Nobel Prize Winners on Sci-Fi Flicks

scientistguy writes "In case you missed it, Harold Varmus, Nobel prize winning retrovirologist and cancer biologist, former NIH director, and current head of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, has written a review of 28 Days Later in this weekend's New York Times. One would think that his time is more valuably spent running important medical institutions, searching for new cancer insights/cures, etc, but the dude's also an English lit major and has a penchant for sci-fi. 28 Days Later is the new flick from director Danny Boyle (Shallow Grave, Trainspotting, etc.) about a virus termed rage that is advertently released from a Cambridge primate research facility and goes on to devastate much of merry old England more rapidly than the dragons did in Reign of Fire. Although Varmus appears to go out of his way to be even handed, it's clear that he has a problem suspending disbelief on a topic (virology) that is near and dear to him. Reviews from professional movie critics on 28 Days Later have been mixed, but Ebert and another NY Times reviewer were into it. Good, clean summer fun - aside from 'the scenes of maiming, dismemberment, clubbing, shooting, bayoneting and shoplifting'."

Comments

aside from the scenes of maiming, dismemberment...

[nairobiny]

and the rare fact that this film was released in the UK last summer, making this rather old news for anyone in Blighty. Makes a change for us to get a film first, eh?

damn the science

[alphakappa]

'28 days later' didn't even try to be a sci-fi-horror movie.. that is, no explanations about the virus, or a long-drawn buildup to the final release (as in the Hulk). So even though, the whole idea of the virus getting transmitted to humans was insane, I didn't care. I do have some questions though.. they show this monkey being 'initiated' by showing him scenes of riots and mayhem, so I guess the rage virus is activated only if the subconscious is 'trained' by those scenes... then how come, humans go crazy within 20 seconds of being bitten?

Re:damn the science

[JWSmythe]

---- Spoiler ----
---- Don't read me if you haven't seen the movie. ----

It's a thrill flick, dude. You're not going to find the logical reason for everything.

That, I definately have to agree with.

The beginning was interesting.. The agenda of the movie seemed to be to show that researchers are evil, playing with things they don't understand, and animal rights activists are evil or stupid, disturbing things they have absolutely no clue about, and no respect for (i.e., when the researcher tries to explain what the rage virus is to them).

The post apoclypse London looked cool.. When he's wandering around town is probably the best part of the movie.

After the movie, all I could think was that this was a bad rewrite of "12 Monkeys" mixed with "Night of the Living Dead".. The whole "We're going to rape the little girl and chick" thing was way too drawn out.

There were some pretty serious holes in the movie.. Ya, the supermarket lights were one, but that could have been generators.. I know, 28 days running on generator power?? But it kept the beer cold. :)

If the guy was slick enough to hook up all the christmas lights to the batteries, it must have been with a power inverter. 110v/220v lights won't be very bright at 12v, right? So, why was he using a hand-crank radio?

There is satellite TV available in the UK. Sky is at least one provider. It doesn't take a very creative mind to find an apartment with a satellite dish in front of it, and hook up the battery and inverter to the TV and receiver. At least they could see what the rest of the world was saying.

What about secure installations? Particular federal offices, like the FBI, you have to go through man traps before you can even consider getting physical contact with anyone. Jails, and even office buildings, are rather secure. Most buildings I've worked in, even if the lobby is compromised, without elevators, the upper floors are unaccessable.. Well, the infected weren't exactly using tools to break down firedoors.

I'm sure, with them knowing the extend of how bad this virus was, even after only the first day, something would have been done.. How long does it take a bunch of infecteds to walk the length of England? At least days.. At best, I would expect the outbreak wouldn't travel at more than 5mph. By the end of the first day, after loosing all of London, there would be a substantial military force killing anything that came close. It wouldn't just be guys with guns at roadblocks either. How long would it take the remainder of the gov't to ask the US to send bombers to lay a wall of napalm across the island? Maybe not that simple, but something would be done quickly.

Even after the second 28 days, the area wouldn't be safe. It's a bloodborne virus that survives beyond death of the host. Remember the infection of the dad.

Too many holes and logical errors in the movie made it just an action/blood/gore movie, rather than something I could really get into..

Re:28 Days Later is Sci-Fi?

[Mod Me God Too]

Yeah, I'll respond to your heading though not your post...

28 days is a sci-fi movie but it is a classic plot. It uses sci-fi as an exploration of the human psyche under pressure, alienation, group behaviour.

As a sci-fi it is entertaining and somewhat thought provoking, but as an analogy to human behaviour (and spot the metaphores: chimps as the origin [of the 'virus' hence of life], waking up in a hospital representing saviour, the exploration of killing, the grouping behaviour representing tryst and anti-trust, the army not being what are expected (saviour but at a cost) and the ending scene as rescue by something 'good' and more powerful a la how religion is portrayed) it is a very strong film.

A sci-fi film in the greatest tradition, in that it is not actually about sci fi.

For those of us old enough...

[Penguinshit]

...isn't this a re-do of an old Charlton Heston film named "Omega Man", where a plague strikes the Earth and the infected turn into homicidal Edgar Winter impersonators? Heston plays the lone scientist who is apparently immune, and he meets a band of uninfected persons holding out against the organized night fighters.

I think I'll save $7 (diff between new movie and old rental) and just see Omega Man again.

Well, the Omega Man...

[HunterZero]

Was just an adaption of the wonderful Richard Matheson book "I am Legend" which came out back in the 1950's (I believe). I personally would love to see the book put to the screen but those damned screen writers keep changing the plot so that it fits with what the studios think we want: ie love interest, more action, etc etc.

It's really a shame, since I highly recommend the book and a film of it would bring it to the masses.

Re:aside from the scenes of maiming, dismemberment

[Tumbleweed]

> Makes a change for us to get a film first, eh?

Yeah, but look at the film that you got first, then brag later. :)

Seriously, I saw this movie yesterday, and it's not bad. You have to be really good at suspension of disbelief, but it's okay. It's not original by any means, but it's definitely enjoyable at matinee prices.

After the disappointments that were Matrix 2 and Charlie's Angels 2, the summer movies have a lot to prove this year.

A much better summer movie is, amazingly enough, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. More willing suspension of disbelief required, but overall, a much more enjoyable movie. Surprised the heck out of me that it was a good as it was, considering the lack of James Cameron, but hey, remember that it also lacks Linda Hamilton & Edward Furlong, and that might explain something. :)

I can't make myself go see "Hulk" due to the extraordinarily-bad look of the Hulk CGI. *blech* I'd honestly prefer a green-painted Lou Ferrigno, thanks.

I'm still awaiting "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"...

Favorite 28 Days review from the T3 thread.

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon.

That movie could have been named "One Dumb Move After the Next"

The only reason for calling it 28 Days Later is because it had more blood and rage than a menstruating lesbian convention.

No kidding.

"The zombies hate light. Let's drive during the day to get to the military base. Hey, let's take this shortcut through this underground tunnel. I'm sure it will be safe."

"It's getting dark. Let's all sleep out in the open with a big campfire and take some ludes to sleep. Never mind that the zombies are highly attracted to flame. I'm sure it will be safe."

"The smallest drop of their bodily fluids can turn you into a zombie if it gets in your mouth or a wound. Let's set up mines and claymores around our camp. I'm sure the resulting zombie flavored pink mist will be safe."

The best part though was the implication that it would only take 28 days for a group of British soldiers to lose all discipline and go Lord of the Flies.

Re:Now that I've read the article

[Anonymous Coward]

-Harold Varmus makes some similar and really interesting points in his review too, chiefy the fact the movie seems to advocate quarantine over cure:

"However superficially soothing, there is something troubling about this comfortable conclusion. It implies that we might be better off with epidemics that can end abruptly and definitively than we are with the insidious plagues that now afflict us."

- I also really like his commets about 'rage' being a'psychological' virus:

'Mr. Boyle has referred to his pathological invention as a "psychological virus." By this seductive but unscientific term he may have meant something akin to what happens to soldiers in battle -- for example, as portrayed by the facial contortions in Leonardo da Vinci's remarkable sketches of Renaissance warriors displayed recently at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. But such psychological change does not require contact with blood or anything else.
In a sense, Mr. Boyle's rage virus, with its nearly instantaneous transformation of the recipients, acts more like a powerful drug, like a poison or a narcotic."

this seems to me to be what the rage 'virus' concept is really is about at - the imcomprehensibly violent way that the average human can respond to the smallest stimulus - workplace shootings, road rage killings.

great review...

Deathwatch

[Idimmu Xul]

Whilst we are plugging a UK film I'd also like to advertie Deathwatch.

From Amazon:

A small group of English soldiers find themselves in a labyrinth of abandoned German trenches in Deathwatch, a reworking of the classic British supernatural horror tale as a redemptive allegory amid the wider horror of the Great War. The very earth has had its fill of blood and this lost company may already be in hell: imagine the BBC TV film All the Kings Men (1999) crossed with Cube (1997), as realised by a young Ridley Scott. Only Charlie Shakespeare, an impressive Jamie Bell, is sufficiently innocent to realise the evil of the trenches is turning comrade against comrade, resulting in the gradually escalating carnage.

Ok, not entirely related to the main topic, but it's a good film and it's not often the UK actually put out a good film in a year, let alone 2 great films!

Shotgunless zombie movie

[Chris Y Taylor]

Since most Zombie films I have seen were set in America, it was interesting to see one set in a nation where personal firearms are rare.

It is a lot scarrier to watch someone nervously waiting with a baseball bat (why not cricket?) for a group of zombies to close with them than it is to watch someone picking them off with a rifle or shotgun as they approach.

Rabies

[Scrameustache]

When I first saw the ads talking about a virus and seeing the people turn, seconds from contamination, into bloodthirsty maniacs, I thought "Oh, so its flash-rabies, big whoop".

Rage is the french name for rabies.

The rabies cure was found by a french man.

And from Webster's:
Main Entry: 1rage
Pronunciation: 'rAj
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin rabia, from Latin rabies rage, madness, from rabere to be mad; akin to Sanskrit rabhas violence

PS Anyone trolling with the usual, boring, old crap about french surrender, wich is automatic anytime france or french is mentioned will thereby prove their lameness.

A Parasite does this for Real

[frank249]

In the movie 28 Days, a virus causes those infected with it to turn into killers. It turns out that there is an amoebic parasite called T. gondiithat actually manipulates the behavior of its intermediate host, the rat, to reach its ultimate target, the cat. Rats become infected with T. gondiii by eating infected beetles or worms. Once infected, the rats lose their fear of cats and become aggressive towards them and thereby becoming dinner for the cat. The parasite is then passed on to the cat where it reproduces in the cats brain but does not appear to change any of the cat's behaviours. After a time, the parasite leaves the cat via its feces where it is picked up by bettles and worms and the cycle starts again. The scary thing is that all mammals are susceptible to infection by T. Gondii, however for now it appears that the amoebas can reproduce only within members of the cat family.

So while there are infections like rabies that cause madness, it appears T. Gondii only affects the select behaviours in rats it needs in order continue as a species. There are societies where people eat cats and/or rats. I wonder how long it will be before T. Gondii evolves to affect humans?

Warning - don't go to see this movie- poor picture

[nattt]

The picture quality on 28 days later is so bad it's unwatchable. It's not a low budget movie (15 million) but for "artistic" reasons they shot it on miniDV, and didn't take any care with the picture quality at all. PAL miniDV can look quite good in the cinema if you take care to enlarge it correctly with good interpolation, and shoot it carefully so you don't over expose, and especially turn down (or preferably off) the sharpness control on the camera.

The people who shot this movie did none of these - or should I say, the opposite of this. They turned the bad digital sharpness full up (which makes the picture look like bad VHS) and over-exposed. The film print was obviously made with no attempt to improve the picture in any way at all.

The end result is a movie that looks so bad on the big screen it's barely watchable - and they expect you to pay real money to see it. There's no excuse for this - it's a movie that doesn't treat the viewer with respect.

If you must see this movie, see the DVD, because that's the same picture you'll see in the cinema - just many times larger....

Sounds interesting

[Erwos]

Didn't see the movie (can't stand the zombie flicks myself), but...

If the movie happened in "real life", it would take roughly a day for the rest of the world to figure out roughly what's happening. You'd see:

1. Extreme quarantine measures. There'd be a total blockade of Britain, a large, well-armed regiment blocking the Chunnel from all traffic, and escorts of air traffic. Anyone who doesn't stop gets killed. There will probably be a few infections outside of Britain, but the authorities will be rather more prone to use lethal force to deal with them.
2. After two weeks, the world is throughly scared to death. All British survivors are told they are remaining in quarantine indefinitely. Scientists discover what the plague is, but have no cure.
3. Weeks 3-6: the civilized world tries to figure out how the hell to deal with this plague. Massive military rescue operations to grab survivors, conventional military operations, and the use of nuclear weapons to contain the plague are discussed.
4. Weeks 7-9: Rescue ops are carried out against known survivor colonies. Coalition militaries (primarily NATO) take only a few casualties, mostly from equipment failures.

How would it play out in the end? I don't know. But the fact of the matter is, if it's between the lives of 500,000 people and a plague that could possibly end the world and destroy all of humanity... I know I would consider using nuclear weapons to destroy the British Isles and cauterize the remenants of the disease. I don't think I'd do it, but I'd have the option down on the table.

In extreme times, you may have to use extreme measures. They may or may not be over-reactions, but the safe side of an issue is obviously continuing the human race.

-Erwos

Re:Warning - don't go to see this movie- poor pict

[nattt]

"The picture quality is not bad, it's just different from what most movies choose" - wrong.

The picture quality is BAD - actually very bad. It's technically inept. It looks atrocious. To say that the picture quality gives you "a sense that you are watching some post-apocalpyse news item" is just rubbish. A good director can make you see grit and realism while presenting you with a perfect picture - a poor director will just show you a gritty picture. It's not clever to make a picture look deliberately bad - it's a slur on the audience who payed good money to see a movie that looks worse than many student movies I've seen.

What's worse is that directorially from a picture composition point of view and editing, the movie was very well done. If only they'd take care with the picture it would have been watchably tollerable, but it never would have excused the bad plot.

It's a movie of contrasts - it's not low budget, but has a zero budget look and feel, the picture quality is bad, but composition and editing are great, the plot is bad, but the acting good. Overall it's a movie that leaves you with a bad headache and a ripped off feeling in the wallet.