selling of the franchise flicks.

So, if you want to pretend that "WE don't go to horror movies for an incredible plot" or a well-told story, be my guest. But, in my opinion, the numbers speak for themselves.

Also. . . some of us don't enjoy a simplistic, cliche-ridden, uneventful and unscary "rollercoaster." I, for one, want my rollercoaster to shake me up, twist me around, make me scream, and send me home feeling happy to be alive. If my rollercoaster promises to do these things and then doesn't deliver - even though I love rollercoasters - I'm gonna tell folks that, "This coaster sucks!" For those people who don't think that rollercoasters should be thrilling, for those who don't want to "analyze" a coaster too much, for those who would be satisfied with a carousel or a merry-go-round, there will always be plenty of "rides" to amuse them.

[sightsunseen]

Movies like "the Others" and "Sixth Sense" aren't horror films...they're thrillers or an intense form of a drama.

You werent' really horrorified were you?

I see where you're coming from but the categorization of film is a little broader than drama, action, comedy, and horror despite what they tell you at Best Buy.

[krtshadow]

How do you define horror?

I guess that's a pretty subjective question, like asking random people the difference between "good art" and "bad art." One will say the Sistine Chapel, the other likes paintings on velvet.

Does the lack of guts and blood drenched victims remove a film from the horror genre? I mean, think about the log line to either of these movies.

"A young boy's safety and sanity are in question by his ability to see and interact with the dead."

"An unknown presence haunts a mansion."

Sounds like horror to me. I'm wondering what your exclusion criteria are, sights. I mean, Sixth Sense and The Others made me jump, Wrong Turn made me yawn.

P.S. No harshness meant here, I like a good debate.

[sightsunseen]

I think we all like a good debate, so know there's no harshness here either, but...

Vincent Price, one of the gods of both genres, was asked when did thrillers become horror films? (back then they were all called thrillers) He responded with the mention of blood.

Thrillers let you scare the crap out of yourself...and save the director a bundle. They're really good and require a great directing/writing team, and more.

Horror films are going to scare or disgust you no matter if you're in the mood or not. They too, are really good and require a good director but even better sound and fx people.

There's really just this fine line of how you get scared is all. But they are still apples and oranges...

Another way to go is this...
Thrillers can win Oscars.
True horror never will.
Ergo..."Misery" was a thriller.