You dont know shit dude. You probably like zombies you dumb faggot,.. This WAS the vampire movie to make vampires have a comeback after that gay twilight shit
2 Stars really i would give it 10 out of 10 it is the best vampire movie of all time. you fucking suck because you like twilight. you dont like real vampire movies!!!
@swan6307 he said 28 weeks did justice to the zombie genre. 28 weeks was rubbish. and he felt the pacing was slow, but alot of days were skipped in this film
Michael Phillips is talking rubbish. The director did well. Firstly I like the simplicity of this movie. They are secretive, strong viscious and cover up their tracks. You do not have to explain everything about the vampires history . You can read the book.
This movie to me was very scary.The atmosphere. The director was smart we the image he gave the vampires. he made them more doglike not the usual good looking vampires with fangs. These creatures were much more scary and viscious.
Michael Phillips you are totally wrong. You are too modern hollywoodish. This movie was done very well. Whta i like about it, is that it is so natural. This is exactly the sort of atmosphere if such a situation occurred. To be honest when depicting vampires- this movie did it right. They are very secretive. They are vampires but got that vicious wild dog manner when fisting. I am tired of aristocratic or love making stories and badly made special effects. Michael Phillips boo to your review
So this douche mocks Harnett for taking the role seriously, even though Harnett plays a very noble and concerned character, he fails to mention the realism and intensity of the gore, and compares it to the comic as if we know anything about it and what kind of comparison it would make.
Like the movie or hate it, this guy wasn't even FAIR. Phillips, I bet your small limp dick shriveled even smaller as you pissed your pussy pants watching this good movie.
Comparing 30 Days and Twilight is like comparing Full House to Family Matters. Pointless.
You want a classy vampire, you watch Dracula; you want action, you watch Near Dark.
30 Days of Night should have been a MUCH better movie than it was. If it wasn't for that SUPERB overhead shot when the vampires attack, it would've been an all-around piece of trash instead of the MOSTLY piece of trash that it is.
And Ben Foster is an over-acting chump. Too much method and not enough acting.
Exactly, this depicts vampires how they were meant to be. Smart, vicous, and blood thirsty. Not that twilight shit, im pretty sure Marlow[the main vampire played by danny houston] could fuck up edward cullen anyday.
Yep. He's the lead vampire in the comic (and the movie). But in the comic...he gets his head torn off by another vampire simply named "V." (who of course becomes the leader)
Bad Taste? He's known as one of the best top critics in America right now. Funny coming from somebody who probably loves Transformers. Anyway, it's not like he has a personal vendetta for horror films. He gave 28 Weeks Later 3 and half stars. Though, if you liked the film read the book. I'm a huge fan of the graphic novel and this film wasn't anywhere near as good.
Fuck the critics, ot's up to us to know what is good, HolloyWood doesn't make a living giving a damn on what the critics want, but what the people want.
2 stars -.- It's a vampire movie the director him self have said that all the other vampire movies before have been getting bad critic because they arent scary enough or something and that's why he maked the vampires like this..
stupid critic he doesnt get it.this movie showed vampires for what they were made to be vicious blood thirsty creatures.not soft lovey dovey sparkly skinned gentlemen
Full disclosure: I haven't read the graphic novel.
However... I disagree with the film critic. I can't find fault with any of the things he mentions, and if Josh Hartnett takes his role veeee-ry seriously, well, hang around a bunch of police and sheriffs and see if they don't take their job veeee-ry seriously.
I think they're right. This movie could have been so much more. I didn't even wanna see the last 20 min of it. There's too much focus on the one-at-a-time killing. I wanna know more about the vampires. Witch language and land they come from. And the relationship between the monster. Cause it's there... just not nearly enough...
And be the way - it fits vampires to be well dressed.
Hey Welther47, since you have an opinion on vampire clothing (well dressed, you said) I wonder what you think about their grooming habits. What's with never wiping the blood off their chins? And Marlow slicking back his hair with blood... so it dries and leaves a giant scab? What's that all about?
Well... they're humanoid, right? Don't most people past toddler age do a decent job of wiping their mouths after they eat, & occasionally washing their faces? If they have enough pride in themselves & their kind to dress well, why can't they clean up their act? They looked grody.
Try to look at thir cloth. They dont care how it sits. Its old and ragged. And by the way, I think its the movie directors how wanted it that way. To make them more scary and animalistic.
"Fangs, glowing red eyes". First of all their eyes are black not glowing and not red. This dude must have been blind.
How can people say this was a terrible movie? I thought it was great. These vampires are original. Not only two fangs, doesn't only kill one person, new language, and look.
"Well dressed". Well would you prefer them naked? Lol.
Hell yeah. Most of the time I suspect that these "reviewers" just watch the trailers and maybe half an hour of the movie then believe their right. It's stupid.
Same thing with music albums. "Reviewers" probably only listen to first and last song then make their judgment.
i like the movie....the vampires are awsome and theres lots of gore....i really dnt get were the vampires come from but other than that i thought it was great 5/5
Sentrynebri, you are absolutely right. i rented this movie today since my mom realllyyyy wanted to see it, and we both got really disappointed, because the ending was shit; and it was very stupid and horrible. listen to me; it was a waste of time. dont watch this movie folks.. it looks awesome, but its not all good...it has its awesome scenes, but not worth it....my rating is a 2 or a 3
Don't listen to these people who like this. This sucks. Honestly, 30 days of night was unbearable... Don't ask me though, I watched 45 minutes and decided it was crap and left.
i thought it was good maybe cause im 12 lol but still i think it deserved at least 3 and a half out of five AT LEAST it was pretty entertaining and kept me watching so yea id give it 4 stars
The dude is right, once your in 30 minutes of the movie you just wonder when the movie is going to end. It gets a little boring, but still it is more of a 3 or 4 star.
2 stars?! BULLSHIT! I GIVE THIS MOVIE A FUCKIN 5 STARS ALL THE WAY! This guy does'nt know what he's talking about. i hate reviews anyways because of the fact everyone is different and they should just see the movie to see if they like it or not. Easy.
I dont care what anhone says but this movie is the BEST MOVIE EVER! The Vampires are sexy and they kickass! The story is amazing and they did so well on it just by following a book and adding there own stuff to it and changing some things which I liked because of the fact that Marlow die's alot sooner in the novel and Marlow is my all time favorite Vampire!
2 stars? No. This movie was definitely not a 5-star movie, but it was WAY better than two stars. Sure, it could have been better, but it was still a good movie, in my opinion. I liked it, but I'd have to give it around a 3.5... it had room for improvement. But still, two stars? pfft.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This movie bit it big time. I left the theater wishing I could have the last 2 hours and $8 back. It amazing how lame, talentless directors think adding tons of blood, violence and gore make a great horror movie. Take Salem's Lot for example. Very little violence, and even less blood. That's movie's a classic; this is garbage. The box office dough this crap took in makes my point for me. I like Hartnett too. It's ashame he took this part.
im tired of douche bags at entertainment weekly and places like this giving crap reviews to good movies like this and then giving some other shitty heart warming movie 5 stars. it seems like almost every horror movie gets this dispite if it was good
Sorry to drop a turd in your punch bowl but most horror movies today are dreadful. Want imaginative horror try The Exorcist, An American Werewolf In London, or Salem's Lot.
It's almost as if David Slade and production got bored after about 20 minutes worth of run time production and said "hey, we still have about 30 gallons of this fake blood. Guess we gotta use it somehow." If you don't like my suggestions because, with the exception of AAWIL, they lack the blood and violence that is in 30 Days, well....I can't help you then.
and this is y i live in wisconsin every singal man woman and child owns a gun some own multiple guns even thought those vampire zombie thingys could not die it sure would be fun to watch it happen from a safe i mean fun distance
2 stars was being nice, because this movie beyond sucked. i was all hyped up to see it and it looked like it was going to rock. and for the first 20 minutes that looked to be the case till it seemed that the director said "fuck it im done" and the rest of the movie fell flat.
Excellent comment. I felt exactly the same way. Like my other comment, do most of todays horror genre directors have no more talent than to think a bunch of corn syrup and red and yellow food coloring will earn them a Crapper, errrr Oscar? I won't even comment on the plot or the screenplay. This sh!t was aweful
right on. i dont think its an aspect of talent, i think its all about the effort. If the whole production team really tried their damndest on this movie i could see it being one of the best horror flick, but they didnt. it seems that today directors and studios just want a cheap pop to earn more money, because its an easy way to rake in a lot of cash in the box office with out much effort.
First of all, 28 days/weeks later is not based on zombies. josh hartnett did an amazing job acting even with some of the flaws from the script...how else is he suppose to handle a situation like that. I have never agreed with this guy's opinion on Ebert and Roper, he is a douchebag.
I like the way the guy says, "Josh Hartnett [who] takes this assignment VERY seriously" as if the proper way to deal with the vampires would be to just act irritated by them and tell them to piss off.
Why did that guy state that those people in 28 Days were zombies. Did he not watch the film? I could have sworn they provided an explanation in the film... Maybe I'm wrong.
You dont know shit dude. You probably like zombies you dumb faggot,.. This WAS the vampire movie to make vampires have a comeback after that gay twilight shit
MegaRipVanWinkle 3 months ago
2 Stars really i would give it 10 out of 10 it is the best vampire movie of all time. you fucking suck because you like twilight. you dont like real vampire movies!!!
coldheartd17 10 months ago 2
i stopped watching at 28 weeks later. that film was rubbish especially compared to 28 days.
plus in 30 days of night..the days went fast....it jumped from day 7 to day 20 i think
mc14halo 1 year ago
@mc14halo wait, wha? 30 days of night isnt even related to 28 days.
swan6307 5 months ago
@swan6307 he said 28 weeks did justice to the zombie genre. 28 weeks was rubbish. and he felt the pacing was slow, but alot of days were skipped in this film
mc14halo 2 months ago
@mc14halo i do agree that 28 days was awesome tho
mc14halo 2 months ago
Is 2 stars good at all?
KneeeGroww 1 year ago
i agree with burntimeTV. this is a great movie!
KoryRelly 2 years ago
*
*
*
U got 1star for ur weak review. This movie is the best Vampire movie ever!
*
*
*
BurntimeTV 2 years ago
Michael Phillips is talking rubbish. The director did well. Firstly I like the simplicity of this movie. They are secretive, strong viscious and cover up their tracks. You do not have to explain everything about the vampires history . You can read the book.
This movie to me was very scary.The atmosphere. The director was smart we the image he gave the vampires. he made them more doglike not the usual good looking vampires with fangs. These creatures were much more scary and viscious.
shinjide213 2 years ago
Michael Phillips you are totally wrong. You are too modern hollywoodish. This movie was done very well. Whta i like about it, is that it is so natural. This is exactly the sort of atmosphere if such a situation occurred. To be honest when depicting vampires- this movie did it right. They are very secretive. They are vampires but got that vicious wild dog manner when fisting. I am tired of aristocratic or love making stories and badly made special effects. Michael Phillips boo to your review
shinjide213 2 years ago
Only 2 stars? Hey movie critic....YOU FUCKING SUCK! This is by far the best vampire movie ever made and you are the worst movie critic ever!
ihmfq 2 years ago 6
It is a critics destiny to hate good movies.
fuckingfuckdat 2 years ago 8
2 stars... wth i thought it deserved 5...
ShadowBoarder33 2 years ago 3
Its an awasome movie, the idea, location and effects in this movie are better than other vampire movies, i Personally like this movie.
qamru1 2 years ago 4
5/5 for me.
I'm not really good at critiqing horror movies, but the plot, the characters the acting, the costumes, the screen writing.
All amazing Bravo!
psymaster1234 2 years ago
I personally loved this movie... Everything about it. The vampires; The location; The acting. Great movie. David Slade did an excellent job.
kasey172 2 years ago
So this douche mocks Harnett for taking the role seriously, even though Harnett plays a very noble and concerned character, he fails to mention the realism and intensity of the gore, and compares it to the comic as if we know anything about it and what kind of comparison it would make.
Like the movie or hate it, this guy wasn't even FAIR. Phillips, I bet your small limp dick shriveled even smaller as you pissed your pussy pants watching this good movie.
Fuck you!
JackedAttack0 2 years ago 3
best scary movie i have ever seen
trwall3 2 years ago
it was scaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaary
axphi 2 years ago
oh but i like this movies , i think its good
becca0668 2 years ago
that movie waz scery my heart wanna be blach of the movie brrrr
kkggoonn 2 years ago
Comparing 30 Days and Twilight is like comparing Full House to Family Matters. Pointless.
You want a classy vampire, you watch Dracula; you want action, you watch Near Dark.
30 Days of Night should have been a MUCH better movie than it was. If it wasn't for that SUPERB overhead shot when the vampires attack, it would've been an all-around piece of trash instead of the MOSTLY piece of trash that it is.
And Ben Foster is an over-acting chump. Too much method and not enough acting.
Bugsyboy333 2 years ago
Man, this movie was more realisticc that twilight. fuckin twilight fans
yusrin2 2 years ago 15
Exactly, this depicts vampires how they were meant to be. Smart, vicous, and blood thirsty. Not that twilight shit, im pretty sure Marlow[the main vampire played by danny houston] could fuck up edward cullen anyday.
Nosferatu44 2 years ago 15
Was Marlow really his name? I never heard it throughout the movie...
Eirthbndr2 2 years ago
Yep. He's the lead vampire in the comic (and the movie). But in the comic...he gets his head torn off by another vampire simply named "V." (who of course becomes the leader)
thatdoomguy666 2 years ago
i believe that vampire's name is VICENTE and he's not just any vampire
MTOTOwaNYAYO 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
guys c'mon I'd better meet Cullen than this ugly face shit ^^
ketra1989 2 years ago
i like this movie because it had edgy visuals and awesome music.
the story was enough really, i dont get what this guy was talkin about
i hate critics sometimes, especially ebert and roper(sp?)
sometimes they just don't get it =/
pianosmiidudee 2 years ago
What a coincidence I gave this video two stars as well
JChellsing 3 years ago 2
Comment removed
jadednex 3 years ago
Bad Taste? He's known as one of the best top critics in America right now. Funny coming from somebody who probably loves Transformers. Anyway, it's not like he has a personal vendetta for horror films. He gave 28 Weeks Later 3 and half stars. Though, if you liked the film read the book. I'm a huge fan of the graphic novel and this film wasn't anywhere near as good.
bakbak5 2 years ago
I have something to say....
Fuck the critics, ot's up to us to know what is good, HolloyWood doesn't make a living giving a damn on what the critics want, but what the people want.
I for one am the people and I like it
Message me if you agree.
hungryzombie90212 3 years ago
yea, i agree. 30 days of night scares the crap out of me. [not literally] lmao. but still i like the movie.
C00LxN3Rd 3 years ago
"Day seven? They have to go through 23 more days!"
23 now im starting to see the # 23 more than ever
haltrix 3 years ago
2 stars -.- It's a vampire movie the director him self have said that all the other vampire movies before have been getting bad critic because they arent scary enough or something and that's why he maked the vampires like this..
MxPain 3 years ago
stupid critic he doesnt get it.this movie showed vampires for what they were made to be vicious blood thirsty creatures.not soft lovey dovey sparkly skinned gentlemen
dandamanwitdaplan92 3 years ago
bullshit. 30 days of night was the best movie ive seen in a while. it totally kicked twilights ass.
shagrath1331 3 years ago 5
Lmfao, what a faggot.
Best vampire movie in a looong time.
Go see your shitty dramas.
lemmykill 3 years ago 3
Full disclosure: I haven't read the graphic novel.
However... I disagree with the film critic. I can't find fault with any of the things he mentions, and if Josh Hartnett takes his role veeee-ry seriously, well, hang around a bunch of police and sheriffs and see if they don't take their job veeee-ry seriously.
Ampersandra 3 years ago
Gee! I wonder whats your position towards Rambo! I guess thins film for you should have been some stuck up drama!
hdckdsadd 3 years ago
I think they're right. This movie could have been so much more. I didn't even wanna see the last 20 min of it. There's too much focus on the one-at-a-time killing. I wanna know more about the vampires. Witch language and land they come from. And the relationship between the monster. Cause it's there... just not nearly enough...
And be the way - it fits vampires to be well dressed.
Welther47 3 years ago
Hey Welther47, since you have an opinion on vampire clothing (well dressed, you said) I wonder what you think about their grooming habits. What's with never wiping the blood off their chins? And Marlow slicking back his hair with blood... so it dries and leaves a giant scab? What's that all about?
Ampersandra 3 years ago
I dont get what you're asking about? There glooming habits? Its vampires!
Welther47 3 years ago
Well... they're humanoid, right? Don't most people past toddler age do a decent job of wiping their mouths after they eat, & occasionally washing their faces? If they have enough pride in themselves & their kind to dress well, why can't they clean up their act? They looked grody.
Ampersandra 3 years ago
Try to look at thir cloth. They dont care how it sits. Its old and ragged. And by the way, I think its the movie directors how wanted it that way. To make them more scary and animalistic.
Welther47 3 years ago
It worked for me, Welther47. I think you're right!
Ampersandra 3 years ago
This guys a wanker! 30 days of night is awesome!
azzatheboomboy 3 years ago
"Fangs, glowing red eyes". First of all their eyes are black not glowing and not red. This dude must have been blind.
How can people say this was a terrible movie? I thought it was great. These vampires are original. Not only two fangs, doesn't only kill one person, new language, and look.
"Well dressed". Well would you prefer them naked? Lol.
o7o69o 3 years ago 3
Exactly...My thoughts
rainingblood200 3 years ago
Hell yeah. Most of the time I suspect that these "reviewers" just watch the trailers and maybe half an hour of the movie then believe their right. It's stupid.
Same thing with music albums. "Reviewers" probably only listen to first and last song then make their judgment.
o7o69o 3 years ago
this movie was my favorite vampire movie since the lost boys , so i don't know what movie he watched.
rainingblood200 3 years ago
Ha-ha seriously. Lol.
o7o69o 3 years ago
fuck u all ths movie is awsome !
musicluvr9304 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Glowing red eyes? What an idiot.
fablefay 3 years ago
i like the movie....the vampires are awsome and theres lots of gore....i really dnt get were the vampires come from but other than that i thought it was great 5/5
Buddyredale 3 years ago
i give this movie 5 stars, and this video 1 star, this was one of the best movies ever, you dont know what youre talking about
iGotDaMonsta 3 years ago
I liked it. The ending suck yeah but I liked it for the gist of it.
RiotsWithGhost 3 years ago
Sentrynebri, you are absolutely right. i rented this movie today since my mom realllyyyy wanted to see it, and we both got really disappointed, because the ending was shit; and it was very stupid and horrible. listen to me; it was a waste of time. dont watch this movie folks.. it looks awesome, but its not all good...it has its awesome scenes, but not worth it....my rating is a 2 or a 3
asruon 3 years ago
Don't listen to these people who like this. This sucks. Honestly, 30 days of night was unbearable... Don't ask me though, I watched 45 minutes and decided it was crap and left.
sentrynebri 3 years ago
Thats your opinion, maybe vampires isnt your thing maybe you'd rather watch a cheerleading or romantic movie instead.
Fantasygirl76 3 years ago 3
i thought it was good maybe cause im 12 lol but still i think it deserved at least 3 and a half out of five AT LEAST it was pretty entertaining and kept me watching so yea id give it 4 stars
camronaldo77 3 years ago
ok 2 scary but yet awsome
sweetazn00 3 years ago
this movie is cool as hell!
nativeHotgirl 3 years ago
The dude is right, once your in 30 minutes of the movie you just wonder when the movie is going to end. It gets a little boring, but still it is more of a 3 or 4 star.
VolcardoReviewer 3 years ago
Well he didnt state anything goood! this was awesome just a classic horror film!
chickenmantoyou 3 years ago 3
2 stars?
Thats double the amount it deserves.
The only good part was the fact the lead character actually showed "aging" through the month.
teenspirit5000 3 years ago
2 stars?
Thats double the amount it deserves.
The only good part was the fact the lead character actually showed "aging" through the month.
teenspirit5000 3 years ago
SCREW YOU micheal phillips you fag, 2 stars? more like 4.7 stars!
lpfann 3 years ago
stupid! horrible! only 2 stars dumb newspaper! uggh
mcccccabe21 3 years ago
2 stars?! BULLSHIT! I GIVE THIS MOVIE A FUCKIN 5 STARS ALL THE WAY! This guy does'nt know what he's talking about. i hate reviews anyways because of the fact everyone is different and they should just see the movie to see if they like it or not. Easy.
marlowlover 4 years ago 2
I dont care what anhone says but this movie is the BEST MOVIE EVER! The Vampires are sexy and they kickass! The story is amazing and they did so well on it just by following a book and adding there own stuff to it and changing some things which I liked because of the fact that Marlow die's alot sooner in the novel and Marlow is my all time favorite Vampire!
marlowlover 4 years ago
creeepy ass movie!
details- 3 stars
creepenest- 10 stars!
begginng- 3 stars first 20 mins,at least gives some detail.
middle- 5 stars
last- 3 stars last 20 mins,bad ending
overall- 4.5 stars would be 5 stars but could give more detail.
I would recommend movie but not to youngsters!
Very,very scary!!!
327am 4 years ago 2
omg this movie kicks ass!! yah man my sis got it on dvd and its great cuz we have soerond sound it kicks ass on sueound sound yah
lol i am sooo seroiuse
krislemchefan1 4 years ago
omg this movie kicks ass!! yah man my sis got it on dvd and its great cuz we have soerond sound it kicks ass on sueound sound yah
lol i am sooo seroiuse
krislemchefan1 4 years ago
what the hell... the movie at least deserved 4 stars
ylbmus 4 years ago
2 stars? No. This movie was definitely not a 5-star movie, but it was WAY better than two stars. Sure, it could have been better, but it was still a good movie, in my opinion. I liked it, but I'd have to give it around a 3.5... it had room for improvement. But still, two stars? pfft.
CharredPasta 4 years ago
Awesome movie
vampireangie 4 years ago 2
the leader vampire is sexy 0.0
CuteNekoKid 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This movie bit it big time. I left the theater wishing I could have the last 2 hours and $8 back. It amazing how lame, talentless directors think adding tons of blood, violence and gore make a great horror movie. Take Salem's Lot for example. Very little violence, and even less blood. That's movie's a classic; this is garbage. The box office dough this crap took in makes my point for me. I like Hartnett too. It's ashame he took this part.
jfleckal 4 years ago
if anyone wants to do a review please do back resurch the books where out way before the movie and i've been a big fan for over 3 years
kite1135 4 years ago
im tired of douche bags at entertainment weekly and places like this giving crap reviews to good movies like this and then giving some other shitty heart warming movie 5 stars. it seems like almost every horror movie gets this dispite if it was good
sean867d 4 years ago 4
Sorry to drop a turd in your punch bowl but most horror movies today are dreadful. Want imaginative horror try The Exorcist, An American Werewolf In London, or Salem's Lot.
jfleckal 4 years ago
It's almost as if David Slade and production got bored after about 20 minutes worth of run time production and said "hey, we still have about 30 gallons of this fake blood. Guess we gotta use it somehow." If you don't like my suggestions because, with the exception of AAWIL, they lack the blood and violence that is in 30 Days, well....I can't help you then.
jfleckal 4 years ago
lol, idiot throwing himself througth the window
seblun1 4 years ago
and this is y i live in wisconsin every singal man woman and child owns a gun some own multiple guns even thought those vampire zombie thingys could not die it sure would be fun to watch it happen from a safe i mean fun distance
USMC77777 4 years ago
I quite enjoyed 30 Days of night, totally didn't expect the ending to be honest.
meyym 4 years ago
2 stars i mean thats a little harsh even if it was crap!
jackthekingoftheworl 4 years ago
i watched this and thort it was great entertainment, but the story was bolloks
i then watched the blood trails and it suddenly made the whole thing so much beter. when yoo no what yoor watchin this is epic
lawz128 4 years ago
agreed 28 days/weeks infected not dead no what ur talkin bout jackass btw 30 days of night is pretty good
hayward1991 4 years ago
2 stars was being nice, because this movie beyond sucked. i was all hyped up to see it and it looked like it was going to rock. and for the first 20 minutes that looked to be the case till it seemed that the director said "fuck it im done" and the rest of the movie fell flat.
spidey2064 4 years ago
Excellent comment. I felt exactly the same way. Like my other comment, do most of todays horror genre directors have no more talent than to think a bunch of corn syrup and red and yellow food coloring will earn them a Crapper, errrr Oscar? I won't even comment on the plot or the screenplay. This sh!t was aweful
jfleckal 4 years ago
right on. i dont think its an aspect of talent, i think its all about the effort. If the whole production team really tried their damndest on this movie i could see it being one of the best horror flick, but they didnt. it seems that today directors and studios just want a cheap pop to earn more money, because its an easy way to rake in a lot of cash in the box office with out much effort.
spidey2064 4 years ago
god dammit..this movie was awsome and it did need a little more story to the vampires though..but it was still great thouhg
vansman1111 4 years ago
First of all, 28 days/weeks later is not based on zombies. josh hartnett did an amazing job acting even with some of the flaws from the script...how else is he suppose to handle a situation like that. I have never agreed with this guy's opinion on Ebert and Roper, he is a douchebag.
johnny1212 4 years ago
I like the way the guy says, "Josh Hartnett [who] takes this assignment VERY seriously" as if the proper way to deal with the vampires would be to just act irritated by them and tell them to piss off.
PilatesOfZeCarribean 4 years ago
Why did that guy state that those people in 28 Days were zombies. Did he not watch the film? I could have sworn they provided an explanation in the film... Maybe I'm wrong.
yearbygirl 4 years ago
28 days later is not zombies! there sick not dead !
Labledasemo 4 years ago
Wern't you on ebert and roper?
pimpizzle2 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I WAS ON A CAT PORN
=)
SECKS NOW?
PaperToeNails 4 years ago
Correct. Michael Phillips does appear regularly on 'At the Movies'...shot in Chicago.
ChicagoTribune 4 years ago