applecameron (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
applecameron) wrote2004-01-18 08:57 am
applecameron) wrote2004-01-18 08:57 am
Smug, plus "28 Days Later", zombies, glasses, and "Rosemary's Baby"
I did stuff on my to-do list! Go, me! So, I celebrated with a movie, one I've been afraid of seeing: 28 Days Later.
It was good. I watched two different endings, one more positive than the other, and I'm not sure which one was the more 'right'. Both had valid foreshadowing. I understand there's another ending or two out there? Weren't there three made available at some point?
The infected moved more like animals than zombies, and the film editing really emphasized that.
I don't think this is a spoiler, but
The whole 'zombie' hype is off. They're not zombies in the classic 'risen from the dead' sense. I have walking-corpse issues, and I avoided this film because I thought it would freak me out too much. How do you kill something already dead? These 'zombies' are still killable. Good shot to the head and they'll go right down and stay there. That's really all I ask of an enemy, is that if I kill them, they stay dead. Which is why the film "Halloween" does scare me, when Michael Myers sits up towards the end of the film on the floor in the bedroom, because he's supposed to be dead by now. Plus, it's just a great horror film. So is "Night of the Living Dead", which is the quintessential make-Apple-climb-the-walls risen-from-the-dead film. The remake with Pat Tallman and Tony Todd is good, too. Her glasses! Oh, god! Her glasses!
But I digress.
So, I was wrong to stay away. It (28 Days Later) was a just another good post-apocalyptic survey of the human condition with people running around trying to kill each other. No zombie problems at all. I'd watch it again and enjoy it.
Films like this always make me aware of the indefensibility of my home, though. Anybody else get that?
Oh, and I caught "Rosemary's Baby" a couple weeks ago on cable. It was very good, but I felt more like I was observing this women's terror instead of experiencing it with her. It might just be the passage of time. Or the fashions. Or the sexism. Hard to tell.
It was good. I watched two different endings, one more positive than the other, and I'm not sure which one was the more 'right'. Both had valid foreshadowing. I understand there's another ending or two out there? Weren't there three made available at some point?
The infected moved more like animals than zombies, and the film editing really emphasized that.
I don't think this is a spoiler, but
The whole 'zombie' hype is off. They're not zombies in the classic 'risen from the dead' sense. I have walking-corpse issues, and I avoided this film because I thought it would freak me out too much. How do you kill something already dead? These 'zombies' are still killable. Good shot to the head and they'll go right down and stay there. That's really all I ask of an enemy, is that if I kill them, they stay dead. Which is why the film "Halloween" does scare me, when Michael Myers sits up towards the end of the film on the floor in the bedroom, because he's supposed to be dead by now. Plus, it's just a great horror film. So is "Night of the Living Dead", which is the quintessential make-Apple-climb-the-walls risen-from-the-dead film. The remake with Pat Tallman and Tony Todd is good, too. Her glasses! Oh, god! Her glasses!
But I digress.
So, I was wrong to stay away. It (28 Days Later) was a just another good post-apocalyptic survey of the human condition with people running around trying to kill each other. No zombie problems at all. I'd watch it again and enjoy it.
Films like this always make me aware of the indefensibility of my home, though. Anybody else get that?
Oh, and I caught "Rosemary's Baby" a couple weeks ago on cable. It was very good, but I felt more like I was observing this women's terror instead of experiencing it with her. It might just be the passage of time. Or the fashions. Or the sexism. Hard to tell.