There were so many parts missing. Like how he and his fiance got out of their neighborhood. How was she shot? Why did he wreck the car? The movie drags on without telling more of the story, but there were some good moments. The "zombies" are exactly like the one's in 28 Days Later.
shareI was also thinking the same thing...it would have been nice if the film showed how they got out of the neighborhood and the reason for the car crash. I'm assuming the main character's wife got shot due to the panic that ensued. It was somewhat difficult to differentiate people from zombies at a distance so I'm just assuming one of their neighbors shot her by accident. I think this is one of a VERY FEW zombie movies I've seen wherein the military are also one of the good guys. They usually kill off any survivors or they just leave them to their fates...
shareNot that anyone would notice but the lens cap was on the scope of the rifle through out the whole movie. Slight oversight!!!!
shareI noticed it and said...wth???
shareThe caps on the scope were haze filters. You can see through them, but they reduce glare like sunglasses.
I'm aware that it's just a movie. There's no need to remind me.
I watched this film last night on XBOX since it was one of the free movies of the weekend. I went in with mediocre expectations and was not entirely disappointed. I thought, for what it was, the film was alright.
I agree with the OP's questions because I had the same ones (among others), and it seems like a few scenes were cut (some of the carnage, back-story for the protagonist, in the trailer is missing from the film). But I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the "zombies."
Did anyone else find it curious that there were several "zombies" that had the same MO? More than a few seemed to be military--for example, the final one in the warehouse and the one at the airdrop site. Both were in camo/(miltary)khaki pants, no shirt, no shoes/boots. Or am I wrong? And, as for the final "zombie" in the warehouse: did he emerge from a silver barrel? I thought he did which would lead me to believe that the military actually started the disaster.
To me, what made the infected in 28 Days Later more terrifying was that they could transmit the rage virus by projecting fluids onto their victims. In State of Emergency, as far as we can tell since the filmmakers did not address it, unaffected human could not be turned into "zombies" as it was spread only through reaction to the biological/chemical agent that caused it. Also, the "zombies" in this film seemed less aggressive or tenacious than the infected in Danny Boyle's film--in this film they would stand, staring for who-knows-how-long and would cease the attack for moments. Plus we saw at least one that could communicate--the old lady who asked to be let into the warehouse. That being said, the other vocalizations (screeching/roaring) was very similar to the sound of the infected in Boyle's movie.
Overall, for a low-budget "zombie" flick, it was okay. Out of 10, I'd give it an honest 6.5 to 7. It was not a "gore-fest" or bloodbath, it has some glaring plot holes, and there is not a ton of action or horror moments. But credit to the filmmakers for trying to make a "zombie" film that focuses more on the psychological effects of the outbreak than on the horror itself. And at least the filmmakers avoided many of the "zombie" cliches (example, not having the military kill the protagonist in the warehouse).
I thought it was ok. OK enough that I'm showing it to a friend right now. It as some genuine jumps and scares.
shareThank you for that last statement. I liked is movie due to he avoided cliches.
shareas for the final "zombie" in the warehouse: did he emerge from a silver barrel?It looked like a sewer grate. the outbreak was caused by the old chemical manufacturing plant explosion where they were storing "unstable chemical weapons"
The only thing I can think of why the old lady could talk was because she was in the process of turning.
shareI agree, a fine attempt at a zombie film.
sharei think they explained the main character and his fiance story, it woulda been typical start of apocalypse stuff, also dont seem that implausible that they escaped. s*it hit fan, they got in car, car crash, gf is injured, gf dies, he finds barn.
"The Truth may Hurt but to Lie is Agony"
Honestly, I think the engagement flashback only made the film and characters less believable because we realize that he was going to propose to his girlfriend the same day the explosion happened. This made his newfound interest in the diabetic girl either completely crass or totally unbelieveable.
This film left far too many questions unanswered and answered some others that no one was asking.
Redaction is addicting...now I know why the government loves it!
He wasn't interested in her in a sexual manner, he considered her a friend and bonded over their loss. The guy was alone and thought he was going to be alone forever or until he died. He connected with all the people at the warehouse and that helped him deal with the death of his girlfriend.
shareYeah he told her about how he had no friends, his fiance was his only friend, his life was mapped out, first he squares away his career, then marries his friend and more friends come later.
Which is why I found it somewhat touching towards the end when his only question to the Doctor and military that were holding him in quarantine was "Where's my friends"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks to Batman vs. Superman, the "S" on Supermeh's chest now stands for Sidekick
really, some people seem to watch the movie while doing something else. why else would there be so many questions that were clearly answered in the movie. via dialogue. but yeah, when i go surfing while boring people talk boring talk i do not get stuff, too.
share