28 Weeks Later!!

I wish I was infected with the rage virus so I could crush this rubbish and evacuate it from all our lives....what a joke...

Boycott this, maybe the studios will get the message...

I thought 28 days Later was bad enough. I burst out laughing on certain 'serious' scenes.

That young girl couldn't act. She kept looking at the camera - I can't believe the editor didn't spot that. Her delivery was totally unconvincing. The ending was ridiculous - who in their right mind would waste time making a massive message that says 'Hello'? - wouldn't 'SOS' be more useful (and shorter/easier to make)?

The plot took several un-believable turns. I couldn't accept that the survivors would seriously drive through that dangerous tunnel - particularly when they had free access to petrol. And the main character changed from a public shool twit to Leonardo D'Caprio in 'The Beach' way too quickly. Suspension of disbelief was made imposssible. The whole 'military' part of the film was just plain absurd.

I can't believe they actually made a sequel.

Ha, ha Duncan, if I interpret your post correctly, you seem to have responded as if I was saying the entire franchise was rubbish, but actually I really enjoyed 28 Days Later, and was upset that anyone considered a sequel necessary...

With the sudden trend of trilogies, "28 Months Later" probably won't be too far behind.

The puerility of Death Proof and Planet Terror--"GrindHouse"--is a clear explanation why this form of "film" is extinct.

Tediously written and edited, the redundancy is vividly palpable in both features.

Robert Rodriguez never ceases to include zombies, weapons, and bombastic images, to degrade the viewers intelligence.

Quentin Tarantino's illogical car chases--why doesn't somebody pull over--are dull.

It is simply meaningless and dreary.

quote:

Originally posted by d.zeleniouk:
The puerility of Death Proof and Planet Terror--"GrindHouse"--is a clear explanation why this form of "film" is extinct.

Tediously written and edited, the redundancy is vividly palpable in both features.

Robert Rodriguez never ceases to include zombies, weapons, and bombastic images, to degrade the viewers intelligence.

Quentin Tarantino's illogical car chases--why doesn't somebody pull over--are dull.

It is simply meaningless and dreary.

Thank you, professor. I figure it's one of those movies where it's only good if you like that kind of movie, like how Kill Bill vol. 1 would intentionally have unreallistic blood and a part in black and white.

Anyway, I'm going to see it tonight and it got a 78 metacritic rating from 33 reviewers which, frankly, I trust a lot more than a single person in a message board.

When you watch the film, I will "trust" your abilities for a valid discussion on the contents of Grindhouse.

"GRINDHOUSE" is in no way a STINKER! You just have to have the right mindset . It's a nostalgic look at B movies of the long-forgotten drive-in's of the 70's & 80's. No, it's not thought provoking cinema, but mindless fun on a bun! "Planet Terror" is supposed to be an action packed, mindless, toxic zombie movie. There isn't supposed to be any logic applied to this movie. If you ONLY go to the theater for "intelligent films", then you won't enjoy it. However, Tarantino's "Death Proof" has the dialouge & character development you probably want. You mention the car chases were dull, because all they needed to do was pull over. Um, how exciting IS that? "Gee, a guy is chasing & crashing into us, what do we do?!" "Let's pull over & see what he wants!" That still doesn't seem to smart to me, but that's just me . The previews aren't deceiving, they tell you what you're gonna get. I'm not sure what else you could've expected.

I believe the implication in the earlier posts is that the "dumbing down" of "Event Movies" is causing a new generation to think that's all movies are. Pulp fiction comic books all the way through. It may be a slightly exaggerated point, but I find it legit in that it's a warning and I agree that movies no longer care that much about telling stories about people you can care about, especially wittily.

I'll admit that I love Pulp Fiction. It fulfilled two of my three criteria above: it told a good story and did it wittily. Did I care about the characters? Hell, no, but I still rank it as a great film. It's just that how many times is somebody going to recycle himself or recycle 30-year-old low budget genre flicks? It may be cool, we may have bucks for modern effects, and we're masters of pop culture, so isn't that ALL you need to make a good movie? I don't think so, but then, I haven't watched Grindhouse, although I certainly plan on it.

Please don't get all pissed at me because I'm not attacking the movie or even the moviemakers. However, I do feel there's a certain amount of pandering going on, and it can certainly "ghettoize" moviewatchers in their viewing habits, Hell, it already has. People often now believe the subject matter sells the movie and not the actual effort and execution. To me, that's not too good.

Shut up, mark!!

Oh, I understand completely what's going on with Hollywood. I made a point about this in 'The State of the Action Genre' thread in Action/Adventure. However, "Grindhouse" is about the fun of just having a nonsensical, nostalgic adventure. This movie isn't making any claims that it is THE MOVIE of the year or even the best action movie ever. When you see the trailers that accompany this movie, you'l understand what their aim is. That was my point, is all. It doesn't make any sense to point out plot holes in this particular movie or to use it as an example that Hollywood is pandering to movie going patrons or even calling us stupid. This is strictly a rollercoaster.

Grindhouse was produced for roughly sixty million dollars. A sophisticated American independent filmmaker--such as Lodge Kerrigan--could produce ten films and with them educate, provoke, and aghast the audience with his cinematic dexterity.

This weekend--never mind the release of an important WWII film, Black Book--Grindhouse will accrue vast money from the box office. If Grindhouse is merely an exercise in pompous auteurism, then why is this film marketed in such a fashion that indicates box-office triumph?

Like Michael Mann's Miami Vice, Grindhouse is a superfluous attempt at monetary benefits and to reestablish the objective of films.

quote:

Originally posted by d.zeleniouk:
Like Michael Mann's Miami Vice, Grindhouse is a superfluous attempt at monetary benefits and to reestablish the objective of films.

Even Independent films hope to turn a profit . To say that "Grindhouse" is a prime example of Hollywood cinema would be a mistake, it's a nostalgic look at gory, action/horror movies of old, that's all. The trailers are more a joke on how these films were advertised back in the day. When you "get the joke", it's more enjoyable. Sure, it probably will win the Box Office war of the weekend, but that still doesn't prove anything. I'd have to say that people would be going to see "Grindhouse" out of curiosity more than anything else. To compare this movie to any movie out right now, just doesn't make sense.

As I said, for mindless fun, see "Grindhouse". If you want "substance" or to be "educated", by all means you are more-than-free to see an Independent film. Choosing to attack this particular movie just isn't a wise move. This movie is the action/horror equivalent of "Airplane!". Okay, it's a bit more expensive than "Airplane!", but it's satire, nonetheless. I'm pretty sure if Independent filmmakers had a large budget, they'd use it.

quote:

Posted by d.zeleniouk
Like Michael mann's Miami Vice, Grindhouse is a superflous attempt at monetary benefits and to reestablish the objective of films.

Mate, I don't want to sound high and mighty or rude, but this sentence makes absolutely no sense. You obviously are trying to make a serious point, but a re-draft is in order.

I mean, what is a "superfluous" attempt at monetary benefits? And how exactly does one establish the objective of film, so that it can then be re-established.

I'm not trying to put you down, but i need to understand you, and you have written what reads like one of Burroughs cut-up sentences.

quote:

Originally posted by Ishmaels coffin:

quote:

Posted by d.zeleniouk
Like Michael mann's Miami Vice, Grindhouse is a superflous attempt at monetary benefits and to reestablish the objective of films.

Mate, I don't want to sound high and mighty or rude, but this sentence makes absolutely no sense. You obviously are trying to make a serious point, but a re-draft is in order.

I mean, what is a "superfluous" attempt at monetary benefits? And how exactly does one establish the objective of film, so that it can then be re-established.

I'm not trying to put you down, but i need to understand you, and you have written what reads like one of Burroughs cut-up sentences.

The definition of superfluous is unnecessary. Monetary means to pertain to money. It is an unnecessary attempt at financial benefits. (Different synonyms)

The latter sentence focuses on the purpose of cinema and film. Is the purpose to entertain with excessive futility or to inform, educated, and allure?

When you read Farber--particularly White Elephant Art vs Termite Art--he explains the two forms of cinema. B-Movies and A-Movies, and their purposes.

quote:

Originally posted by d.zeleniouk:
The latter sentence focuses on the purpose of cinema and film. Is the purpose to entertain with excessive futility or to inform, educated, and allure?

So, you don't go to the movies for entertainment, you go for education? Many kinds of movies "allure" different people. While you only want intellectual "entertainment", many others just want a good time. While I enjoy the occasional "based-on-true-events" movie, I find it more entertaining when it's fictional & just plain fun. Sometimes, it's actually fun to walk out of a theater smiling & without thinking too hard about the movie I've just watched. What is it you have against a movie that promises a good time? What is the point of every movie being educational & informative to allure only you ?

quote:

Originally posted by Monkey_Boy:
Then you have "28 Days Later", which I enjoyed. I loved the thought of the insane basically taking over an entire country. (Yes, they were insane, violent people infected with RAGE, NOT zombies as everyone seems to believe.) Everyone should have seen this by now, but if you haven't, SPOILER ALERT! By the end of the movie, the infected began dying off & there was a glimmer of hope as jets flew overhead to look for survivors. Now, in the sequel, we find Americans are coming over to help put England back together again, but there are STILL infected people running around in order to cause more chaos. WHAT A LOAD!

And Cillian Murphey isn't even in the sequel. Maybe he could have saved it, because he is one of the most consistently underrated actors out there, but no, they had to scrap him for some stupid twelve year old. I'm with you on that one. Can't believe they are cranking out this trash.

quote:

Originally posted by d.zeleniouk:
Grindhouse was produced for roughly sixty million dollars. A sophisticated American independent filmmaker--such as Lodge Kerrigan--could produce ten films and with them educate, provoke, and aghast the audience with his cinematic dexterity.

This weekend--never mind the release of an important WWII film, Black Book--Grindhouse will accrue vast money from the box office. If Grindhouse is merely an exercise in pompous auteurism, then why is this film marketed in such a fashion that indicates box-office triumph?

Like Michael Mann's Miami Vice, Grindhouse is a superfluous attempt at monetary benefits and to reestablish the objective of films.

Why is Black Book an important film and Grindhouse is not? Why is auteurism pompous? Why do you think that the filmmakers of Grindhouse have any say in its marketing?

Exploring the history and genre definitions of film is just as important as a war movie like black book.

quote:

Originally posted by SheriffParker:
And Cillian Murphey isn't even in the sequel. Maybe he could have saved it, because he is one of the most consistently underrated actors out there, but no, they had to scrap him for some stupid twelve year old. I'm with you on that one. Can't believe they are cranking out this trash.

Exactly! It seems they haven't learned their lessons from "Son of the Mask", "Dumb & Dumberer", or "Van Wilder: The Rise of Taj", & dozens of other crappy sequels/prequels that were made without the people that let us enjoy the originals. When the sequel is missing the stars, I see that as a clue that this script had to stink!

quote:

Exactly! It seems they haven't learned their lessons from "Son of the Mask", "Dumb & Dumberer", or "Van Wilder: The Rise of Taj", & dozens of other crappy sequels/prequels that were made without the people that let us enjoy the originals. When the sequel is missing the stars, I see that as a clue that this script had to stink!

don't forget about "The Exorcist II: The Heretic," the Exorcist prequels, and all the extra movies based on "Silence of the Lambs." Indeed, I have no idea why these movies get made, or how one sequel/prequel can make enough money to justify making another one.

Correction: I guess Linda Blair WAS in Exorcist II, though she looked so different I could have been fooled into thinking it was somebody else. The older Blair had none of the same innocence that made the original such a classic.

I would have to say, The worst movie I seen was just last year, you can say I dont get out much but did a single soul catch the seeker? It seriously boggles my mind how growing up seeing harry potter movies leads me to seeing the seeker.
It's rediculously unbelievable how Im still bitter about the whole thing. And school was on the next day.