28 Weeks Later Official

**Some Stupid Japanese Name** · 17 May 2007, 05:22 PM

Saw it last night and though my expectations were quite low due to reading about the amount of shaky cam I left the theater satisfied that I saw a decent flick. I thought it gay that the one zombie dude kept turning up, I thought it gay the place they locked down the people was so poorly protected was gay, and I thought the idea that anyone would be willing to go back to England in such a short time after thousands (milions?) were decimated was gay.
However, these movies all demand a lot of suspension of disbelief and with that in mind I had a good time.
Liked it more than Spidey 3.

**gir** · 19 May 2007, 03:49 AM

just got back from seeing the movie. i reallly enoyed it. i liked days, too. i had high hopes for this movie, 'cause most of the horror movies i've watched recently have sucked. weeks was really fun to watch. i didn't even really notice the shaky-cam thing. i guess it's used so often these days that i got used to it.

okay, it's been a while since i saw the first movie, but... didn't the infected originally hate the light? i'm pretty sure they avoided sunlight (it didn't kill them; they just didn't like it). but i guess that just didn't work for this movie, so they abandoned it.

any zombie movie requires huge suspension of disbelief. this one's certainly no different. (i think one of the fun things about horror movies is to discuss how improbable everything is).

the father may have had access to most everything, but not military access. he's not military.

the mother would've been quarantined, with like ten military guys standing directly outside the room.

the military wouldn't shove people into a room and then abandon them there. fifty men with guns would be standing in front of any way in or out. protecting the civilians would've been the first priority.

the kids would've never been able to get across the river and all the way to their house. they would've been caught immediately.

an outbreak that bad would require total cleansing. survivors would've been quarantined and then evacuated. it would be a long time before civilians were allowed into england.

scarlet never tells either of the kids that they're important because they have a possible immunity to the virus. this means that the kids are useless once everyone else is dead, because no one knows about the immunity thing.

(i'm sure i could think of more, but it's late and i'm starting to fall asleep.) but anyway, if things were handled appropriately, a second outbreak would've never occurred and there'd be no sequel. most horror flicks throw reality and common sense out the window, because otherwise there'd be no movie.

and i don't get all the arguing about them not being zombies in these movies. day of the dead and land of the dead both explore the idea that zombies may retain bits of memories or a sliver of intelligence. all zombie movies try to come up with their own stuff. resident evil had the t-virus, and even though it'a a virus it still makes the people walking dead. they almost never call the walking dead "zombies" in these movies. the infected in the 28 movies are zombies, they're dead. someone walking around with half of their torso missing is not alive.

one of my favorite things about zombie movies is seeing abandoned cities and mass panic and chaos. a city littered with wrecked cars and made up of desolated buildings with no people is creepy. and kinda cool. i loved seeing the destroyed england in the first film.

**Gohron** · 27 May 2007, 08:07 PM

I saw this twice last week and plan to see it at least once again (I saw it alone the first time, these movies are always far scarier that way) and while the film in general didn't quite reach "masterpiece" status, certain parts did and the general premises did. The story is filled with emotion and certain parts, like where Don killed his wife after becoming infected by her are very very hard hitting and memorable. Overall, the directing could've been a little bit better, I do believe that shaky cam has it's place in certain scenes to add to the level of terror or franticness but it was a bit overused in this movie and it was difficult to tell what was going on in certain scenes. I can find negative points in any movie ever made though so I won't spend time getting into them.

This movie was great, if the directing would've been a little bit better and the story-writing enhanced just a little bit it may have been one of the best films ever made, even still, it stands as a solid 9/10 (or an 8/10 if you're an idiot that can't appreciate the way emotion is conveyed through movies).

**Despair** · 31 May 2007, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by gir

and i don't get all the arguing about them not being zombies in these movies. day of the dead and land of the dead both explore the idea that zombies may retain bits of memories or a sliver of intelligence. all zombie movies try to come up with their own stuff. resident evil had the t-virus, and even though it'a a virus it still makes the people walking dead. they almost never call the walking dead "zombies" in these movies. the infected in the 28 movies are zombies, they're dead. someone walking around with half of their torso missing is not alive.

Unless there are infected with half of their torsos missing in 28 weeks, there were NO such things in original 28 days film. Infected were killed by simple shooting them couple of times. They also DIED from lack of food/water etc something that real undead dont require. Remember the end of the original film, they show groups of infected just laying there week without food and such. Undead zombies of Romero's kind just keep on walkin.

**Gohron** · 01 Jun 2007, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by Despair

Unless there are infected with half of their torsos missing in 28 weeks, there were NO such things in original 28 days film. Infected were killed by simple shooting them couple of times. They also DIED from lack of food/water etc something that real undead dont require. Remember the end of the original film, they show groups of infected just laying there week without food and such. Undead zombies of Romero's kind just keep on walkin.

There was one guy with a large part of his body missing and he was walking but my best guess is that he had sustained that injury only moments before and because of the infection he was able to keep going for just a little longer. If you Wiki the Rage virus it talks about how the infected have their bodies pumped with adrenaline and that's where their ability to endlessly run and do crazy things comes from.

The infected in this movie were killed by chemical weapons at one point. They're still human.

**Dolemite** · 05 Jun 2007, 12:16 PM

Saw it last night. Overall, it was pretty good (I never saw the first movie). Some comments:

They nailed the creepy, post-apocalyptic vibe very well.

And the Rage virus is pretty freaky, considering how lightning-fast it spreads.

I fucking hate the shakey cam. And as much as I hate it, they found a way to make it even worse in one scene- film the scene in a dark room with a strobe light effect! I had to look away from the screen during this part, my eyes hurt so much.

Having Don (the father) abandon his wife to the infected was a nice twist you usually don't see in movies. Sure, it was low, but people do fucked-up shit when they're in a panic.

Speaking of Don, wtf was up with him magically showing up everywhere the kids were once he was infected? That just got stupid after a while.

That daughter will be real cute in a couple of years.

I liked the ending a lot. They make it to France, only to infect them, too.

I'm glad there were American actors in this movie, if only so I didn't have to listen to heavy cockney accents the whole time. Mild Brit accents are cute, but people like Don are annoying.

Harold Perrineau looks weird with short hair.

**ElCapichan** · 10 Oct 2007, 03:31 AM

This came out on DVD and BD today, so I finally got to see it. I really enjoyed the first fiilm, and although they aren't quite zombie films, I really think they are my favorite in the group. I'd say the first one is a little better, if not only because it was first and therefor felt more original

The intro was great. It was cool to see what was going on for others during the first film, even if it was just for a real short while. And yeah it was pretty low the guy left his wife there, but there was no way in hell he could have done anything and his kids were able to at least see one of their parents again.

Once again, the shots of lifeless and semi-lifeless britain were amazing. Coupled with the music, I'd say they are quite memorable shots. I am a man who usually hates shaky cam, but it works in this movie. I never noticed it, except at one point where I was like wait a sec thats shaky cam, but I'm not hating it. Never noticed it again.

Ending was good, but I felt like I could have used a bit more closure. Not full closure, but something just a tad bit more. I loved seeing Paris flooded with the rage victims. I'd like to see another one where maybe it finally gets contained or even just the entire world get infected, but at the same time, lightning has already struck twice. Can it really happen a third time for the particular plot?

Anyways, I loved the film, and other than a few very minor annoyances, would reccomend it to anyone.

EDIT: Just read on wiki that there are thoughts for a third film and may take place in Russia.