#28 DAYS LATER MOVIE DISTRIBUTOR WINDOWS#

Now stupidity in the world of 28 days later should lead to death and hence most of the people involved by rights die or should die. This is just a random set of the stupidity in the movie.

#28 DAYS LATER MOVIE DISTRIBUTOR WINDOWS#

Instead of holing up for the night in a room that is defensible, they use the ground floor one with windows that can be jumped through by infected. The father exposes himself to blood, despite knowing better. They make noise despite knowing that it attracts infected. The father exposes everyone to unnecessary danger by driving his taxi through a tunnel with wrecks. No movie requires to show you this, but we assume it happens and when it is needed for the plot it will be shown. So we can assume that people do things like eating, drinking and having a dump without seeing them do these mundane activities in the movie. So in general we assume that everything of the real world applies unless it is explicitly changed for the story. The logic of a story is grounded in the real world for we have nothing else to go on. This then is the central character in the world with whom we have to connect and his only discerning quality is that he is too dumb be alive(for long). He does not have something like the determined kick ass chick attitude of the girl he meets in the story(Selena) nor does he have the dedication and boisterous nature of the father. What traits does he display? The only trait he consistently shows throughout the movie is that he is dumb-witted to the point of being a danger to the others around him. Let's turn to the central character of the movie. These cartoon characters do not only posses these traits, but to a large degree these traits are part of the way they look and even move(goofy being tall, thin and moving in a clumsy manner). Take as example Mickey Mouse(naive and brave), Donald Duck(temperamental, committed) and Goofy(lovable, clumsy, silly, easygoing). Examples can especially be found in cartoon characters. Good characters have traits that define them. This point makes short work of arguments as: why do the infected not attack each other? They do not because the world works that way and we do not require an explanation. For instance: if a story accepts that magic exists and can be used, then it stands to reason that someone can be a magic user, even though magic has not been proven to exist in real life.

Note that with believable I do not mean: because it can really happen in life, but I mean: that it is accepted as being consistent with the internal logic of the story. A good plot points to believable events, even if the these events are illogical in themselves. Good characters point to believable people and believable people we can connect with, even if we don't like them. A movie is a story and a story requires at least these two things: good characters and a good plot. As someone said, if redoing a movie makes it bad, then the universally acclaimed movie the Maltese Falcon by John Huston would fall in that category. Even if that is the case, this has nothing to do with the movie itself. But first let me say that it is no good arguing that a movie has be done before. Because metacritic allows only for a limited amount of text I have to be brief and cut to the chase. I do not agree with this and will try to show why this movie isn't any good and why the stupid decisions are at the heart of the problem.

I decided to redo my review as many people argued that the stupid decisions, which was my biggest annoyance with the movie, can be explained and thus are no arguments at all. I decided to redo my review as many people argued that the stupid decisions, which was my biggest annoyance with the movie, can be explained and In a previous review I thumbed down this movie for I find that it is not a particular good movie. In a previous review I thumbed down this movie for I find that it is not a particular good movie.

28 days later movie distributor