28 days later

[jawa]

thought it was a cool movie, not scary but still pretty creepy.

[kandy kid]

Overall I thought it was a pretty terrible movie.
The only part that I thought was rad, was the fact that they cleared out thousands of people to shoot certain scenes.

Here's some quotes from their production notes from their website:

"The filming of the London sequences was absolutely fantastic. Before we started the main shoot we took a week in July, beginning each day at three or four every morning and would wait for the sun to come up," recounts Macdonald. "We were able to shoot for an hour or so before the city got too busy for us
to hold back the traffic. It was very exciting, and when you see the whole of Westminster Bridge and the embankment all closed for you, and the traffic stopped, and you can't hear anything, it was thrilling but strange as well."

"One of the biggest challenges during the production was filming on a deserted motorway. The production got permission to shoot on the MI on a Sunday morning between 7.00am and 9.00am. With the help of the police gradually slowing the traffic both ways, and using 10 cameras, the filmmakers managed
to capture a minute of emptiness as Frank drives his cab toward Manchester. "It was a technical nightmare but a fantastically weird scene," says Boyle. "It makes you feel that the whole of Britain has been abandoned."

The "3 alternate endings" is such a joke. There's only one really, which is split into 2 parts. And all it is, is that Jim dies and they just edit him out of the last scene. And then there's one which wasn't filmed and is just drawings with the director's comments. Lame!

[slug]

why was it a terrible movie?

[brooklyn209]

i though it was trippy in a way. Dope movie though...