http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Tue, 10 May 2005 19:05:28 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/10/104121.php#comment-150740 I thought the movie was boring. 150740@blogcritics.org Tue, 10 May 2005 19:05:28 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/10/104121.php#comment-150552 Of course they are technically not zombies. Danny Boyle has said many time they are virus infected and not zombies. I said all this at the begining of the post. I just don't buy it. If you are going to make a movie about a virus, actually include some stuff about the virus in it. Why make it bloodborne? Why not airborne? Or have it exist on the skin so it passes through a touch. Or even have it bloodborne, but make it more like AIDS. It just doesn't make sense to me to say its a virus movie and then have those who are infected act exactly like zombies. So I'll continue to call it a zombie movie. It is ironic to have the military guys turn out to be nearly as bad as the zombies. I liked the concept and even most of the execution. But tacked on to the end of a zombie movie it seemed a little strained. Like there wasn't enough time to develop that end of the story. Or maybe I was just mad because the zombies left. All of that isn't to say I didn't like the film. It is quite scary and a very good thriller. But just because I liked it, in fact own it, doesnt mean I don't have some problems with it. 150552@blogcritics.org Tue, 10 May 2005 13:17:34 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/10/104121.php#comment-150538 nice job Mat and very scary movie that bothered me more than most for its relative plausibility and balanced view of human nature. I agree with Danw's very fine comment as well - call the movie "zombie-esque" 150538@blogcritics.org Tue, 10 May 2005 12:47:57 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/10/104121.php#comment-150521 Too true, 28DL wasn't a zombie flick. What it was was pretty goddamn scary! It'd been a while since I was that affected by a film, but 28DL worked a number on my nerves and it was fantastic. Brilliant stuff. :) 150521@blogcritics.org Tue, 10 May 2005 12:04:35 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/10/104121.php#comment-150509 I always thought that the big ironic theme of the movie was that the humans, who were first seen as saviors, end up to be far more monstrous than the zombies themselves. Also, for more fast movin' zombies, check out the remake of Dawn of the Dead. 150509@blogcritics.org Tue, 10 May 2005 11:39:43 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/10/104121.php#comment-150500 I totally disagree with your otherwise good review. This is NOT a zombie flick therefore you can't use the zombie flick criteria. It is much scarier than a zombie flick. The crux of this film is the biohazardous nightmare that awaits us with the next incurable virulent viral outbreak. This is a sci-fi horror. These flesh-tearing monsters are all too alive. Mutaneous violence-craving killing machines. What I found striking was the correlation between the hemorrhagic nature of RAGE and today's killer bugs. Like Marburg and Ebola, this virus has some very serious affects on the human body. The sheer isolation of the lone surviors and their edge of a knife precariousness is the real horror. At any minute they too could become infected. As for the para-military group they encounter, I think that was more symbolism into the true nature of man if left with nothing to lose. They wanted the women (one of which was only 12 or so) and they would become murderous villians to get them. In the end, the non-infected military group were no better than the virus-infected drones. 150500@blogcritics.org Tue, 10 May 2005 11:15:40 EDT