28 Weeks Later

[James]

[center][url="http://www.foxinternational.com/28weekslater/"][img]http://www.think-silly.com/juno/wp-content/28weekslater.jpg[/img][/url][/center]

[font=arial]We did have an older thread about this film but there wasn't a great deal there and it's pretty far back now. I thought it'd be a good idea to start a fresh thread (with some improved quality!)

28 Weeks Later came out in Australia this week and I've just gone to see it today.

First of all, I have to get one obvious thing out of the way - if you liked the original at all, you will definitely like the sequel.

Despite changes to director, 28 Weeks Later is about as ideal a sequel as you could imagine for the original film. I think the trailer probably makes the film seem like a fairly cliche sequel, but it really isn't. Not only is the resurgence of the virus explained brilliantly (and quite realistically), but the whole environment in the second film just takes things to a whole new level.

I should also mention that I'm not a huge fan of zombie films (with the exception of the Dawn of the Dead remake, which I liked significantly more than the original). The whole concept of zombies has never scared me but moreover, I've just never found the idea compelling at all. This is especially true when you consider that most zombie films don't seem to have a particularly realistic aspect to them.

What I liked about 28 Days Later was that, more than any other film in this genre I've seen...it seems to provide a pretty realistic sense of what might happen if a terrible virus infected the population. That the "zombies" have a scientific explanation and that the response to the problem is also largely imaginable, made the film far more palatable for me.

This is in addition to the fact that the Infected were more horrific than zombies I've see in any other film - they were fast and they were portrayed in a more horrific manner in my view (especially with the way they actually seemed "sick" rather than "living dead" - i.e. the way they periodically vomit).

For the uninitiated, 28 Weeks Later is basically what it says - it's a story that takes place 28 weeks after the initial outbreak.

Obviously, most of Britain's population is dead at this point with the exception of a few thousand survivors who managed to flee the island and stay in refugee camps within mainland Europe.

At this point in the story, the U.S. military has occupied England and is re-patriating survivors. This process seems incredibly realistic to me - the way the film handles it is just brilliant. There is something eerily realistic about the way British citizens are brought home and the way London operates under U.S. military control (especially the idea that only Zone 1 - inner London - is "sterile" with power and water and that the surrounding zones are still being sterilized).

My first thought as I watched this film was that someone would naturally leave Zone 1 and somehow bring the virus back, which would start a new outbreak. But the reality was far more complex - and interesting - than this predictable concept.

I won't spoil the film for anyone but I will say a couple of things. First, the story is brilliant - not only is everything (or mostly everything) explained logically, but the re-introduction of the virus is handled about as well as you could imagine. It's a completely logical and understandable situation given the circumstances.

Second, the visual power of the film is [i]easily[/i] on-par with the original. In some ways, 28 Weeks Later is far more intense (my heart didn't slow down during the entire film), but it does contain plenty of those amazing deserted shots of London (and some of the new shots are simply breathtaking - and really quite horrific at the same time).

And third...the story takes several twists that make it somewhat more complex than the original film. This added layer does not serve to convolute the story but it is, rather, a really intruiging element - and like everything else, it's an element that makes some sort of horrible sense.

So, for someone who isn't terribly into these types of films, but liked 28 Days Later...I think I can safely say that I preferred 28 Weeks Later. It's essentially bigger and more horrific than the first film but it maintains the key elements that made the original so unique. And it injects plenty of incredible new shots and concepts that gel with the theme brilliantly.

If there were any major negatives to this film, they would have to relate to the fact that there isn't as much emphasis on the characters - in some ways they are a bit more anonymous in this film. The movie is also somewhat "Americanized" - it emphasizes action far more than the original movie with fewer quiet moments. This is not necessarily a bad thing though; in some ways it possibly complements the original.

This is definitely a rare sequel that is essentially better than the original in every sense (depending, probably, on where your preferences in films lie). If you're at all in doubt as a fan of the original, I'd definitely advise anyone to go and see this movie. [/font]

[Arcadia]

I was feeling pretty obligated to go see it in theatre, simply because I adore 28 Days Later (and zombies in general), but now you've got me feeling much better about the whole thing. I've only seen the trailer for Weeks a couple times and it looked all right, but you can never be too sure about sequels. I think you have pretty good taste in movies, if I remember correctly, so now I'm optimistically excited about it. I will, of course, report back once I've seen it. ;p

[sayoeimomo]

[SIZE=2][COLOR=Magenta][FONT=Century Gothic]28 Weeks Later will be leaving mee paranoid for about two weeks when I see it. Never could stand zombies but, sence I saw the first moive only makes since to se the second one.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE] :animecry: :bash: :moron:

[Maully]

I have a self-professed obsession with zombies, so I felt a compulsion to see this movie. Not to mention the fact I LOVED the first one. I found it thought provoking and incredibly well made and I'll pretty much see anything theat Danny Boyle attaches his name to. Okay, enough with the first one...

I saw 28 Weeks Later tonight and I really enjoyed it. I have to say, personally I enjoyed the first one better. I found it deeper, except maybe the doctor and the soldier. The personal and professional choices by those two characters were a nice case study.

I really want to just dish and dish, but I'll give all kinds of spoilers. I have to agree with James, though. The re-introduction of the virus was totally believable. [spoiler] I don't quite know how she would have actually escaped, but... I will believe it. And as much as I adore him, I did get tired of Robert Carlisle popping up everywhere and being the perpetrator of everything. I also had to suspend disbelief that his ALL ACCESS pass actually gave him access to the military quarantine[/spoiler].

As a zombie geek, I will say that there are flaws in the idea of zombie invasion movies. Please, let this also spark discussion, if a zombie BITES you, you turn into a zombie, but throngs of zombies EAT people, so how do the zombies continue to pertetuate themselves if they eat all potential zombies. I realized SOME are going to escape, but REALLY? Moving on from my very random though I had during the movie.

I found the American presence completely believable, and the parallels to current military action I can't imagine are an accident. The movie even used the term "Green Zone" for the small area of the city that was thought to be safe. That's what I got for now, but I'm totally open afor any discussion.

[vegeta rocker]

[QUOTE=Molleta]
As a zombie geek, I will say that there are flaws in the idea of zombie invasion movies. Please, let this also spark discussion, if a zombie BITES you, you turn into a zombie, but throngs of zombies EAT people, so how do the zombies continue to pertetuate themselves if they eat all potential zombies. I realized SOME are going to escape, but REALLY? Moving on from my very random though I had during the movie.
[/QUOTE]

That makes sense if you are talking about other zombie movies, but Rage infection is very different in that they don't eat ANYTHING.

I guess in other zombie movies you just have to think about it as maybe they are biting people who get away. Most zombies wander and get a few bites in before their prey gets away.

[JCBaggee]

[color=darkred][size=1]An excellent genre film. I'm not really a fan of horror movies, but a friend of mine loaned me 28 Days Later about a week before we saw this flick, and I lurve 'em both.

Any idea how long it'll be until 28 Months Later? Based on the positive buzz surrounding this one, I'd say its a safe bet we're gonna get it.

--Chris[/color][/size]

[Darren]

Well first, I'd just like to point out that they're not really zombies, haha. Zombies are dead and reborn. The people in this movie are infected with the rage virus. (which is even more freaky since, like James said, it plays a certain role when considering reality)

I loved it. I loved the first one so I was a bit worried about seeing another sequel let-down. However, I was pleasantly surprised. There were parts that were a bit unbelievable. [Spoiler]I guess I can understand the mother escaping, but why wouldn't she have already been found? surely she would have went straight to Area 1... After all, right after her infection (which was still in the timeline of the first one; being in the original 28 days) there were probably plenty of refugee camps still functioning... So why did she go off alone? And how did she survive all alone for practically 6 months???[/spoiler]

And another thing: [spoiler]Why in God's name would the kids actually leave the safe area? I don't care how much I missed my family. If I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were dead or infected, and that there was a possibility of dying or worse, I would not risk my life for memories... Seriously, that was just stupidity. I supposed I could see a 10 year-old doing it, but he was 12 and I believe it was the girl who suggested it in the first place. For the sake of the plot, I'll forgive them[/Spoiler]

Also, the all-access pass... Seriously, I don't see a janitor literally having ALL-ACCESS, but once again for the sake of the movie, I'll forgive them.

Other than that, I liked it... Yes, characters were a bit underdeveloped, and I was upset [spoiler]that only the kids survived. And with the ending scene, that's up to question if they actually made it out completely.[/spoiler] And I thought the Americanization of the movie (if that's a word) was very well played. I like foreign films a lot, and it's fun to pick at different styles in directors, but the fact that the U.S. military were the ones trying to serilize London was increased in believability by the differences in the way it was filmed. It helped me enjoy the movie more.

I did notice one inconsistancy: In 28 Weeks they said that one of the things that they knew of the virus was that it could not be passed inter-species, yet in 28 Days, the animal rights activsts clearly became infected when they released the enraged chimps. So either they mean that it can only be passed to monkies and humans (still allowing cross-infection) or they are comparing humans to monkies. (I kid, but I do know a few people who should be compared to monkies) I just think they skipped over that detail in the movie.

So that being said, has anybody thought about a 3rd movie? I know I hate trilogies, and I would be totally against a 28 sequel but I just liked the 2nd so much, I don't think I would be able to stand it if there wasn't one. Like it could be 28 Months Later, (which is just over 2 years) [spoiler]And the virus could have spread throughout the Eastern Hemisphere. Since we already know it took over France, it's safe to assume that the virus cover Europe before moving onto Asia and Africa. The smaller islands would be safe, but there's bound to be more people with the natrual immunity and that would screw things up big time.[/spoiler]

I would watch it... granted that they carried through and made it from the perspective of, for example, the largest refugee camp in the world. [spoiler] possibly stationed on Austraillia or even on Madagascar. And there would be all kinds of nationalities there and...[/Spoiler] Well, I don't know, but they could do something if they weren't too repetitive.

[Arcadia]

I would say that overall, I liked the movie. Right now I think I like 28 Days Later more but that's simply because I own it and have seen it multiple times and know it pretty well. I'd like the chance to re-watch 28 Weeks and see what comes up a second and third time around.

What I liked most about the film were the ideas - it [i]did[/i] seem like a reasonable way to re-introduce the virus, and I especially like the way it was executed by [spoiler]introducing the boy during the medical examination before his mother's immunity is revealed and having it all unravel from there.[/spoiler]

[quote name='Darren][spoiler]And another thing: [spoiler']Why in God's name would the kids actually leave the safe area? I don't care how much I missed my family. If I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were dead or infected, and that there was a possibility of dying or worse, I would not risk my life for memories... Seriously, that was just stupidity. I supposed I could see a 10 year-old doing it, but he was 12 and I believe it was the girl who suggested it in the first place. For the sake of the plot, I'll forgive them[/Spoiler][/quote]

I have to agree, but I guess I can buy the rationalization of it. [spoiler]These kids seem to be pretty sheltered to begin with, and their family seemed to have a pretty decent house in a London suburb. So they're not exactly dirt poor, either. They got sent away on a school trip just before the outbreak and so they know absolutely nothing about it beyond what people tell them - they just don't get it. They haven't seen an infected person, they haven't seen somebody turn, and they simply do not grasp how serious the situation is. To them it's like sneaking out of the house after midnight.[/spoiler]

But what [i]really[/i] gets me about it is the character development that didn't happen. I'm not saying there was none, but I thought that they should have definitely touched on [spoiler]what the kids - especially the girl - would have to deal with mentally, knowing that they are the reasons the entire compound was trapped, infected, shot at, and then bombed. There were a few great moments with them (like when they're on the swings and the girl says something like, "I don't think they're coming back" or whatever it is) but they could have been explored a little more.[/spoiler]

In the end, I think the movie's greatest attributes are how it handles the entire zombie problem and the way our governments would try to handle the situation, which I think James mentioned earlier. They approached it very realistically, and it certainly does seem set up for more sequels as they continue to explore possible solutions.

Any ideas for the future? I imagine that [spoiler]the kids will be sent to some facility, the boy will be researched and a cure will be investigated, and any sequels will certainly start during or after this. I'm wondering how much of the world will go down in the process - I thought in 28 Days when Cillian Murphy's character gets out of the hospital and first meets the others, they mention that the virus had already spread world wide through our transportation systems. I guess I'll have to check up on that.[/spoiler]

[James]

[font=arial]As far as I know, the twist with 28 Days Later was that [spoiler]they initially thought the virus had spread worldwide - this wasn't actually true. The military forces that remained in the UK (or at least, the particular squad we saw) basically lied about that in order to facilitate their little "re-population" idea. When the main character saw the aircraft from the forest, he realized that it was actually only the UK that was infected - the virus had not managed to spread further.

But at the end of 28 Weeks Later, we can see that the virus has presumably spread across the Channel Tunnel to Calais and then eventually to Paris itself. At this point you can imagine that it wouldn't take long to cover all of continental Europe and most of Asia. Only other island nations as well as North and South America would be safe, being that the infected have no way to reach these places on foot.[/spoiler]

So it'll be interesting to see how things go with that.

In terms of the inter-species thing, [spoiler]I think the point there was that the apes are genetically very close to human beings - they presumably carried a human (or at least primate) strain of the virus that [i]could[/i] infect humans[/spoiler]. At least, this is what I presume without them being specific about it - I think this explanation makes sense though.

Also, two other things. About the mother surviving, [spoiler]I also think this makes sense. The mother would probably have been able to survive for a few months by virtue of where she was - she could probably have eaten certain foods for that period of time (canned food and so on). I presumed that because she was a carrier of the virus, she would be invulnerable to Infected attack - although this was apparently not the case. However, in the area she was staying, all the Infected had died from starvation...so I suppose she didn't have much of a threat around her.[/spoiler]

And with regard to the zombies needing to eat - I don't think I need a spoiler for this - we have to remember that the people in this movie are not zombies as such. They aren't the "living dead" who feed on humans to survive. In this film, the Infected are still alive, they are just infected with a virus. They attack non-Infected as a way of spreading the virus but they do not eat at all - this is why they all died. They died of starvation. And this is partly why I really preferred the story in these films as compared to traditional zombie movies.[/font]

[Darren]

[quote name='James][font=arial']And with regard to the zombies needing to eat - I don't think I need a spoiler for this - we have to remember that the people in this movie are not zombies as such. They aren't the "living dead" who feed on humans to survive. In this film, the Infected are still alive, they are just infected with a virus. They attack non-Infected as a way of spreading the virus but they do not eat at all - this is why they all died. They died of starvation. And this is partly why I really preferred the story in these films as compared to traditional zombie movies.[/font][/quote]

Well I thought that too. And that was the significance behind the name. That the entire continent took about 28 days to die out from starvation after the intial infection...

But then in the second movie, [Spoiler]the very first person we see get infected, has the flesh from her wrist torn off by the mouth of the infected... That was something that thre me off because throughout the rest of the movie, no one else is bitten... The dad (Don) even kills the American woman by smashing her head in with her gun...[/Spoiler]

There are certainly some inconsistancies in the movie... [Spoiler]However, I didn't think the virus spread to Paris via the channel. I assumed that when the pilot took the kid over to France, he accidentally infected someone (since he was infected by his father) and that's how it got started in France.[/spoiler]

[Arcadia]

[quote name='James]As far as I know, the twist with 28 Days Later was that [spoiler']they initially thought the virus had spread worldwide - this wasn't actually true. The military forces that remained in the UK (or at least, the particular squad we saw) basically lied about that in order to facilitate their little "re-population" idea. When the main character saw the aircraft from the forest, he realized that it was actually only the UK that was infected - the virus had not managed to spread further.[/spoiler][/quote]
Good call.

[quote name='Darren][Spoiler']However, I didn't think the virus spread to Paris via the channel. I assumed that when the pilot took the kid over to France, he accidentally infected someone (since he was infected by his father) and that's how it got started in France.[/spoiler][/quote]
I suppose that's a possibility, but the end of the movie clearly shows them [spoiler]running through the chunnel (which connects England and France under the English Channel). Quite a run, but I guess stamina isn't a problem when you're a zombie. I would venture to guess that because they already made that mistake once with the mother, they will keep the boy completely quarantined.[/spoiler]

[James]

[font=arial]Yeah, I agree that the [spoiler]helicopter may have been the reason for infection in France, but as Arcadia pointed out, we do see a shot of infected running through the Channel Tunnel toward Calais.

So perhaps it's a combination of elements going on there, I'm not really sure. They seemed to make a specific point of showing the tunnel, so I assumed that they were indicating that this is how the virus spread to mainland Europe.[/spoiler]

Also regarding the whole question of eating...

[spoiler]I think the bites are just a way for infected to attack. I mean if you have no weapons and you're trying to kill/harm someone and you are running on basic motor functions, I assume that biting would be a natural way to harm someone. So I never viewed the biting as "feeding", more as a form of attack. Afterall, I don't think we ever see an infected person eating someone else's flesh.[/spoiler]

I'm glad this thread has grown a bit - at first I was worried that nobody had seen this movie! :catgirl:[/font]

[Darren]

[QUOTE=James][font=arial]Yeah, I agree that the [spoiler]helicopter may have been the reason for infection in France, but as Arcadia pointed out, we do see a shot of infected running through the Channel Tunnel toward Calais.

So perhaps it's a combination of elements going on there, I'm not really sure. They seemed to make a specific point of showing the tunnel, so I assumed that they were indicating that this is how the virus spread to mainland Europe.[/spoiler][/font][/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you guys are referring to about the tunnel. The very last shot in the movie, (unless something happened during or after the credits which I always miss) [spoiler] isn't of the tunnel in Calais. It's of either a tunnel or a random building in Paris. Notice the Eiffel Tower in the background. Calais and Paris are a good hour's travel apart... [/spoiler] so that was my assumption that it had nothing to do with the tunnel. I mean think about it. The Govternemnt would have had that thing locked up ages ago. There'd be no way for anything or anyone to get through. Besides [spoiler] the infected are motivated by the non-infected. If there was a really really really (you get the idea) long tunnel with no sign of life, then the infected would really have no reason to even enter the tunnel...[/spoiler]

I also think that the people who are actually running from the infected in the last shot bear no significance at all. It didn't strike me to look like the boy or girl so I assumed it was all just random people. Too hard to tell. I'm not sure if Arcadia was referring to the people running as being the kids or not, but that's just what I thougt.
[QUOTE=James][font=arial]Also regarding the whole question of eating...

[spoiler]I think the bites are just a way for infected to attack. I mean if you have no weapons and you're trying to kill/harm someone and you are running on basic motor functions, I assume that biting would be a natural way to harm someone. So I never viewed the biting as "feeding", more as a form of attack. Afterall, I don't think we ever see an infected person eating someone else's flesh.[/spoiler][/font][/QUOTE]

Well the way I always thought was instinct to pass infection was their whole puking thing they do. That's how the infection gets out to begin with. When the animal rights activist became infected from the chimp's bite, the first thing she did was turn to the side and puke blood... Which had to have gotten into the other's mouth or eyes because he became enraged just seconds later and attacked the scientist... So that's probably why it never struck me that biting was a natural form. And you're right, the infected don't actually consume the flesh, they just bite. But there wasn't 1 person bitten in the original movie, (unless that guy the black chick kills was bitten. But I'm pretty sure he was just scratched, in which case his death was unnecessary) and there were two cases were in the first. [spoiler]I just remembered that Don kills his wife by biting her throat... Well actually it was the fingers through the eyes, but he bit her throat too... Oh man, that was a brutal scene.[/spoiler]

[Zombie_Nosh]

Hold the phone . . . ! Did we all see the same film? You all LIKED 28 Weeks later? This is MADDNESS! It was a God-awful excuse for a film! Half the time you couldn't even SEE what was going on! Shoddy workmanship! I'm a huge fan of Days, and I was hugely dissappointed with the mess the made out of what could have been an awesome movie! I don't actually think I've ever seemn a worse film! No lie! You should all be ashamed!

[Darren]

[quote name='Zombie_Nosh']Hold the phone . . . ! Did we all see the same film? You all LIKED 28 Weeks later? This is MADDNESS! It was a God-awful excuse for a film! Half the time you couldn't even SEE what was going on! Shoddy workmanship! I'm a huge fan of Days, and I was hugely dissappointed with the mess the made out of what could have been an awesome movie! I don't actually think I've ever seemn a worse film! No lie! You should all be ashamed![/quote]

I can think of a few that were worse... Well, I guess since I actually liked the movie, I could give a long list of what movies are worse. Just off the top of my head: Open Water. :animesigh But that's not important.

If all you're providing is camera views then I'd say you have ADHD... It's not just about the way a director works the camera; (which btw, different directors have different methods and different people have different tastes in their directing style. What obviously bothered you didn't bother me much at all) it's also about the story, the plot, the character development, etc.

As most of us have been saying, the character development was a bit down. Motivation for some of the actions weren't present, the action was amped up, (and that about 50/50 on whether it's good or not) and the some of the scenes were a bit rediculous to believe or just too repetitive, predictable, what not.

Personally, all of these things play into what made the movie digress towards imperfection. However, Ignoring small details and inconsistancies, (which are common when switching directors. Note: Harry Potter) I actually thought the good out weighed the bad. The re-introduction of the rage virus was executed very well as well as the realistic response of the American Government. Plus, for me, the opening scene was so tense, and emotional, and action-packed at the same time that it really made the whole movie for me. Really, it's all been stated before by all 12 posts preceeding yours.

And if all you have to say about the film is that the camerawork was "shoddy," then I would say that you, sir, are the one who should be ashamed. :animeangr I agree that 28 Days was good... But I never cared enough to actually remember small details besides the opening scene. I don't really recall too much of character development in the first one either, although the emotions of the girl losing her father and the black chick almost killing the main guy, (once agian, didn't care enough about the movie to remember their names) And pitting human against human as opposed to human against infected. And even if that's the kind of dynamics you're looking for, it's all present in the 2nd film as well. It may be to different means and less of one aspect than the other, but it's all still there. You just weren't paying attention *ADHD*

All in all, however, I do agree that 28 weeks later wasn't the greatest film at all. I would give it a 7 out of 10. (maybe a 7.5) However, considering 28 Days Later, I would rate that a 6.5 - 7... Differences in opinion. *shrugs*

[ForsakenUndead]

[COLOR=DarkOliveGreen]OMG! As you can see by my name, i am a big fan of zombies, but I haven't seen the first movie :animecry: Will I be able to follow the sequel without seeing the first one? Should I go hurry and pick up the DVD so I'll still have time to see this in theaters?![/COLOR]

[James]

[quote name='ForsakenUndead][COLOR=DarkOliveGreen']OMG! As you can see by my name, i am a big fan of zombies, but I haven't seen the first movie :animecry: Will I be able to follow the sequel without seeing the first one? Should I go hurry and pick up the DVD so I'll still have time to see this in theaters?![/COLOR][/quote]

[font=arial][color=olive]I honestly think you need to see the first movie before seeing the second. Seeing the first movie really allows you to make sense of the sequel.

With regard to the tunnel thing, my memory of that is pretty faded at the moment - I do remember seeing the Eiffel Tower but I remember thinking that they were just trying to show how far everything had progressed. You could very well be right though, Darren.

And I do remember seeing that the helicopter had crashed, so that aspect makes a lot of sense - I think your explanation is probably correct there.

And I agree with the biting thing - I think the infection just gives the infected the compulsion to spread the disease through whatever means necessary.

And Zombie_Nosh, although you definitely have the right not to like the film...I don't think we should be ashamed for liking it, lol.

The fast-paced camera work wasn't sloppy, it was deliberate. And the same technique was used in the original film. I think it very much added to the sense of desperation and hysteria - I usually don't like that technique in movies, but somehow I felt it worked in these films.[/font][/color]