I thought that was January.
INMNSHO it IS a good film. Yes a couple of caveats but an astonishing central performance and actually some very haunting scenes right at the end.
I don’t think of March as a bad place to put a movie, myself.
After doing some research I learned that the months when movies are typically dumped is January and February. So March is good! This movie will be good!!
It’s been out to own on Google Play Movies / Amazon Video for a couple of weeks in UK. And or is quite a good movie. Not one I’ll rewatch too often. But It tells a compelling story and conveys the spirit of the book quite well.
Wendelius
Watched it tonight on Amazon. It is well executed and acted, but I don’t think it measured up the experience of reading the book.
[details=Spoiler]An important distinction from the book. Dr Caldwell is shown to be dissecting subjects in desperation; she’s not getting any closer to developing a cure. She’s not even thinking in those terms yet. Later on, when they discover the microtome (a detail left out of the movie!), she’s so excited because she’ll finally be able to do the research she’s been wanting to do. Maybe it could lead to a cure, but again, there’s no good reason to suppose that. Melanie’s choice is between oblivion and hopelessness, and she finds a third way.
The movie tells us that Caldwell is about to breakthrough with a cure at the beginning. There is real hope at the end, when they find the lab. She can fix infection. In a weird way, this reduces the choice space for Melanie. Only one species will survive, so why not pick her own people? They may be savage, but they can obviously be taught – she was.
It’s probably clear that I prefer the more nihilistic view put forward by the book. I can see why they did it, though.[/details]
I watched this a few weeks back, I’ve not read the book yet. It was good, certainly better than a lot of the horror out there. I like the different angle on the story. My wife brought up some questions after that I hadn’t thought of when watching that brought it down some. I expect they’re answered more thoroughly in the book.
Not that they are the same type of movie but in a similar vein my son and I watched Train to Busan right around the same time and found it much more compelling and it stuck with us longer. I kind of even had forgotten I even saw this until the thread bump.
Watched this off Amazon video, and I was impressed with how closely it adhered to the book. Not exact, of course, but closer than I’m used to seeing with adaptations. I thought it was well done, though certainly the book has more depth to the characters and detail in the world-building.
Finally saw this and yeah, it’s a very strong adaptation. Gorgeous, strong acting, very faithful to the source material. It has to omit stuff, of course, but on nearly every count when I referred back to the book things go down very very similarly there. It does feel a bit more optimistic overall.
So does the movie not end the same way as the book, or when you say “optimistic” do you mean from a certain point of view?
It ends very similarly to the book, but there’s less deception and we don’t get to see the darker sides of the characters as much. (Because the book shows us their perspective on stuff and the movie can’t really.)
Just watched the movie a couple days ago. The main divergence point from the book was that Glenn Close seemed to actually have a cure, while in the book she was blindly grasping at straws. The movie did it better, where the zombiegirl actually made a deliberate and much more difficult choice between zombies and humans.
Edit: Baren made basically the same point earlier, but he preferred the book’s version.
She kept saying that she had the cure, but there was no corroboration from others, and everyone else seemed pretty skeptical. I took it as the fevered imaginings of an obsessed mind (who was increasingly poisoned as the story moved along). I read the book, so that probably colored my interpretation. I can certainly see how someone else might see her as the brilliant scientist who actually has the cure but can’t get anyone to believe. I see that kind of ambiguity as a fine job of writing and performing, allowing the audience to interpret it either way.