Slashdot Mirror
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'."
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?
Visit Snowflake Showers
...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.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
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.
"They told me it was impossible. I replied with maniacal laughter." http://www.mydailyrant.com/
> 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"...
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.
---- 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..
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
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?
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
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
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.