Free Cinema Tickets - Discussion only thread

joapet

Well...the director used some very good techniques...a lot of the violence u never really see, and i mean although there is a lot of blood and stuff i think the violence is worth it - even tho it is a bit more gory than the 1st one. but i loved them both!

the only bit i couldnt watch was when the husband kissed his wife, and i knew what was gonna happen but i was hoping it wouldnt, and alas it did and he turned into some crazy monster. that was so horrible!

my phone got taken off of me too, and i didnt realise that was gonna happen! the annoying thing was that there was some dude sitting next to us that still had his phone, and it went off!!!

Toxic_Bunni

quidsinquentin wrote: »

Violent - or just containing violence for the sake of it?

I seriously don't think anyone was expecting a Zombie to stopped with an evil glare.

You gotta chop that mo'fo up!

Toxic_Bunni

C'mon folks! Lets talk about films....

bnkers77

quidsinquentin wrote: »

I went with my 18 year old son. He thought it was the most disturbing film he'd ever seen. I thought it was the most relentlessy violent film I'd ever seen - it was like a test to see how much gore you could cope with.

At the end, I think the audience was in shock. There wasn't a peep out of them all way through. It was like that scene from the Adams family Values where the Adam's kids put on that gory play, and you see the audiences faces.

Like the 'Addams Family moment' image! Weird, everyone seemed to cope ok in ours (apart from the elderly-ish bloke who disappeared not too long into the film, didn't see whether he came back or not). I reckon they should have a warning for people with dodgy tickers, or in fact anyone who is squeamish. Having said that, from what I can remember of the 1st one, that in itself could be enough warning re: violence levels...?

Do agree with the points about the OTT 'how far can we push it before it's censored?' thing, the stomoch-chruning gore climax (I'm sure you all know which bit I mean!) made the rest of the film feel like an episode of the Teletubbies! :shocked: That bit in particular seemed totally pointless to me. I'm def not a big fan of slashers/horror for the reason that I'm a right wimp and get scared easy :embarasse but I wasn't shaken by it at all, probably cos there are so many holes in the plot that I couldn't take it seriously. (e.g. how did they get from Regents Park to Wembley Stadium in what looked like a few mins? I'm sure it would take at least 40 mins to do it using the tube tunnels and that's if you can see where you're going! Why do they 'turn' so quickly after being bitten? How do they run so fast? How come they can break thru solid wooden doors but a car window is too tough? etc etc etc <insert anoraky niggle of choice here>) 'Course the atmosphere & stuff is done really well and just sweeps you along.

Ok, hands up, who made sure their doors were locked when driving home...apart from me? )

bnkers77

Toxic_Bunni wrote: »

I seriously don't think anyone was expecting a Zombie to stopped with an evil glare.

You gotta chop that mo'fo up!

Yeah, those things are mean mean mean. Hey but nothing will beat Shaun of the Dead for the best zombie-mashing scene ever! & all to music too! :rotfl:

Darkangel

Hi,

I can't go to the screening for 28 weeks later tonight so does anybody want them? I got it from the seefilmfirst website.

It starts at 6.30pm at the Odeon in Covent Garden.
PM me if you want them and I'll e-mail you the ticket (admits 2).



Tickets have now been claimed.

AngelUndercover

Aw pity you cant make it tonight Darkangel but good of you to offer your tix to some lucky MSE (and on the correct thread too!)

:beer:

AngelUndercover

bnkers77 wrote: »

Yeah, those things are mean mean mean. Hey but nothing will beat Shaun of the Dead for the best zombie-mashing scene ever! & all to music too! :rotfl:

Too right!:rotfl:

bnkers77

fiestyfeasey wrote: »

I defintely don't think it was as good as the first one, nothing would beat that, but they definitely set it up for a third, cannot wait!!!

I can see at least another 3: 28 Months Later, 28 Years Later and (possibly a spoof) 28 Millenia Later! :rolleyes2

bnkers77

quidsinquentin wrote: »

Violent - or just containing violence for the sake of it?

I've no problem with violence in the film as long as it's part of the film - and in this case it is. But it wasn't just me that thought the film went over the top with scenes of violence.

The director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, seems to have gone overboard in what he wanted to portray.

But, I do wonder to what extent films should be allowed to depict disturbing imagery.

I agree with points made by quidsinquentin and joapet re: the violence but most people seem to be agreed that the gore was part of the film, it wasn't say, a whodunnit with a load of gratuitous violence thrown in just for the sake of it. Besides, there are so many slasher nasties in mainstream cinema now after the recent revival recently that compared to these (Saw trilogy, Hostel, Hills Have Eyes, Texas Chainsaw remake etc etc), 28 Weeks is really not that bad!