Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest Anonymous

28 Days Later

44 posts in this topic

Good to see that folks haven't jumped ship. We'll make this thing work yet.

Thanks, Alan, for working so hard to put the pieces back together.

I'm enjoying Chicago-land. Stef is just as scrappy and scrawny as he seems. Later on I'll meet Asher, and tomorrow MLeary and Parks. Wild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stef hated it. (Note: He fell asleep for a good deal of it, so can you trust him?

Asher liked it somewhat. (I think that's accurate. Asher?)

And I loved it!!

It's a genre film, through and through. If you told Danny Boyle that the film is "formulaic", he'd probably say "Duh" and he might even say "Thank you." But this is SO MUCH MORE than a zombie movie.

It's as realistic and troubling an apocalypse film as I've seen. Sure, the zombies are over-the-top, but the idea of a disastrous disease spreading quickly... how the disease gets loose... and how people respond once it's rampant... It's chilling. The handheld video footage lends to the immediacy of the storytelling. A lot of Blair Witch tactics being used... "Less is more" is the rule for most (but not all ) of the film.

But I hated Blair Witch because it aimed merely to disturb; it had very little to offer as far as meaningful storytelling. This was different. I felt for these characters. I liked them. I was convinced by every single member of the cast. The writing was strong - there's a great "first kiss" line, and only a couple of big one-liners, but those are good too. I was satisfied with the ending... it recalls another one of my favorite films, but if I say which one I'll spoil it.

Most of all, though, the film alludes to Blade Runner, and in effective ways. At times it's just the lighting and the way that a character runs through light, shadow, and rain. But then I started thinking about the themes of the film, and I think there's a real relationship to be explored here. I wondered if I might just be "reading into it", but then something happened near the end that convinced me the Blade Runner connection was deliberate.

Cillian Murphy is fantastic in the lead role. He reminds me of Jim Caviezel. He plays this film as though it is total freakin' reality. Brendan Gleeson is also very good, as is Christopher Eccleston, one of the best and most grievously underused actors in the movies.

This movie will make you think about how the world might end. It will make you think of Africa, where disease is running rampant while the world stands around, hands in pockets, and watches. It will make you think about the dangers of science and irresponsibility. You'll think about what your town might do, how your neighbors might behave, how YOU might behave, if chaos broke out, if the government was dissolved, if you had to try and hide yourself from the rest of humanity.

One of the reasons the film struck such a chord with me is how frequently visions of devastated and even empty cities are showing up on the big screen. Just recently we saw heroes exploring familiar cities that were suddenly devoid of humanity in A.I. Artificial Intelligence and Vanilla Sky. Here it happens again. It's as if filmmakers are beginning to gather around those prophecies that seem most possible, most imminent. This was the most convincing and thoughtful use of that premise I've seen. Boyle scatters some spiritual songs and prayers through the script, and I don't think that was indulgent. It suited the scene. At one point the hero stumbles onto a bit of graffiti that, while the use of profanity will prevent me from posting it here, struck me almost as a message from God shouting at the audience in large capital letters. And while the film does enter Road Warrior territory and recall a dozen other apocalypse and horror films, I think this one is thinking much more seriously than the others. I think its eyes are wide open.

But that's just me. Stef hated it and fell asleep. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I loved it!!

Excellent!!

I'm really glad to hear this because I've been looking forward to this film for quite some time. I'm a huge fan of Trainspotting, as well as the old Romero zombie movies, Evil Dead etc. So this could be a match made in heaven (as odd as that expression sounds talking about a zombie movie :-s ).

Brendan Gleeson is also very good

Glad to hear it. I watched Gangs of New York again the other night, and I really think Gleeson is an underappreciated actor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before i go all stef on this film i want to first say what i liked about it. There were several shots in the beginning that were Vanilla Sky times twenty. i don't know how they could've shut down the whole city and all of the streets to get these silent, disquieting moments. It was unbelievable. Also, i don't know whether it's the director or the camerman's charm, but the camerawork was breath taking. There were so many occasions where you could just go "Wow, how did they do that." And the choices of what to show us -- brilliant. But especially the visuals in the first twenty minutes of the film. The intro was flawless.

Until people started speaking. And they didn't have a whole lot to say.

And until the director tried to let the editor, instead of the camerman, make this a great film. This was a sad decision -- it was the cameraman who captured all that beauty in the story's intro. It was like bringing in a relief pitcher in the second inning when the first guy only had three strikeouts to his credit, and then watching the relief pitcher blow the game.

But that's just me. Stef hated it and fell asleep.

Edited by stef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, i think that perhaps you may have seen something, but i don't think the film itself will speak to most people like this.

Well... for those who have eyes to see... :wink:

The editing didn't bother me. I will agree that some of the characters were somewhat "stock" and said some "stock" things, but I thought they were more than just stock characters. I felt for the girl. I liked her dad. After discussing the film with a friend of mine back in Seattle via e-mail today, I agree with him that the girl's story didn't quite get enough closure, but I felt she was a real, believable character.

I don't think the movie goes out of its way to get the average moviegoer to consider hard questions. But I think that the director had hard questions on his mind as he made the film, and that it took it that extra step towards elevating the film into something artful and meaningful.

Here's a review that says some things I agree with:

http://www.thestranger.com/2003-06-26/film.html

Because Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later is an ambitious movie, I will begin my review of it with an ambitious statement: All art aspires to arrive at the very core of the reality that has conditioned it. In a word, the mood of the times, the social climate of a specific place--this is what art strives hard to capture and reveal. For the simple fact that cinema is still the dominant art form, a film that succeeds in defining the very condition of its moment is nothing less than a major event. Suddenly the truth is not revealed to a privileged few (as is the case with the lesser arts), but to the masses.  

No book or painting could have captured the late '90s better than The Matrix; no sonata or sculpture could have better captured the post-Iraq War 2 mood than X2. The same can also be said about Boyle's new film 28 Days Later. If X2 got to the terrifying heart of the days leading to our most recent war, then 28 Days Later got to the heart of SARS. True, SARS came about after 28 Days Later was made (2002), but the environment that made the disease all the rage for the better part of the first half of 2003 is the very same environment that makes 28 Days Later the best horror film of this, our time.  

The main stage for SARS was Hong Kong, the former outpost for London, which is the main stage for 28 Days Later. After a brief scene in a lab, the movie begins in a hospital bed, with a patient (Cillian Murphy) who has just awoken from a coma. He was in our world (the positive world of international business, traffic, city lights) when an accident knocked him into a death sleep; he is in the other world (the negative, empty, lawless world that's ruled by the darkest forces) when he regains consciousness. In the space of 28 days, an incurable virus has turned his beloved United Kingdom into the heart of darkness. Even AIDS-ravaged Africa looks like paradise compared to this diseased and desolate former First World country.  

The young man soon discovers that there are now only two races of people left: those who are infected by the disease that makes them raving mad, murderous zombies, and those who are not. The young man teams up with a young woman (Naomie Harris), a father (Brendan Gleeson), and his daughter (Megan Burns), and the four decide to leave the safety of a fortified apartment complex and follow a radio signal broadcasting from an army post based in Manchester. The signal promises protection from the zombies, but upon arriving at the army camp they discover an even worse enemy than the zombies of London--and at this point the movie, as happened in reality (in March of 2003), combines the fears of Hong Kong's SARS with the horrors of the British siege of Basra, Iraq. (Watch the movie and this interpretation will make sense.)  

Though gory and scary, there are numerous beautiful moments in 28 Days Later, such as the scenes that are filled with the magnificent music of Faur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woo hoo!!

Look at some of these reviews!

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/28dayslater/

A.O. Scott, David Edelstein, Joe Morgenstern, and yes, Jonathan Rosenbaum, who says:

In terms of plot, this postapocalyptic horror tale about an epidemic that decimates most of England is pretty familiar stuff, the most obvious referents being Richard Matheson's I Am Legend, its various movie spin-offs, and George Romero's zombie pictures. But Danny Boyle's purposeful direction and Mark Tildesley's imaginative and resourceful production design keep this fresh and edgy; the images of a wasted London and the details of a paramilitary organization in the countryside are both creepy and persuasive. Alex Garland wrote the script, and the effective cast includes Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Christopher Eccleston, Megan Burns, and Brendan Gleeson.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really did like this film. I didn't love it but I am far from hating it. More specifics in a later post.

I agree with some of Stef's points but the rest...well I am not sure if we saw the same movie. Oh, I guess we really didn't since Stef slept through most of it. No more movies after 10pm for you young man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thoroughly enjoyed 28 Days Later. I'm a big horror movie buff -- I jump at the drop of a pin, so I spend entire movies like a tightly wound rubber band ball of fear. So a formulaic zombie flick? Is right up my alley.

This is extremely spoilery so consider yourself warned. I most enjoy those formula movies with a little twist, like if the hero doesn't actually make it out (cf. the original Army of Darkness ending) or if the hero's struggle isn't for what we originally thought (such as in Jacob's Ladder). But this movie, its twist was that it could be formulaic but also bring up some questions. What would we do to keep going? Grossly use other human beings? Turn into such an animal that we're indistinguishable from these mindless killers (zombies, whatever)? Turning a blind eye to suffering so that we ourselves can avoid that same fate?

At least, that's what amazed me about 28 Days Later -- when I was leaving the theater, and a bunch of the audience members laughed "blah, just another slasher movie," I turned to my friends and said "that scene where [something spoilery about someone's eyes] -- that really disturbed me." (And also it was a true blue gore horror movie move.)

Just my ten cents :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blast. I was set to catch this last night with Darryl, but fatigue foiled my plan. Sounds like it's one not to miss.

After all, stef liked Morvern Callar, so what does he know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off to see 28 Days Later in 40 min. Tell what I think later.

Oh, and just so people know, I love Trainspotting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOME SPOILERS AHEAD

A few thoughts, after seeing the film yesterday, and reading the board's comments this morning:

- I thought the characters were terrific and empathically-drawn. I briefly gained hope that the cinema-going public has not completely coarsened, when I heard a sympathetic groan go 'round the theater after the dad was infected by the falling droplet of blood.

- On the other hand, it didn't make me think too hard about SARS, Ebola, and company. Rather, I appreciated Boyle's use of disease as metaphor for sin (whether he intended it this way or not) - after the disease enters the human race, all who are infected become murderers. In this regard, I thought the opening shot of the monkey hooked up to the half-dozen TV monitors was particularly effective in showing the rapidly tainting power of our sin-sick world.

- Boyle is also dynamite with details -- the sense of visual abandon and forsakenness was quite convincing. The music was very effective, too -- I appreciated the use of "In paradisum" from Faure's Requiem, as the protagonists were seeking refuge from the killing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad you pointed this out:

I thought the opening shot of the monkey hooked up to the half-dozen TV monitors was particularly effective in showing the rapidly tainting power of our sin-sick world.

That scene was very effecting, even though I couldn't figure out exactly what the purpose of that scene was, plot-wise. (Was the monkey getting a Clockwork Orange treatment? Was that supposed to stir up his rage? Because he looked kinda sleepy and bored, whereas the monkeys in the cages were going insane. Maybe they'd already been through that part.)

One of the girls that went to 28 Days Later with me, her first comment outside of the theater was "I almost couldn't handle that 'news' footage -- if it had gone on a second longer I would have had to leave." All that riot footage was pretty hardcore, and as we talked about it we realized that it may not have been produced for use in the movie. That might be actual news footage. You think? And if it's not, the fact that it made us wonder is scary enough in its own right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, one other thing I forgot to mention or ask about: where are the allusions to Blade Runner in this film? Sure, there are similar themes (what it means to be human, etc.), but I didn't see anything more direct than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't know how they could've shut down the whole city and all of the streets to get these silent, disquieting moments. It was unbelievable.

I agree

 

Until people started speaking. And they didn't have a whole lot to say.

What is there to say? One of them just discovered what happened after being in a coma for 28 days, the others are trying to make it through each say as it comes and the rest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but then something happened near the end that convinced me the Blade Runner connection was deliberate.

[spoiler ALERT

Are you thinking of the eye gouge Jim gives one of the soldiers?

[END SPOILERS]

Did anyone else notice that impressionist field of flowers?

Yes I noticed them. At first I thought I just wasn't seeing clearly, but then my friend from work (who only came because I convinced him it would be Trainspotting meets Resident Evil, yet still he loved the movie) turned to me and asked "What the hell was that?" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Jim is running around outside the fort at night, shirtless, many of the shots look just like Rutger Hauer's manic pursuit of Harrison Ford in Blade Runner... running through slatted lighting, stopping and looking anxiously through the windows... I began to think of the Replicant's violent attempt to break free of the the oppressive society that was closing in on them. And then, the final confrontation and the eye-gouging came along. I don't know how far the thematic similarities go, but the imagery is very similar, and both films explore what it is that makes someone human as opposed to a machine or, in this case, a being completely overcome by the animal within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Spoilerish material below (and some not so spoilerish observations)

I just saw 28 DL tonight... so I've not had a lot of time to form an opinion on it... My intial reaction was that I enjoyed it, that I found myself well and truly on the edge of my seat through much of it. I think I liked it in part, too, as a reaction to seeing it with an audience that didn't seem to enjoy it too much. Did you ever feel that way? -- like you want to like something just because someone else doesn't get it? But then you're not

sure it was all that great?

I felt like I was seeing it with an audience that wanted this to be just a slasher flick or a typical horror movie and jeered at it for being grittier and more harsh than they expected. This is an audience that howled when we see Jim nude in the hospital bed near the beginning. Just the sight of a nude man was too much for them -- and I felt like "oh great, a totally immature audience."

Anyway -- I liked it, but I didn't love it. I did like the idea of a RAGE plague spreading. It made me think, as I was leaving the theater, that in some ways the film was about the breakdown of our society in general, even now -- about how niceties and politness and just being friendly and helpful to others are ideas that are disappearing, and that we're not far from total breakdown. And this idea was, I think, echoed by the last act of the film, the whole part of it set inside the "bunker." It shows how quick our society breaks down in the face of something unthinkable -- that we can't depend on one another. Just as Selena (sp?) is placing trust in people again, her trust is destroyed. So what's the message? Trust no one -- even if they're not zombies, that's no proof they're not out to harm you.

From a structural standpoint, I thought the film came to a screeching halt when they got to Manchester. I realize why things changed at that point, and to some degree I enjoyed the surreal nature of certain scenes in the last act, like the dinner scene interrupted by a zombie attack. But the feel of the film changed at that point, and I didn't think it was a change for the better. Again, I realize there was a strong emphasis at this point in the film on the nature of humanity and "enemy within" theme... but I felt like it abandoned the idea of figuring out what was happening in the world, whether or not there was anything out there... anyone else... I don't know. My thoughts aren't fully formed, but the last act felt sort of blah to me.

It also made me wonder about DV-shot films on big screens -- was there an effort to make it intentionally soft-focus and blurry? I know Boyle and crew shot it with DV cameras and wanted to emphasize that grainy feel, but sometimes I felt like it was just a bad quality transfer, and I wanted to know if DV always looks like this when transferred to film, or if it was intentional. I felt the style was intentionally grainy and hard to see in order to emphasize the disorienting nature of the world -- especially for Jim, as he's the "uninitiated" at the start of the film -- but I felt it went too far and was just annoying to look at (at times).

So those are my half-baked ideas about the film, such as they are.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AlanW wrote:

: I don't think that the devasted cities thing is as much apocalyptic as it is

: anti-technology. (The zombies are in the high-tech areas and the

: travellers are safe in the countryside, after all.) Noble Savage?

Hmmm, maybe the zombies are stand-ins for junkies and panhandlers -- cities do tend to attract such people more than the country does, for obvious reasons.

: Do people always have to do *stupid* things in horror flicks (you know:

: don't go in the dark, scary places, stay with others, etc.)

Heh. Like that one scene at the gas station, I think it was, you mean?

: I did not really like the digital video; it came off as too grainy.

I could appreciate it, though -- it helped to suggest how, um, lacking in resources Britain had become. You can't exactly make a SLICK post-apocalyptic zombie movie, can you? What would be the point?

: Did anyone else notice that impressionist field of flowers?

Oh yes. Rather liked it, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I should have been sleeping, I saw this one Monday night, I only skimmed this thread so I apologize if my comments here have already been discussed...

SPOILERS:

I was very glad that the movie switched gears and didn't try to be a straight-up horror flick. The first few zombie encounters weren't scary. This is probably the first "horror" film I've ever seen that actually drew me in as it progressed, mainly due to it not really being a horror film at all.

Although I thought the "people kill people" point was a little heavy handed, I was lost in thought on a side point. The one seminar I caught at C'Stone was on C.S. Lewis and Pulp Fiction (no, not the movie as I had assumed -- laugh.gif -- but pulp fiction magazines). The speaker made a comment about how early science fiction was used in many ways as atheistic propoganda. He laughed about how atheists and mant sci-fi authors seem to view survival and propagation as the ultimate goal of humanity. And while that point may be debated, I think it's certainly true enough to at least a few sci-fi authors. When Christopher Eccleston's character basically made this point as his motivation I nearly jumped out of my seat. And then Cillian Murphy's character realizes that "we're not f***ed" -- there's other people, when he sees the jet flying over. And then after he was shot and before he wakes up at the end, there is a flash of the word "Hell" on the ground. I assumed this was the sheets they constructed laid out before they had finished the "O" to make "Hello." In any case, I started thing about how we all live in a fallen world where people are busy killing other people (both literally and metaphorically) and it is easy to take an Ecclesiastical view of life where survival, although pointless in and of itself, is the only goal. But like Jim, if we look "up" (it's interesting that he was for all purposes lost -- he was bound, fallen to the ground and his life basically forfeit at the moment he saw the jet) with "eyes to see" we're not f***ed either. There is salvation.

Sorry if this wasn't as clear as I hoped it to be. I'm a slow typist and I've got to get ready for school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it the other day, and my main reaction through the whole thing was: Stephen King did it better in "The Stand". The book not the TV Mini-series.

It was a fun Zombie/post apocalypse movie, but that's all. I didn't see too much beyond that.

Jeff, I'm not sure where you were seeing the Blade Runner imagery. Unless you talking about the eye gouging bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. What a great out-of-nowhere experience. I thought I was fairly up on what is coming out (at least in the megaplexes), but I knew little or nothing about this movie before it came out, and all the anticipation I've had to see it was created by the film's strong word of mouth and Little Train That Could box office steadiness. The first and only commercial I saw for this movie (I don't watch much television) was one of those man-on-the-street post-viewing blurb commercials that are so often faked. Contrast this with the typical summer movie experience today, where a summer film and its stars have been Entertainment Weeklied and Jay Lenod to death before it hits the screen. It's a rare experience these days to find a summer movie that can surprise you.

I was a big fan of Romero's zombie films as a teen, and largely still am. Day of the Dead was the first video release I eagerly awaited. This film had nods to the plot points and themes of those films-- the holing-up in a sanctuary from Night of the Living Dead, the shopping scenes and delight at restored creature comforts from Dawn of the Dead and the militarism and creature pet angle from Day of the Dead. There's also a repetition of the interracial bond and the zombie hunting scenes from the first two movies.

I guess this isn't technically a zombie movie, as zombies have died and returned to a state of undeath. These creatures haven't yet died. In Dawn and Day, particularly, the heroes are usually able to keep some distance from the creatures by shooting them. For much of this film-- and I was thinking that it makes sense given the relative paucity of private handguns in Britain-- the heroes have nothing but their baseball bats to protect themselves, so I felt really vulnerable for them. They have to become savages to protect themselves, and can't distance themselves from the savagery by pulling a trigger.

There is the staple horror movie theme that fighting for survival makes us as bad as our enemies-- the scene at the end where enraged Jim comes close to being clocked by Selina is nicely-done. I enjoyed that Jim was a bit of a weakling who has to learn to protect himself and the women-- I especially enjoyed that we are spared the suiting-up/accumulating armaments scene and the ominpotent hero scene. He's just a skinny guy who gains a survival instinct when he's enraged. Boyle's shooting style is so appropriate in conveying the chaos of violence but not reveling in it or needlessly allowing us the vicarious thrill of seeing the other destroyed-- the gore is greatly, greatly reduced and the violence is actually fairly tame for a horror film.

I like the way Boyle tells the story, with a minimum of exposition and no plot-convenience TV broadcast or history lesson to give us all the details of the infection and the resultant plague and exodus. It's possible that the virus was limited to England. The characters don't really know, and neither do we.

Storywise, I thought the film really earned its happy ending. Romero ended NOTLD with a pointless death of its hero after the danger had (presumably) subsided, and ended Dawn with a temporary escape with somewhat-certain death to follow (and there's a parallel to the D.Cut of Blade Runner). I really didn't know which way Boyle was going to go. A few times in the film Jim's angular features and intensity reminded me of Daniel Day Lewis, and so when the characters abruptly appear to go through the windshield, I thought we might be in for a reprise of the end of The Unbearable Lightness of Being and, in zombie movie terms, a NOTLD-type ending. Then I thought they were going to set up their own house-fortress and the film would end with them still running from the creatures, Dawn-style. The ending was a pleasant surprise-- it's not often that these dystopias end happily, and rarer that it can be done and believed.

There's a nice repetition of the word "hello." It brings Jim so much trouble-- he says it at the church and repeats it (stupidly) in the abandoned restaurant. Apropos that they should spell out that word at the end (instead of "HELP" or "ALIVE"), and that it's so close phonetically to "hell"-- the zombie rationale put forth in Dawn being that hell is full and the damned walk the earth.

My one plausibility quibble would be that, for all their stark grandeur, the shots of Jim in empty London seemed a bit too far-fetched. I suppose I'm glad they didn't simply repeat the scenes I've seen in The Stand miniseries, I Am Legend and The Omega Man, but I rather think there would have been a significant number of corpses in the street and cars jamming the bridges given the size and speed of the outbreak and the evacuation. I (armchair quarterback) imagine a neat shot where Jim is walking down a deserted sidewalk and the camera tracks alongside him. It's a fairly long shot, and as Jim walks a building comes between him and the camera. We see the alley side of the building and, unseen to Jim, a huge pile of rotting corpses.

On second thought, there's some real surprise to seeing the corpses in the church that might be lost if we saw them before that.

I enjoyed this quite a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a nice repetition of the word "hello." It brings Jim so much trouble-- he says it at the church and repeats it (stupidly) in the abandoned restaurant. Apropos that they should spell out that word at the end (instead of "HELP" or "ALIVE"), and that it's so close phonetically to "hell"-- the zombie rationale put forth in Dawn being that hell is full and the damned walk the earth.

That reminded me of the Batman Returnsvisual gag where Selina Kyle has a neon sign in her apartment window that says HELLO THERE, and then she smashes out two of the letters when she becomes Catwoman, so it says HELL HERE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally saw this, less than twenty eight days from its release. wink.gif

Eerie elements that I found intriguing (that haven't been mentioned yet): [spoilerS]

The missing persons wall, reminiscent of New York 9-11.

The first post-prologue zombie we encounter is the presumed priest of a church, probably made into a make-shift shelter with wall-to-wall refugees, unable to avoid the infection.

The farewell letter from Tim's parents (Don't Wake Up).

The story of being at the airport, where they couldn't distinguish between the zombies and the frantic pedestrians.

The grocery store where the junk food is edible and the produce department is all rotted (save for the irradiated apples--a plug for genetically modified foods?)

"Are you trying to kill me?" "I'm trying to make you not care."

The daughter, drugged, wandering thru the hallways in that red dress, during the last big battle.

The soldier, cowering away behind a sofa (I'm out of bullets!)

Transformation of Tim from post-comatose confusion to clean-shaven cutie to shirtless, bloodied survivor.

An exceptional film, happy to be scared and freaked out of my wits. Time will tell if this reaches "Halloween", "Nightmare on Elm St" and "ReAnimator" levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a press release I just got:

HOLLYWOOD, U.S.A ^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I might have a reason to go back to the theatre for this.

Though, I wasn't unsatisfied with the ending. I rather liked it. However, I'm curious to see what the original ending was. No waiting for the dvd on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0