b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 9735739 (Thread)

# I tought the titles (with slomo still frames ) was the best part of the movie
fact
-no titties (except in the still frames)
-zombies looked shit
-no movie is ever gonna tip 28 days & weeks later
-too many (for real) dead moments
-the story was so goddamn slow, when saw the end was neigh ...I almost thought they would 'open end' it.
(, Sat 10 Oct 2009, 15:03, archived)
# Well, it had the slow-mo norks with the tassles at the beginning,
Yes, the zombies looked shit (as are all speedy ones). Yes, it's not as good as 28 Weeks Later (but probably a better overall one that 28 days). And yes, it was slow at times.
BUT, it had great characters, a quality script, and a great film homage moment mid-way through (without spoiling it for the 1% of people who haven't heard of that cameo already).
I thought it was a quality Mainstream zombie movie overall.
(, Sat 10 Oct 2009, 15:07, archived)
# I must say the Bill Murray part was fun
but that was about it...it was like having bad sex and sometims you think "hmmm she's pretty hot" and then she turns her head "OMG where's me gun".
(, Sat 10 Oct 2009, 15:25, archived)
# speedy zombies suck balls (28 Days later is the exception that proves the rule)
I truly lament the way all zombies seem to be "speedy" these days (like in that TERRIBLE remake of Dawn of the Dead...Nowhere near as scary as "The Shufflers" of George A. Romero's classics.
Though not all his films are classics. Lots of them are shit.
(, Sat 10 Oct 2009, 15:49, archived)
# No, Return of the Living Dead is the exception.
They are the only decent fast zombies.
(, Sat 10 Oct 2009, 16:23, archived)
# Shaun of the Dead is the definitive zombie-based-comedy
and it's way better than 28 Days Later (although that too was amazing)
(, Sat 10 Oct 2009, 15:45, archived)
# Braindead
(, Sat 10 Oct 2009, 16:22, archived)