Wolfgang

Neither I suppose, just how I view it looking back. It did not occur to me he was infect because he seemed to be too much in control of his actions. That segment at army base started off very well indeed - that sense of salvation mixed in with sense of unease - as you gradually realise they have jumped from frying pan into fire. They have escaped madness to only be caught by insanity. It really didn't need that action climax at all - that's what you expect (and expect to be limited to) in Hollywood blockbusters. There were scenes in there that packed some powerful punches - it doesn't get much bleaker than 11 year old girls trying to OD because they are going to be raped!

PS68060

Reading that list, what strikes me is that so many of those films didn't attract me to the cinema. Although I love films, I am not a great cinema goer. I grew up in a town where they had just closed the last cinema and so I hate trekking miles to get to the popcorn soaked multiplex (Bring back the local picture palace). The thought of doing so to spend 3 hours watching a weepie or horror doesn't appeal.

I did see a few TV trailers for the films above but as usual I was left asking "what is it about ?" this seems to be a common problem with film trailers these days, that and "deep-voiced american voice-over man".

Sorry for the rant :-)

"Oh! Pete!"

rskershaw

Whether the Zombies are Romero's or not, 28 Days Later wouldn't exist if it wasn't for John Wyndham.

hjs45

I can't really comment on whether the Noughties will be the "worst decade" for British cinema, since I am at the tender age of 20 and therefore don't really qualify.

However, I am willing to second any criticism of the "general mould" of British film at present. There are too many films coming out that attempt to "recapture" some apparently timeless quality of '60s and '70s Britain, and turn out to be little more than saccharine farce-fests. I find it difficult to believe that films such as "Sixty-six" received such heaps of accolades... the acting was appalling, the script laughable and the photography mediocre.

HIPPIEDAVE

The Noughties will def be worst era for Television.D

HIPPIEDAVE

And yes you cannot recreate the aura of the 60s and 70s films which were better days.D

batman

I agree ... unless there is an unbelievable increase in quality over the next two years!

Bats.

"Boom boom a baby .... Banham Zoo .... Banana pants! Hahahaha"

Cooper S

May be too early to judge the decade for its films, but hate the term 'Noughties' - for me it's the Twenty-zeroes.

'I've only got one spare'

'Well, borrow one !'

batman

'The Noughties' sounds like more fun ... 'Twenty-zeroes' just reminds me of 'Thirty-something' (not the tv show).

Bats.

"Boom boom a baby .... Banham Zoo .... Banana pants! Hahahaha"

Steve Crook

I prefer the noughties to "the ooze" which I've also heard used
Everyone likes to be a bit naughty

"Twenty-zeroes" is just too long and clumsy a term to use in everyday speech and doesn't fit in with the descriptions of other decades like the roaring twenties or the swinging sixties

I would say it certainly is still much too early to judge the decade. There could be a spate of brilliant films just around the corner. Or a run of disasters.

Steve

Cooper S

As long and clumsy as the nineteen-hundreds I guess. The noughties just sounds like rather rubbishy cheap innuendo. And for a decade that brought us ground zero, may twenty-zeroes portrays a more accurate image of these uncertain times.

'I've only got one spare'

'Well, borrow one !'

Steve Crook

That's what it's intended to be

Steve

OldRetiredGuy

I like the debate that 28 Days Later has stirred up! Which zombies are the real zombies - those that hobble around or the Olympic sprinters? To my way of thinking it doesn't matter. The effect on the audience is the key to me. Whether you feel the adrenaline, fear and tension in the more modern films or the slow burning unsettling revulsion and inevitability of Romero's work they all work well.

28 Days Later is not a classic but a good addition to the genre but I accept that the early scenes have echoes of The Day of the Triffids. The sight of London deserted is startling enough. I don't think it compares with the first twenty minutes of the Hollywood remake of Dawn of the Dead which for me is really shocking and unsettling. The sight of bloody mayhem in the suburbs is really disturbing. Pity the rest of the film does not live up to the high standards of the beginning although the ending is more satisfying than the Romero original.

iainroberton

spose it depends on what qualifies as a british film, dunnit?

most of the films listed so far in this thread are only partially british. they're mostly made with american money, quite often american cast and directors which is pretty depressing, when you consider how many great films are getting made in france, italy, even fricking finland - all with government support.

ah well.

so anyway. tough to tell really. the 90s were pretty shocking. and let's not even talk about the 80s.

autolycus

I must say, i thought that 28 days later was a complete load of twaddle. However, i'm surprised London To Brighton hasn't been mentioned in this thread - at least as good as Scum, a seminal british film in a similar earthy vein.