28 Days Later - I hate the way this film is being promoted!

[BloodMan]

Ok. I have the region 2 PAL DVD of this movie. I love this movie. It really makes you think and all. (what you do in that situation? whats the point of going on if everythings fukked? etc...) I personally don't feel this is a horror film. It has those elements but its far from a horror film. The trailers I've been seeing make this look like the next cheap scare flick thats hip and cool. Has anyone else seen this and feels the same way? Its NOT a horror film. :D

Nick

[dwatts]

What is it, then?

[r_burgos2003]

The US is worse! The whole "SCARY AS HELL" and the teenagers like "I was sooooo scared!" Like for sure! Totally!

[SaviniFan]

I gotta disagree. I've seen this and I think it's a horror film. It's just not a "zombie" film like some of the promotions would lead one to believe.

There's no shame in calling a film horror, and this one is most definitely that.

[dwatts]

I like horror films. I'd be interested to know how Bloodman or r_burgos2003 define a horror film. Does it merely have to be horrible? :D

[BloodMan]

Originally posted by dwatts
I like horror films. I'd be interested to know how Bloodman or r_burgos2003 define a horror film. Does it merely have to be horrible? :D

Well... it has to scare me or something to that extent.
28 Days Later just made me think. :fuck:

Nick

[dwatts]

Scare you? Hell, I reckon I have about five horror movies then. I'm not easily scared. I don't have a definition for horror myself. Some films are quite obviously horror. Is Dog Soldiers a horror film? Sure! Did it scare me - nah, not even for a second.
I like the Universal classics, all horror. But not scary.....

Movies that make you think, no matter the genre, are very welcome. As a horror fan, I am doubly excited to have a horror film that also makes you think (let's face it, the majority of them as just crud script wise). I'm not going to reject them from the genre, just because they might have some semblence of intelligence in them.

[r_burgos2003]

Define a horror film? That's easy. It's a strng feeling from something frightening. It's kinda like a drama. More of a sub-genre really. That's why when the Exorcist was nom. for the academy awards it was considered a drama. You see, it's like the child of suspense and drama. It really doesn't get any good reviews ever, I think that no one likes horror really. And AMERICAN PSYCHO is considered a drama. Anything that is out of the sterotypical norm of horror (gore, poor reviews) is a drama for the sake of being a good film.

[dwatts]

I consider The Exorcist a horror film (though not one I'd like to own). Hollywood uses genres for marketing (how many comedies make you laugh????) Some chick being possessed by the devil, masturbating with a crucifix, puking on a priest, and turning her green pustulous head 360 degrees - is horror. Now, the academy may have tried to legitimize it by calling it a "Drama" - but that's :bs: , imho.

-- It's a strng feeling from something frightening--

Well, tons of films have that. Jaws is obviously a horror then. Actually, that net is a very wide one.

[r_burgos2003]

Exactly! The fucking academy sucks!

[Grim]

I thinks it's a good way to be marketing it, it makes it look like a scare filled thrill ride. I mean let's face it, if most teens were to see a trailer with all this technical stuff in it they automatically think it was gonna be boring. Now when they see this trailer they think it's gonna be, as I stated above, a scare filled thrill ride. Now grant it, that's kinda false advertisement, but they gotta make money. I'm suprised it's even getting this much attention, especially after seeing how much Wrong Turn was neglected.

[Gnaghi]

it's nice to see the same quote they used for the blair witch... :rolleyes:

[Hellbilly]

Originally posted by dwatts
Is Dog Soldiers a horror film? Sure! Did it scare me - nah, not even for a second.
I like the Universal classics, all horror. But not scary.....

You're scaring me dwatts ;)
Was there EVER a horror film that scared you or at least made you jump?

[dwatts]

Yeah - Blair Witch Project. Seriously. Spooky!

When I was younger, all the classic Universal films gave me sleepless nights. But now? Hm, as I said, Blair Witch was one. Frailty was a definate thinker for me, and a little spooky in that I could see it happening. It was interesting, and made me think. Oops, it's probably not a horror film then :)

I have been watching a lot of italian films. Take FUlci for instance, they can be gross - but I don't find gross in the least "Scary". Gore does not scare scare me. Mostly it's kind of funny.

I used to read a lot more, and THAT can be much scarrier!

Having a "jump" during a film has not happened in a while. Let's face it - that's such a cliche, and the execution is so poor nowadays. They jump scenes are telegraphed a mile off. Still, that scene in the hallway in Shock was a bit of a start!

[mcchrist]

I'm getting upset at the "audience testimonal trailer" that have been more commonplace anymore. Anything to make a dollar, but didn't Sony admit that they were paying these so-called "audience members" for trailers such as this? (I know this is Fox and all, but the formula is the same)

[Gnaghi]

yeah if you read some of those posts on the website alot of em sound like a really bad studio exec pretending to be some kid, or some kid who was paid to say somethin.

[bigdaddyhorse]

I can't stand those ads, even before they were proven bullshit! I really don't care what some jag-off I'd rather punch in the face than listen to has to say about some movie. Or some dumb-ass screaming teenage girls who wouldn't know scary if they were scared to death. The hype machine is fueled on bulshit alone!

That said, I luckily haven't seen any of thise commericals for 28 Days, and the trailer I saw did the job, I want to go see this! Those comm.'s could only change my mind, so I hope I don't ever see em!

[onebyone]

I saw it based on word of mouth, I never heard any of the promos and I liked it a lot. I hope the bad ad campaign doesn't get in the way of folks enjoying the movie. I seriously thought it kicked ass.

[Pukenstein]

It doesn't have a chance. 2nd week of the Hulk, Charlies Angels-Fri, T3 next Weds. It will be overlooked.

[dwatts]

Why do people listen to ad campaigns. Especially people who frequent a site such as this? Personally, I could care less what campaigns are out there.

[r_burgos2003]

Yes, Columbia Tristar admitted that most of the people who liked their movies and went on TV saying "I was so scared" were actors and for such films as VERTICAL LIMIT they created fake reviewers for their posters and ad campains....so those "Best film of the year" and all that shit was all made up. Congrats you stupid stupid bastards (Columbia Tristar). It's worse whEn they show All of The AdverTisements secretly it's Just sO stupid! I don't carE anymore, uS people gotta stick together! (I put a hidden message using caps....read it....it starts at "it's worse whEn....")

[Nasty Nate]

(I put a hidden message using caps....read it....it starts at "it's worse whEn....")
:lol:
I can't wait to see this. Looks like its gonna rock. \m/:evil: \m/

[Luna]

Originally posted by dwatts
Now, the academy may have tried to legitimize it by calling it a "Drama" - but that's :bs: , imho.Freakin' exactly. I hate when I have to peruse the drama section to find a horror movie that's been considered too lofty or intelligent to be called horror, because everyone knows that horror films are naturally silly and pointless and couldn't possibly have any redeeming social value. :rolleyes:

The pain in the ass about that is that it's often so subjective, that I'd find movies in other places I'd never even think to look. In one video store, for instance, I was looking for "The Nanny", the old Bette Davis flick. I think it's a horror film because well, just watch it and you'd see why! They put it under "classics" with movies like Gone With The Wind and The Wizard of Oz, I think only because it's in B&W and stars Bette Davis. That just makes no sense to me and it smacks of elitism or ignorance of one's job... perhaps both. By the way, while this would all be ok if we were saying it was a classic (sub-genre) of the horror genre, the general public probably wouldn't make this distinction, and this particular place had plenty of other obvious B&W "monster" films in the horror section. Anyway, I finally had to ask if they had the movie, because I wouldn't have thought to look among classics like Lawrence of Arabia. ;)

What I think might burn my ass MUCH more than this is when people say a movie is a "thriller" or "suspense", to avoid the dreaded "horror" label. GRR! It's just the idea of a horror stigma that bothers me is all, when some people cannot admit horror is a legitimate genre on its own and is not just some shameful bastard stepchild of drama, fantasy, sci-fi, action or any combination of other more well-defined genres for that matter. I will say there can be elements of each of these in any good horror film, and there is the occasional release that might be less easily categorized -- horror-comedies, for example -- but still, pure horror is fairly easy to recognize and should be put in its own section. Not the Sci-Fi/Horror, Drama and Action sections as they do at Best Buy, grr. It also bothers me that too often, sci-fi and horror share a smaller section... to me, it's like documentaries and foreign films sharing a section -- the two just aren't very related and have been smashed together arbitrarily because they're seen as lesser genres or something. :rolleyes: I could go on forever about this, but I'll stop now because I'm sure you get my point.
Rant over! :evil:

[dmeister]

You guys are worrying me, now... I was really looking forward to seeing this movie tomorrow, hoping that it "redefined zombie horror" as promised... But if it's nothing more than another Night of the Comet/Last Man on Earth/Outbreak/Crazies rehash, maybe I should just save my money and wait for the video.

dmeister

[Luna]

Originally posted by r_burgos2003
It's worse whEn they show All of The AdverTisements secretly it's Just sO stupid! I don't carE anymore, uS people gotta stick together! (I put a hidden message using caps....read it....it starts at "it's worse whEn....") I'm always up for seafood (http://www.joescrabshack.com/about/macarena.asp). :evil:

[Luna]

Originally posted by dmeister
maybe I should just save my money and wait for the videoI haven't seen it yet either, but I wouldn't worry about it. It seems like a movie I'd enjoy and if it IS a rehash, and often, movies do use plots of others... it's sort of inevitable, I'd only hope it's a good rehash and that they also introduce fresh elements to their storyline. I'd rather use my money and support people who are willing to make zombie movies at ALL, rather than giving us some tired Scream rehash. ;)

[r_burgos2003]

There's actually a place?! Huh

[Luna]

Originally posted by r_burgos2003
There's actually a place?! Huh Yes! It's in Houston and some of them have flashing neon signs that have arrows pointing to the building and saying "EAT AT JOE'S"

:lol:

[onebyone]

Originally posted by dmeister
You guys are worrying me, now... I was really looking forward to seeing this movie tomorrow, hoping that it "redefined zombie horror" as promised... But if it's nothing more than another Night of the Comet/Last Man on Earth/Outbreak/Crazies rehash, maybe I should just save my money and wait for the video.

dmeister

Seriously, fuck the ad campaign and go see it for yourself. I have the dvd and I really really liked it; I think it is getting a bad rep. It isn't the best movie in history, but what is? It was, in my opinion, the very best old school zombie movie in ages, and I had a lot of fun watching it.

[Applesngore]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the ad campaign. The commercials on TV are succinct and offer me enough imagry that seems to be truly frightening that it makes me itch in my pants to see it tomorrow.

And I don't think that "horror" has a definition. I really don't believe for a second that someone can sum up the horror genre since the dawn of celluloid in three or fewer adjectives - BUT I think the horror movies of a particular time can be defined. Horror is probably the only genre that I can think of that really depends on the current state of society to strive from. Someone can make a drama about the Holocaust today and it can still be poignant., just as poignant as a film made about the Holocaust during the Holocaust.

But I heavily doubt that you can revisit a point in history with a horror film. The reason why 28 Days Later, I imagine, is striking such a chord, is because of the premise with the virus that wiped out mankind. It's scary because that's what the world was looking at just recently with the whole SARS outbreak and all these threats of bio-terrorism.

I think that's why there really aren't any good slashers any more. Suburbia had time to grow and reach places all over America by the 1970s and incidentally that was the heyday of the suburban slasher film. It touched upon how close people could live to another person and yet still be completely disconnected - remember the scene when the neighbours wouldn't help Laurie?

I think that what I'm trying to say is that horror has a lot to do with social conditions, obviously. I'm not saying it very well. Horror is not just a slasher, although at some point it was. Horror isn't just zombies and witches, although at another point it was because things were just too unexplainable. It's like how people get into holyshittheworldisabouttoend mode when they start to fear oppression and take out The book of revelation and hope for the rapture.

[Gnaghi]

but it's not a zombie movie onebyone, it's like advanced rabies type of virus outbreak infection whatever. the movie has a lot of good things going for it, but also bad. i mean half the movie i have to hear that annoying bitch act. she is what ruined the movie for me, and the end sucked. i think i will tinker with it and create my own version so that i can enjoy it. damn now i wish i had the music and dialogue seperate.

[onebyone]

If they look dead and are coming to rip someone apart, they are zombies in my book. I am not like a zombie elitist. If they might possibly want brains, they are in.

I liked the actors myself, and although I thought the end was less than perfect, it worked well enough for me. Hence the point that folks should see it for themselves and not listen to you or me because you know, tastes vary and the like. :glasses:

[THE MOVIE KING]

I'll wait for a U.S. DVD release, but it look's like Horror to me.
:D

[Applesngore]

WHAT?!!!

I am totally shocked about this thread. 28 Days Later, NOT a zombie movie? NOT a horror movie? WHAT THE FUCK WAS IT THEN, A ZANY COMEDY????

No spoilers here, but let me say that this was the best horror film I've seen in the last few years, hell it's one of the best horror movies I've ever seen. Period.

One thing that gets me pissed is seeing horror fans spew nonsense over their nitpicky ideals of what comprises of a horror film. Maybe someone here wasn't happy that there wasn't MORE blood and guts (which, in that case, would've been completely gratuitous and idiotic) or MORE zombies, and more scares (which wuold've made them cheap) but this film is a complete horror film in my book. Maybe you'll say that the zombies were just an incidental to it all. But I see that as just proving my point that the film was showing the fact that horror did not end nor begin with the zombies. If you want to talk elements, then here is one for you: almost every zombie, no, every zombie, that i've ever seen created its horrorific situation DUE TO HUMAN ERROR OR INVOLVEMENT. And that was exactly what 28 Days Later had.

But I'm surprised there isnt much discussion here. So come on, talk. I'd rather have people who have seen 28 Days Later respond, but all is welcome.

Cheers!

[dwatts]

Maybe if it was out of hollywood, there'd be more buzz ;)

[Gnaghi]

it's not a zombie movie because THEY WEREN"T FUCKING ZOMBIES! it's a horror movie about a rage outbreak, no one is reanimated. the dead stay dead. if you wanted to define the characters in the movie as zombies then well anyone who contracts a disease is a zombie, cause they were infected much like aids is spread, only they become violent. it's basically like a violent drunk with ebola. they never eat people in the movie they just try and rip em apart. actually the characters sound more like they have the ebola virus "The onset of illness is abrupt and is characterized by fever, headache, joint and muscle aches, sore throat, and weakness, followed by diarrhea, vomiting, and stomach pain. A rash, red eyes, hiccups and internal and external bleeding may be seen in some patients." well not fully but they do have some of those characteristics.

[Applesngore]

Well, from what I can gather from a dictionary I think the shit in 28 Days Later pertains as 'zombie'

ain Entry: zom·bie
Variant(s): also zom.bi /'zäm-bE/
Function: noun
Etymology: Louisiana Creole or Haitian Creole zõbi, of Bantu origin; akin to Kimbundu nzúmbe ghost
Date: circa 1871
1 : usually zombi a : the supernatural power that according to voodoo belief may enter into and reanimate a dead body b : a will-less and speechless human in the West Indies capable only of automatic movement who is held to have died and been supernaturally reanimated
2 a : a person held to resemble the so-called walking dead; especially : AUTOMATON b : a person markedly strange in appearance or behavior
3 : a mixed drink made of several kinds of rum, liqueur, and fruit juice


Obviously what we're talking about here is alcohol, then.


But seriously, remember not all of those "things" were crashing around and ripping people apart. Most of them were passed out, asleep, or possibly dead, THEN they became animated. But the Zombie argument doesn't really bother me, it's shit talk about how it's not a horror movie. Someone, PLEASE, justify that statement.

[Applesngore]

Oh! On another topic but 28 days Later related, I dug the music in the film. Godspeed You! Black Emperor AND Grandaddy in the same film?!?! HOLY SHIT, I think I just had an orgasm!

[Gnaghi]

actually none of them were sleeping or dead or any of that... the only scene like that is the two dudes hanging out at the church with all the dead bodies. if the dead were reanimated then there were alot of freaking corpses throughout the movie that should have been springing up.

[Gnaghi]

yay i was right... from the res mag interview

"BOYLE: You can't help thinking of that. Obviously, it's not based on AIDS; it's more like Ebola. There's a book called The Hot Zone, by Richard Preston, which we read. It's about the guy who carried Ebola from Africa to Washington. It's an airport kind of page-turner, but it's phenomenal what happens. And the manifestation of the disease in the film, the sickness, is all based on Ebola with a bit of rabies, so there is a bit of medical background there. But you can't help thinking about it -- ever since AIDS appeared, people have had this sensitivity about the smallest drop of blood."

[Mattster]

Eh I don't see why a horror film has to be scary. There are so many things that you could consider to be horrific. If a film is disturbing and not scary I consider it horror. Requiem for a Dream could be considered a horror film because of all the fucked up stuff that happens in the end.

[Applesngore]

The beauty about horror is that it encompasses a wide range of emotions. 28 Days Later definitely had that, from pure fear from the zombies to sympathy for the humans. I can honestly say that everything Boyle has done I've dug (with the exception of some scenes in the 'beach' like when it became a video game) and he's quickling becoming one of my favourite filmmakers.

[dmeister]

Well, I just saw the movie. My opinions:

1. They were not zombies. Aside from looking gaunt after weeks of malnutrition, the plague victims bore no resemblance to the walking dead whatsoever. When was the last time you saw a Romero zombie run and jump through a window to beat someone to death like a mad gorilla on amphetamines? They were about as "dead" as a mob of twelve-year-old girls at an N'SYNC concert.

2. I liked it... A lot. Zombies or not, the movie still kicked ass. I'm glad I went to see it.

dmeister

[puddytay]

My Thoughts!!

Most of you people need to go get your head checked or your eyes because this movie is amazing.
It lives up to everything in the trailer/commericals and more.

I'm still a little jumpy from watching it a hour ago. It was very intense and very gory. This is what horror is all about. I cant wait for the dvd.

And yes this is a zombie movie. You can say whatever you want to say but it is a zombie movie. If something is pucking up blood and is trying to kill and eat people they are zombies. The Hulk has a rage problem but I def dont consider him a zombie.

BloodMan dont ever post shit like this again. I almost didnt go see it because of your un true statements. Not a horror movie WTF do you consider a horror movie "In the Army Now" We have massive deathtolls and zombies the 2 major items of horror. I think you really need to go see this because there is no way in hell you have the dvd.

[Gnaghi]

http://crd.lbl.gov/~dhbailey/pi-photo.gif

[r_burgos2003]

Well, Just saw the commerical for it again. Boy, they give some crappy reviews! One of them said something like "a great return to the horror genre".....WTF?!?!?!?!? HORROR HAS BEEN HERE FOREVER! MAYBE HE SHOULD GET HIS EYES CHECKED!!!!!

[onebyone]

Originally posted by Applesngore
WHAT?!!!

I am totally shocked about this thread. 28 Days Later, NOT a zombie movie? NOT a horror movie? WHAT THE FUCK WAS IT THEN, A ZANY COMEDY????

No spoilers here, but let me say that this was the best horror film I've seen in the last few years, hell it's one of the best horror movies I've ever seen. Period.

One thing that gets me pissed is seeing horror fans spew nonsense over their nitpicky ideals of what comprises of a horror film.

Preach it baby. I couldn't agree with you more. :banana:

I respect other's rights to be hyper picky about their horror movies, and this clearly was a horror movie, but as far as I am concerned, if I have a good time, it is all good.

And they were still zombies in my book, without question and no doubt.

[r_burgos2003]

I sick of the reviews that say "it pokes fun at horror movies"....I remember reading that about THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT....There was also reviews saying it was a dark comedy about society... :eek1: Can these people take ANYTHING at face value?! What are they going to say next, HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER and I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE are the funniest movies of all time.... :nervous:

[Gnaghi]

http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Graphics/group.gif

[Shannafey]

Just got back from seeing it. HOLY SHIT!! Bleak, disturbing! I loved it!! What a great horror film! So topical and realistic. Scared the shit out of me at times. Some great jumps and some intense moments. Loved and felt for the characters. Thought it was great that animal rights activists started the thing. Hate their kind!! Love animals, hate the people!! Anyway, I hope they use the original tapes when they do the dvd transfer. It should look a look better on dvd then in the theatre. Definitely looking forward to this film coming out over here.

[Pukenstein]

It was very intense and very gory.


Very gory? I don't think so. You rarely get a real good look at the zombies? Shadows, darkness, too much movement, etc. When someone was killed, it pulled away too quick. So you see dead bodies in the dark and hear flies buzzing. Dawn and Day have gore, 28 Days falls short. Yes it's a good movie, not great. If this were the 4th Romero film, it would be bashed.

[Applesngore]

Oh bull shit, as if the gore wasn't enough. This is exactly what I mean about horror fans - if they had had more gore and more showing of zombies the topic of discussion wouldn't be the lack of it, it would be how stupid the zombies looked and "gay" the blood was! Since when do we have to focus death up close and personal anyway? Don't you think that by exploiting the deaths the director would be completely betray the humanistic approach he had to this film????

And for the comment about "horror has been here forever" yeah well, all of us have this little on/off cancer switch inside of us, but it doesn't mean it's always on. Horror gets dormant because theatrical and straight-to-video releases are usually stinkers. If you're a horror fan then you should KNOw that the horror genre has its wavelengths. Compile a list of evey movie that was released theatrically in the past 6 months and I bet the majority of them are comedies and dramas and a low percentage are horror. Horror will never go away but there's always a certain point when the genre picks up again and starts racking in dough. Then it stops because it starts getting shitty and audiences tire of it until the next big thing comes. Before Blair Witch it was Scream. The Scream period lasted a lot longer than Blair Witch did, but even post-Scream films didn't do that good because they simply weren't good. But 28 Days Later is, and I for one am fucking happy that it's being advertised how it is.

[onebyone]

Seriously, why are some folks who didn't like the movie getting so mad at those of us who did?

[Mortis]

What about a cannibal with an ulcer?

Originally posted by puddytay
If something is pucking up blood and is trying to kill and eat people they are zombies.

[Mattster]

Yeah I don't see why people get so excited about gore. Movies can be extremely scary with minimal gore and zero nudity. I don't see the logic behind bitching about a movie that has no tits or intestines getting ripped out. Movies are supposed to tell stories, not satisfy some strange hunger to see someone get mutilated.

[Applesngore]

I dont know, onebyone, and I also don't know why that ghangi character has decided to sprout a brain and post KKK pics. Give him a biscuit for relevancy!

[Mattster]

Originally posted by onebyone
Seriously, why are some folks who didn't like the movie getting so mad at those of us who did?

A lot of people are like that on the internet. If you want to have an opinion about something you're to going to get bitched at. It'll never change unfortunately.

[Luna]

Originally posted by Mortis
What about a cannibal with an ulcer? I was hesitant to step into this thread again, but I could not resist... this thread NEEDS a bit of funny, dammit. :lol:

Anyway though, now I REALLY wanna see this movie, this weekend, just to see what all the bitching is about. :p

I'll repeat what I said, for the pure hell of it... the movie looks good to me. I'd rather have something like this than some sorry "I Know What You Shoved Up Your Ass Last Summer 3". That's all. :evil:

[Applesngore]

Banned is a pretty strong word, but I do think that pics (note the fact that it wasn't just ONE) prove what an asshole he is. If he can't take part in a discussion like the rest of us then he shouldn't be apart of this thread at all. He can go view his funny and cute little picture books of burning crosses elsewhere; us big kids have moved onto more intellectual items such as FILMS, and oh yeah, two little things called maturity and reality. :fuck:

[Mortis]

Hmm. Are you sure that isn't a porno? :D If not, it should be!

Originally posted by Luna
I'd rather have something like this than some sorry "I Know What You Shoved Up Your Ass Last Summer 3". That's all. :evil:

[Applesngore]

Porno titles based on a horror movie or title are always so funny. I wouldn't want to direct or act in a porno but I think titling them would be a great job. :lol:

[Mortis]

What about watching them? :evil:

[Applesngore]

Nah. I don't go out of my way to watch a porno, but I'm really surprised at how many people do. I've always thought of it all as something gross and just not appealing to me. A bit like cigarettes, I guess.

[Luna]

Originally posted by Mortis
Hmm. Are you sure that isn't a porno? :D If not, it should be! Another title for me to tackle once I get those damn actors together. :)

[Luna]

Originally posted by Applesngore
Porno titles based on a horror movie or title are always so funny. I wouldn't want to direct or act in a porno but I think titling them would be a great job. :lol: I always loved getting the latest video store catalog (back when mom & pop places DID this regularly!) and I'd peruse all the smutty titles. My particular store had a HUGE selection, apparently. I found some real gems in every yearly catalog. Damned if I can remember them NOW, of course, but they were certainly funny AND intriguing at the time. ;)

[Mortis]

I've been practicing. ;)

With myself, ofcourse!

Originally posted by Luna
Another title for me to tackle once I get those damn actors together. :)

[Luna]

Originally posted by Mortis
I've been practicing. ;)

With myself, ofcourse! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Atmims]

Ahhh!! It sounds like 28 Days later is alot like my idea for a horror porn movie me and my brother worked on about 2 years ago. My idea was about a virus that infected people though the water system and turned them into blood thirsty, sex hungry maniacs. Very primitive carnal people. The maniacs even had vomitting and diarrhea spells! :o Oh well.

I really would like to see this movie. It sounds and looks really GOOD.

[Atmims]

Originally posted by Mortis
I've been practicing. ;)

With myself, ofcourse!

:lol: MORTIS!!!

[Gnaghi]

lol banned?... i was bored talking to a wall so i decided to post random pics of the kkk... had nothing to do with the subject. and no i'm not racist or anything it just came up when i was searching for absurd pictures to post.

Who agrees puddytay should be banned for no sense of humor?

[Gnaghi]

Applesngore :fuck: :banana:

[Applesngore]

Oh, how cute. Really, I'm touched. :fire:

[Mattster]

Stop it! STOP THE MADNESS!! :cry:

[Applesngore]

:banana:

Melt banana.

[Luna]

Originally posted by Atmims
Ahhh!! It sounds like 28 Days later is alot like my idea for a horror porn movie me and my brother worked on about 2 years ago. My idea was about a virus that infected people though the water system and turned them into blood thirsty, sex hungry maniacs. Very primitive carnal people. The maniacs even had vomitting and diarrhea spells! :o Oh well. I would pay to see this one! Well, maybe not so much the puke and poop, but everything else! :lol:

[Gnaghi]

yeah melt banana do suck

http://www.melt.addr.com/entrypic02/banana2.jpg

[Mattster]

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/darksea13/deadbanana.gif

...is what I think of the banana...

[Applesngore]

That's your opinion if Melt Banana sucks, but keep in mind that in reality your opinion means very little when it isn't justified or when you've done things that will now cause a bias against the stuff you say. That said, I think it's great if you think Melt Banana sucks. :)

[Atmims]

Originally posted by Luna
I would pay to see this one! Well, maybe not so much the puke and poop, but everything else! :lol:

Maybe OUR porn company can make it some day. ;) We could even release a version with or without the scat scenes. Of course though UNCUT is the ONLY way to go. :banana:

[Applesngore]

Originally posted by r_burgos2003
Define a horror film? That's easy. It's a strng feeling from something frightening. It's kinda like a drama. More of a sub-genre really. That's why when the Exorcist was nom. for the academy awards it was considered a drama. You see, it's like the child of suspense and drama. It really doesn't get any good reviews ever, I think that no one likes horror really. And AMERICAN PSYCHO is considered a drama. Anything that is out of the sterotypical norm of horror (gore, poor reviews) is a drama for the sake of being a good film.

I just realised this post now, and I'm completely flabberghasted. Horror is a legitamate genre NOT a subgenre; rather I think there are subgenres of horror and that's when "slashers" and stuff come in. The Exorcist was probably considered "Drama" because there isn't a Horror category because there hadn't been the opportunity for a horror film to be nominated before. And I disagree that horror movies don't get good reviews. Of course they do if they deserve it. I don't think horror movies are "the victim" but at the same time I can say that it does have a bad rep. Any Joe Blow can grab their parent's camcorder and make a cheesey horror movie (we all have done it) and unfortunately that's what most people do and put them on the shelves of video stores. People like horror. People love horror. People love to be scared and love to see terrible things happen to other people. If people didn't like horror the theatre wuoldn't have been almost sold out when I saw 28 Days Later in broad daylight around 1 in the afternoon. As for American Psycho, I don't know what the hell you can call it. The novel sure ain't drama because I think drama needs to have human touch and characters that actually can create empathy, and Patrick Batemen was just the extreme opposite. But it sure was horrific. That's another debate though, and I don't feel like argueing about that. :nervous:

[r_burgos2003]

That's what I was saying....then people say it's a "black comedy" and Satire on human life.....the man (in the novel) hammered a woman down (nude) and spread cheese on her private regions....then released a rat that he starved for days.....how is that satire?

[Applesngore]

Because the novel takes place in the 1980s the rise of yuppies the rise of the stock market. It was ironic and it was offensive and besides by the end the "horror" is pretty much irrelevant since it never took place.

[dmeister]

I would call it satirical because, at the peak of urban sophistication, refinement, and enlightenment, the book exposed the true depravities and primal urges that our outwardly-civilized personas belie.

dmeister

[Applesngore]

Thank you for being eloquent dmeister, lol. You seriously said it much better than I could, so I bow and tip my hat to you!

:)

[dmeister]

You seriously said it much better than I could, so I bow and tip my hat to you

Yeah, sometimes my polished bullshit impresses even me. ;)

dmeister

[Andrew]

Originally posted by Luna
Yes! It's in Houston and some of them have flashing neon signs that have arrows pointing to the building and saying "EAT AT JOE'S"

:lol: Whoa! I just noticed this! I went there tonight, there's a good one in my area. Highly recommended. It's like a Fuddruckers to the extreme. I love that place.

[John]

Should we change the title of this thread to 'I hate the way this DVD is being promoted'? Here are some details from DVD File:

Even more gory thrills can be had a week later on October 21st when Fox unleashes the British zombie sleeper 28 Days Later. Available in separate anamorphic widescreen and full screen flavors both with Dolby Digital 5.1 surround tracks, extras include audio commentary with director danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland, not one but three alternate endings, deleted Scenes, the "Pure Rage" featurette, two still galleries, storyboards, a music video and theatrical and teaser trailers. Retail is also $27.95.

[Mattster]

Originally posted by John
Should we change the title of this thread to 'I hate the way this DVD is being promoted'? Here are some details from DVD File:

What's wrong with the DVD?

[John]

No complaints from me. I was just wandering if Bloodman would be down with how it will be promoted.

Just a lame attempt at humor! :rolleyes:

[Gnaghi]

now it's a zombie sleeper :rolleyes:

[Jeffrey Dahmer]

Originally posted by SaviniFan
I gotta disagree. I've seen this and I think it's a horror film. It's just not a "zombie" film like some of the promotions would lead one to believe.

There's no shame in calling a film horror, and this one is most definitely that.

I know I had an argument about this with a friend, it's not really a zombie movie (even if they reference to the dead trilogy are everywhere). They don't really die and come back from the dead. They just get infected by the "virus". It just uses most of the best zombie movies thematics.

[H0MOSareGAY]

If a horror movie has to scare you, then I have only seen one true horror movie, and that was Finding Nemo, that scared the shit out of me. (I'm not kidding) Dead and Rotting made me a little scared, but that isn't cause it was scary, thats cause me and my friend toked up before we watched it. Pot makes me really emotional. I think 28 days later is a horror film, it just isn't a mainstream horror film. The term "Zombie Movie" actually fits it pretty well though, I saw lots of similarities with George A. Romero's living dead series. (Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead)

[Mortis]

I could tell by your name that you were pretty perceptive. :D

[Alan Smithee]

Originally posted by Applesngore

I am totally shocked about this thread. 28 Days Later, NOT a zombie movie? NOT a horror movie? WHAT THE FUCK WAS IT THEN, A ZANY COMEDY????



Its definitely a horror movie, just not a particularly good or original one.

[Mattster]

If it walks like a duck and eats another human being alive... then it's what I'd say is a zombie.

[RyanPC]

This situation reminds me of the US remake of The Ring. I was trying to avoid it for a while, but everyone kept saying (especially the teens) that it was SOOOOOOOO SCARRRRRYYYYY!! So I rented it out of curiosity, along with the original, Ringu. I have to say I didn't find either one a bit scary, but if I had to choose one that's scarier over the other, I'd say the original. I just couldn't see why everyone thought the remake was scary, because it wasn't. I mean, if people think THAT is scary, well... then they obviously haven't watched too many horror films. :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed both of them (but not enough to warrant a purchase :D) but they definitely were NOT scary, not even chilling. Maybe one or two small jumps, but those hardly mean a thing to me.

[Gnaghi]

28 Days Later, NOT a zombie movie?

If it walks like a duck and eats another human being alive... then it's what I'd say is a zombie.


i said it before and i'll say it again. their was no flesh munching, just psycho people ripping other people apart(you see in the movie they were infected by a "rage" virus). so next time someone says they are going to tear you a new asshole, does that make them a zombie? :p

[Mattster]

Originally posted by Gnaghi
i said it before and i'll say it again. their was no flesh munching, just psycho people ripping other people apart(you see in the movie they were infected by a "rage" virus). so next time someone says they are going to tear you a new asshole, does that make them a zombie? :p

They wanted to know how long it took the infected to starve to death. Why would they starve to death if they weren't eating humans?

[Gnaghi]

continuity error? okay, when the guy who they are starving to death is released what does he do to his first victim? he upchucks blood all over him. nowhere in the movie is someone chewed on.

[Mattster]

Originally posted by Gnaghi
continuity error? okay, when the guy who they are starving to death is released what does he do to his first victim? he upchucks blood all over him. nowhere in the movie is someone chewed on.

Just because no one is shown being eaten doesn't mean they aren't.

[Gnaghi]

or they just wanted to see how long it takes someone to die since there are so many of them. since they aren't eating in the wild, the have to die eventually. it doesn't mean they feast on humans.

[thrashard76]

Originally posted by Gnaghi
i said it before and i'll say it again. their was no flesh munching, just psycho people ripping other people apart(you see in the movie they were infected by a "rage" virus). so next time someone says they are going to tear you a new asshole, does that make them a zombie? :p AHahaa! :lol:

A: Yeah, by my definition of a zombie: a human is killed by an infected living dead human (undead) and is brought back to life by the same one thing the (undead) was infected with in the first place (radiation, virus etc.) and is done by cut, bite or another means of bodily fluid exchangement. So you have to be killed by an undead to be a zombie.

B: Also, if a human is infected but doesn't die then they are only an infected human. If the infected human is given urges to eat (cannibalize) another human then he is a cannibal (who was infected to be this way). Being infected this way just speeds up the cannibalistic kind of process. Cannibals can also come to be naturally (throughout the course of a life time) and without being infected.

C: If the infected human just destroys a human body and runs amok then they are crazed or a lunatic (who was infected to be this way). Being infected this way just speeds up the crazed or lunatic kind of process. Same can be said here in that being crazed or a lunatic can come naturally (throughout the course of a life time) and without being infected.

So the "zombies" in 28 Days Later were C, crazed or lunatic and in fact not zombies or cannibals. ;)