hardynova's Diaryland Diary ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28 Days Later... Happy Independence days to the U.S.A. and Venezuela! Summer is here and I've been going to summer movies. Well Ok I haven't been to see the following: Charlie's Angels 2, Hulk or Terminator 3. But I have seen these movies: Matrix 2, Finding Nemo, Alex and Emma, 28 Days Later. And only ONE of those movies I truly found worth my time. Can you guess which? Yes, this 22-year-old found the G Rated "Finding Nemo" the best movie of the summer. Matrix 2 actually comes in second, mainly because I did like the action sequences. I hate sounding so superficial, but dammit, that's how it worked out this time around. Doesn't mean it was a good movie though. Well, ignore that. If you count X-Men 2 a summer movie then I'll put THAT at number 2. There's really no point in going into why Alex and Emma is a bad movie. If you saw it, you know why. If you didn't, it's because you could tell it would suck. Now for the disecting of a movie that could get me into trouble. Why I didn't like 28 days later. If you haven't seen it, stop reading now for I plan on spoiling just about everything. It's really hard not to in order to explain myself. If you've seen it and loved it, then I suppose there's not much point for you to read it. I only ask that you don't email me about why you think I'm wrong in not liking this movie. You're allowed to love it and I'm allowed to hate it. This is my diary, I'm voicing why I hated it. And if you agree with me then YAY! Now. Firstly I would like to say that I was fortunate enough to not be stuck in a theater full of annoying moviegoers with no manners. Seemingly a lot of people are having this problem. I did not hear teenagers giggling over the full frontal male nudity early on in the movie. So my dislike of 29 Days Later has nothing to do with a bad movie experience. (The person projecting this however, was completely incompetent when it cam to reel changes, but I understood it was the projectionists fault and not some bizaare editing.) And also, here's my horror movie credentials. I have seen and enjoyed movie by the following directors: Hitchcock, Argento, Bava, Fulci, Romero, Craven, Carpenter and others. I can handle almost anything a horror movie has to throw at me. Though Fulci's penchant for eye gouging does make me squirm. Eeash. This is mainly rant, so it won't be particularly well thought out nor eloquent. OK. First off, this is what I liked about the movie. I liked the atmosphere of the deserted London at the beginning. The car alarm was the only i got in the whole movie. I also thought the scene dealing with Jim's dead parents was touching. When I finished this movie, my immediate reaction was that it was mediocre. Then I started thinking about it and boy did it not hold up to reflection. The movie did not scare me and I can tell you why. Shooting on digital video and then shaking the camera frenetically will result in very difficult to distinguish visuals. I even sat in the back of the theater because I knew it'd be hard to deal with digital video being projected via traditional film. Every attack seen was shot like this, thus making it hard to see what was going on. This does NOT build suspense and mood. Instead it only frustrated me. The final attack scenes at the house were particularly frustrating, not only for the reasons stated above but combined with the fact that it took place at night during a storm really made it worse. I frequently couldn't tell where the characters were in relation to other characters and "the infected". How amd I supposed to be scared if I don't know whose trapped in a room with who and whose life is in immediate threat? Also, characters were not very well developed and it was a let down to see the ass-kicking female suddenly not be able to defend herself in the final action sequence but is saved by Jim. I mean, she could kill zombies but couldn't free herself from ONE soldier? A soldier who is more frightened by the threat of zombies at the moment and could easily have been defeated by her? What, she's suddenly weak because she's wearing a red dress? And by the way, if the soldiers are so keen to rape the two girls why would they force them to dress up and then sit around staring at them? I know they're waiting for their commander, but it seemed to me that he'd already given them permission to go ahead. I'm not at all wanting those women to be raped, but was confused by the actions of these soldiers.
Now onto the actions of the infected ones. So let me get this straight, they're infected with the "rage virus" (that's what I'm calling it anyway) which can be transmitted through bodily fluids (blood, saliva, at one point a guy gets blood in his eye). Now this rage virus makes them angry? Is that all it REALLY does other than make them zombies? In the flat-tire-tunnel scene (the only action sequence I liked) the zombies are chasing after them until the heroes get in the car and drive off. The zombies then go "eh" (more or less) and stop running. So their rage WEARS OFF? Do they only rage at the living? If they have enough brains to know that they won't be able to catch up to a car, wouldn't they have enough brains to know they need to eat or they will starve? OK you ask, what do they eat? Apparently they don't eat human flesh, but simply bite them. If they did, there wouldn't be so many dead bodies laying around, they would have been consumed. So do they eat food? If our heroes can find a store filled with delectibles, why not these hordes of zombies? Maybe there's nothing they can eat. OK I guess I buy that. Now after acquiring all of that food, why oh why did Jim suddenly think he could get a cheeseburger? I mean, the meat would be HORRIBLY SPOILED. And if by some chance it wasn't, then wouldn't the bread be stale, the lettuce wilted and the cheese modly? And how might I ask, would he COOK them?
I have a qualm with the first scene in which he meets the infected. I think this is an editing error. He enters a room of dead bodies and asks "hello?" and I could swear a zombie stood up, but apparently didn't chase him. This was definitely not the priest/minister/vicar/whatever that chased him. And why did that guy move the way he did? NONE of the other "infected" moved that way for the rest of the entire movie! Now, I'm guessing that the rage virus was not spread worldwide and had been contained in England. If this is true, then honestly, why was England not strike bombed at some point during the month after the intial outbreak. Was the rest of the world not concerned that it could spread? Yes it would have killed the few remaining survivors, but honestly, considering how fast this virus spreads, how quickly it works and the fact that there's no cure would far outweigh the dozens of people who are still alive (if they're still alive, after all, it didn't seem like the rest of the world spent a whole lot of time searching for survivors during the immediate aftermath, but waited about two months). One character says that basically since England is an island that the virus can't get out. It's already shown that monkeys have the virus so not only humans are capable of being infected. Apparently it doesn't infect horses, or that those were they only horses left not to be infected. But what about MIGRATING BIRDS? Maybe they themselves don't get infected, but can't they carry traces of infected human blood? After all we SEE A CROW PICKING AT A DEAD GUY'S HEAD! One drop of blood from this same dead body was enough to infect the father character. ARGH. By the way, the home video that Jim watches is confusing on many levels. Was he the one filming? And if so then how did he get into the shot? Also, who the fuck films themselves drinking orange juice? And HOW WAS HE WATCHING A VIDEO WHEN THERE'S NO ELECTRICITY? And by the way, how was it that Jim survived the original outbreak. Was his room so well protected that no zombies could get in? Do zombies not attack comotose people? How did Jim survive not being on life support during the month there was no electricity? I mean, at the very least, how was is body fed? He was hooked to IV's but unless they're battery powered, they should have been shut off. He didn't die of dehydration or starvation apparently. And when he woke up, he was healthy enough to walk all over London. Also, how did that guy and his daughter flash Christmas lights if there's no electricity? Did they have their own generator? How many times have I mentioned that there's no electricity? See because if there is, then who running the power? So there simply cannot be any electricity. My brother describes the overall arch of the movie best. Three acts: Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead. By the way, why did the main character have not one, but two comas that last exactly 28 days? That's just silly. Ultimately, this movie didn't scare me. There was far fewer instances of real suspense than intended. Had it been, I would have been able to look past most of these holes. But being that it was not, I can't help but be frustrated with everything that's wrong with this movie. Next entry will focus on more positive things, like Summerfest and a party that my family is hosting later today. Bye! 10:24 p.m. - July 05, 2003 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
||||||
|
||||||