Welcome to Gaia! ::

I also enjoyed the movie... at least up until they met the millitary unit. Introducing another group of strugglers was a good idea, but I didn't like how they were so... Ech... I can't think of the word I should use. But I thought the DVD special ending needing storyboards to tell the tale of transforming the older man back to normal and letting the main character be forever doomed to be strapped onto the bed fully turned with the berserk virus was an interesting concept, and I would have loved that ending!

But the director, when they reach the end, says how a blood transfer wouldn't do anything since Frank was infected in the eye so it wouldn't make sense if he could be better through a blood transfer.

If it was not for consistency in a movie, then you would not have the entertainment. Anyone who studies film (except for Van Helsing director Stephen Sommers who threw his masters degree in the trash) will tell you that a film must have some sort of order, not violate laws of continuity and the rules of the universe established within the picture, and have a sensible closing in which all loose ends are tied in an understandable fashion.

Ignoring everything established in a story and concluding the film with a huge inconsistency is not closure. It creates confusion (not the Donnie Darko kind) and chaos, is not even realistic in the film's own universe, and is just a huge copout. If a movie is to end a speciffic way, then the preceeding scenes should have unflolded in a manner which would make the final effect (the ending) work. For example, due to the presentation of the scenes before it, Mel Gibson cannot conclude Braveheart by having William Wallace evade capture by the British by flying away like Superman and live to fight another day. Why? Because nothing in the previous two and a half hours reveals or hints at the fact that William Wallace can fly, just like nothing in the previous 100 minutes of 28 Days Later does anything to explain how your desired ending could make sense.

Everything you're saying Danny Boyle should have done to close 28 Days Later is a perfect example of bad filmmaking.

28 Days Later could have been such a crappy movie, but it was done with such respect and artisticality (if that's even a word ...) that it wasn't.

I personally loved the movie, as well as the cliffhanger ending. And the main characters were just awesome. Actually, scratch that, all the characters were awesome. Even the zombies.

American Psycho
Shaun of the Dead
Bubba Ho-Tep
Ginger Snaps
Dead End



Filmmakers forgot how to create character tension so they give the zombies a bit of a kick so the movie remains "suspensful."

A year and 28 days later? lol

I liked the movie. The ending was fine. The special ending could be special 'cause it didn't fit no?

Sounds lame. I'll look it up later and probably be really psyched.

I liked 28 days later a lot, although it was not really frightening for me. It was suspenseful at times, but for the most part it didn't get to me on the psychological level I love so much. I thought it was a brilliant film though.