|
|
Post by katrina on May 28, 2007 16:24:23 GMT -5
Well, I saw the first one. (Oh, gee, I wonder why!) And saw the second one last night (on the computer hehehe...it wasn't a movie worth my theatre money). OKAY, soo many DISGUSTING parts (more than the first) I wanted to throw up with the infected!  It was okay, I liked some of it, hated some of it, and the last scene was pretty snazzy to me. |
|
|
|
Post by deadmeggy on Jun 4, 2007 12:29:43 GMT -5
I didn't find it to be too gory... But that's just me. I think I'm just desensitised to these things now. I just found those gory parts to be a bit ridiculous (the helicopter bit).
It was a pretty good film though- didn't make me think as much as I did with the first, but that's to be expected due to all the big-ass explosions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miho on Jun 5, 2007 9:02:54 GMT -5
I saw it, and I agree it was a decent sequel. But it seemed to be more about the gore than about the story. And just when I was begginin to care about certain character, either they got infected or killed. In the end, I didn't care whether the kids made it or not
|
|
|
|
Post by deadmeggy on Jun 5, 2007 12:28:15 GMT -5
I saw it, and I agree it was a decent sequel. But it seemed to be more about the gore than about the story. And just when I was begginin to care about certain character, either they got infected or killed. In the end, I didn't care whether the kids made it or not
And when Andy told his sister Tammy about their dad in such an insensitve way- I lost a bit of sympathy for them. You would think that he would've hugged her because other times they seemed to be close because of what they've been through!
And the very last death (Scarlet) was a bit of a shock too! |
|
|
|
Post by Miho on Jun 7, 2007 9:45:17 GMT -5
upss... sorry 'bout that. It didn't feel as if I've given too much of a spoiler. I mean, we know the virus is back, and death's all over the place... we know there are two kids too... we've seen the poster and I can't help but think... why didn't the 28 days later poster have Cillian in it?
|
|
|
|
Post by blackmamba on Jun 11, 2007 13:16:21 GMT -5
Amen to that! You can see Jim's silhouette but it's not enough for us fangirls |
|
|
|
Post by discoharvest on Jun 22, 2007 1:46:02 GMT -5
This was an AMAZING movie! the Zombie violence was awesome! and the graphics were great! it deserved at least a 7 NOT a 2
|
|
|
|
Post by deadmeggy on Jul 3, 2007 16:03:27 GMT -5
"A 7 not a 2"? Out of ten? Who gave it a two??
It's a good film.
Got 4 out of 5 stars in loads of reviews in England!
Hah, I wished Cillian was properly in the poster for 28DL too... But oh well! I'm still painting that painting of Jim/Cillian for meself! It'll be my own poster 
|
|
|
|
Post by discoharvest on Aug 1, 2007 1:09:47 GMT -5
haha, yea the critics gave it a freaking 2, but yea i was pissed when i heard, it def was a great movie, even without cill(although that would have made it like 1000000 our of 10 LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by rukia888 on Dec 30, 2007 22:30:14 GMT -5
When this first came out, I was mildly interested in it. When I found out that Danny Boyle didn't direct it, my interest dissipated a bit, so I never went to see it when it was out in theaters. I finally saw it recently, and boy, was it a big disappointment. It was gory definitely but not really scary. The story was a bit absurd, too, in my opinion. It didn't really feel like a sequel either to me. The style/vision was completely different from 28 Days Later. Sure, they played that same instrumental music as the first one, but it didn't really fit and didn't really have the same effect. I felt that it was a bit more big budget "Hollywood-tized" (I know, like that's even a word) - just a bunch of special effects, blatant gore, and unmemorable lines thrown together.
|
|
