I don't fault movies for using familiar synopses unless it's clear that they're doing so directly to cash in on trends. I didn't get that feeling with 28DL. Not only do I not fault it for using the post-apocalyptic motif, I give it points for putting an interesting plot point in in that England was quarantined. And I liked that the disease spread so quickly, so they could avoid characters trying to hide the fact that they'd been infected. And while I didn't really think the acting of the main female was great, Cilian Murphy, Chris Ecclestein, and Brendan Gleeson were very good.

I agree on the ending, it felt tacked on. So I just stop the movie when they hit the gate.


And as basic and familiar as the plot may have been, at least it was coherent

He didn't say ''fucked up'', he said ''fuck up'' as in shut the fuck up.

I'm glad someone understands me :D

I remember the alternate ending on the DVD was better they should've went with that one. Haven't watched it since it came out so my memories a bit foggy. I prefered the Dawn Of The Dead remake at the time. 28 Days didn't totally suck but it didn't impress me a hell of a lot. More of a thriller to me than a horror flick.

28 Days Later:-

As with several highly rated British horror productions, the problem is in the execution.

Another post-apocalyptic 'zombie' affair might be more palatable without the gloss that was applied here, but further comtempt is bred by generally lightweight acting and something difficult to pin down - best described as an all-to-obvious air of 'Britishness' about the whole thing, manifested through unnatural accents and a manipulative sense of 'wonder' as the Romero story is so 'cleverly' relocated across the Atlantic.

Add to that, the natural disdain for mainstream horror that we've all seen before through the underground indie circuit... 28 Days Later needed to take more risks, and lose much of the sheen.

So far as The Beyond goes, it is one of Fulci's best, most atmospheric films (which may not be much of an accolade to some) but many don't buy into his vision (naivete?) when it comes to narrative and would prefer films with the weight of disbelief a little lighter and a more coherent order.

Whatever, it has more heart and soul in its little finger than the whole of 28 Days Later.

i never had a need for order or coherency ..
i just didnt like the piecemeal student film feel to it ..

it had more in common with those later corman films where he'd chop a bunch of films together into one.

i admit, had i first seen it 20 years ago i probably would also be a champion of this film today - getting off on the cheap but entheusiastic gore effects - but having 1st seen it just 1 year ago (with huge expectations) i was dissapointed .. just found it foolish and inept. not lacking coherence - just laking sense.

wasnt looking to dislike it - was really looking forward to something nuts.


i did enjoy 28 days later though .. i liked the human side of it .. it was the part of the film i concentrated on and enjoyed

...
 

Much like after the apocalypse, except for the occassional zombie the movie was empty and boring. It was like they had a great idea and thought they'd just see if the movie could ride on it, total failure imo.

Re: ...
 

i thought the movie had a lot going for it ..

the drop in the eye (father /daughter)
the (not new) theme of the military turning martial law into martial unlawlessness (which is exactly how i picture it to be)

i liked the refreshing change from the shambling beatable zombie to a disease spreading killing frenzy ...

i thought it was a well directed, well acted film..

It's funny, as a teenager I wouldn't entertain what I saw as cheap, unsatisfying (even offensive) eurotrash when it came to Italian exploitation. I needed the reassurance of Hollywood's values, the certainty of where the stories were heading, the rush of excitement from hip and expensive American productions making us feel good about ourselves as the end credits roll.

Discovering the forbidden (in the UK at least) underground - and films like The Beyond - helped put Hollywood horror in perspective, and displayed how sterile and restrictive the genre had become in the 90s. That is not to say The Beyond and City of the Living Dead are championed solely for their low production values and anti-Hollywood elements, but Fulci's films do offer an alternative to the predictable tidyness of bigger budget cinema and - to their fans at least - their wild scripts are not unfathomable but rather braver representations of how aggressive and off the rails the horror film can get.

There's good incoherency and bad incoherency. For example:

Eraserhead: "What's the deal with the radiator? Why's the baby all lizardy? Who's that guy and why did he make a pencil eraser out of his head? Why is is hair like that?"
Good incoherency. Raises questions about possible symbolic or otherwise narritively challenging ideas or events. And hairstyle choices. I guess.


The Beyond: "Why the hell are spiders eating him all of a sudden? Why did that guy just hook a 50 year old corpse up to a brain monitor? If the incorporeal force of evil can just kill people whenever it wants, why doesn't it just do that with the main characters? Why are people going blind with no explanation and no relevance or connection to any sort of plot point?"
Bad incoherency. Raises questions about basic plot development and character motives. No discernable connection between most plot points.

Re: Re: ...
 

Every idea the movie had was great! The military, the disease, everything. I felt the movie lacked real guts, I couldn't care about anything that went on and I was just bored watching it.

I wouldn't put it up there with Psycho or The Shining but like a lot of horror movies I like that other people hate, it was entertaining.