dreamcatcher on 2/8/2009 at 21:42
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
This seems a strange thing to say - you know both The Omega Man and I Am Legend films are based on the I Am Legend book right?
Jeez, for a truly disappointing experience try watching "I am Omega", you will LOVE both other versions afterwards.
june gloom on 2/8/2009 at 21:59
Can someone explain to me, what, exactly, makes 28 Weeks Later so bad? Seriously. I've seen it twice (28DL I've seen 5 times, for reference) and I honestly cannot figure out what people don't like about it. Is it the different director? The American characters (because apparently Americans fuck up everything?) I saw very little difference between the mood of 28WL and the mood of 28DL- they're both desperate, and lonely, and dark. The last part of 28WL especially resonated with me- the tube station sequence was terrifying, and seeing the chopper in the middle of the stadium, surrounded by eerie silence, still haunts me just as much as Jim wandering the streets of London alone.
They're both good movies and 28WL is a good sequel in its own right. In some respects, Days is better, in others, Weeks is tops.
I guess being able to enjoy things makes me a terrible person with no taste. Which reminds me, where's 242? He hasn't stepped in to tell me I'm a dumb hick who obviously idolizes Michael Bay because I don't like more than 2.9 Kubrick films.
dreamcatcher on 2/8/2009 at 22:03
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Can someone explain to me, what, exactly, makes 28 Weeks Later so bad? |
I've seen both a few times as well, and for me difference was mostly the matter of immersion. The first installment just gripped you like a real experience, the second one seemed like your regular zombie movie. Besides, cinematography on the first one was simply superb.
june gloom on 2/8/2009 at 22:20
Well I felt 28 Weeks Later was perfectly immersive- and fantastically dark. I felt the director did a great job for the most part.
Tonamel on 2/8/2009 at 22:20
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
...the infected guy walked calmly past them. It was so out of character for anyone infected and obviously just put in to create a cool scene (which it would have been if not for the verisimilitude being fucked)
28 Weeks Later didn't work for me mostly because it had a few too many moments like this. Especially because the entire plot hinges on one of the infected
just wandering around drooling in people's faces before moving on, instead of being the RAGE-filled beast he's theoretically supposed to be acting like.
It don't think it was a bad movie, but I also don't feel the need to see it again.
Scots Taffer on 3/8/2009 at 00:18
While Children of Men isn't remotely post apocalyptic, I do think it has that same lean, hungry and ravaged populous thing going on that so many of those movies do (not that there is many of those movies).
Kuuso on 3/8/2009 at 01:24
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Can someone explain to me, what, exactly, makes 28 Weeks Later so bad? Seriously. I've seen it twice (28DL I've seen 5 times, for reference) and I honestly cannot figure out what people don't
like about it. Is it the different director? The American characters (because apparently Americans fuck up everything?) I saw very little difference between the mood of 28WL and the mood of 28DL- they're both desperate, and lonely, and dark. The last part of 28WL especially resonated with me- the tube station sequence was terrifying, and seeing the chopper in the middle of the stadium, surrounded by eerie silence, still haunts me just as much as Jim wandering the streets of London alone.
They're
both good movies and 28WL is a good sequel in its own right. In some respects, Days
is better, in others, Weeks is tops.
I guess being able to enjoy things makes me a terrible person with no taste. Which reminds me, where's 242? He hasn't stepped in to tell me I'm a dumb hick who obviously idolizes Michael Bay because I don't like more than 2.9 Kubrick films.
I like the sequel, but I think the difference between the films is in the overall atmosphere they convey. The first one is a haunting and eerie post-apo story, whereas the sequel seems more like an action-flick. As said before, the first film also has absolutely superb cinematography; the scenes near the start in empty London are just simply fantastic. It does help it has one of the best soundtracks/scores (Godspeed You! Black Emperor - Raise Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven is just made for stuff like this) I've heard.
Also, Carlyles character as zombie/ragewhatever feeds disbelief, because he just appears in places and acts unconvincingly (the character, the actor is fine).
june gloom on 3/8/2009 at 01:31
See, I thought the sequel had plenty of atmosphere too. And that's what I've been saying.
but what do i know
Zygoptera on 3/8/2009 at 03:15
For the third time in ten minutes- and just about the third time in five years- I'll have to agree at least partly with dethtoll. Basically, 28DL = Alien, 28WL = Aliens; they're barely in the same genre. Their focus is different, they treat the 'enemies' differently (28WL less so than Aliens, imo), one is more overtly action, the other more psychological. I tend to think that it's similar in another way: people who saw Alien first tend to prefer it to Aliens and vice versa, the difference here is that rather than having eight years between releases 28dl and 28wl had a lot less time so just about everyone saw 28dl first.
Of course, the thing I like best about 28wl is its somewhat less positive ending where all the good intentions managed to right royally fuck things up rather than 28dl's more bouncy joy ending. Should nuked the site from orbit guys, and it's not like I've sat down in litcrit mode to watch either.
ZymeAddict on 3/8/2009 at 04:01
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Can someone explain to me, what, exactly, makes 28 Weeks Later so bad?
Because while
28 Days Later at least makes sense within its own universe,
28 Weeks Later goes and chucks logic completely out the window over and over again so it's impossible to suspend disbelief (spoilers, of course).
For example: why the hell do there only seem to be a couple hundred US soldiers -at the most- occupying the entire fucking island of Great Britain? You could perhaps argue that most of them are off screen, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a retardedly small amount of soldiers guarding the British civilians who are all easily taken out by a few hundred infected.
Also, the film relies too much on the old horror film standby of people acting way stupider than then would in real life. Like that whole retarded sequence where the army lock the majority of the civies down in that cramped basement room (with the light off, for no good reason), and then conveniently fail to notice that there is ANOTHER FREAKING DOOR LEADING TO THE OUTSIDE which the one lone infected guy is able to easily open and get through.
Then there is the scene where the helicopter pilot chops up the crowd of infected with the blades of his helicopter. Yeah, it looks cool, but you'd think he would be a bit apprehensive about essentially dumping gallons of highly infectious biohazardous material all over his machine.
And those are just a couple examples of the stupidity evident throughout the film.
