28 Weeks Later

I wonder how this one will compare to 28 Days Later, that was a pretty cool movie that not a whole lot of people remember. Anyone know if it’s got any of the same cast or writers?
28 Days Later wasn’t even a real zombie movie. It was some artsy pos about what uncontrolled anger would due to humanity.

28 Weeks Later is just trying to capitolize on the zombie genre.

28 Days Later wasn’t even a real zombie movie. It was some artsy pos about what uncontrolled anger would due to humanity.

28 Weeks Later is just trying to capitolize on the zombie genre.

not even. this movie is a natural progression with a bigger budget. I think that it will be awesome. if you’ve seen the French horror flick High Tension you’ll see how cool it is to use Muse for your horror film. perfect song to pick for these types of flicks. I’m stoked.

28 Days Later wasn’t even a real zombie movie. It was some artsy pos about what uncontrolled anger would due to humanity.

28 Weeks Later is just trying to capitolize on the zombie genre.

we’ve been through this, way too many times… 28 days later, is a zombie movie… only a casual fan, would believe it’s not.
I liked 28 Days even thought it was anti-military. Based on the trailer I saw last night, I think this I think it will be even more anti-military.
28 Days was pretty origional as far as zombie movies go. I’m excited for the next one
i thought 28 days later was a great zombie film despite the subtle meanings and social/policital abysses most people propose

28 weeks later should be great as well. the Muse song really got my attention

I agree. By definition there are many differnt types of zombies. The ones in 28 days later just happen to be different than the steriotypical hollywood zombie and this fact does not make it any less of a zombie movie.

It was a piece of pseudo-intellectual crap in the zombie motif yes.

But is was not a “real” zombie movie.
i’m willing to hear your argument, Jack. so tell me why you don’t consider it a “real” zombie movie? it’s not black and white? not directed by an american, etc. ? what is it

Because it’s a movie that just uses the motif. It’s not ABOUT zombies, it’s not about the undead, it’s not about apocalyptic survival, because it’s not a horror film (at least the director doesn’t think it is acording to wiki) Those things are just the settings.

It’s about what uncontrolled anger and hate does to society. When people get angry (infected with “rage”) they lose all controll and rational thought they break down in to the most basic of primal emotions. Which is exactly what the infected do in 28 days later.
I’ll be seeing 28 weeks later though. Since from the previews it looks like they’ve dropped their attempt to be intellectual and have moved to a more mainstream action style movie.
ive never seen 28 days later. should i check it out?

I think it is a Top 5 zombie movie.

Romero’s zombies aren’t like Haitian zombies so are his movies not proper zombie movies either?

Carribean zombies don’t eat the dead and are usually under the control of some shaman.
it’s a zombie movie

it’s a good movie

i’m looking forward to watching the sequel

I prefer the brain craving undead romero type zombies but anger disease zombies work for me too
so i just watched 28 days later. great movie! the part in the beginning when he says “hello?” in the church and the two infected dudes look up like freaked the hell out
Uncontrolled rage always makes for some interesting viewing whether you consider it a typical zombie movie or not.

that is true

It was a piece of pseudo-intellectual crap in the zombie motif yes.

But is was not a “real” zombie movie.

Not at all. I love george romero’s films and i loved 28 days later as well. I pretty sure Romero liked it aswell.
just saw it, fucking rocked my sox. better than the first. and the daughter and major, well
We need noodz of the daughter pronto!!!!111

Awesome movie. The violence was just fantastic. The emptiness of Brittain was just haunting.
Just got back. It was good, but not great. Very predictable at times but not in a distracting way. Great in the drama department. The ending however was gay as fuck.

The footage was a bit unexpectant and it did come at a time in which they could have really extended the film and given some causation to the whole ending, but in retrospect I do think it was a logical concluding point and the ending few frames were quite entertaining.

I personally would have rather not seen the whole Eifle tower thing and seen kiss (or some other friendly exchange) between the brother and sister after they got to safety. That way we all would have known what would happen but not have seen it.
Mark your spoiler Jack.

And I loved it. Much scarier than the first and a much greater social commentary as well. Amazing movie, be it zombie or just plain monster movie.
I thought 28 weeks later was pretty good, although it has become more mainstream. If you are turned off by gore you don’t want to see it though. but for me

yhup

after the first horror sequence i jumped and put my hands on my hand

Was anyone else waiting for doyle to give that wink when he was pushing the car? I was sold on seeing this film when he winked during the trailer. But we know what happened.

And I didnt like the ending either. I didnt even notice if anyone was in the helicopter. Was the pilot still there? God I wish the ending was better. Give us some closure for christ’s sake!
i liked this movie better than the first one, the plot was much better i thought.
SPOILER>>

I’m pretty sure the end with the helicopter scene means they all died, because the drawing and picture were old and ripped, and the angle of the camera led you to believe the helicopter was on its side. That’s what I took it to mean..

i liked this movie better than the first one, the plot was much better i thought.
SPOILER>>

I’m pretty sure the end with the helicopter scene means they all died, because the drawing and picture were old and ripped, and the angle of the camera led you to believe the helicopter was on its side. That’s what I took it to mean..

SPOLER>SPOILER>SPOILER>>>>

What are you taking about? Did you not hear what they said on the radio about a world-wide breakout… obv. the brother had it (as the carrier) and he kissed/w.e. someone and a breakout spread again…
Great movie! I thought it reminded me too much of Land of the Dead. Land of the Dead is a pretty sweet movie so thats somewhat of a good thing.

Yep. I was waiting for that wink as well
I kept thinking to myself maybe he blinked, but really fast?
It’s been so long since I’ve seen 28 Days Later. I want to see 28 weeks later sometime.

lol yea, when i heard one of my favorite bands in the trailer, it became a must see
SPOILER>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

dosen’t anybody think that the mother probably had it the worst in the whole movie, first she gets betrayed by her husband, then she has to try to survive for 6+ months eating maggets and other random stuff, finally she gets to see her kids for like 10 seconds, next she gets humilated w/ a “shower” aka having two guys blast you w/ a hose, then she gets killed in one of the worst possible ways of dieing by having her husband (who has the rage virus) bite her and gouge her eyes out …

happy be-lated mothers day

My favorite part. Freaked me out too.
How the fuck did you guys like that movie so much? Seriously, at first I thought it was just going to suck, however after reading message boards people seemed to like it, it got like an 8.4 on IMDB, etc.

But that movie was fucking terrible.

The plot had more twists than a fucking slide at wet-n-wild, the focus of the movie was constantly changing and the acting was bad.

Why didn’t you notice the acting was bad?

THE ENTIRE FUCKING MOVIE IS SHOT WITH A SHAKEY CAMERA. During some of the ‘action’ scenes I couldn’t even tell what the fuck was going on.

Some of the dialog was downright vomit-inducing as well, very clearly violating the cardinal rule of movies, show don’t tell. There were at least 5 conversations where the characters just straight up told what needed to be said, with no effort at subtelty or subtext.

“It’s madness!”

“They’re just shooting everybody!”

“What are we going to do?”

A 5th grader could write better than that.

By the end of the movie all I could think of was how much I wanted to flame it on the internet, seriously. Just downright bad. Countless plot holes, completely un-necessary plot twists, can’t really follow the story, tries to just be a thriller/action flick but fails because of shakycam.

4/10. Seriously.

How the fuck did you guys like that movie so much? Seriously, at first I thought it was just going to suck, however after reading message boards people seemed to like it, it got like an 8.4 on IMDB, etc.

But that movie was fucking terrible.

The plot had more twists than a fucking slide at wet-n-wild, the focus of the movie was constantly changing and the acting was bad.

Why didn’t you notice the acting was bad?

THE ENTIRE FUCKING MOVIE IS SHOT WITH A SHAKEY CAMERA. During some of the ‘action’ scenes I couldn’t even tell what the fuck was going on.

Some of the dialog was downright vomit-inducing as well, very clearly violating the cardinal rule of movies, show don’t tell. There were at least 5 conversations where the characters just straight up told what needed to be said, with no effort at subtelty or subtext.

“It’s madness!”

“They’re just shooting everybody!”

“What are we going to do?”

A 5th grader could write better than that.

By the end of the movie all I could think of was how much I wanted to flame it on the internet, seriously. Just downright bad. Countless plot holes, completely un-necessary plot twists, can’t really follow the story, tries to just be a thriller/action flick but fails because of shakycam.

4/10. Seriously.

so you were shocked that a ZOMBIE MOVIE didn’t have sophisticated dialog…..lol come on man, it’s a bunch of rage zombies chasing people, were you expecting a deep emotional dialog?

No, I didn’t expect sophisticated dialog, but do you know how easy it is to patch up a bad piece of dialog? Takes a few hours for each conversation to spice it up beyond the point of just being a piece of shit.

And again, zombie movies will be zombie movies. However, this movie failed to do what zombie movies are about, entertain you through thrills and keep you following whatever storyline has been created, watch the heroes deal with their environment and run away from/kill the zombies.

Because of major, major plot holes, stupid dialog and shaky cam.

1) The military has patrols on ground and in the water, snipers, countless people watching the perimeter, and two kids just sneak out. No wonder they didn’t find any weapons in Iraq.

2) The mother is somehow alive, months in the future? She would have starved, that’s how the zombies died out in the first place. And that brings us to another horrid piece of dialog:

“Zomg your eyes are 2 different colors, that’s normally hereditary, did one of your parents have that?”

“My mother”

From that moment you KNOW the mother comes back into play and she has some sort of genetic tie-in to the story. Mother would have been dead.

3) In several situations guards just sit there and let themselves get mauled by a zombie (Like the dad) instead of just shooting him in the face. I think at one point they specifically aimed and shot at his neck and then got owned, just KILL IT. It’s really simple actually, your basic point and shoot interface.

4) The entire sequence where the guard tells the guy to run out in front of the sniper. “He’s nervous, he’ll miss!” Nigga, it took him 2 shots and under 1 second to knock A TWO INCH MIRROR out of your fucking hand. You’re telling me he can’t shoot a fucking person?

At this point we just started making fun of it. I said they should have had the kid jumping, because we all know a sniper can’t shoot you if you jump alot.

5) Why the fuck were there trains under the stadium? Why the FUCK was the dad there? Last time I checked, the dad had to deal with hundreds of guards, snipers, firebombs, poison gas and all manner of other things, yet he still manages to track down the kids? And why didn’t the girl just fucking shoot him? Why was the kid able to run around with blood all over him the entire movie, and not infect anyone?

If we’re talking about a movie where you kiss someone with a disease and instantly turn into a raged out, whacko eye-gouging head-smashing lunatic, it’s obviously TERRIBLY contagious. That fucking kid literally hugs people with the blood on him, and they don’t get it. No one even makes an effort to adress it.

6) Again, the fucking shaky camera. I always hated it, I hate it here, I hated it in Blair Witch, I hate it in every movie they use. Know why? It completely fucks up anything you’re trying to do cinematographicly, and the ONLY reason to do it is to save money and save your movie from your actors acting. You don’t need 2 takes when the camera is shaky, just get the acting in the general ballpark and there ya go. The problem is how bad it makes your movie look. To me, that movie was just Blair Witch Project: London. Same premise, same stupid shaky camera, same shitty acting. FUCK SHAKY CAMERA.

7) Apache completely inept at shooting the van…

It’s shit like that. The movie doesn’t have to be perfect, but shit like that will completely put me off. I was TRYING to enjoy it, but honestly it just… failed… Nothing about it was good. Ving Rhames wasn’t even there to say ‘Fuck ‘Yal’ and cock a shotgun.

Steps taken to make that movie better, possibly into a very good movie:

1) Have actors that can act, use Steadicam

2) Fix the plot holes in the movie (They happened because the writer clearly wanted stuff to happen, and bended the plot to make it happen. That’s bad in a movie script, instead of going out of your way to work shit in it’s best to examine where you’re at, and see what the best possible course of action would be to advance the plot along).

Noteably, either don’t firebomb the city or don’t have them seeing the dad at the end. What they could have done was instead of a train station, have the kids in the basement-ish area of the stadium, and have a ton of zombies chasing after them. They do something (Killing enough in a bottleneck to stop the rest, shutting a door or making a barracade they can’t get over, etc.) To delay the zombies while they run up to the copter, any number of things that don’t cause massive continuity problems and just make the movie look stupid.

3) Create better dialog. It’s not that hard. One of the steps of writing a screenplay/script is to structure each scene and have the intended meaning from beginning to end, and some go as far to structure every line of dialog with their intended purpose. If I had the writers draft, I could see what they wanted to say and say the things in a more creative way, getting the same point across.

A perfect example of a good zombie movie is “Shaun of the Dead.” That movie played out a zombie plot perfectly without any major plot holes, it was believable, the dialog was good and it flowed very smoothely. They set up transitions and establishments that they needed, successfully followed several plots at once (A Plot, Zombies, B Plot, Liz, C/D/E Plots, the Roomate/Mom/Step-Dad). The characters were dynamic and interesting (Ed is the Id of freudian psychology, Shaun is the superego/ego), and their interaction was captivating. The movie was funny and enjoyable, and while it didn’t focus on zombies as much as other zombie movies do, it shows alot of the key points I’m making, in that you don’t have to be fucking bad at making movies when making a zombie flick.

Holy smokes, i can’t believe how much thought you seem to be putting into a zombie movie, the fact that you went into this much detail tells me maybe you were looking a bit to deep into a silly zombie flick, but ok, you didn’t like it, and you have definatley explained why so A+ for not just saying it sucked like so many others would, at least you backed up your opinion with lots and lots of your thoughts about the film

Holy smokes, i can’t believe how much thought you seem to be putting into a zombie movie, the fact that you went into this much detail tells me maybe you were looking a bit to deep into a silly zombie flick, but ok, you didn’t like it, and you have definatley explained why so A+ for not just saying it sucked like so many others would, at least you backed up your opinion with lots and lots of your thoughts about the film

I’m training to be a screenwriter/director, it’d be rather silly of me to criticize something and not be able to say why ^^

If the shaky cam doesn’t bother you like it does me, the movie is A LOT better. The flaws wouldn’t have been nearly as big of an issue if the movie wasn’t shot in shaky cam.

It seriously seemed like fuckin blair witch though.
I’ll take this on and show just how big of a moron you are.

Ahh yes, the film school drop out speaks up.

I don’t know what movie you watched but it wasn’t 28 Weeks Later. Because the characters did exactly that

You’re “plot holes” are not plot hole and if you think a steady cam would have made the film look better then you would be eliminating the whole attempt to try and draw you into the film by making the camera another set of eyes. A silent participant of the film, right there experiencing the same thing the other characters are.

1. It was 2 kids, the first 2 kids to be back in England, sorry they didn’t shoot them on site and instead tracked them down and found them

2. Bring up Iraq in attempt to draw correlation is further proof you’re a fucking moron.

Yeah she was eating maggots you dipshit. They fucking showed you that. The zombies don’t have the instinct to eat THAT IS WHY THEY STARVED. The mother, not showing outward signs of infection still possessed that desire to eat. Come on that’s fucking blatantly explained in the movie.

“Zomg your eyes are 2 different colors, that’s normally hereditary, did one of your parents have that?”

“My mother”

From that moment you KNOW the mother comes back into play and she has some sort of genetic tie-in to the story. Mother would have been dead.

Yeah and it was done rather intentionally and rather well.

Jesus you can’t be this stupid. So you’re trying to apply some sort of rational calm action to a situation that is anything but. Yeah 200 people are storming out of a doorway 1/3 of them are zombies and you expect ANYONE to remain calm enough to get of a shot with a pistol while being attacked by zombies? Go back to playing counter strike you faggot.

4) The entire sequence where the guard tells the guy to run out in front of the sniper. “He’s nervous, he’ll miss!” Nigga, it took him 2 shots and under 1 second to knock A TWO INCH MIRROR out of your fucking hand. You’re telling me he can’t shoot a fucking person?

At this point we just started making fun of it. I said they should have had the kid jumping, because we all know a sniper can’t shoot you if you jump alot.

Did you ever think that maybe he was just telling him that because he was the most expendable one and it might calm his fears? Obviously you didn’t

Ahah you do play counter strike

Because there is a railway under it with a train stop.

Dad was there because it made the movie more interesting. But if you want an answer in context to the action of the film. Easy, the dad went down another subway entrance and randomly found his son and daughter.

Why doesn’t the girl just kill her dad????

Well A) It’s her fucking dad! B) It’s scary as fuck and with no training she really has little in the way of

C) you have to ingest the fluid

Again because you’re stupid and will need to be told a number of times.

C) you have to ingest the fluid

And possibly D) like HIV it doesn’t live long or well outside the body

Just kill yourself. But before doing so ask for your money back from whatever Film school you failed out of. I’ve already addressed the asinine content of your idiotic post.

Have you watched ANY action movie in the last 20 years?

You’re a moron. /thread
I have this feeling that Kalypso loved Childen of Men and their use of shaky cam

Was anyone else waiting for doyle to give that wink when he was pushing the car? I was sold on seeing this film when he winked during the trailer. But we know what happened.

And I didnt like the ending either. I didnt even notice if anyone was in the helicopter. Was the pilot still there? God I wish the ending was better. Give us some closure for christ’s sake!

.

Opinions on movies are not facts. To say that I’m a moron and you’re right shows that you’re inept, seeing as how you think your opinion is an absolute truth. I stated my opinion and backed it up.

Ahh yes, the film school drop out speaks up.

lol

A film school dropout eh?

I don’t know what movie you watched but it wasn’t 28 Weeks Later. Because the characters did exactly that

Not for me, at all. To me, to be entertaining, you have to sell the story. It has to make a good ammount of sense and be relatively believable, not believable in the sense that ‘That could be happening somewhere in the world’ but believable in the sense that ‘This could happen sometime, somewhere.’ Example- Star Wars, it was so revolutionary because of how believable and unbelievable it was at the same time, by completely differant definitions.

You’re “plot holes” are not plot hole and if you think a steady cam would have made the film look better then you would be eliminating the whole attempt to try and draw you into the film by making the camera another set of eyes. A silent participant of the film, right there experiencing the same thing the other characters are.

Plot Hole- Something that causes the structure of a movie to weaken, or a plot to be less believable. Imo.

You don’t even know why the shaky cam is used. It’s used to accentuate anxiety. Typically (And correctly), you have a film shot mostly in steadicam, and then particularly anxious scenes get a shaky cam. That can work. I believe it occured in 28 days later, most of that movie was steadicam, some of the action scenes were more shaky. That accentuates the anxiety of the situation, and it’s a directing tool. When it stops being a tool and starts being FUCKING stupid is when the entire movie, EVEN THE FUCKING DIALOG is in shakycam.

Want to test this concept? They do the exact opposite of what they should do in 28 weeks later. Instead of mostly steadicam with shaky cam for anxiety, they shot the entire movie in shaky cam and used a select bit of steadicam to lul you into relaxation. Then they flash something violent and loud on the screen with a shaky camera to shake you up more. This is the exact opposite of what should happen.

Shaky cam is NOT used to try and ‘draw you into the film through a characters eyes.’ That is 100% against one of the cardinal rules of film-making, show don’t tell. In this case, you use subtelty to express anxiety instead of outright shaking the camera all over the fucking place. Know why blair witch sucked? Same reason. This concept is key to all movies, and is one of the reasons film buffs consider The Godfather one of the greatest films of all time (#1 on IMDB). That movie has an enormous ammount of subtelty.

1. It was 2 kids, the first 2 kids to be back in England, sorry they didn’t shoot them on site and instead tracked them down and found them

Tracked them down? They ran around for ten fucking minutes, found a bike, rode off, it must have taken the military 20 minutes to catch them. It’s a couple of stupid fucking kids! You COMPLETELY miss the fucking point. There’s no way they ever should have been able to escape. It shows the armies complete ineptitude. Also…

2. Bring up Iraq in attempt to draw correlation is further proof you’re a fucking moron.

It’s called a joke.

Yeah she was eating maggots you dipshit. They fucking showed you that. The zombies don’t have the instinct to eat THAT IS WHY THEY STARVED. The mother, not showing outward signs of infection still possessed that desire to eat. Come on that’s fucking blatantly explained in the movie.

I never saw her eating maggots. What I saw was… know what? Fuck, this is just all brands of stupid.

Maggots come to things within a few days, week max. They eat and get the fuck out. There wouldn’t have been scraps left for maggots after 28 fucking weeks. They never showed her eating maggots, they just showed some maggots in a plate. There is nothing to suggest maggot consumption that I saw. Even if there was, that’s completely ridiculous. For alot of reasons. I don’t even need to go into them, it’s bad plot.

Yeah and it was done rather intentionally and rather well.

You prove with every line how little you know about movies, screenwriting and the like. You don’t just have characters announce plot points in one line of blunt, unsubtle dialog. The entire theme of the story is that the kids might be immune to it, and they need to save them, it’s set up by their being immune to it. You don’t just say REALLY, REALLY obvious stuff like that. It’s one of the most obvious mistakes of the bad screenwriter….

Jesus you can’t be this stupid. So you’re trying to apply some sort of rational calm action to a situation that is anything but. Yeah 200 people are storming out of a doorway 1/3 of them are zombies and you expect ANYONE to remain calm enough to get of a shot with a pistol while being attacked by zombies? Go back to playing counter strike you faggot.

You don’t even know what scene I was talking about. I was referring to when it was JUST the father, running around the building.

There’s another contradiction in the movie. The zombies are insane, unsophisticated, barbaric, idiotic monsters (Slamming their heads into walls, running around like fucking morons, etc), but between scenes they commit acts of ammountable intelligence, outsmarting and tracking down humans, but as soon as they find one they’re complete morons again.

Did you ever think that maybe he was just telling him that because he was the most expendable one and it might calm his fears? Obviously you didn’t

Ahah you do play counter strike

I’ve never played counterstrike, I haven’t been to or dropped out of film school. Actually, most of my life I’ve played Blizzard games, that lasted until WoW. Since then I havn’t really played anything. Never liked FPS at all.

So let me get this straight. A guard has kind, humanitarian notions, so he abandons his guardpost to save a bunch of people. He’s a nie guy. We like him. But then, he lies to someone to sacrifice his life, trying to manipulate him into suicide? That is extremely contradictory.

Because there is a railway under it with a train stop.

It’s poorly established. Even though it can be realistic (Like in Washington DC, very similar to that scene in some places) it was poorly established on film.

Dad was there because it made the movie more interesting. But if you want an answer in context to the action of the film. Easy, the dad went down another subway entrance and randomly found his son and daughter.

Again, zombies are complete idiots, and not capable of such complex higher-thought-process seek-and-destroy. They bang their heads against walls for no reason, and act completely on impulse. It’s 100% contradiction of character.

Why doesn’t the girl just kill her dad????

Well A) It’s her fucking dad! B) It’s scary as fuck and with no training she really has little in the way of

Point

Shoot

Maybe she would have missed, but she could have tried.

C) you have to ingest the fluid

If someone has blood on their clothes, face, and generally everywhere with HIV, are you telling me it’s impossible to get aids from them without licking them?

=========STOPPING HERE=========

1) Your opinion is not right. My opinion is not right. They are opinions. Deal with it.

2) You tend to ignore what I say and attack my character because you disagree with my opinion. That is called being a bigot, a close-minded fool, or just generally an idiot. Stop and re-evaluate.

I don’t know why you’re so obsessed with your notions of me ‘dropping out of film school,’ ‘playing counterstrike’ and ‘being stupid.’ Do you really think you know enough about me from a few paragraph forum post, bitching about a movie I didn’t like, to make those claims?

Grow the fuck up.

edit- For those of you that agree with my general opinion on the movie, and reasoning behind it, you may be interested in an excellent book on screenwriting. While my problems with the movie have to do with writing, directing and acting, the writing has the biggest problems. Check out Syd Fields- The Screenwriter’s Workbook. Good read.

For those of you that disagree with me, read that book as well. And try to accept that other peoples opinions are not wrong. I’m not saying yours is, I’m just saying I disagree with it for many reasons. State your reasons for disagreeing with mine and be on your way. Saying I should kill myself for having an opposing view is not unlike the philosophy of a tyrant or a bigot.

Have you watched ANY action movie in the last 20 years?

‘Action’ is no excuse for a movie to be terrible. Nor is it an excuse to go against the cardinal rules of making a movie. Just because other movies do it doesn’t make it right, and doesn’t mean it should be in more movies.

So a kid with no education in film but says he wants to direct them when he’s all growed up thinks he found all the problems with the film, where as it has a vast approval rating by even the toughest critics.

I’ll be back in a bout 7 hours to blow some more holes through your piss poor pseudo intellectual bull shit.

Should be fun pointing out just how little your dumbass really knows.

Oh god kalypso log off OT before it’s too late.

So a kid with no education in film but says he wants to direct them when he’s all growed up thinks he found all the problems with the film, where as it has a vast approval rating by even the toughest critics.

So let me get this straight. If I go to film school and drop out, my opinion is worthless. If I don’t go to film school, my opinion is worthless.

…….

You know people that graduate film school end up serving coffee for 5 years then going to a different career right? Almost none of the successful people in any of the arts recieve lengthy formal education in their field, they teach themself. It’s called being an autodidact.

You have a major problem. You judge my words based on who I am, not based on what I say. That is the essence of being close-minded. Not only are you ridiculous and out of line because your stance that I’m an idiot is unfounded and not true, but it’s proven false by the fact that I can competantly discuss the field. You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about, all you can do is insult my character.

And you don’t even have the slightest idea who I am. Where do I go to school, what do I go to school in? Where do I work? What do I do in my free time? What kind of movies do I like? Who are my friends? What are my opinions on anything not relating to the movie 28 days later?

You can’t answer any of those questions at all, so who are you to judge my personality?

If you don’t understand that, I truly feel sorry for you.

holy shit

Oh god please tell me that was a bad joke, and I missed the punsh line. If not you’ve just destroyed any and all credibility you wished you had as a super l33t movie expert

holy shit

Oh god please tell me that was a bad joke, and I missed the punsh line. If not you’ve just destroyed any and all credibility you wished you had as a super l33t movie expert

Mis-use of vocabulary, amazing premise. The plot of that movie is what sucked.

AHAHAHAHHhHAHhahHAHahahahahHAHAH

Yeah, you’re a really smart guy.

Tell me, oh guru of film, what are the major cardinal rules applied to film, and why? That’s one of the most basic questions to anyone doing anything in film, at all. Actually, you don’t have to list all of them, just a few. Just one, that I havn’t discussed. Something.
I’m done with you Jack, I strongly advise that you start reading what people say not for who they are, but for what is said. Especially on the internet, where you don’t know who anyone is.

Anyone elses comments are welcome.
So you think the plot sucked now? well which it is? Amazing or “sucky”

never “break through the bag” i.e. Don’t break the rules established in your own film

Here is one for you though

cardinal rules of film criticism is that you don’t review the film as you want it to be, you review the film that is.

I’m done with you Jack, I strongly advise that you start reading what people say not for who they are, but for what is said. Especially on the internet, where you don’t know who anyone is.

Anyone elses comments are welcome.

awe poor baby left before the fun begin.

So I pegged you right then? I read what you said, what you said what truly ignorant bullshit, but you know you are right and you’re clearly too closed minded to think anyother way.

But you’re still a 17-18 old and you’re sure you’ll be the next Michael Bay, Steven Soderbergh or someone else, and alas you’re too stupid to even direct the next geico caveman commercial

So you think the plot sucked now? well which it is? Amazing or “sucky”

never “break through the bag” i.e. Don’t break the rules established in your own film

Here is one for you though

cardinal rules of film criticism is that you don’t review the film as you want it to be, you review the film that is.

I’m going to break this post down into its parts.

1) Still insulting me

Instead of responding to what I have to say, he continues to insult me and talk in a condescending way. He still speaks as if he has the superior opinion, and he’s right, but he has absolutely no way to say why. So he attacks my character.

So you think the plot sucked now? well which it is? Amazing or “sucky”

I clearly said I mis-used vocablary, and the premise was good, not the plot.

See how he tries to make me look stupid here? It’s kind of sneaky, although simple association. Look! Kalypso said something stupid in the past! He must still be stupid now! No folks, that logic does not fly.

never “break through the bag” i.e. Don’t break the rules established in your own film

This is not a cardinal rule of film-making. Mostly because movies don’t establish ‘rules’ in this sense. Movies establish characters and themes and then act them out via the plot/story. The actions therein comprise the actions, dialog, etc. There are no ‘rules’ a film establishes for itself that cannot be broken. All of them are rules applied to the films genre, story or structure.

The cardinal rules of film-making are fairly vast, here are a few.

1) Show, don’t tell. Also known as the subtelty rule. One of the major hurdles of screenwriting is keeping the structure of the plot and the characters motives subtle, not directly on your radar. Don’t show the audience how the clock works, just give them the time. The trick is to hide the gears from the audience, but for them to still be there. Some films are too subtle and you lose the ability to follow the film, without viewing it many times and analyzing it, and are bad for the same reasons films that have none are bad.

2) The movie has to follow a hero. You have to like the hero. Hero doesn’t imply person, but you do have to follow something and you do have to like them.

Who a character is doesn’t determine if we like him or not. Example: Vincent Vega in Pulp Fiction. He’s a bad guy. However, Tarintino starts us off with him in the car with Jules Winfield, having a funny conversation about european naming conventions. It’s semi-childish, and funny, and we like Vincent. We want to watch him. This motivation is KEY to a successful film.

etc. These are things you don’t neccesarily HAVE to do to make a film successful, but always make a film better. ‘Following your own films rules’ doesn’t even really mean anything to me. Mostly because the point of a rule is to consistantly make your film better. Every time you apply the rule correctly, your film gets better. It’s very, very often films make ‘rules’ for themselves then break them. In fact, it’s what a film is. Films are about change and conflict. This is instituted by turning the world upside down, causing as much conflict and change as possible. The structure of a film cannot be broken, but motifs established certainly can. An example in recent memory is Tarintino’s newest movie, Death Proof. While I didn’t like the movie overall, it established a rule, a motif, throughout the entire movie until the last 20 minutes. Then, at the Act 2 break, it is completely reversed, and with amazing results. The entire reason that film is enjoyable is for the dialog, and the ending. The ending is great BECAUSE it breaks the films own rules.

cardinal rules of film criticism is that you don’t review the film as you want it to be, you review the film that is.

Another quote that is misguided. The entire act of movie criticism is saying what you do and don’t like about a film.

That is, you’re judging it on a sliding scale of 1 to 10, for example. 1 is everything you don’t want in a film, 10 is everything you want. So WHENEVER you review a film, you’re reviewing it based on what you want in a film, thats the entire idea of an opinion.

What he is trying to say is that professional movie critics typically take themselves out of the equation. They evaluate movies from a non-partisan standpoint, unbiased, and examine what the movie is, what it’s trying to do, and whether or not it succeeded. They do this because a biased critic will be very relateable to for a small audience, whereas a general, unbiased critic will be semi-relateable to for everyone. The more biased you get, the more some people agree with you and the more alot more people disagree.

So he’s trying to tell me that if I want to be a professional movie critic, I have to take myself out of the equation.
I’m posting this for one reason. Jack has said that I am an idiot, and I am not. An idiot could not have critically analyzed the movie the way I did, not this post the way I did. At the very least, I have some education, and an opinion I back up. The opinions of random people on the internet is far from my leading concern, but I felt it enjoyable to highlight the fact that I’m not an inept ape for a few minutes.

awe poor baby left before the fun begin.

So I pegged you right then? I read what you said, what you said what truly ignorant bullshit, but you know you are right and you’re clearly too closed minded to think anyother way.

But you’re still a 17-18 old and you’re sure you’ll be the next Michael Bay, Steven Soderbergh or someone else, and alas you’re too stupid to even direct the next geico caveman commercial

See? The second he sees weakness, he is quick to insult me and judge my character. Why? Because he doesn’t like me. Why? Because I disagree with his opinion on 28 weeks later. Rather childish don’t you think? That he can’t just get over that I dislike it and have my reasons for disliking it, and instead has to crusade against me??

Also, the contradictions start to set in. Before, he said I dropped out of film school. Now, he says I’m a 17-18 year old. Last time I checked, almost all 17-18 year olds are in high school, and the ones that aren’t are either just starting college or smart enough to get in the game before everyone else. So it’s not really possible for me to be a stupid 17-18 year old that dropped out of film school.

Also, look off the top of my head, famous people in hollywood that didn’t go to or dropped out of film school: Quentin Tarintino, Kevin Smith (Dropout), Steven Spieldberg (Dropout), Martin Scorsese. Now, you’re probably thinking one of a few things.

Those people just got lucky.

People who are naturally tapped for talent don’t need school.

You don’t always need film school, but it helps.

etc.

In my opinion, this is far from the truth. Here is why. To make a movie, write it and direct it, you need to do A LOT of work. Like, I’ve done more work on researching and writing screenplay in the last 6 weeks than I have in my 2 years at college. The problem with college is that you move at someone elses pace. You’re playing their game.

The entire idea of writing and directing is to show the world through your eyes, play your own game, hone your craft. Everything about the jobs screams independence, self-motivation and hard work. You don’t get these things going to school. I was having a discussion with someone at the nearby FSU school of film, currently enrolled in the Masters Degree Program in Film. FSU has a fucking good film school. And she didn’t even know the fucking BASICS of film. Why? She didn’t do things for herself, she just did what her teachers told her to and kept it at that. I recommended her a few books, she read them in about 4 days, and told me she learned more from those books than she learned in the entirety of her 6 years of film education. Why? Because it’s all about doing things for yourself.

Also, the people that teach film courses write books. They put what needs to be known in 200 pages instead of 6 months. I read 200 pages in 3-5 hours of light reading. I don’t know about you, but thats quite the laugh.

“But Kalypso! In film school, they make you do exercises, and they help you edit and perfect your work!”

You can do that on your own too. See, everything you do in film school you can do on your own. You just need the motivation and drive to do it. And once you’ve finished something meaningful, you need to know who to talk to for the production of your film.

All ‘Arts’ schools are a waste of time if you can pursue the art in your own time, in your own way. Thats the whole point of being an artist. And that is why almost no one successful in films went to film school.
uh, you guys might be taking this zombie movie a bit too seriously and a bit to personally, deep breaths think of a happy place

It’s about a bit more than just a zombie movie ^^
just saw it. it didn’t have a storyline. boooOOOooo. it was alright.

Posts: 34
jesus this kid writes so much thinking we give a fucking shit about his shitty ignorant opinion.

You’re honestly the biggest hypocrit I’ve seen in at least 3 months, grats.
You know, I never really thought 07’s could ever be worse than 06’s. Thank you for proving me wrong, Kalypso.
And this was a great zombie flick. I dont care if theyre not really zombies.

And you’re the biggest douche bag I’ve seen in 5 years on this forum, grats.

It was a piece of pseudo-intellectual crap in the zombie motif yes.

But is was not a “real” zombie movie.

then you know nothing about zombie movei’s, thanks for playing.

orly zombie man?

Zombies = dead

Infected = not dead

Zombies dont starve to death

Infected starve to death

Zombies need a shot to the brain to “die”

Infected can be killed in the same manner as a non infecter person

Like I said it’s in the zombie motif but it is not a zombie movie.

should we continue numbnuts?

orly zombie man?

Zombies = dead

Infected = not dead

Zombies dont starve to death

Infected starve to death

Zombies need a shot to the brain to “die”

Infected can be killed in the same manner as a non infecter person

Like I said it’s in the zombie motif but it is not a zombie movie.

should we continue numbnuts?

:lesigh: ah, you’re one of those guys… nice try to keep the whole genre, into a sub-genre.

yeah bub it’s not a zombie movIE.
it’s a zombie movie, it isn’t romero’s zombies but still, they are zombies imo
You honestly think it’s not a zombie movie because they’re not technically zombies? You really don’t know ANYTHING about movies do you lol.

A ‘Zombie’ movie is essentially just your standard ‘Monster in a Box’ movie (Aliens, Jaws, etc) where you have a threat in a confinded space and you have to fight for survival. The only thing that seperates it as a genre is there are A LOT of zombies in a zombie movie, the threat isn’t one thing it’s many things. Typically they convert normal people into themselves. I’ve seen ‘Zombie’ movies about a celebrity running away from the Press. The movie was terrible, but it proved the point, they even had press members paying other people to follow them around with cameras, expanding the herd.

Jack, if you’re going to be such an arrogant douchebag, you should at least know something about movies beyond what you directly see onscreen and read in some shitty review.
you faggots throw around “douchebag” like it still hurts peoples feelings

You honestly think it’s not a zombie movie because they’re not technically zombies? You really don’t know ANYTHING about movies do you lol.

A ‘Zombie’ movie is essentially just your standard ‘Monster in a Box’ movie (Aliens, Jaws, etc) where you have a threat in a confinded space and you have to fight for survival. The only thing that seperates it as a genre is there are A LOT of zombies in a zombie movie, the threat isn’t one thing it’s many things. Typically they convert normal people into themselves. I’ve seen ‘Zombie’ movies about a celebrity running away from the Press. The movie was terrible, but it proved the point, they even had press members paying other people to follow them around with cameras, expanding the herd.

Jack, if you’re going to be such an arrogant douchebag, you should at least know something about movies beyond what you directly see onscreen and read in some shitty review.

Aliens was a zombie movie? Or are zombies movies part of larger genre of films? Either way you’ve failed to prove a point. return the books you bought on Amazon, you havn’t learned anything from them.

You’re either a complete idiot or a complete asshole. Maybe both. I haven’t decided yet.

Yet you’ve made a half dozen posts since you claim you were done.

Either you’re a idiot or moron. Most likely both. I’ve deciede.

Yet you’ve made a half dozen posts since you claim you were done.

Either you’re a idiot or moron. Most likely both. I’ve deciede.

I thought it was entertaining, but not good enough to want to see it again.

Thanks for your interesting point of view Kalypso.

I thought it was entertaining, but not good enough to want to see it again.

Thanks for your interesting point of view Kalypso.

Glad someone didn’t just flame me for making long posts.

Glad someone didn’t just flame me for making long posts.

I thought it was a good read.

I shared a few of those opinions as well.
I enjoyed it, very action packed and gorey. I also like the way the writers tried to draw the viewers in more with this one. In some ways you can empathize with even the villians in this one.

No Comments

No comments yet.

Comments RSS

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.