| 6ixStringJack: Oh... did I mention or did you know that Cillian Murphy was the "lead" in the first movie? I say lead, but it's really an ensamble cast of little-known actors at the time. Cillian is kind of our own Avatar in the first act of the movie. Amazing that he went on to be in so much and was just in the $1 Billion movie Oppenheimer. |
| 6ixStringJack: And the acting by Robert Carlyle is top-notch and really carries the whole movie, even though he's billed 3rd below Jeremy Renner and Rose Byrne. Most, if not all, of the flashbacks are from his perspective. |
| 6ixStringJack: It's exposition done well though. Rather than just telling us about things that happened, they actually do make good use of flashbacks. |
| 6ixStringJack: But like I said, the first one is much more intimate, and you're basically learning about what happened as the main character on screen does. In the 2nd movie, everyone we see on screen knows so much more, and we're basically playing catch up through exposition during the first half while the stage for chaos is being set. |
| 6ixStringJack: It fits the story and makes sense that in that instance there would be a mix. Did they write it that way because it was a Hollywood flick and they wanted to "broaden" the appeal of the 2nd? Maybe. It had some really cool effects in it, and one or two pretty awesome scenes that I don't think the budget of the first movie could have ever accomplished. |
| Brenda: I would have to find a copy of copy of days and look either at the back of the box or look it up on line. That's okay if it is a mix. It would probably add to some level of realism. |
| 6ixStringJack: *weeks, not days (I'm talking about the sequel) |
| 6ixStringJack: Yeah. The main actors in 28 days later were a mix of British and American although it takes place in Britain. (Not actually sure how much of it was filmed where though). It's just a much different kind of movie. The first one was intimate, where the 2nd one has a lot more people and stuff going on. |
| Brenda: Well, if the first one was all British. They do things a little different . And sorry to say this but when Hollywood gets their hands on things from overseas, they usually manage to trash it in some way. Watched British tv brought to the US and yeah, just turns me off. |
| THG: |
| 6ixStringJack: The first one was really impressive for the small budget. The 2nd one was what you'd get 5 years later with Hollywood giving it an extra $10 or $20 million to play with, so even though it's got it's pros, it's got its cons. I think half of the entire budget of the first movie had to be paying the city of London to shut a few city blocks down long enough to do a few of the shots that don't make up much of the movie. |
| Brenda: Cool. I love Chris Eccleston. I will have to take a better look for it then. |
| 6ixStringJack: Oh... Chris Eccleston is in 28 Days Later too. It's the only other thing I've ever seen him in other than kicking off new Dr. Who. |
| Brenda: I'll look them up on YouTube then. |
| Brenda: Have to look them up YouTube. My library hasn't got copies of them anymore. I know they did. But. |
| Brenda: It was weird but about half way through or less I had figured out what would happen in it. When that happens the movie and or tv show don't interest me anymore. |
| THG: South Park
[go to link] |
| 6ixStringJack: But 28 Days Later was really good where the sequel was a decent follow up leaving you vaguely wanting more in the future maybe. |
| 6ixStringJack: But 28 Days Later was really good where the sequel was a decent follow up leaving you vaguely wanting more in the future maybe. |
| 6ixStringJack: I do highly recommend 28 Days later. I'd tell anybody to watch that before ever getting them started on The Walking Dead roller coaster that never ends. If you liked it, you'll probably like 28 Weeks Later too, even though it's all new characters. Can't say anything about the new one though. |