The irony is that this film pre-dates:
28 days later, 28 weeks later, Resident Evil 1, 2 and 3, Dawn of the Dead (remake), Land Of The Dead, Diary Of The Dead, Flight Of The Living Dead, Sean Of The Dead and loads of other films that 'reviewers' are claiming that it rips off.
I notice you have listed films there that have release dates years before Infestation. I don't understand how 'Infestation' (released in 2005) can predate '28 days later' (2002), 'Resident evil' (2002), 'Resident Evil 2' (2004), 'Shaun of the dead' (2004) or the Dawn of the dead remake (2004).
Can you explain this or were you hoping no one would notice?
"But I don't need your practiced lines, your school of charm mentality."
reply
share
james-sullivan-6
16 years ago
Glad you wrote your reply I was sure that most of those films pre-dated "Investation"!!!
I watched approximately 1 minute and 45 seconds of the film and realised it wasn't for me and that I would rather wash my socks. Normally I would give a film more of a chance, but this really did seem terrible - and the adverts before it gave a clue - they were all for films I'd be happy to miss.
reply
share
vote_underdog
16 years ago
Netchimp's facts are as straight as they come.
Release dates have nothing to do when film is actually made, merely when it gets a distribution deal.
The fact is that Infestation starting filming in 2000 so the filmmakers couldn't have possibly been influenced by films that hadn't hit the cinemas yet.
It's all coincidental as often happens in the film industry.
reply
share
Skirza
16 years ago
Show us the proof underdog. 5 years to make a movie like infestation? I doubt it.
Also, the OP was saying that infestation predates those other films. It doesn't matter even if it did take five years to get it released, the basic fact is that it does not predate the films I mentioned.
"But I don't need your practiced lines, your school of charm mentality."
reply
share
vote_underdog
16 years ago
You doubt it, why?
Have you ever been involved in making a feature film with no money, it takes time. Yes, sometimes five years.
I don't need to show you proof, I'm not on trial.
I will say though, I know who made the film, I know where they were in 2000.
If it can't be accepted as reason enough, it's no skin of my nose.
reply
share
Skirza
16 years ago
I knew you would come back saying you didn't need to prove anything. Fair enough. You don't need to prove anything to me at all. I am just some guy on the internet like everyone else around here. But it would be nice from time to time to be able to do something other than take the word of some person I don't know...the joys of the internet.
I do actually know very little about making a feature film and am prepared to believe it is possible to take a long time to make a film. Five years seems like a big stretch though.
You have ignored my actual arguement in an attempt to score points elsewhere. I was commenting that Netchimp didn't have his facts straight and you tried to correct me on that. Netchimp was wrong. Infestation does not predate those movies I mentioned. If it was being made around the same time, so be it. At best it is a contemporary of 28 days later. However, seeing as how it was released later, it cannot actually be considered to predate any of them. It is just common sense.
"But I don't need your practiced lines, your school of charm mentality."
reply
share
netchimp
16 years ago
I just listened to the commentary on the DVD. The director comments that whilst they were getting the film released all those films came out. It actually ended up helping the release of the film.
Although it might not 'technically' pre-date those films, it was made before them. I believe the OP was trying to make the point that it was a 'rip-off' of other movies. I was just clearing up that it wasn't
Hope that helps.
reply
share
Skirza
16 years ago
I'm glad you cleared that up.
"But I don't need your practiced lines, your school of charm mentality."
reply
share
vitriolcritic
16 years ago
Who cares!!!!!!!!
The movie is terrible!!!! The worst I have ever seen.
Good to see that I have some back up to agree with me now!
reply
share