Ok, admittedly I'm new to the forums, and love many film reviews here.
But
I'm astonished. I thought 28 Days Later was one of the stronger films
during its release. Sure the end is apocalyptic. But this review
mentions absolutely nothing of the subtext of the movie. The end of the
film is about the protagonist allying himself with the zombies to
overthrow the tyranny of the fascist humans. This ties nicely with the
notion early in the film of "rage" and the subsequent destruction of
society.
There's
exploration of what takes place in the wake of civilization's demise.
The death of the Father prompts allows the protagonists to reconstruct
an "alternative" family unit.
What about this does not work? That's all I want to know.
I
believe the review most definitely did touch on the subtext of the
film: "ham-fisted allegory" were his exact words. Whether you agree with
that assessment is entirely up to you as the viewer. But it didn't do
it for him.
Eh,
when this came out I saw it in theaters and twice more on DVD and was
very impressed with it; I remember several conversations where I talked
it up on the same terms you do above to people and recommended it
fervently. Yet…last night I popped the disc in for the first time in
many years, and my critical appreciation for it has diminished
significantly, to my own astonishment. It now feels sloppy, badly paced,
the ending (really the whole third act) does seem loaded with
ham-fisted allegory to borrow the phrase, and I just was so
underwhelmed. It left me wondering what I wasn't seeing any longer in
this film, or what I had 'seen' prior. However, Brendon Gleeson was
still excellent, and I feel he is the highlight.
I
re-watched this last night after several years, and I too felt a
diminished appreciation for it. I think part of it is that when it came
out the whole dystopian zombie genre was still fairly new (outside of
George Romero's work), but with The Walking Dead and World War Z since
the release of this we have become much more familiar with zombies,
making the first act now seem unusually slow, to go along with that
ham-fisted third act.
I'm
here, too! Just watched this today for a scary Halloween matinee. Have
been meaning to see this one for years, and found it suitably gross and
entertaining. I do agree about the third act, though. However, I still
liked the film enough to recommend it.
It
just seemed like Cillian Murphey's character went kind of crazy,
unleashing the infected into the castle where he knew the girls were.
Homicidal? Suicidal? Just took me right out of the story.
Zombies
are always changing and evolving. There have been other fast zombies
(Snyder's 2002 "Dawn of the Dead"), although these ones I think are
loosely categorized because they don't eat you, they just infect you and
move on.
Somebody has to be pedantic
I'd just like to be the first to say, these aren't zombies. They're just very, very angry.
…
Well, ok, they *are* zombies. But shouldn't everyone admit we're just saying that to make Danny Boyle cross?
Ok, admittedly I'm new to the forums, and love many film reviews here.
But I'm astonished. I thought 28 Days Later was one of the stronger films during its release. Sure the end is apocalyptic. But this review mentions absolutely nothing of the subtext of the movie. The end of the film is about the protagonist allying himself with the zombies to overthrow the tyranny of the fascist humans. This ties nicely with the notion early in the film of "rage" and the subsequent destruction of society.
There's exploration of what takes place in the wake of civilization's demise. The death of the Father prompts allows the protagonists to reconstruct an "alternative" family unit.
What about this does not work? That's all I want to know.
Lasties (probably)
I believe the review most definitely did touch on the subtext of the film: "ham-fisted allegory" were his exact words. Whether you agree with that assessment is entirely up to you as the viewer. But it didn't do it for him.
Eh, when this came out I saw it in theaters and twice more on DVD and was very impressed with it; I remember several conversations where I talked it up on the same terms you do above to people and recommended it fervently. Yet…last night I popped the disc in for the first time in many years, and my critical appreciation for it has diminished significantly, to my own astonishment. It now feels sloppy, badly paced, the ending (really the whole third act) does seem loaded with ham-fisted allegory to borrow the phrase, and I just was so underwhelmed. It left me wondering what I wasn't seeing any longer in this film, or what I had 'seen' prior. However, Brendon Gleeson was still excellent, and I feel he is the highlight.
I re-watched this last night after several years, and I too felt a diminished appreciation for it. I think part of it is that when it came out the whole dystopian zombie genre was still fairly new (outside of George Romero's work), but with The Walking Dead and World War Z since the release of this we have become much more familiar with zombies, making the first act now seem unusually slow, to go along with that ham-fisted third act.
I'm here, too! Just watched this today for a scary Halloween matinee. Have been meaning to see this one for years, and found it suitably gross and entertaining. I do agree about the third act, though. However, I still liked the film enough to recommend it.
It just seemed like Cillian Murphey's character went kind of crazy, unleashing the infected into the castle where he knew the girls were. Homicidal? Suicidal? Just took me right out of the story.
Zombies are always changing and evolving. There have been other fast zombies (Snyder's 2002 "Dawn of the Dead"), although these ones I think are loosely categorized because they don't eat you, they just infect you and move on.