beanoramo

[beanoramo]

Shameless repost because. Well yes.

[beanoramo]

This!! The film had flaws but this was not one of them.

Spoilers for 28 years later

Something I really was not expecting from 28 years later was the commentary on zombies and how we have come to perceive them (culturally speaking) as completely deshumanized bodies that we can kill gleefully.

28 years later is constantly reminding you that its zombies are infected people, not mythical creatures completly removed from us. That doesn't make them less dangerous, or killing them in self defense (or even mercy-killing them) wrong. But it does give a sinister spin on the "zombies killer" warrior figure that a lot of zombie media come to present as a given.

The movie does that through two main narative devices. Humanizing the infected and deconstructing the ideology behind the zombies killer figure.

It humanizes the infected notably by:

Introducing the Alphas. They are an extra threats sure, but they are also capable of reasons.

The entire plot with the pregnant infected woman.

The fact the everyone in Great-Britain is treated the same by the outisde world, infected or not.

Isla's disease. Isla is sick from a mystery illness that impairs her mental capacities. Isla is not infected, but she is often confused and sometimes even physically lashes out in way that are violent (when she wakes up and break everything on her nightstand, in the same scene she also turns against Jamie). I don't think it is a coincidence that Isla is the only character in the entire movie that kills an infected with her bare hands, and then has trouble remembering it. It is also not a coincidence that she is the first one showing compassion on screen to an infected.

The fact that Dr Kelson treats infected and non-infected in the exact same way in death and does not immediately turns to killing the infected to defend himself from them.

It deconstructs the figure of the zombie killer by:

Having Jamie being a troubling figure and an even more troubling father figure. He insists on taking his son on his first killing trip three years before it is common to do so (something the movie points out explicitly twice). He says he likes the smell of rotting carcasses. He lies to make his son appear more heroic (I am not saying that Spike was cowardly or anything, but still Jamie does embelish how this first hunt went).

The community that sanctions this kind of attitude is very much coded as conservative in an uncomfortable way. It is for example, routinely visually compared with English history (through the display of medieval battles and images of the boers war). However everytime it is compared to the medieval era (the mythical chivalric) the images shown are very clearly extracted from movies and artistic depictions rather than rigourous reconstruction. The only real images shown are from most recent colonial wars in which England commited war crimes.

It is nice to see a zombie film not taking the zombies as acceptable killable meatsack as a given.

[beanoramo]

28 Years Later - Brief Rant

Just curious to see where people's heads are at with this third installment in the 28 Days franchise (for reference I've seen 28 Days Later, but not 28 Weeks Later) - Obviously spoilers ahead

Initially walking out of the theater, I hated this film. It feels like everything I'd loved about 28 Days Later has been stripped from its heir. There is no serenity found in the emptiness of the apocalypse. The first act for 28 Days is so strong, it's absolutely captivating. The haunted empty streets and remnants of destruction. The terrifying beauty of it all felt like a constant in the entire film.

In 28 Years Later, we're immediately plunged into loud and obnoxious chaos. The opening scene itself immediately turned me off, with the editing not coming off as "artsy," but just plain shitty. I know the editing was hit or miss for many, and for me it was a huge miss. I understand that the point of the "war" montages were to emphasize that the infected have been dehumanized in a similar way to how soldiers dehumanize their enemies to make it easier to kill. However, this point could've been made without the random and plotless cuts.

As a matter of fact, it is. In my opinion, the best moments in 28 Years Later were the scenes in which human and infected coexisted side by side. When Dr. Kelson simply sedated the Alpha instead of killing it. When Isla assisted the pregnant infected in giving birth. This was interesting to me because it was bringing something new to this world narrative that we didn't get to see in 28 Days Later. It wasn't the best, but it was interesting.

But yeah, everything about the editing pulled me right out of the story. The fucking galaxy backdrop behind Spike and his father as they ran down the sandbar... I was physically cringing.

Moving on from that, the acting wasn’t bad! Alfie Williams is a breakout star for sure, I can totally see him becoming very popular in the drama scene. And I have to give those infected extras their flowers! The way they were running and screeching was so haunting. Truly great work. I still think that the 28 Days infected are some of the best zombies I've seen in film. Absolutely nasty in every sense of the word, exactly what you want to see from a zombie flick.

In terms of Spike's mother and her death, yes I did indeed tear up in the theater. How could you not? But I think 28 Years forgets it's a zombie film. Also, there are other ways to grapple with the idea of death than... Spending 13 years in a graveyard ruminating about every single person that's died? But I guess it’s meant to emphasize just how many people were left to fend for themselves from this virus.

I don't know... I'm trying to be as impartial as possible here but there's very little I actually liked about this film, and I truly loved 28 Days Later as soon as I saw it.

Maybe I've just reached a point where I'm so anti-franchise, I find it difficult to respect any film that's a part of one. I'm an original ideas warrior, what can I say. Did 28 Years Later rightfully uphold 28 Days' legacy? In my eyes, respectfully, no.

[beanoramo]

Sweetpea - Thoughts, Opinions

Hey guys, first post on Tumblr sorry if I'm a bit awkward or doing this wrong idk...

Anyways I just wanted to rant a little bit about the series Sweetpea that I literally just finished watching an hour ago (obviously spoilers if you haven't watched).

I. Fuckin. Loved it. First of all, that.

Ella Purnell is a truly incredible actress with some surprising range! I went into the series worried that she wouldn't be able to portray the correct.. vibe (?) of a killer (I straight up forgot about Arcane I guess) but wow I was wrong. Nicôle Lecky was also a standout performance for me, at first I didn't like her acting style but it grew on me with every episode, as did her character.

Aesthetically I was enamored. The set was so fun to look at, and the costuming?? Hats off to whoever was in charge of getting Rhiannon and Julia fitted the fuck up.

I wonder if Rhiannon's character reminded anyone else of Joe from YOU? Especially considering how she gaslights herself into believing that her murders are justified simply because her victims were "bad people." But similar to YOU, Sweetpea asks us to second guess our own morals. Who exactly is a bully? Who is in the wrong here (clearly Rhiannon, but I suppose I mean more in regards to Julia's bullying and how it effected Rhiannon)? Do some people deserve to die, and who decides that? Many moral dilemmas that I find interesting to think about.

The introduction to the series is also super underrated! I really dig the song and the collage-esque graphics. It looks like criminal investigation board, but the colors make it seem almost childlike? Oh that's something else I wanted to talk about...

Rhiannon is clearly stuck on this thing that Julia did to her in grade school. And the lesson is that she should've just moved on, it's difficult but moving on is the best thing to do in this situation. However, Rhiannon clung to these events so intensely, I feel like she's still a teenager in many ways. She lives with her father and has childish posters of Robert Pattinson on her wall. But on the flip side, she has a job with aspirations of promotion, drinks, goes out. I don't know if anyone else felt this (and maybe I'm reaching a bit) but to me at least it felt like Rhiannon was in this weird limbo of adulthood and childhood? Having temper tantrums and getting stab-happy with an entitled landlord... It all feels so very childish. Yet she's also so in control? Rhiannon plays Craig like a fiddle, stealing the USB port and even boiling her knife in hot water after her first murder (how tf did she know to do that). I'm not sure if this tangent means anything revolutionary, but it was something I observed during my own viewing.

I think there was also an air of campiness to the whole story that I loved to see embraced. I was almost disappointed to see Julia actually come to her senses and realize she needed to get away from Rhiannon, because I was kind of digging the little friendship they were developing. Of course, it's realistic for Rhiannon's entire wellbeing to be hinged on Julia, and for that to scare the fuck out of her, but like come onnnn just go for a sleepover..

Also, SEASON TWO?! I'm not sure how to feel. Nowadays it seems like many narratives run themselves into the ground, with companies aiming for profit over well-done storytelling. I kind of like the open end of the final episode, leaving the rest up to the viewers imagination. In my mind, it's clear that Rhiannon gets sent to prison after her sister catches her, and Julia finds a new life elsewhere. However, it could fun for Rhiannon to rope Seren into her crimes somehow, similar to how she did with Julia. A little bit of guilt-tripping, "this only happened because you weren't here" type shit. But in order for the series to be more respected (85% on Rotten Tomatoes isn't bad but personally I'm a perfectionist), I look forward to season two tightening up some loose ends and expanding on Rhiannon's character, because she’s very much trapped in one mindset during most of season one.

Does anyone know if the books are any good? I know the series is based off of a book series, and I'd be interested to see what details were taken out, if we see any character development in unexpected places. Although I don't want another Killing Eve situation (those books were not as good as the show in my opinion).

If you've watched the show, let me know what you think! Any opinions, theories?