JGT
Member
28 weeks wasn't as good as 28 days. i didn't think it seemed as real. i think a few things in the movie were forced, so the rest of the story could go on.
anyone see 28 weeks later?
- Thread starter 94venom5.0
- Start date
bdazzgt
I had to jerk off the cable to get it to stop.
300 was based closely off frank millers graphic novels, ie(sincity). The movie followed the novel closely, that is why the blood and everything else looked like it did. I hope you did realized the monsters and everything else in the movie that wasnt lifelike.
Anyways chuckman Venom was a symbiot (sp) that J. J. Jameson's son brought back from a space mission. It got on parker and brought out his inner demons, Eddie Brock (Venom) was infected with the symbiot (sp). Then after venom was affected it went to Cletius Cassidy and became carnage. Carnage, tried to kill spiderman and Venom so they would help each other when he came around. I did like how they showed that Venom was hurt by the soundwaves like in the comic book. That is my rant hope no one takes it personal
Kabuki_notch
Founding Member
How could you say that... When movies like Dawn Of The Dead(78') Lucio Fulci's "Zombie", From Beyond, NOTLD (90') and Let the Sleeping Corpses Lie are out there.
28 Days later is a good series true..but in my opinion it's not really a zombie movie...
Zombies dont run..
Back in the 80's there were a series of comics called the secret wars. That is how Parker got the alien suit. And yes it was removed (by Mr. Fantastic) and later got on someone else (Venom).
Scariest movie I've ever seen in my life bar none.
A group of about 15 punks (literally... Punks, you know, moon stompers, freaks and goths... Don't ask... ) went. OMG. I usually don't get scared at any movie. I love horror flicks. THAT MOVIE SCARED THE HELL OUTTA ME
A group of about 15 punks (literally... Punks, you know, moon stompers, freaks and goths... Don't ask... ) went. OMG. I usually don't get scared at any movie. I love horror flicks. THAT MOVIE SCARED THE HELL OUTTA ME
300 was based closely off frank millers graphic novels, ie(sincity). The movie followed the novel closely, that is why the blood and everything else looked like it did. I hope you did realized the monsters and everything else in the movie that wasnt lifelike.
Anyways chuckman Venom was a symbiot (sp) that J. J. Jameson's son brought back from a space mission. It got on parker and brought out his inner demons, Eddie Brock (Venom) was infected with the symbiot (sp). Then after venom was affected it went to Cletius Cassidy and became carnage. Carnage, tried to kill spiderman and Venom so they would help each other when he came around. I did like how they showed that Venom was hurt by the soundwaves like in the comic book. That is my rant hope no one takes it personal
see i told you i didnt read the comics, all my info is from playing that ultimate spiderman game (which sucked btw). anyway i went to see it last night and thought it was pretty good, better than matrix 3 anyway.
Kabuki_notch
Founding Member
Return of the Living dead was a spoof... and a tribute to the dead movies I would consider ROTLD 1-3 comedies 4 and 5 were just atrocious
Alright....how about the 2004 "Dawn of the Dead" remake.....the newly dead zombies ran like a son of a bitch.
Kabuki_notch
Founding Member
that wasnt a movie that was a joke and disgrace to zombie films... if I was romero I would be digusted. back in 68 when notld came out that was a definition of a zombie. come out of the ground after being dead you shouldnt be able to sprint. hell when I get up in the morning I can barley walk... I guess im looking too far into it im a hardcore horror movie buff I study these movies and enjoy them. I am pretty narrow minded on what I will and wont watch. but then again I cant get enough of the b-movie cheese.
28 days/weeks is technically not about zombies. Zombies are living dead. In 28 days/weeks there is a "Rage Virus" being spread that makes people go nuts.
Kabuki_notch
Founding Member
that wasnt a movie that was a joke and disgrace to zombie films... if I was romero I would be digusted. back in 68 when notld came out that was a definition of a zombie. come out of the ground after being dead you shouldnt be able to sprint. hell when I get up in the morning I can barley walk... I guess im looking too far into it im a hardcore horror movie buff I study these movies and enjoy them. I am pretty narrow minded on what I will and wont watch. but then again I cant get enough of the b-movie cheese.
So a newly dead zombie running down a victim in order to consume their flesh/brains is too far fetched, but a zombie that's too weak or decrepit with decay and on-set necrosis in order to move any faster than a few steps a minute digging their way out of a 6-foot grave packed with years of dirt, mud and clay is perfectly believable, right.
....just checking.
Well the biggest dissapointments are the Resident Evil movies...Why didnt the just take the story starting with the first one and turn it into a movie!? Keep all the zombies, monsters, and characters from the game instead of making up some stupid crap story and slap the RE name on it. It could have been great!
Kabuki_notch
Founding Member
So a newly dead zombie running down a victim in order to consume their flesh/brains is too far fetched, but a zombie that's too weak or decrepit with decay and on-set necrosis in order to move any faster than a few steps a minute digging their way out of a 6-foot grave packed with years of dirt, mud and clay is perfectly believable, right.
....just checking.
no rebuddle.... im too old skool for this new stuff. I will leave it at that. mainstream horror is crap when compared what the late 70's to mid 90's was, end of story.
I'm not argueing, just playfully pointing out the fact that we're debating fictional facts back and forth about something that doesn't even exist.
....or does it.
I agree with you though....the earlier horror movies are much better. Not sure if it's because they were a whole lot better, or if it was because I was more scared when watching them as a kid and they're not so believable to me now.
....or does it.
I agree with you though....the earlier horror movies are much better. Not sure if it's because they were a whole lot better, or if it was because I was more scared when watching them as a kid and they're not so believable to me now.
Kabuki_notch
Founding Member
a little bit of both I think... argueing fictional characters! I have a Zombie survival guide...just incase
Just so long as the acting doesn't suck as horribly as it did in the original Resident Evil games...
...then again, that might actually be kind of entertaining. Anyone remember that .MP3 where someone spliced together a bunch of dialogue from the first RE game to make it sound like some kinda orgy going on in a shower?
The remake of Dawn of the Dead had its merits, but yeah, I totally don't get the whole running zombies thing. Land of the Dead was better, IMHO ... but that's genuine George Romero stuff.
Shaun of the Dead RULES, spoof or not.
...then again, that might actually be kind of entertaining. Anyone remember that .MP3 where someone spliced together a bunch of dialogue from the first RE game to make it sound like some kinda orgy going on in a shower?
The remake of Dawn of the Dead had its merits, but yeah, I totally don't get the whole running zombies thing. Land of the Dead was better, IMHO ... but that's genuine George Romero stuff.
Shaun of the Dead RULES, spoof or not.
Ahhh, the good ol Max Brooks publication.
See, I thought it the other way around. The 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead IMO was really well done, although still not as good as the 1978 original. Regardless, it was really dark and spooky, with some decent acting, make-up and camera work. The Cameo’s by Ken Foree and Tom Savini whom were in the original were kinda cool too. It was probably one of the better zombie films since the 1990 remake of Night of the Living dead. Not to mention it had my hottie Quebec and Ontario hometown girls Kim Poirier and Lindy Booth in the cast.The remake of Dawn of the Dead had its merits, but yeah, I totally don't get the whole running zombies thing. Land of the Dead was better, IMHO ... but that's genuine George Romero stuff.
Shaun of the Dead RULES, spoof or not.
Land of the Dead on the other hand was a little too hokey for my tastes. There were too many cheesy one liners, mixed with low budget effects and lousy acting.....as well as a really weak story line.
Shaun of the Dead did rock though.....and I can’t wait for Romero’s “Day of the Dead” remake to hit the theatres this year.
Similar threads
