Quote :

"I felt there was no need for that much character development in this one. "

It had more character development than any other zombie movie...

5/19/2007 12:51:19 AM

typical zombie movies don't need character development. Unless its Resident Evil.

5/19/2007 1:03:12 AM

Gotta agree with LoneSnark. I don't think there's any particularly good reason to assume that the reconstruction force would know how it started.

The plot was weak and the character development was lacking, which annoyed me, especially in comparison to the first one, but nothing in it warranted the lambasting some of you are giving it. Hopefully they'll get their asses back into gear with the third one.

5/20/2007 10:45:39 PM

Quote :

"typical zombie movies don't need character development."

haha, that is complete bullshit.

looks like you are just trying to look smart and like hearing yourself talk/seeing yourself type.

5/20/2007 11:11:01 PM

I find it hard to like movies where the plot is only moved along by the incredible stupidity of its characters. It just caused me to root for the zombies.

5/20/2007 11:26:22 PM

So, did they ever bother to explain why a group of rage filled humans wouldn't start to attack each other instead of exclusively hunting down the non-infected? Especially once they got into starvation mode.

You would think that if the virus made humans ultraviolet that it wouldn't matter what they started attacking - animals, humans - infected or not.

5/21/2007 9:55:29 AM

Quote :

"The plot was weak and the character development was lacking,"

pretty much sums it up. I kept waiting for something to happen that had significance, and then it was the end. Its a zombie movie, of course the virus is gonna reoccur.... so I kept waiting for something else to happen, and nothing did.


I wish I'd seen Shrek instead

[Edited on May 21, 2007 at 9:59 AM. Reason : sdf]

5/21/2007 9:59:16 AM

Quote :

"haha, that is complete bullshit. looks like you are just trying to look smart and like hearing yourself talk/seeing yourself type."

Sure, pal. Whatever that means.

On another note, this film was no different from the first one. First film, they introduced the virus--everyone ran scared to death. Second one, they re-introduced the virus--everyone ran scared to death. So what the hell is all this talk about lacking character development?!?!

Like I said, RE required character development b/c it was a conspiricy converup involving a rogue government agency. 28 days/weeks is just an accidental situation. There isn't much room to build a plot off of other than the basic "survival" theme. Again I ask, why in the hell would character development even matter in this movie? Did it matter in the Return of the Living Dead installements?

My only knocks, in which someone mentioned earlier, was the one zombie who seemed to have an edge over the other zombies. Him using weapons and his "strategic" hiding really bothered me. But everything else was fine. I even liked the use of the "shaky camera" in this film (during the frantic scenes). Most directors do that in action films (during fighting scenes ex; Batman) and it really doesn't work.

[Edited on May 21, 2007 at 4:20 PM. Reason : /]

5/21/2007 4:19:24 PM

I remember the first one having more character development-- we saw several families in the turmoil, there was more panic, more dialogue, more poignant moments. In the 2nd we learned maybe 6 or so peoples' names and all they do is run. There's no capture, no hiding, no one-man pretending to be a zombie bringing in a bunch of zombies to rescue people. (if I remember rite)

Or maybe the first one was better just because it had fewer american accents

5/21/2007 4:35:45 PM

NO

if you like this movie you are a fucking dork

go watch something else

5/21/2007 9:02:53 PM

^^^

are you saying the likes of "Night of the Living Dead" and "Land of the Dead" are completely devoid of any character development?

5/21/2007 9:07:53 PM

^ What are u? Retarded? What a dickhead.

5/21/2007 9:19:43 PM

Quote :

"Did it matter in the Return of the Living Dead installements?"

yes.

or we wouldn't give a fuck about the black guy getting shot at the end(NotLD). or about any of the characters dying. and we wouldn't dislike the guy that sucked.

5/21/2007 9:33:35 PM

stayed in the theater after watching mr. brooks to catch this one for free.

i wish i'd have just left after mr. brooks.

this one was a real disappointment.

6/5/2007 12:37:22 AM

Quote :

"So, did they ever bother to explain why a group of rage filled humans wouldn't start to attack each other instead of exclusively hunting down the non-infected?"

[Edited on June 5, 2007 at 7:39 AM. Reason : -]

6/5/2007 7:39:34 AM