no way
 

28 days later dragged the entire time. It was just so dry and boring. My eyes started getting lazy.

yeah but thats your apinion i thought it was a great film

Anyone seen the alternate endings?

yeah and to tell the truth they were no big deal to me...

The only thing I think sucked about this movie was the alternate endings on the DVD. Did anyone see the Easter Egg ending. The one that is just story boards about what they thought about doing with the movie? It's on the DVD, but it seems like it is not obvious on how to get to it. That's why I'm calling it an Easter Egg, if it's not, sorry, I'm just stupid. Anyways, I'm very glad they didn't go in the whole "blood transfusion" direction.

Anyways, w/o the alternate ending crap this movie was pretty good. Not a 10/10 but maybe a 8/10.

I disagree with your feelings about the actual movie, but I agree with you hear. The alternate endings were just something they hyped to get people back in the theaters and to buy the DVD. I thought they sucked.

why do ppl freak about such little stuff so much?! using caps? please. as for 28 days which is what this post is about i have never seen the movie but i clearly remember in the trailer that it is described as a zombie movie. that's just what i remember...i hope no one freaks on me..yikes!

I just saw this and i liked it!!! to me it was more of end of the world kind of movie even though it turned out not to be the end. it kinda reminded me of NIGHT OF THE COMET, OMEGA MAN AND MY FAVORT end of the world movie THE STAND!!! THE STAND is in my top ten best movies!!

yeah that is the movie it reminded me of too... not one of my favs eighter... but to be honest I like night of the comet more..

Honestly, I was somewhat disappointed in the film. Not because I thought it was terrible, but I was expecting more from some of the advance buzz I had heard.

A decent movie, not great. My main problem was how predictable it turned out to be. The whole bit with the soldiers turning out to be psychos...well, I saw that coming a mile away. In fact, it seems like this film was just cobbled together out of any number of horror and sci-fi cliches.

Well-made, but derivative.

It was a decent movie, but you can't really put it in the "living dead" or "zombie" categorie since as someone said they were 'infected'. For all we know the infected were not actually dead just literally infected. Being infected with something usually means what? That you are still alive. In this case the "virus" (or whatever you want to call it) gave the host a zombie like appearance and drove them mad, but that is why the virus was called "rage" as they called it in the movie at the beginning.

All in all it was a decent movie. The thing I really didnt like was once they came up on the military guys. That was just a really stupid idea.

But oh well, at least they didnt try to add humor to the movie by getting one of the infected to give us all the finger.

first post here, hi

thought 28 days was a despearately poor movie. i think it speaks volumes for modern horror that so many 'horror fans' liked it. it was a mish-mash of day/dawn of the dead (moreso the former with the over-done army angle) and the truly awful 'city of the walking dead' (http://www.badmovies.org/movies/citydead/citydead1.jpg) from which i believe 28 days culled the idea of the fast-moving, weapon-toting, uber-aggressive 'zombie.' i don't think it's necessary to quibble over whether 28 days is a zombie flick since it draws so heavily from the above movies

Well, as a "horror fan" I loved this movie...and will continue to defend it. There's nothing wrong with paying homage to the films by Romero. And the writer of 28 Days Later admits that he did that knowingly.

it wasn't even that horrific though, was it? it was eerie enough to begin with (but what apocalyptic zombie movie has a hard time pulling that off?) and then descended rather quickly into hollowood tripe: jumpy scares. 'realistic' camera jiggling. poorly-lit action. happy ending.. all the trademarks of sh*t movies these days. hear you about the romero nods but it's a pity the directors paid more homage to day of the dead rather than his two previous, superior zombie films

p.s. hi again avenger, speaking of romero, how do you feel about the dawn 'remake'? surely there's a thread on here somewhere about that..

One scene made the movie for me. When Selene kills Mark. She wasn't even positive that he was infected. She never even hesitated to give the guy a chance. She butchered him right then and there. And they never said if Mark was infected or not. That was horrific to me.

As for the Dawn remake. There are several threads about it around here. I was pretty hateful when I first heard the news. But after viewing the trailer and remembering that the Night remake was good (I know Romero was involved in that one but still...), I'll give it a chance. Who knows. I'm trying to be open-minded about it.

Um, and how old are you, since your calling us "modern horror fans"?

no no i said 'horror fans' in quotes, meaning, i wouldn't imagine horror fans really liking that movie since it wasn't (although likely avenger00 would disagree) that horrific..

been around since the 70s, thanks for asking? you? and have you got nice boobs? ;)

Horrific to me doesn't necessarily mean horrific to you. That's just my opinion of it. But I am somewhat of a horror fan (;) ) and I loved it.

i believe that you are avenger00, you and that dr. k seem to be a rather freakish pair!

Haha. Dr. K is the sleazy exploitation counterpart to my horror half. We're like the CP-30 and R2-D2 of Bad Cinema. Or Tubbs and Crockett. Or Reb and Lou....

for real, me and avenger dissagree on a number of movies but on this one its fucking right on. Maybe its because im a music guy and great music can make a movie for me (see the last scene when its raining and the main char goes crazy, or the opening scene when londons all deserted and hes walking around OR the scenes with the very sureal music when they are driving in the car) but i really liked this movie.

Ok Ok, so its not the MOST original movie of its day, but it does what it does well and its pretty well delivered. None of the usual horror cliches like drugs = death, sex= death, main characters only survive, none of that. Im thankful i got to see a movie this good recently:rolleyes:

Then again, I HATED the new TCM REMAKE:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I thought I would hate this movie because I am a TCM freak BUT since the original was not really a remake IMO I loved the new one..

Re: 28 Days Later
 

well i think (im gonna get picked on) worst horror ever made

You must not have seen a lot of horror movies then.

There are worse movies than this one but...man, I didn't know this topic was still alive and kickin.

Meh.:o

just not alot of bad ones

Well let me give you some homework then Massacre. Go rent I, Zombie, Carnivore, Zombie Lake, The Woodchipper Massacre, and Blood Cult and then tell me 28 Days Later is the worst horror movie you've ever seen.:D

Avenger will continue to defend this movie til the day he dies... mark my word

You know what's funny, it's not even one of my favorite flicks. I can't imagine if someone was bashing Phantasm II or something that I actually loved. I can imagine I will be doing this same thing when Cabin Fever hits video. I'm not trying to force my opinions on anyone though. Just giving the movie some just credit.

Phantasm II sucked rhino balls.



I hope that was sincere enough to work.:p

Actually, I was expecting Sam to reply.

A movie doesnt hav to be horrific to be a fucking awsome horror movie!! I loved this movie...I mean there are parts when you think for god sake just get one with it, but overall its very wel made. Obviously it is no night of the living dead or any other classics but to me it was a well made movie... :p

look to me it was a decent average horror zombie movie. im sorry but some good shots of the city wont make me rate it higher than that. now theres nothing wrong with a decent average zombie movie, EXCEPT WHEN ITS HYPED UP TO LOOK LIKE ITS BETTER THAN THE OTHERS