28 days later.

I love a sunflower

Established Member
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
530
Reaction score
18
Points
229
Age
55
Location
Bristol
Has anyone seen 28 DAYS later? By Danny Boil.

I was reminded of this cack, on a trailer on One Hour Photo.
Badly shot, Badly acted.
Based on The Stand by Stephen King, I reckon.

The trailer looks good, but trust me it's pants.

Rich tee.
:p
 
Insightful post...

I actually thought it was a well acted and well directed film.
Ok it is not highly original but its timing in the cinemas (which was not intentional) was unnerving with all the talk of Weapons of Mass destruction at the time etc.

By the way its Danny Boyle not Boil ;)
 
I thought the film was great, I'm bored of the recent american horror stlyee
 
I really enjoyed 28 Days Later. I'm not really into horror films, particularly the zombie variety, but this was a really good take on the genre.

The empty streets of London was really chilling, and the first 'zombie' (the vicar) scared the life out of me (I think it was the movement, more than anything: none of the glazed eyes, arms outstretched nonsense that used to be typical of this type of film).
 
Initially I didn't like it, but since then it's grown to become one of my favourite films :)
 
Wow!
2 me it stank of low budget, almost as bad as RABID GRANNIES.
Has anyone ever seen that. It's a classic take on badly acted films. On purpose. I wonder if it's on DVD or video anywhere.

Rich tee.
 
My fav 2 horror films of the year are The Ring and Wrong Turn, both made me jump outta my seat a few times and really enjoyed em, have been considering buying 28 days later for months but i'm still undecided, maybe i should rent it.
 
I'd say that 28 Days Later is a renter...or summink to ask for as a gift from someone. I enjoyed it plenty, but I don't know if I'd feel the need to have it on DVD if you dig what I mean. It's not really big and dumb enough for me to wanna watch over and over again, or even inventively gory enough like The Thing or Day of The Dead to wanna watch more than a coupla times.

Definitely see it some way though, Foxy - it's a smart new take on the zombie thang.
 
It's great. It seems low budget, cos it is low budget. It was all shot on digital cameras, so it's almost homemade.

It's so much more raw than some stupidly polished mank from American horror minds, and gives it atmosphere. Top movie.
 
Definitely some good shocks in 28 days later - even if some were predictable, timing was spot on
 
The film is brilliantly directed, and IMO very well acted. the fact that it was completely shot on a DV camara (IIRC, I may be wrong) made the film all that better, the picture made the film a bit better IMO.

The story line although predictable was easy to digest and I found my self relating to the charecters with great ease, and found the film incredibly easy to slip into.

Was there any reason in particular that you didnt like it? I'm not a great fan of the horror genre but found the film and the acting, extremly palatable.

By the way the directors surname is spelt Boyle.
 
My view, well filmed, ok acting.

Not scary, not very gory, pretty lame as far as horror goes. It could not make its mind up if it was going to be a gorefest or a suspense horror. Failed on both counts.

Ok film, great film if you are easily scared and don't watch much horror (IMO of course :) )
 
Its filmed extremely well considering they were using a £2000 DV camera.
 
Is that all they used. I thought is was ok. My partner thought it was rubbish
 
I don't think shooting a film on low budget film equipment, makes
it great for that reason, IMO.

What did you think of the first Blair Witch?
It gave the impression it was shot on a camcorder, but the jumpy picture movements, for us made it difficult to watch.
I wouldn't call that GREAT.

Rich tee.
 
Originally posted by rich tee
I don't think shooting a film on low budget film equipment, makes
it great for that reason, IMO.

What did you think of the first Blair Witch?
It gave the impression it was shot on a camcorder, but the jumpy picture movements, for us made it difficult to watch.
I wouldn't call that GREAT.

Rich tee.

I didn't like it all that much but thought it was an interesting "project" nonetheless.
It was shot on camcorders and an old 16mm camera.
 
Originally posted by rich tee
What did you think of the first Blair Witch?

Absolutly amazing, the fact that it looked as if it was real, was what made it, IMO one of the scariest films Ive ever seen. The fact that it could in fact have happened and for all we know (if we didnt know better) that could have been the footage of the guys in the woods, for real.
 
There was people laughing when i watched it. I thought it was scary how it made so much money.
 
When I saw the exorcist at the flicks when it was re-released a few years back, Loads of us laughed out loud on several occasions.
Me palms got a bit sweaty at the end though.

Rich tee.
 
28 Days Later has to be one of the best Horror/Suspense films I've seen ever. Superbly shot, grittily realistic, and intense soundtrack.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom