This movie looked and felt identical to 28 days/weeks later. These films are fantastic so it's easy to see how the director was probably immensely inspired by them - enough so to use the same filming style, sounds, and cinematographic elements. I felt really lame sitting in the theater watching this copycat's "art".
DR. EVIL:"Congratulations num-nuts! You've successfully turned me into a friggin Jack-In-the-Box."
I thought the movie itself sucked.
Period.
The acting was pretty good.
But overall, it sucked.
Over half of the people left before it was over.
then those ADD cases missed out on a good movie. Realistic characters caught in unrealistic situations fighting for their lives. These are people you've met, no clinches, a movie similar to, but better than 28 Days/Weeks.
share While films such as WOLF CREEK and HILLS HAVE EYES desperately reach for that elusive "70s feel", only to wind up looking like they're trying too hard, MULBERRY STREET has the genuine authenticity, emotion, and conviction that made so many films from that decade so transcendant. Sure, MULBERRY STREET has clear echoes of 28 DAYS LATER, but it is certainly its own film, and anyways, is being in the company of said film such a bad thing? 28 DAYS LATER is one of the 2 or 3 best zombie films of the past 15 years, and MULBERRY STREET is worthy of being mentioned in the same breath. Plus, it is set in NYC, and features rat-people instead of zombies (I don't care what 28 DAYS LATER claimed, its creatures are zombies), so it's not like it's a carbon copy. Not to mention the fact that the entire third act of 28 DAYS strongly echoes DAY OF THE DEAD, so forget all these comparisons and accusations. Virtually every film borrows concepts from earlier movies - it's just the nature of the artform, so stop complaining and enjoy a good film when one comes along. While we're in comparison mode, you could also parallel MULBERRY STREET with films such as Romero's THE CRAZIES and Cronenberg's SHIVERS - pretty elite company indeed. This film is much more about the city of New York than 28 DAYS LATER is about London. The no-name characters of perfect for their roles, encompassing the sheer diversity of Manhattan; the slow-burning storyline greatly enhances the audience's sympathy for the characters once matters begin getting out of hand and bedlam ensures. The locations are really well-used, the sporadic humor is very effective, the soundtrack is a knock-out, and despite obvious budgetary restraints, the effects are solid and the director wisely leaves some things to our imaginations through the use of off-screen violence and shaky, brief glances of the rat-people. Speaking of rat people, let us not forget that on paper, this story is absolutely ridiculous, and in danger of being laughed off the page, which makes it that much more impressive that the filmmakers were capable of rendering the plot so masterfully. Of the 13 After Dark films that I have seen between this year and last (the only ones I missed were TOOTH AND NAIL, CRAZY EIGHTS, NIGHTMARE MAN, and THE DEATHS OF IAN STONE, all from this years installment), MULBERRY STREET most certainly ranks in the top three, along with GRAVEDANCERS and THE ABANDONED, which I am struggling mightily to put in any kind of order. Anyone who wants to spit venom at one of the After Dark films should direct their attention towards LAKE DEAD, a film with almost zero story or emotional investment that is more concerned with exposing breasts than with making a statement of any kind. MULBERRY STREET, on the other hand, is a film with something important to say, and the genuine capability to do just that with finesse and strong conviction.
dave.
Well we certainly disagree. I do not feel on any remote plane that Mulberry Street had genuine authenticity, finesse, strong conviction or emotional appeal. All aspects seemed completely forced. This isn't 'spitting venom' - it's the truth! When comparing themes of total and complete isolation to a lack there of and, well let's put it out there - a rage virus (believable) to invasion of the (gasp, oh no!) rat people, Mulberry Street simply does not stand up in any way whatsoever. Also, while the last act of 28 Days Later may mirror Day of the Dead - it is to a very limited extent. I didn't walk out of 28 Days Later thinking "Wow - what a ripoff!". I was intrigued, and satisified, and feeling everything else a movie-goer should when leaving a theater. Overall, I would have enjoyed this movie as you suggested if it weren't so...what's the word...oh yeah...lame.
DR. EVIL:"Congratulations num-nuts! You've successfully turned me into a friggin Jack-In-the-Box."
Let's be fair guys...it was the director's very first film and it had a budget of $60,000. That would barely pay for the SFX in a film like 28 Days Later. It wasn't brilliant but let's see you do better on sixty grand!
shareI was okay with the movie until I saw rat people...they mutated into rats!!!!???? When I saw whiskers, pointy ears and a snout I knew I was done!
shareWhy? It's inventive and quite creative... People could have said the same thing about werewolf movies, "it was good till they started sprouting pointy ears, etc..." Just my opinion.
shareGuess you are not a fan of Zombeavers either? They all turned beaver...ish. But the comedy was there from the beginning of that one. While the comedy of Mulberry St was unintentional I believe. Or maybe not?
shareGotta go with Dave on this. I'm impressed by this low-budget flick. I'm halfway through and so far it reminds me of the movie Smoke in its authenticity. I love the casting and locations. I lived in a lousy building on 137th Street and this is what it felt like.
Don't know what's going to happen either... ah, the outbreak has started... I'm really kind of jealous that some folks got to see this in a theater.
I dont see how anyone can saw this movie is a rip off of 28 days later when that movie is a rip off of a thousand other 'people gone crazy' movies. Yes, it was great and well done, but it wasnt original.
While this movie was very low budget, I did enjoy it. When someone is working on a small budget and makes something good, I can give that piece of work more credit then the movie with a 120 million budget and looks like a turd (cough!IAmLegend@cough). Evil Dead was like that. It's budget was $105 Michigan dollars and a large box of strings. But did those crazy shemps make a movie or what??!!
I didnt think of the monsters as zombies, but more like werewolves. Now, not all werewolf legends had the curse being transfered by a bite. That was a hollywood addition, like the silver bullet. But that's kind of what the rat creatures were: wererats.
It's weird when some people assume anything with people becoming something else in mass is a zombie film anyway. 28 days later isnt about zombies, but neither is NorLD (they're called ghouls in the movie). Zombies are when a hougan raises a corpse to be his servent. Invasion of the Body Snatchers had people becoming something dangerous to humans, but noone is screaming "OMG Pod People zombies are fast and real zombies are slow!". So lets not call Mulberry a zombie flick, it's a wererat flick.
Great post, Dave!
shareWolf Creek was an awesome movie and easily captured the gritty feel of earlier times. I've been watching horror movies since the mid-seventies, when I was way too young to see them, and it is my opinion that Mulberry Street was no better than Wolf Creek in any form.
So did you work on Mulberry Street? I think after reading your post that you were affiliated with the movie.
The gene pool could use a little chlorine......
[deleted]
And 28 Days/Weeks Later took the elements from George Romero's The Crazies, which is actually a lot like I Drink Your Blood. Not saying Romero copied I Drink Your Blood, but they are a like.
So who cares if Mulberry Street copied 28 Days/Weeks Later, they followed the format of other movies as well.
The phone is dead. Do you hear that, Vitus? Even the phone is dead.
So what? 28 Days Later was a direct rip-off of "The Last Man on Earth" (1964) starring Vincent Price.
shareRomero admitted Night of the Living Dead was a rip-off of The Last Man on Earth, but who cares? It's how you tell a story that counts not whether it's 100 percent original or not.
Mulberry Street told a very involving story with believable characters and had a very gritty and authentic urban feel to it. No fancy sets and no lame CGI. That's not something you see too much anymore with all of these way too slick horror movies, especially all of these garbage remakes. The movie started slowly but once it kicked in it rarely let up. Sure it's no classic, but for such a low budget movie it really delivered, way more than most of the overblown sequels and remakes that clog up the theaters.
The creatures in 28 days later are NOT ZOMBIES!!!! I am so sick of hearing people say that. Were they dead? no. Were they a product of voodoo? no. They were people infected with a virus that made them feel nothing but rage and made them violent.
I am also sick of people saying this or that movie is a rip-off of another one. It has similarities. Nothing is really original anymore. The only thing this movie had in common with 28DL was that there was a virus making people violent.
I find it ironic that your two criteria for what makes a zombie a zombie are death AND voodoo.
sharePeople's were covered in blood with chunks of flesh missing...in the scene by the merry go round in 28WL you can even spot a guy missing his arm. They are zombies.
shareApparently amputees are zombies too!
I know a guy with a wooden leg, does that make him a zombie too?
Does your friend go around eating people? If so, the answer can only be: yes, yes he is.
shareNeither did the creatures in 28 Days Later. They BIT people, but only for the purpose of killing them. They weren't eating the corpses. They would bite, tear, and pummel. Once finished, they would get up and run off.
They aren't zombies. They bleed. They starve to death. Zombies don't starve. Zombies are the living dead. These things are not dead.
And THAT is where babies come from.
Does your friend go around eating people? If so, the answer can only be: yes, yes he is.
I collect dead pigeons then I press them between the pages of a book.share
You are right.
To this day, I don't understand why people confuse virus-infected, violent and *living* people who kill but did not eat people with zombies that are dead and eat people.
Granted, they're just movies but I don't get the confusion.
No good sir, zombies are enslaved victims of witch doctors in Haiti.
I think you meant ghouls. Who are only called "zombies".
And then stupid people like you go and say what is a "real" zombie and what is not.
no lame CGI
They are zombies...the directed said so himself.
shareso basically in your openion ANY MOVIE WITH CITY ATTACK BY ZOMBIES?MUTANTS is copycat of 28/days later?
wake up, can you write better scenario? no? so dont go whining.
Twenty eight days later was just another in a long series of zombie flicks and in true zombie flick fashion inspired an insipid sequel. Yes, the plot has been worked and re-worked in both book and movies. Don't like rat people, try vampires, radio-active mutants or zombies. Let's not forget my favorite: inbred country folk.
The movie works because it relies on character interaction and development and a strong cast. Unlike alot of modern directors Mickle doesn't rely strictly on gore, shock value, and overdone special effects. I also noticed that the populace of New york City was not automatically assumed to be heavily armed.