veloce

Yeah, I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you.

Matthew Chmiel

The whole film was shot on DV.

Pay close attention to the FOX Searchlight logo and the end credits. It shows that the entire film (opening logo, film itself, and end credits) went from DV to film.

MrN

I liked it, derivative as it was - but its fairly obvious that this is supposed to be a b-movie.

The last act really reminded me of The Beach where
I liked that there was an attempt to get to a story other than the us vs. them and I actually liked that the film had the ending that it did, because otherwise it would be too much like the Romero zombie films - with the shock/twist endings.

7/10.

Jepthah

While I think it's possible that some of it was film-originated, the different 'look' is most likely a result of post-production image processing and the different shooting conditions.

DonnachaOne

Yes. The explosions incredibly weird, and the flowers in the field are blotchy - almost like a Monet.

renaldow

Veloce's the winner. The final scene was purposely shot on film to contrast visually with the rest of the movie.

DGibFen

I thought that last scene looked different from the rest of the film. I loved the whole visual look of the DV on this film. It made the experience seem like a visual documentary on the extreme level.

DonnachaOne

From DVD Times, one of the better UK review sites:

Haven't listened to my DVD's commentary yet though, so I dunno what Boyle & Garland have to say on it.

renaldow

It's a great commentary to listen to, very insightful. I'd suggest watching the deleted scenes commentary after the film commentary as they occasionally refer back to things they say in the film commentary.

I usually don't like commentaries but this one is really good. You can tell they enjoyed making the film. They discuss everything from how their intentions for the movie changed as they made it, to the technical aspects of the film. A lot of what has been debated about in these and other threads is discussed/explained in the commentary and many of the accusations made against the film are openly admitted to.

AGuyNamedMike

The "flowers in the field" effect was purposeful, good catch on the Monet style. As was the splitscreen effect when they were in Jim's old house, etc.

veloce

Yeah, I noticed those flowers. They reminded me of that atrocious WHAT DREAMS MAY COME, except they were actually neat, and frankly a little disconcerting.

What split screen are you talking about? That weird shot of the city skyline that tilts up to the character's faces in the failing light? I wondered how they did that shot, it's cool.

DVD Smurf

First of all, I really liked this film.

Secondly, the grainy cinematography provides a raw atmosphere a la security camera which enhances the visual experience if one does not get locked on it and upset by it.

In regards to the "flowers in the field" shot, it could have been a Monet impression or a van Gogh painting where the colors flows between the lines and diffuses the contrasts. Which brings me to the film itself...


Who of you liked the cinematography? I did indeed like it very much...

Rypro 525

sorry but this moive wasn't that good, extremely bad acting (if those zombie people would have killed Hannah the teenage daughter, I would have been very happy.) Also many people at the showing late last night were half way laughing towards the end. Also, until the zombies came on screen we were all stretching since, not much happened.

SunMonkey

I finally made it out of town to see this, and thought is was really good. I would have liked a little higher quality presentation, and believe it is very possible to get that docu-grainy look without looking like I filmed it with my camcorder. Either way, it didn't detract all that much from movie, and I think that is telling of how good the movie is.

Anyway, while I was waiting in line for my ticket, the guy in front of me, who was alone and in his 50s, was berating the ticket girl about how terrible the movie was, how it was NOT a sci-fi film, and how he left half way through the movie.

3 1/2 / 4

Edit: I just read Ebert's review, and actually thought the same thing when watching the end, hoping it would happen.

javanut

I saw this on Monday and freakin' loved it. Next to Finding Nemo, this is the best movie I've seen all year.

KillaBeez

What a big disappointing flim this was. The commerical on T.V. for this movie kept saying how scary it is and stuff. This movie wasnt even close to scary, hell, I get more scared when I look at my own ass.

The other thing I didn't like was how they made those military guys go bad. I guess you can say I'm patriotic in some way because I hated that and thats when the movie lost all creditbility for me.

Also, 1 man killing all them soldiers?. I think not.

Last thing I didn't like how it was just Britain only infected.
What the?. This movie would be far more interesting if the whole world was infected and lost which comes to the idea of what will man do in order to survive.

LivingINClip

You hated a horror film because it was un-patrotric? This may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

As for as being Britain being the country infected. Think! The animal activist event happened in Britian and the 15 seconds that it takes to infect people, make it almost impossible for a plane to actually succesfully be flown out of the country to infect the rest of the world.

And one "man" did not kill all the solider's. There was the infected also. It was much more than one man.

It seems to me that you just didn't "get" the film in any way.

KillaBeez

Sure, you can say its dumb cause it's un-patritoic but I can also say thats the dumbest thing to call this movie a horror flim cause it's not even close to a horror flim. It's like kids movie.

I did get the flim. Also, it wasnt a horror movie in my mind.
Ya, I know that the infection takes only 15 seconds but I'm stateing that the movie was boring because of that and also it only takes place in 1 country which is boring. Also, these infected things is less advanced compared to a zombie cause a zombie doesnt need to eat to live. Movie would be far more intresting if the whole world would be infected and I don't think you "get" that would add more spice to the flim.
Ya, I know those infected killed those soldiers too but also that nut case jim also went on a killing spree and when I mean "all" , I usually mean most.

It's like saying, I'm going to kill him cause he was messing with my wife but I don't mean literally kill him, just hurt him enough.

During the commerical for this movie on t.v. , it doesn't state that it only takes in Britain so therefore, when they mentioned a virus etc etc taking over, so I thought it would be the whole world just not 1 country. Unfortunely, I was wrong.

Please dont say I didnt "get" the flim just because I didn't like it and didn't add more info to my statements in my earlier post or I can just say your too dumb to understand my post.

SunMonkey

KillaBeez,

I'll second the "you don't get it" sentiment. I'll give you that they promoted it as a horror movie, and in a loose sense it is. I mean, what else are you going to call it if you must force a genre on it? Anyway, like it or not, I don't care. I just think you were too trapped up in your expectations to see the movie for what it was.

JestersTear

Probably because there wasn't much to "get" in the first place.

Sad but true, the movie was a muddled piece of junk that couldn't decide if it wanted to be art or horror, and failed miserably trying to be both when it probably would have succeeded had it stuck to one of the two.

Corvin

And then there are those of us who think it succeeds in being an artistic achievement while trying something different (or at least hasn't been done for a while) in the "horror genre."

Oh, wait, I like this quote:

Riiiiiight. So then what would you classify as a children's film?

shill66

"Art" is a genre, eh? Do you also consider "classic", "black and white" and "silent" as genres?

Calculon

Just saw this. Liked it, but felt it coulda been better.

The first (digital video) half is absolutely awesome, terrifying in its "realness". Boyle created a real sense of desolation, both in the landscape and the characters.

The second half (35mm) was terribly "movie-like", full of cliches and plot holes. I'm no fan of the the military, but I find it hard to believe a group of professional soldiers would go so totally "Lord of the Flies" in a single month. I thought they were going to break out in tears because their eggs were spoiled.

I also didn't buy the character arc of the protagonist. He goes from clueless pacifist in the beginning to this Rambo-esque killer capable of taking out several trained soldiers in the end. I think a few more action scenes might have made this transformation a little more believable.

The most annoying thing is that the movie presents a lot of thought-provoking ideas (like good science fiction) but deflates them with the total stupidty of the characters (like cheesy horror). In trying to be both it really doesn't amount to either.

Still, I enjoyed the film quite a bit, but would perhaps have liked it better if the military camp was a brief stop on the characters journey. 8/10

Adam Tyner

From what I understand, only the almost dream-like ending was shot on film and that the bulk of the 'soldier' sequences was still shot on DV.

JestersTear

Making a movie that isn't scary isn't called "something different in the horror genre," it's called being a failure. And believe me, failing is not something that "hasn't been done for a while."

The movie wanted to be some great artistic statement about the human condition and what man would be like if most of the population was gone and they had to start over again (a rip-off of Stephen King's "The Stand").

Then for some reason it tries to turn into a horror film.

Both elements distracted from each other instead of complimented each other, and the whole story went to hell.

Those of you that think this is a good horror movie, are (no flame intended) total lightweights to the genre, because this movie is not scary in the slightest. It's bland, predictable, and totally devoid of anything remotely resembling original thought.