If you want to see a movie about how you're not supposed to make movies, then go see 28 Weeks Later.  

This movie was so incredibly cliche, unoriginal, poorly written, crap-housing-ly bad that I was chuckling the whole time through.

Okay, so, 6 months have passed.  Britain is supposedly clear of the virus and the U.S. Army is slowly letting people come back into the country.  After ONE DAY...ONE DAY, the virus comes back and everybody starts dying.  This is where the film turns horribly anti-American by having the U.S. soldiers starting to kill EVERYBODY.  Then one soldier starts to kill other soldiers and it's just ridiculous.  Oh, and then they blow up the city.  Again, ONE DAY after letting people back in and promising to take care of them.  Only under George Bush's eye.

Another horrible scene is where a group of about 5(including 2 soldiers) are in a field waiting to be picked up by a helicopter.  At this time, there's a bunch of infected people coming their way...like right over the hill.  When the helicopter comes, the pilot is like "no way, I'm just taking the soldier, the rest of you I don't care about."  So, one of the non-soldier guys jumps onto the helicopter and what does the pilot do?  Why, he spins around his chopper trying to get the guy off, drawing all the attention(and the infected) over to him.  Wow.  

Bunches of other stupid scenes in here including the two main kids leaving the base area and the army sees this but takes like 2 hours to frickin' bring them back.  And then people aren't thinking and they do stupid things and blah blah blah.  It was just so insanely stupid.

The only thing that really made me jump came in the first 3 minutes.  After that, there wasn't anything really jumpy.  The rest of the thrills were either cheap flashbacks and one came in a dream sequence.  Horrible.

In all fairness, though, after the first half hour, the movie was pretty entertaining and bloody and moved along nicely.  And the music was fantastic.

Overall....it was painfully amusing.  

I have to disagree with Greg on a massive scale. 28 Weeks Later is probably one of the best i have seen of its "kind" and is a great movie that deserves acclaim, just like the first. Danny Boyle is stamped all over it, and with him including Robert Carlyle, this is one of the reasons i saw the movie.

Yeah, there is a lot of political signs embedded in the plot but who cares? Aren't we in a democracy? I thought the movie was thoroughly entertaining.

BEWARE SPOILERS......................

I'll agree there was a few things that pissed me off, for example the whole immunity the boy from the rage virus, which was not properly explained but it was a fantastic movie. One of my only complaints is they killed off the most likeable character. Doyle, the American soldier guy that played Gamble in SWAT.

Robert

I too disagree with Greg. I thought the move was greatt. I've seen it three times already, twice opening night. IMO it's just as good if not better than the original. It's certinly a hell of a lot more bloody!

Looks like the "Disagree with Greg" bandwagon is going to get a little more crowded.

The original flick is one of my favorite horror films, so I was naturally worried that this newest incarnation would bastardize the source material. Surprisingly, unlike most sequels, this film delivered. It captured every positive aspect from the first film and built upon it.

Now the acting wasn't oscar-caliber, but the action and cinematography make up for any human flaws. Most importantly, the film has that creepy atmosphere from the first. Combine all these things with a harrowing story and you've got a great sequel.

Great movie, I’m looking forward to the next installment. Screaming, bloody-eyed lunatics in France!

This was a good movie. So what if there was more action than dialogue? You got to know the characters through their actions.

SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I feel that the way the Americans handled the situation was accurate. This is a pretty serious virus, deadly at that, and I feel that if things did get out of hand that quickly, they'd have to do what they did in the movie. The first thing they did wrong was put EVERYONE in the same place when they found out the virus began again. Once one person in that large crowd got infected, it started to spread. Then they do Plan B, which was kill any infected person. But soon it was hard to find out who was infected and who wasn't, so I feel that the plan of killing anyone they see is something they'd do in real life. And blowing up the city, that's something they'd probably do also. Anything to stop the virus.

I sort of saw the ending coming, and yet, even though it was a bit predictable, I still liked it. It leaves for a better sequel that involves more countries.

I feel this is better than 28 Days Later because I like seeing more of the chaos and the infection spreading and stuff. There were suspenseful moments (Esepcially the beginning, OH MY!) and it was just really good.

Here's another one to add to that "I DISAGREE WITH GREG" bandwagon. I loved this movie.

Sean

Quoted from Zombie Sean I feel that the way the Americans handled the situation was accurate. This is a pretty serious virus, deadly at that, and I feel that if things did get out of hand that quickly, they'd have to do what they did in the movie. The first thing they did wrong was put EVERYONE in the same place when they found out the virus began again. Once one person in that large crowd got infected, it started to spread. Then they do Plan B, which was kill any infected person. But soon it was hard to find out who was infected and who wasn't, so I feel that the plan of killing anyone they see is something they'd do in real life. And blowing up the city, that's something they'd probably do also. Anything to stop the virus.

I must respectfully disagree.

See, I just couldn't find justice with anything the Americans did in this film.  We start off the film with these army guys promising to protect everyone and make this experience great and supposedly Britain is peaceful again...and then BAM!  BOOM!  BLAH!  The snipers couldn't find the infected so they just start killing everyone...I mean, even when they could clearly see that these people weren't infected, they still shoot at them.  And then Doyle starts shooting his own!  I just couldn't buy into it.  Not to mention the whole helicopter episode.

Also, I forgot to mention this in the original review, but Rose Byrne was ridiculously good looking in this.  And when she was holding that handgun...whoa.  That helped ease the stupidity of the movie.

Quoted Text Here's another one to add to that "I DISAGREE WITH GREG" bandwagon. I loved this movie.

I looked on IMDB and one girl posted a similar review and everyone was like "nooo nooo nooo" haha.

My review still counts as 10 votes, though  :P

Disagree as well. I thought this was great. I think they stretched the reasoning of "kill all that moves", when obviously, if you're driving a car you still retain advanced motor-skills and can't possibly be infected. But this movie was so beautfully shot and scored and if anything I was let down that it wasn't longer. It should've been at least 2 hours.

Quoted Text The snipers couldn't find the infected so they just start killing everyone...I mean, even when they could clearly see that these people weren't infected, they still shoot at them.  And then Doyle starts shooting his own!  I just couldn't buy into it.

First of all the snipers are told to kill anyone, it's not something they decide arbitrarily. Secondly they clearly state that they can't see who's infected and who's not. And Doyle shooting his own was a mercy killing. He was already getting bitten.

I'm mean, sure, the plot had a few holes, but I think you're blowing it out of proportions. At least it wasn't enough to significantly damage my perception of the film.

SPOILER:

One thing I didn't like, however, was Scarlett's death. It was kinda 'blink and you'll miss it'. This also ties in with how they kept following Robert Carlyle after he changed. Big mistake. He magically popped up during all the film's highlights, and then suddenly he's there and kills Scarlett. We lost two great characters in 2 minutes.

And did they have to be so clumsy in showing the infection spread to France. "Oh I wonder where we are. Some guy's speaking French and they're running through Parisian streets. I mean, throw me a friggin' bone here!"

Cue wide shot of the Eiffel Tower.

But here's hoping for a another sequel.

Oh why did this crap come back up haha.

Quoted from Death Monkey First of all the snipers are told to kill anyone, it's not something they decide arbitrarily. Secondly they clearly state that they can't see who's infected and who's not. And Doyle shooting his own was a mercy killing. He was already getting bitten.

I know they didn't decide.  The U.S. army lets people back into Britain and 24 hours later they screw everything up, can't get it back under control, then when everyone is running around they decide, dude, we can't figure out who is who, so let's just kill everyone!

Sorry, I hated this movie.

Well, it does kinda make sense, don't you think? I don't understand what it is you can't wrap your head around? I mean, If they tried to only kill the infected ones, they'd get overun and the virus would spread.

the only part of it I thought was too much was when the chopper started to shoot the moving cars and burn Doyle.

Everything else sounds like pretty much standard procedure. More standard procedure than "let's see if we can just hit the infected ones. Never mind 10,000 people are running sreaming towards us like crazies."

But I don't want to take away your right to hate the movie. I just didn't.

It was a well produced movie but it was very poorly written and the whole story line crossed the line into the absurd on numerous occassions.

We have a military operation that is so tightly run that they are willing to exterminate what is effectively the remaining few of an entire country, yet they let a janitor (Robert Carlyle) have a pass even into the quarantine area?

They don't even have a guard watching someone in quarantine?

They allow two kids to run out and then be brought back into the compound with minimal fuss along with their clearly infected mother?

It always felt that they were straining and straining to find a way to let the virus out, it was so cliched that it was squeaking at times.

The worst bit was the way Robert Carlyle kept appearing in a "want to be scary, but really rather comedic", fashion. It got to the point where myself and my girlfriend were laughing out loud at his appearances.

It was very disappointing. The opening scene was excellent, but once they removed the only person you gave a damn about (Carlyle) it became as boring as hell. I just wanted the kids and that tosser soldier to die as nastily as possible, which was never going to happen.

It just felt rushed, like so many films these days. they have so much money but don't seem to spend the time to get the story right.

Thinking about this film has wound me up actually. It was so irritatingly bad.

The story was so badly designed. It starts off presenting Robert Carlyle as the main character. The natural structure for the film would have had it that it was a very human story about him learning the need for self-sacrifice.

Instead they made him the bad guy, except he wasn't scary because you kind of wanted him to win.

The really strange thing about it though was the fact that they killed everyone off. The entire tension of the film was based on the fact that something was at stake, ie the very future of Britain.

Once they were killed off, there was no story. The young boy at that point was really the bad guy, because his blood had become useless as a potential antidote, there was no one left to save! He was in effect a walking biological weapon, yet for some reason we had to follow his story.

They tried to present it as though it was a good thing the boy survived, but it had absolutely no meaning and no point. The whole second half of the film was redundant.
A desperate struggle to try and contaminate the rest of the world...why?

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films It was a well produced movie but it was very poorly written and the whole story line crossed the line into the absurd on numerous occassions. We have a military operation that is so tightly run that they are willing to exterminate what is effectively the remaining few of an entire country, yet they let a janitor (Robert Carlyle) have a pass even into the quarantine area? They don't even have a guard watching someone in quarantine? They allow two kids to run out and then be brought back into the compound with minimal fuss along with their clearly infected mother? It always felt that they were straining and straining to find a way to let the virus out, it was so cliched that it was squeaking at times. The worst bit was the way Robert Carlyle kept appearing in a "want to be scary, but really rather comedic", fashion. It got to the point where myself and my girlfriend were laughing out loud at his appearances. It was very disappointing. The opening scene was excellent, but once they removed the only person you gave a damn about (Carlyle) it became as boring as hell. I just wanted the kids and that tosser soldier to die as nastily as possible, which was never going to happen. It just felt rushed, like so many films these days. they have so much money but don't seem to spend the time to get the story right. Thinking about this film has wound me up actually. It was so irritatingly bad. The story was so badly designed. It starts off presenting Robert Carlyle as the main character. The natural structure for the film would have had it that it was a very human story about him learning the need for self-sacrifice. Instead they made him the bad guy, except he wasn't scary because you kind of wanted him to win. The really strange thing about it though was the fact that they killed everyone off. The entire tension of the film was based on the fact that something was at stake, ie the very future of Britain. Once they were killed off, there was no story. The young boy at that point was really the bad guy, because his blood had become useless as a potential antidote, there was no one left to save! He was in effect a walking biological weapon, yet for some reason we had to follow his story. They tried to present it as though it was a good thing the boy survived, but it had absolutely no meaning and no point. The whole second half of the film was redundant. A desperate struggle to try and contaminate the rest of the world...why?

You talk about clichés (I'm not sure it was that cliché-ridden?) and yet you complain that they didn't do the story you expect them to do with Robert Carlyle learning the act of sacrifice. I thought immediately "Oh God, I know where this is going. Carlyle is gonna redeem himself in the end yadada" but then he's infected in brilliant turn when the person he betrayed kills him through a kiss and then has her eyes gouched out by him. Cliché? It's quite the opposite in my book.

I don't understand how you wanted Carlyle to win either. Let's recap: He ran off to save himself and got his wife killed, he then lied to his kids about and started to cry about how scared he was when he confronted her. If there was anyone I wanted to die nastily it was him.

I agree with you about the manner in which the virus gets out; not having guards and letting Carlyle go see her without any fuss, that pissed me off as well.

And naturally the people repopulating Britan was just like a first wave; not the all that remained of the country. I think this is important, in your interpretation of Andy's significance. the people that got killed weren't the entire future of Britan. (they couldn't all fit in a parking garage).

Robert Carlyle was the only person who could act and the only person who actually had a character in the film.

If it was intended that we were to dislike Carlyle then they failed. There was no way he could have saved his wife. If he was supposed to be the villain then he should have had more of a hand in it and we shouldn't have been following the film for so long from his point of view.

He was the only character in the film that it was possible to relate to. We shared his grief and his difficult decision. His wife went the wrong way, c'est la vie. She chose a direction without an exit and got herself killed. Why should anyone else die for that?

The beginning was good, it was unexpected. Usually the hero saves the day, here he didn't. It still established him as the hero of the piece though, introducing us to his character and making us want him to escape.

There was no-one else to route for and nothing to desire. What difference did any of it make? There was no-one left to save. The boy could only have infected the continent, he couldn't have been used for anything else. If they wanted you to fear for the rest of the world then they needed to show that the contamination had spread elsewhere.

Instead it meant that the logic of the film was that the heroes were desperately trying to smuggle the virus onto the continent. It made no sense.

The film bears all the hallmarks of being tampered with by other writers and Producers. It has about three different voices trying to get out and together it made a complete mess.

It ended the moment they opened fire on the innocent civilians. There was nothing left to be interested in emotionally or intellectually after that point.

Robert carlyle made a difficult personal decision, whuch resulted in the death of one person (Though they didn't even die) Andy killed everyone in the compound by going out of the complex and was also responsible for spreading the disease to the continent.

Why would you sympathise with him? You simply can't. He needed shooting when he climbed out in the first place:)

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Robert Carlyle was the only person who could act and the only person who actually had a character in the film. If it was intended that we were to dislike Carlyle then they failed. There was no way he could have saved his wife. If he was supposed to be the villain then he should have had more of a hand in it and we shouldn't have been following the film for so long from his point of view. He was the only character in the film that it was possible to relate to. We shared his grief and his difficult decision. His wife went the wrong way, c'est la vie. She chose a direction without an exit and got herself killed. Why should anyone else die for that?

Strongly disagree. It's not an enarmoring trait to abandon your wife to be eaten by the infected EVEN if it might be understandable. He's still a coward and when he gets the chance to redeem himself somewhat to his kids he makes up a story to make himself seem heroic. We're supposed to like this guy? Really?

As for being the only one who could act, well I think that's just rubbish. Rose Byrne is a very fine actor (I even think Carlyle is kinda overrated), so is Catherine McCormack and Imogen Poots (Remeber the stare when Don breaks down and cries in front of them? Stone face with a single tear).

Quoted Text The beginning was good, it was unexpected. Usually the hero saves the day, here he didn't. It still established him as the hero of the piece though, introducing us to his character and making us want him to escape.

No, I think it establishes him as the protagonist or the main character. Not the hero. Nothing he does in the ENTIRE film is about anything other than himself. That's not heroic. We linger on because we expect him to do something that'll eventually make us like him but he doesn't. He just wallows in self-pity and regret, although not enough to actually be truthful about what happened.

This is what I thought the film did brilliantly. It gave this coward his comeuppances through an act of love. Infection. It turns him from passive to aggressive, but curses him while doing so.

Quoted Text There was no-one else to route for and nothing to desire. What difference did any of it make? There was no-one left to save. The boy could only have infected the continent, he couldn't have been used for anything else. If they wanted you to fear for the rest of the world then they needed to show that the contamination had spread elsewhere. Instead it meant that the logic of the film was that the heroes were desperately trying to smuggle the virus onto the continent. It made no sense.

Well at the junction when Scarlett wants to save Andy there are still plenty of people to save, plus I suppose since the virus broke out again, a cure would be pretty handy. There might be other carriers and it might break out again.

But I agree that my heart wasn't with Andy at all. I'm not sure if the film wants us to realize that Andy's life is more important than anyone else's but that's hard to pull off as a whiny kid.  Tam was a much better character, but she was older too.

Quoted Text The film bears all the hallmarks of being tampered with by other writers and Producers. It has about three different voices trying to get out and together it made a complete mess. It ended the moment they opened fire on the innocent civilians. There was nothing left to be interested in emotionally or intellectually after that point.

You were emotionally invested in the nameless, faceless mob of civilians? I wasn't. That was background white noise. The people you cared about was the people the movie tells us about. You care about characters, not bodies. Now you may argue that the characters the movie focuses on are shite, but come on, nobody cared about the civilians. Nobody went "I can't believe they killed Extra #3! I'm walking out!".

Quoted Text Robert carlyle made a difficult personal decision, whuch resulted in the death of one person (Though they didn't even die) Andy killed everyone in the compound by going out of the complex and was also responsible for spreading the disease to the continent. Why would you sympathise with him? You simply can't. He needed shooting when he climbed out in the first place:)

Now come on, that's just sneaky argumentation. How come when Robert Carlyle abandons his wife to die and lies about it it's a "difficult personal decision" but when the kid sneaks out to his old house there NO WAY you can sympathise with that?

Now, I'll be the first to admit I didn't like Andy. I thought he was a stupid whiny brat, but that doesn't even begin to compare with what Carlyle does. Just because something is a difficult decision doesn't mean it's a sympathetic one.

"It was a difficult personal decision, but in the end I decided to go on a killing spree at the day-care".

He didn't kill anyone though, until he was infected so your last point is hardly fair.

Quoted Text You were emotionally invested in the nameless, faceless mob of civilians? I wasn't. That was background white noise. The people you cared about was the people the movie tells us about.

Didn't care about them as individuals, but they were the "stakes". The tension of the film relied completely (100%) on what happened to those people. The best scene was when Carlyle broke into the pen. They represent the future and hope of mankind.

As you rightly say, it's about the people that the film shows us. We aren't shown the wider world so that small community is everything that they are trying to save. Bear in mind that the virus is successfully quarantined. They are not there trying to prevent the spread of the virus (Which would have made sense) they are there to rebuild Britain.

In any action thriller, the world has to be at stake, and then it survives. In this case it died, and not even at the end, just half way through. There was nothing to fight for, we just had to sit and watch a 40 minute resolution that was completely pointless. The last 40 minutes could have been summed up by showing the last clip set in France.

They managed to get the virus to France in the body of serial killer Andy. Whoppee Doo. ;D

Quoted Text You care about characters, not bodies.

There were no characters in the film apart from Robert Carlyle. Just 2 dimensional plants.

It just didn't work structurally. There was no emotion in the second half of the film because everyone of interest was dead and even the abstract hope represented by the commune was dead.

The thing about Robert Carlyle's character was that he made human choices. He could not have saved the woman. She killed herself. My first thought watching that scene, was why has she gone in there? She can't possibly survive. It would have required something superhuman to save her. That is how the director played that scene.

If the scene was intended to demonise Carlyle, then it failed dismally. It just made him a real (the only) three-dimensional character. It wa a good start and could have been used to make some strong points about human nature. Is there anything greater than our need to survive? Instead it drifted off into absolutely nothing.

Were I to concede your point that we are supposed to dislike Carlyle (I don't see any directorial evidence of this BTW, it may have been the writer's intention I don't know) then I would have to say that the film is a complete disaster with perhaps the worst characterisation I have ever seen. It would be a film without a single charcater of any interest.


Ultimately it simply didn't know what it wanted to be. Was it a disaster movie like Outbreak? Was it an action thriller? A Horror? A human drama? The first was so successful because it told a simple human story of love and survival amidst a truly horrific backdrop. At the same time it asked important questions about human nature.

This one does none of the above.

At best it can be described as a trailer for the third film. It had none of the intelligence of Danny Boyles film, none of the humanism and none of the hope.

It just had a few explosions.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films He didn't kill anyone though, until he was infected so your last point is hardly fair.

Never said he did? I said what he did was as morally reprehensible, if not moreso, as what Andy did. Andy did it naively and unwittingly. Don did it to save his own skin. So I think it's pretty apt.

Quoted Text Didn't care about them as individuals, but they were the "stakes". The tension of the film relied completely (100%) on what happened to those people. The best scene was when Carlyle broke into the pen. They represent the future and hope of mankind.

Where do you see the film argue this point? You say the film relied 100% on what happened to these civilians, I say it relied 100% on what happened to the family. The characters were the real stake, the civilians were a sort of macguffin.

Quoted Text As you rightly say, it's about the people that the film shows us. We aren't shown the wider world so that small community is everything that they are trying to save. Bear in mind that the virus is successfully quarantined. They are not there trying to prevent the spread of the virus (Which would have made sense) they are there to rebuild Britain.

Well, are we even shown the civilian characters? The supposed stake? One guy gets a name, everyone else is a blur. Just like any war movie isn't about winning the war itself but about a select few soldiers dealing with it, so is this about a select band of survivors.

Quoted Text In any action thriller, the world has to be at stake, and then it survives. In this case it died, and not even at the end, just half way through. There was nothing to fight for, we just had to sit and watch a 40 minute resolution that was completely pointless. The last 40 minutes could have been summed up by showing the last clip set in France. They managed to get the virus to France in the body of serial killer Andy. Whoppee Doo. ;D

I think your setting up strawmen now. Who says any action thriller has to have the world at stake, or that it has to survive? In Dawn of the Dead the world dies within the first few minutes. In Aliens in dies at the 30 minute mark. IN this it does at the 50 minute mark, and of the three only Aliens actually approximates making the "world" matter. It's the only one that gives us scenes were the inhabitants of the world go about with their lives.

I think it's inane to say there was nothing to fight for, because obviously they were fighting for survival. I don't understand why you need some greater cause or ideal. The original didn't have one and I don't think this one does.

Quoted Text There were no characters in the film apart from Robert Carlyle. Just 2 dimensional plants.

This is semantics and exactly why I wrote: "Now you may argue that the characters the movie focuses on are shite..." implied: but they're still characters by definition. And thus they are the ones the movie cares about.

Quoted Text It just didn't work structurally. There was no emotion in the second half of the film because everyone of interest was dead and even the abstract hope represented by the commune was dead.

I didn't think so. I liked most of the surviving characters. You didn't. This I can't change your mind about.

Quoted Text The thing about Robert Carlyle's character was that he made human choices. He could not have saved the woman. She killed herself. My first thought watching that scene, was why has she gone in there? She can't possibly survive. It would have required something superhuman to save her. That is how the director played that scene.

Human beings can inherently be cowardly, petty, selfish and pitiful, yes, but I think it's setting the bar too low, if he's meant to solicit sympathy just for qualifying as a human being.

Now, like I said, had he redeemed himself at any point, merely by telling his kids the truth then we might have a reason to root for him, but rooting for him simply because he's "human" is ridiculous, IMO.

Quoted Text If the scene was intended to demonise Carlyle, then it failed dismally. It just made him a real (the only) three-dimensional character. It wa a good start and could have been used to make some strong points about human nature. Is there anything greater than our need to survive? Instead it drifted off into absolutely nothing.

Exactly. If the scene was a set-up for something it might've worked, but then we learn that...oh this guy isn't gonna redeem himself at all 'cause he only cares about himself...and we're stuck with him as a main character? Then BAM! Carlyle gets owned, and we're cheering 'cause, honestly, he had it coming.

Quoted Text Were I to concede your point that we are supposed to dislike Carlyle (I don't see any directorial evidence of this BTW, it may have been the writer's intention I don't know) then I would have to say that the film is a complete disaster with perhaps the worst characterisation I have ever seen. It would be a film without a single charcater of any interest.

I never said we are MEANT to dislike him. I said we do. There's no way I can know what we're meant to do. However in only showing Carlyle in scenes we're he's given chances to to have some sort of redemption, and then letting him ignore them, we do dislike him. At least I do. I don't know anybody who went "Oh poor guy...it's sure tough that he has to think about how he abandoned his wife all the time...and it sure is difficult not to lie to his kids and say he tried to help her".

Quoted Text Ultimately it simply didn't know what it wanted to be. Was it a disaster movie like Outbreak? Was it an action thriller? A Horror? A human drama? The first was so successful because it told a simple human story of love and survival amidst a truly horrific backdrop. At the same time it asked important questions about human nature. This one does none of the above.

This is the danger of classification. If something doesn't fit, we assume the prodcut is at fault instead of our system. To say that a movie fails because it isn't a clear-cut action-film, thriller or horror is a strange notion indeed and this may prompt all genre-cross over to be regarded as utter failures henceforth. Is Silence of the Lambs horror? Human Drama? A Serial Killer flick? A Thriller? A cop movie?

Secondly, just like Aliens this one has completely different ambitions than its predecessor. It's more of a spectacle, more of a pop-corn flick that has a larger cast of characters and ovbiously spends less time on each. I don't see this as a problem, because they're two different beasts.

Quoted Text At best it can be described as a trailer for the third film. It had none of the intelligence of Danny Boyles film, none of the humanism and none of the hope. It just had a few explosions.

Again, is Aliens a failure because it wasn't the film Alien was? No. We must always look at what a films aspires to be in judging it, not what we aspire it to be. You can't pan Predator for not being Close Encounters.

We are never going to agree, so I'll make this my last post.

You enjoyed the film, I was bored for the entire second half of the film. That is a problem in any kind of feature. I've seen a lot of terrible films, but rarely have I been so bored in a cinema. Obviously when the film was over I went through it to see how such an action packed film could have left me so unentertained.

The root cause is structure.

Quoted Text 100% on what happened to the family. The characters were the real stake

The problem is that the family were unimportant. In the first film the survivors began the film as perhaps the only humans left on earth. They weren't just intereting characters, they had a very powerful abstract presence in the film. There was also a very clear progression and a solid story that was interesting. Also they were normal humans facing overwhelming odds.

That is crucial in a thriller. It is what makes it thrilling. You can play with this convention, Predator is a good example. They had incredibly tough heroes, but crucially an unbelievably tough opponent, hence it worked. Here the odds at the start of the film were in the favour of the good guys. There was no enemy at all. The only threat to the future of mankind in 28 is Andy! We know that the enemy can be defeated if they just leave, they've already done it once.

Quoted Text they were fighting for survival. I don't understand why you need some greater cause or ideal

I didn't care about anyone in the 28 weeks film film apart from Carlyle's character. That is a major problem as far as I'm concerned. Ultimately for you they were important but for me they were irrelevant so there were no stakes to care about.
Because the characters were crap, and because they CAUSED the problem in the first place. So I didn't care whether they lived or died. Their mission at the end was even more pointless. The set up was truly awful. Amateur on so many levels. You say that we should be concerned for their survival, yet we've already been told that they are going to survive because they are immune and Andy's only narrative purpose is to spread the disease.

We were never introduced to anyone in the film who could develop a vaccine, there was never any danger of the virus spreading (it had already been proven that it could be contained).

Quoted Text but I think it's setting the bar too low, if he's meant to solicit sympathy just for qualifying as a human being.

He may not be meant to solicit sympathy, my point is that the opening of the film introduces him as the main character and as the point of view of the film. When they kill him off, there is no point of view and the film becomes pointless.

It sets the film up a certain way, rightly or wrongly and after that the film is forced to move the action along artificially. The photograph, the character jumping on the helicopter, the magical (and contradictory to the mechanics of the film world) appearances of Carlyle are all results of the fact that the film had nowhere to go. It was setup t odo a different job and thereafter the film simply couldn't fit. It was set up to be a human drama and then tried to turn itself into something else.

Quoted Text This is the danger of classification. If something doesn't fit, we assume the prodcut is at fault instead of our system. To say that a movie fails because it isn't a clear-cut action-film, thriller or horror is a strange notion indeed and this may prompt all genre-cross over to be regarded as utter failures henceforth.

By the same token you can argue that there is no such thing as a poor film, because it's just messing with convention. Mixing genres is all very well, but if you don't know what you are doing, you end up with a mess like this film. It was boring. That is the worst condemnation of a film of this sort I can give.

Aliens was a great film with several superb and intersting characters. Even the bit parts had their own voice. You even cared about Frost who was only in it for a few minutes. It was also a completely consistent film.

28 weeks had no story line, no character development, no one to care about, made no point about human nature or anything else and was very boring because of it. It was a complete mismash of styles.

A thriller needs high stakes, this had none, an outbreak film needs an external threat, here the only threat was the child who we were supposed to want to win, a horror needs a scary villain, here we had only a comical father zombie who magically displayed an ability to pop up wherever the protagonists were.

None of it worked. The only saving grace was the intense atmosphere of the opening scene and the quite decent cut scene when Carlyle broke into the car park. The rest of the film was as bad as I have ever seen.

Anyway, enough of this. We should be writing ourselves.

Fair enough, I'll just respond to some of your points here then.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films It doesn't in either of them. It comes under a huge threat but survives.

That isn't true.

First of all, the literal world doesn't die in 28 days nor Weeks later, what we're calling "the world", I assume, are the people inhabiting the sphere of interest (Britain), or in Aliens the colony. The world dies in Aliens after we've been introduced to it and the possible threat of the Aliens. then the marines are sent in to kill the thing that killed the world.

Secondly the world LITERALLY dies in Dawn of the Dead. Both the original and the remake. In the original two main characters escape but everything is at this point dead, and the the remake even the main characters are killed off.

Quoted Text Because the characters were crap, and because they CAUSED the problem in the first place. So I didn't care whether they lived or died. Their mission at the end was even more pointless. The set up was truly awful. Amateur on so many levels.

Well then your problem isn't really that there are no higher ideals, it's that the characters are crap. The other thing is just a symptom of the latter. Besides Robert Carlyle was the conspirator of the actual break out, why isn't he to blame?

And I think we already established we don't see eye-to-eye on the characters, so I'll just move on.

Quoted Text You say that we should be concerned for their survival, yet we've already been told that they are going to survive because they are immune. It's like the second Matrix where Neo is completely invulnerable so all his fights are boring because we already know he can't lose.

Mind you, everyone BUT the whiny kid and his sister died, so I think it's a bit having it both ways when you say there's no need to worry about their survival when most of the characters actually die. Especially seeing how I already stated I only cared about the sister of the two kids.

Quoted Text He may not be meant to solicit sympathy, my point is that the opening of the film introduces him as the main character and as the point of view of the film. When they kill him off, there is no point of view and the film becomes pointless. It sets the film up a certain way, rightly or wrongly and after that the film is forced to move the action along artificially. The photograph, the character jumping on the helicopter, the magical (and contradictory to the mechanics of the film world) appearances of Carlyle are all results of the fact that the film had nowhere to go.

I think that's a bit conservative. Saying that a film has no way to go because of a shift in focus is a controversial statement and there are precedents that prove the opposite.

By the time they kill of Carlyle it's not like they haven't introduced other characters to us, it's not like the movie struggles to find another character to follow. I don't think it makes much sense to say that because the film didn't OPEN on Tam, Andy, Doyle and Scarlett the movie can't be about them. Again, think about Aliens. We aren't introduced to the Marines until 50 minutes into the film, does that mean we don't care about them?

I think the shift in focus is actually kinda bold and unexpected.

Quoted Text By the same token you can argue that there is no such thing as a poor film, because it's just messing with convention. Mixing genres is all very well, but if you don't know what you are doing, you end up with a mess like this film. It was boring. That is the worst condemnation of a film of this sort I can give.

A poor film isn't a genre. How does that even remotely apply to your example of purist genre-enforcing? A poor film is often poor because of things such as bad acting, shoddy cinematography, sloppy direction and poor writing. If there is a genre that embraces these hallmarks as pivotal, then I don't know it.

Fine, you thought it's boring. It may be non-specific and impossible to argue against but at least I can relate to the core sentiment, given my Transformers experience this summer. ;)

Quoted Text Aliens was a great film with several superb and intersting characters. Even the bit parts had their own voice. You even cared about Frost who was only in it for a few minutes. It was also a completely consistent film. 28 weeks had no story line, no character development, no one to care about, made no point about human nature or anything else and was very boring because of it. It was a complete mismash of styles.

One important thing to remember when comparing character development in 28 Weeks with Aliens is that 28 Weeks was just over 90 minutes long whereas Aliens was 150 minutes long. And I do think 28 Weeks was too short, but it's an unfair compairson.

Everything you said I think I've already argued against. You didn't like the characters, I did (for the most part), you didn't like the story, I did, and honestly I was quite happy that it didn't try to say anything about "human nature", because THAT would, if anything, have been a poor mix. Like the slow song on a Kid Rock album. Which, to me epitomizes, "boring".

Quoted Text A thriller needs high stakes, this had none, an outbreak film needs an external threat, here the only threat was the child who we were supposed to want to win, a horror needs a scary villain, here we had only a comical father zombie who magically displayed an ability to pop up wherever the protagonists were.

Come on, this is getting ridiculous. I know you're amped up on hating the movie right now, but you can't honestly be saying that a movie about infected zombies (for all intents and purposes) has no 'external threat'? The infected weren't figments of imagination, they were really eating people, and that is by my definition a threat.

You logic is sort of argumentative. Because you didn't like the characters, you argue that there were no stakes, and because there were no stakes there was no story-line and so on. You can't say something isn't a thriller because you didn't like the characters. It's not a qualifying parameter of a thriller that it must have great characters. Nor any other genre. You can say it's a bad thriller, or a bad horror but you can't say it's neither just because you didn't care about the characters.

And I'm still not sure where you're getting these presets from? A horror MUST have a scary villain? Says who? Isn't that why most horror films are such crap? because they think they need a scary boogeyman?

That's why Carlyle the zombie fails. Because they think we need a boogeyman.

Quoted Text None of it worked. The only saving grace was the intense atmosphere of the opening scene and the quite decent cut scene when Carlyle broke into the car park. The rest of the film was as bad as I have ever seen. Anyway, enough of this. We should be writing ourselves.

Well, it did work. While the movie by any means isn't perfect it made the plot work because of an engaging cinematographic approach and direction and unconventional plot twists that elevated it above the cookie cutter sequels we're used to. An ominous score too made this one to watch. At least in my opinion.

But yes, we really should get back to writing.

Quoted Text You logic is sort of argumentative. Because you didn't like the characters, you argue that there were no stakes, and because there were no stakes there was no story-line and so on. You can't say something isn't a thriller because you didn't like the characters. It's not a qualifying parameter of a thriller that it must have great characters. Nor any other genre. You can say it's a bad thriller, or a bad horror but you can't say it's neither just because you didn't care about the characters. And I'm still not sure where you're getting these presets from? A horror MUST have a scary villain? Says who? Isn't that why most horror films are such cr**? because they think they need a scary boogeyman?

I just want to reply to this to clarify.

It's not just about the characters. It's about the structure.

The rebirth of Britain was a high stake, but one the film kills off. It isn't replaced by another one. It tried to replace it with the idea of saving Andy, who may have the secret to the virus in his blood. However the film failed to set this up. In order for us to care about that particualr stake the rest of the world had to be under threat. It wasn't.

The military could easily kill all the zombies as had already been shown and we already know that quarantine is perfectly possible. There is no threat to the world and they have already killed Britain.

Therefore the only way that the virus can get out is through Andy being taken to France. So the stakes we have to care about for it to be thrilling simply aren't there.

As I say, it's not solely down to character. the structure of the film is wrong. Not unconventional, just wrong.

The main characters mission becomes not one of survival but of destruction because of the way that the film was set up. There was only one possible outcome of taking Andy to France, the spread of the disease. The whole second half of the film was illogical and pointless.

The story line was inconsistent and hadn't been thought through properly so every plot development had to happen through an absurdity.

The kids being allowed to leave the compound. The kids being able to leave the compound. The janitor having the keys to the containment room. Robert Carlyle having an undue amont of intelligence, contradicting the internal logic of the film as regards the "Rage" virus. The soldier killing his colleagues, the character jumping on the Helicopter, the ability of Carlyle to appear wherever they were despite them driving across the city. the fact that the helicopter could only pick them up at Wembley when London is completely deserted. The fact that the door to the car park could be opened by one man. That there were only two entrances, snipers all over the roof yet no-one shot him as no-one was watching the doors.

The fact is that it is difficult to think of one sensible plot line in the whole film.

Each and every major plot change was illogical and this happened because the script had lost its sense of purpose. This is what I mean by the fact that it had no where to go. It had to keep breaking its own logic to progress because of the way it was set up.

If you analyse the key beats of the film, you see where all the problems lie. Everything is backwards. They have to invent a threat because it doesn't exist at the start of the film. They answer all the questions that the opening act proposes by half way and do not ask any more questions.

Whatever you say about genres and conventions, a film like this needs to have a central protagonist that has an important goal. No-one in this film did.

Children of Men was an equivalent film in terms of the plot in the second half of 28. COM was successful because it was important that the child made it through to the end. Here it was not only unimportant it was something that logically we shouldn't want to happen.

There is no way round that. It was illogical, not unconventional, everything in the film was conventional. They just had to keep inventing artifical scenes to keep the tempo up.

Quoted Text A horror MUST have a scary villain? Says who? Isn't that why most horror films are such cr**? because they think they need a scary boogeyman

I don't think so. They are usually crap because the film, like this one, is riddled with cliches and absurdities and the villain isn't scary.

A horror film doesn't necessarily need a scary villain, but this film RELIED upon having a scary villain. It's just that he wasn't. People were laughing out loud whenever he appeared out of the blue. ;D

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I just want to reply to this to clarify. It's not just about the characters. It's about the structure. The rebirth of Britain was a high stake, but one the film kills off. It isn't replaced by another one. It tried to replace it with the idea of saving Andy, who may have the secret to the virus in his blood. However the film failed to set this up. In order for us to care about that particualr stake the rest of the world had to be under threat. It wasn't. The military could easily kill all the zombies as had already been shown and we already know that quarantine is perfectly possible. There is no threat to the world and they have already killed Britain. Therefore the only way that the virus can get out is through Andy being taken to France. So the stakes we have to care about for it to be thrilling simply aren't there.

Even so, my point is still valid, I feel. Something doesn't a specific structure to be a certain genre.

As for the stakes, I think the fact that the movie argues that some people are immune and become carriers, PLUS the fact that the virus actually gets out, shows that it's not perfectly possible to contain it.

Quoted Text As I say, it's not solely down to character. the structure of the film is wrong. Not unconventional, just wrong.

Well, unless you think the movie's structure is convetional, it is about unconventionality. And you obviously feel that detour around convention is what makes it wrong; or why it doesn't work.

Quoted Text The main characters mission becomes not one of survival but of destruction because of the way that the film was set up. There was only one possible outcome of taking Andy to France, the spread of the disease. The whole second half of the film was illogical and pointless.

That doesn't make sense. Of course their mission is survival. Andy isn't a threat until he's bitten and infected in the very last minutes of the film...

You don't have to keep repeating the mantra about it being pointless and illogical, since I've already adressed this and we just plain disagree.

Quoted Text The story line was inconsistent and hadn't been thought through properly so every plot development had to happen through an absurdity. The kids being allowed to leave the compound. The kids being able to leave the compound. The janitor having the keys to the containment room. Robert Carlyle having an undue amont of intelligence, contradicting the internal logic of the film as regards the "Rage" virus. The soldier killing his colleagues, the character jumping on the Helicopter, the ability of Carlyle to appear wherever they were despite them driving across the city.

The only apparent absurdity I can think is Robert Carlyle getting through his quarantined wife. And yes, how he popped up everywhere.

The kids weren't allowed to leave? What do you mean?

The soldier killing his colleagues I've already adressed and I don't think you ever commented on my explanation, so I think it's kinda strange to bring it up now. He was killing those soldiers who were bitten or in the process of being bitten. They were gone.

Why is the character jumping on the helicopter absurd? He was told he would be left to be zombie-food. What was he supposed to do? Behave himself? In anything the absurdity is that Flynn didn't want to risk taking the others.

Quoted Text Each and every major plot change was illogical and this happened because the script had lost its sense of purpose. This is what I mean by the fact that it had no where to go. It had to keep breaking its own logic to progress because of the way it was set up.

What do you mean breaking its own logic? After the outbreak it becomes about leaving zone 1 and then the city. The characters are then thrown hurdles and setbacks along the way, but I'm not I follow what logic is being broken?

Quoted Text If you analyse the key beats of the film, you see where all the problems lie. Everything is backwards. They have to invent a threat because it doesn't exist at the start of the film. They answer all the questions that the opening act proposes half way and do not ask any more questions.

The threat is the infected. They exist at the start of the film.

Quoted Text Whatever you say about genres and conventions, a film like this needs to have a central protagonist that has an important goal. No-one in this film did.

The problem here is that "important goal" is such a subjective definition that can pretty much arbitrarily decide that it's not important, no matter what I argue. but let's think of Alien. What is Ripley's goal? Survial. Is that movie a failure?

Quoted Text Children of Men was an equivalent film in terms of the plot in the second half of 28. COM was successful because it was important that the child made it through to the end. Here it was not only unimportant it was something that logically we shouldn't want to happen.

Geez...spoiler alert, thanks.  ??)

I obviously haven't seen Children of Men, but from what I have seen the comparison is very thin. It's like comparing Last Night to Dawn of the Dead because they're "about the same thing". But they're two very films in terms of genre, tone, pacing and structure. As I imagine 28 Weeks and COM are.

Quoted Text There is no way round that. It was illogical, not unconventional, everything in the film was conventional. They just had to keep inventing artifical scenes to keep the tempo up.

Pardon me, but that's just nonsense. You can't lament the fact that the film uses a completely different structure than you expect or are used to and then call it conventional at the same time. Something about a cake and eating it. ;)

Of course the film wasn't conventional. You say it yourself, it kills its supposed main character off before the midpoint. It lets almost everyone die. That's not conventional.

Quoted Text I don't think so. They are usually crap because the film, like this one, is riddled with cliches and absurdities and the villain isn't scary. A horror film doesn't necessarily need a scary villain, but this film RELIED upon having a scary villain. It's just that he wasn't. People were laughing out loud whenever he appeared out of the blue. ;D

"People were laughing out loud"? What people? That's like saying "Everyone knows 28 Weeks is bad film! Ask anyone!" It's sorta irrelevant what other people thought of the movie, or else I would referred to its Imdb rating a long time ago.

I think the point is, the film didn't need a scary villain type at all, but somehow it thought it did. So it didn't rely at all on Carlyle since he was superfluous after he turns.

Quoted Text Of course the film wasn't conventional. You say it yourself, it kills its supposed main character off before the midpoint. It lets almost everyone die. That's not conventional.

It was a very conventional action film, it's just that the structure was broken. It didn't break any new ground, it used established conventions in an incorrect manner and failed to use conventions that actually wotk for this type of movie.

Quoted Text The only apparent absurdity I can think is Robert Carlyle getting through his quarantined wife. And yes, how he popped up everywhere. The kids weren't allowed to leave? What do you mean?

A soldier watches the kids leave. Yet despite informing his colleagues they are not instantly brought back inside.

Despite the fact that the Commander of the Battalion is ultimately willing to kill the entire civilian population (another absurdity) he apparently is willing to allow a couple of kids to leave the compound.

A high security, military installation that two kids can circumvent. ::)

Then they bring in a woman who is clearly infected. They don't set up a level 4 quaratine outside the base whilethey run tests, they bring her inside. ::)

They don't post any guards on duty to watch her. ::)

The military allow a janitor access to high-security areas. ::)

Robert Carlyle inexplicably manages to keep a high level of intelligence, contrary to the films internal logic regarding the virus. ::)

He is able to easily enter high security areas, easily killing trained fighters who suddenly become inexplicably stupid. ::)

Why have the people not been given any security drills, despite it being  7 months since the outbreak of the epidemic?  ::)

He isn't picked up on CCTV or spotted by Snipers, even though there is only one possible destination for him to go and there are only two entrances to the car park. ::)

Why is he able to open the door? This is the safe place for the population of Britain. There is only a fire door protecting them? Incredible. The audacity of the filmmakers.

Does the soldier not shoot the sniper on the roof? I thought he did.

Why does the helicopter have to land at Wembley? This is a transparent plot device. He could have landed anywhere.

Why does he want to leave the civilians behind? That is out of keeping with his character and with his training.

Why does he start to spin his helicopter dangerously around when the guy jumps on it in cliched fashion?

Why is there so much blood but no-one gets infected? One drop was enough in the first film.

Why do they want to get the child to France, when they haven't even contacted the French?

Why was Robert Carlyle able to follow the group across the city, when he has succumbed to the virus? ::)

How did he, along with the other cliched running zombies manage to escape the firebombing of the city? ::)

Did they drive as well?

Why does a trained doctor not notice that the child is infected? ::)

Why do they risk taking him to France for no reason? Have they become blind. Can they not see that blood in his eyes? ::)

There are absurdities in even the smallest detail in the film: "The virus doesn't cross species". Er, you remember where it came from don't you?

A truly terrible story, inconsistent, factually incorrect, oblivious to medical and military reality and guilty of being inconsistent with its own logic from the first film, the very worst sin a film can commit.

Not one plot point in the whole film made sense, not one. Unconventional? It was as by the numbers as it gets, using plot devices in every scene to move the action along artificially. The unconventional structure is a by product of writing of the lowest order or more likely of interference from above. The person who wrote the first scene was in no way responsible for writing the shite that came after it. IMO.

An awful film, raised only by energetic camerawork.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films It was a very conventional action film, it's just that the structure was broken. It didn't break any new ground, it used established conventions in an incorrect manner and failed to use conventions that actually wotk for this type of movie.

We were talking about structure and it has unconventional structure and character arcs. There's no way around that. Now you may like it or dislike it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's unconventional. Unconventional doesn't mean "good".

How did it use etsablished conventions in an incorrect manner? If if conventions are used in manners outside outside of the norm, aren't they unconventional?

Quoted Text A soldier watches the kids leave. Yet despite informing his colleagues they are not instantly brought back inside. Despite the fact that the Commander of the Battalion is ultimately willing to kill the entire civilian population (another absurdity) he apparently is willing to allow a couple of kids to leave the compound. A high security, military installation that two kids can circumvent. ::) Then they bring in a woman who is clearly infected. They don't set up a level 4 quaratine outside the base whilethey run tests, they bring her inside. ::) They don't post any guards on duty to watch her. ::) The military allow a janitor access to high-security areas. ::) Robert Carlyle inexplicably manages to keep a high level of intelligence, contrary to the films internal logic regarding the virus. ::) He is able to easily enter high security areas, easily killing trained fighters who suddenly become inexplicably stupid. ::) Why have the people not been given any security drills, despite it being  7 months since the outbreak of the epidemic?  ::) He isn't picked up on CCTV or spotted by Snipers, even though there is only one possible destination for him to go and there are only two entrances to the car park. ::) Why is he able to open the door? This is the safe place for the population of Britain. There is only a fire door protecting them? Incredible. The audacity of the filmmakers. Does the soldier not shoot the sniper on the roof? I thought he did. Why does the helicopter have to land at Wembley? This is a transparent plot device. He could have landed anywhere. Why does he want to leave the civilians behind? That is out of keeping with his character and with his training. Why does he start to spin his helicopter dangerously around when the guy jumps on it in cliched fashion? Why is there so much blood but no-one gets infected? One drop was enough in the first film. Why do they want to get the child to France, when they haven't even contacted the French? Why was Robert Carlyle able to follow the group across the city, when he has succumbed to the virus? ::) How did he, along with the other cliched running zombies manage to escape the firebombing of the city? ::) Did they drive as well? Why does a trained doctor not notice that the child is infected? ::) Why do they risk taking him to France for no reason? Have they become blind. Can they not see that blood in his eyes? ::) There are absurdities in even the smallest detail in the film: "The virus doesn't cross species". Er, you remember where it came from don't you?

1.     The commander isn’t informed. it’s not like it’s an executive decision. Besides what’s the hurry to bring them back? There are no more infected, right? That was the assumption they were working under. Plus the kids moved around a lot. I don’t think it’s crazy of them to ask us to suspend belief here, I really don’t.

2.     It’s no high-security military installation the kids circumvent. They cross a bridge in a militarized part of a city with its own infrastructure. And they are spotted doing so.

3.     Infected but not showing symptoms. They will be able to study her better inside with proper equipment. Again – absurd?

4.     Agreed. Stupid.

5.     He’s not really the janitor, it’s just something his kids call him, which is shown in the scene where he shows he has the power to start alarms and halt security access. It’s not a mote point, but I think this needed clarfication as it sounds much more ”absurd” to say a janitor has acces than an inspector or what he’s called.

6.     He does?


7.     So were all the infected in the original? That isn’t absurd. It’s just not particularly realistic.

8.     Who is ”people”? And they haven’t been there for 7 months. Only 4 weeks or so.

9.     Agreed. That was ridiculous.

10.     After he’s jumped by two infected who are biting him.

11.     I assume following the first debacle, he wanted a place that’s guarded and he had an overview over the exits. but no, you would think they could’ve found a roof-top somewhere.

12.     He had character? I thought you said he didn’t? ;) I agree this is very odd indeed, but I hardly think it’s absurd that soldiers don’t follow they’re training after what has happened. That doesn’t happen in real life either.

13.     Because he didn’t want the guy on his helicopter? And because it looked awesome when he decapitated infected with the rotors…?

14.     I don’t remember? Are people splashed with blood in any bodily orifice in the film and avoid infection?

15.     I don’t understand the question at all? Why would the french contact them? I’m even sure who ”they” refers to.

16.     It doesn’t make sense.

17.     The army says themselves that they didn’t get everyone, and we actually see that the street Carlyle is in isn’t hit. So that’s how, I guess…

Quoted Text Why does a trained doctor not notice that the child is infected? ::)

Who are you talking about here?

Quoted Text Why do they risk taking him to France for no reason? Have they become blind. Can they not see that blood in his eyes? ::)

Again, who is "they"? When Andy is bitten it’s just him and Tam. Andy isn’t infected until the very last minutes of the film after everyone else has died.

Quoted Text There are absurdities in even the smallest detail in the film: "The virus doesn't cross species". Er, you remember where it came from don't you?

I noticed that as well. But honestly that’s not something that gets me to walk out of a movie. Especially not a popcorn zombie flick.

Quoted Text A truly terrible story, inconsistent, factually incorrect, oblivious to medical and military reality and guilty of being inconsistent with its own logic from the first film, the very worst sin a film can commit.

Wow, it's crazy how much I disagree. Oh well.

Quoted Text Not one plot point in the whole film made sense, not one. Unconventional? It was as by the numbers as it gets, using plot devices in every scene to move the action along artificially. The unconventional structure is a by product of writing of the lowest order or more likely of interference from above. The person who wrote the first scene was in no way responsible for writing the shite that came after it. IMO. An awful film, raised only by energetic camerawork.

I don't think you're making a lick of sense right now, and making sensational claims like "not on plot device made sense" isn't really helping.

First of all, it didn't use  plot devices in every scene to move the plot along. I don't why you would make such a claim? They have the goal of getting out of the city pretty much from the outbreak begins. that doesn't change. They're thrown hurdles and opposition, naturally, but they're only artifical by virtue of the entire film being WRITTEN.

Secondly, the filmis BY definition UNCONVENTIONAL in killing its supposed main character. You can't run away from that. That simply just isn't by-the-numbers. At least I've read the wrong books on structure then...

Thirdly, you say not one plot-point made sense in the entire film. Do you really mean that or are you exaggerating your case here? I can't tell. Plenty of plot points made sense. Even one which I know you disagree with made sense; the containment: the shooting of civilians. The fire-bombing made sense too.

But I think it's sorta funny how much more fervently you hate the movie now, after debating it with me.   ;D

Quoted Text Especially not a popcorn zombie flick.

Therein lies the difference I suppose.

28 days later was a superb film. This is a by the numbers zombie flick that made no sense.

Quoted Text First of all, it didn't use  plot devices in every scene to move the plot along. I don't why you would make such a claim? They have the goal of getting out of the city pretty much from the outbreak begins. that doesn't change. They're thrown hurdles and opposition, naturally, but they're only artifical by virtue of the entire film being WRITTEN.

I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree. All of the major plots points were artificial. They kept digging holes for themselves that they couldn't get out of without resorting to cliches or absurdities.

You are willing to suspend your disbelief about the all the nonsenses, but I couldn't. One or two plot holes I could stand, but every scene was ridiculous.

The obstacles that you mentioned were illogical. Why did the zombies all run in a herd to exactly where the protagonists were? Why did Carlyle keep popping up? There was nothing truthful about the film, it was one plot device after another because they had crippled themselves with the foundation. Why was Carlyle different from the other zombies? How did the mother survive? Why wasn't she ripped to pieces like everyone else?

Plot devices. None of the major plot lines make a shred of sense. None of them. They are there to artificially move the plot along.

Quoted Text Secondly, the filmis BY definition UNCONVENTIONAL in killing its supposed main character. You can't run away from that. That simply just isn't by-the-numbers. At least I've read the wrong books on structure then...

Psycho established that convention many decades ago. Hitchcock used it skillfully, for a particular reason. There is no running away from the fact that its use here was either unintended ie someone wrote an alternative story or simply unneccessary. It didn't add anything to the story, on the contrary it created problems for the film.

Quoted Text Thirdly, you say not one plot-point made sense in the entire film. Do you really mean that or are you exaggerating your case here? I can't tell. Plenty of plot points made sense. Even one which I know you disagree with made sense; the containment: the shooting of civilians. The fire-bombing made sense too.

The containment in the car park was nonsensical. Is that how a military would protect against a contagious disease, put everyone together?

I think not.

It is completely absurd and illogical. There would be dozens of safe guards to prevent another outbreak.

You know this really. You must do.

This is supposed to be the real world. Think about what would really happen and then you'll realise just how badly conceived everything in the film is. Where are the scientists, the doctors? The international community? Why are they trying to start a new community?

The film is built upon gaping plot holes. Maybe they could have been protecting survivors, but to try and re-establish a colony when there has been an outbreak of such a virulent virus just recently? As I say, absolutely everything in the film is absurd.

Quoted Text But I think it's sorta funny how much more fervently you hate the movie now, after debating it with me

It just doesn't hold up to any scrutiny and the more you think about it, the worse it gets.

It is probably the worst script ever written. It's worse than that Alien 5 on here.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Therein lies the difference I suppose. 28 days later was a superb film. This is a by the numbers zombie flick that made no sense.

This was a popcorn flick without anything to say, like Aliens, but as I think I've demonstrated it was hardly by the numbers.

Quoted Text I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree. All of the major plots points were artificial. They kept digging holes for themselves that they couldn't get out of without resorting to cliches or absurdities. You are willing to suspend your disbelief about the all the nonsenses, but I couldn't. One or two plot holes I could stand, but every scene was ridiculous.

The difference being I only thought there were one or two plotholes. Particularly, you seem to be under the impression Andy was a threat during the entire movie, that would naturally be ridiculous, but he wasn't.

Quoted Text The obstacles that you mentioned were illogical. Why did the zombies all run in a herd to exactly where the protagonists were?

WEll, obviously it wasn't all of the zombies. It was exactly that - a herd. Why is that now absurd? they did that in the first one as well??

Quoted Text Why did Carlyle keep popping up? There was nothing truthful about the film, it was one plot device after another because they had crippled themselves with the foundation.

We already agree about Carlyle popping up. What about the 15 other points you made that I challenged? I think you've taken a few instances of plotholes and poor plotting and stretched it out to the sensational claim that EVERYTHING in the movie was like that.

Quoted Text Psycho established that convention many decades ago. Hitchcock used it skillfully, for a particular reason. There is no running away from the fact that its use here was either unintended ie someone wrote an alternative story or simply unneccessary. It didn't add anything to the story, on the contrary it created problems for the film.

There is a difference between PRECEDENCE and CONVENTION. Are you really saying it is conventional, or by the numbers, to kill off your main character after 30 minutes time?

And why is there no running away from 'the fact' that this was unintended or unnecessary? Without having to resort to going into debate about whether or not Carlyle deserved to die, I will say that it stresses the motif of cynicism, that no one is safe. It's like Clemens in Alien 3. Everybody dies.

Quoted Text The containment in the car park was nonsensical. Is that how a military would protect against a contagious disease, put everyone together? I think not. It is completely absurd and illogical. There would be dozens of safe guards to prevent another outbreak. You know this really. You must do. This is supposed to be the real world. Think about what would really happen and then you'll realise just how badly conceived everything in the film is.

Oh THINK about it? Gosh, why haven't I thought of that sooner? All this time I've been banging my head against the keyboard, hoping something intelligible would come out, but you're right - thinking is definitely the way.

Sorry about that, but that was really an unnecessarily condescending comment. Naturally I have thought about it; I just don't agree with you.

I agree about the parking garage, I already conceded that point, but you said EVERY plot point. If you don't mean EVERY plot point don't say it. Be precise.

Quoted Text It just doesn't hold up to any scrutiny and the more you think about it, the worse it gets.

The plotpoints that don't make sense did not ruin everything that did work with this film. Not for me.

Quoted Text I agree about the parking garage, I already conceded that point, but you said EVERY plot point. If you don't mean EVERY plot point don't say it. Be precise.

I mean every single plot point. Every single one. I've been through most of them and shown how they are absurd. You don't agree, but they are in real terms.

The whole film is illogical. The commune makes no sense as there ae no scientists and they are not following Level 4 containment protocols.

The very idea of starting a new commune in Britain was absurd

The people they chose to start it were absurd, where are the scientists?

The fact that there was only one medic in the commune was absurd

The fcat that it was Americans doing it was absurd

The fact the kids can get out and aren't A) Shot instantly B) Caught instantly is absurd

The fact that the mother is alive is absurd. How did she get away? They just decided to scratch her for fun, then stopped? Did she taste a bit funny? They tear everyone else apart and apparently she couldn't get out.

The way the mother acts in the house is absurd

The fact that she is taken into the commune is absurd

The fact that she isn't quarantined properly is absurd

The fact that There are no guards is absurd

The fact that her husband has access is absurd

The fact he would kiss his wife is absurd

The fact he retains his intelligence once infected is absurd and a contradiction of the films logic

The fact he can so easily disappear is absurd, when there are snipers and cameras on every rough. He is infected isn't he?

The fact he is intelligent enough to know where the door is is absurd.

The fact the door exists is absurd.

The fact the door isn't protected is absurd

The fact that the people are all squeezed in when they are supposed to be protected from an infectious disease is absurd

The fact he can open the door when hundreds of people inside couldn't is absurd.

The fact that they started firing on the innocents without giving them instructions first is absurd (the infected are infected instantly, and couldn't follow any kind of instructions).

You can defend this all you want, but it just wouldn't happen in reality.

The fact that the snipers deliberately target people who clearly aren't infected is absurd, fine if they hit some by accident, but lets at least pretend that this is a real military.

The fact that they don't mobilise their attack choppers or their heavy artillery that we have seen in the film is absurd. It doesn't even have the decency to follow  its own stupid logic.

The fact that the mindless zombies suddenly appear on roof tops is absurd

Again, this is the military isn't it? They've built a safe zone that a child can penetrate and they are incapable of  even locking doors?

The fact that Carlyle follows the group is absurd and remembers his family is absurd.

The fact he has a clear plan is absurd. Why doesn't he mindlessly attack?

The fact that without a car he managed to escape the firebombing is absurd. So what if they said that some survived over the phone? It doesn't disguise the fact it was a huge plot hole, indeed it actually highlights it. Its one of the few that someone picked up on. This is what i mean by plot devices, they use the firebombin to give a timescale to the escape of the main charcaters, but they don't even follow through the films internal logic.


The fact that they cover what is in reality about 10 miles in four minutes on foot , the underground alone is about 5 miles, is absurd.

The fact they went into the underground is absurd. It made no sense it was just for effect, like the rest of the film

The fact that the helicopter wouldn't pick them up anywhere but wembley was absurd

The fact that the tribe of zombies somehow knew where they were was absurd

The way they lay around in the disused fairground was absurd

The way that the chopper pilot wouldn't pick up the civilians was absurd

The fact that they were planning to take Andy to France without first contacting the French was absurd

The fact that it was a Doctor who suggested it was absurd

The fact that a soldier went along with it was absurd. What would the French do if they saw it coming? Blow it out of the sky perhaps?

The way that Carlyle caught up with them was absurd

The way that the chopper pilot took a clearly infected Andy with him was absurd

The ending of the film was absurd.

Those are pretty much all the plot events that I remember. All of them are ridiciulous in their own way. I've never seen anything like it. ;D

I challenge you to find me a script anywhere that has even half the number of plot holes. It's incredible.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I mean every single plot point. Every single one. I've been through most of them and shown how they are absurd. You don't agree, but they are in real terms. The whole film is illogical. The commune makes no sense as there ae no scientists and they are not following Level 4 containment protocols. The very idea of starting a new commune in Britain was absurd The people they chose to start it were absurd, where are the scientists? The fact that there was only one medic in the commune was absurd The fcat that it was Americans doing it was absurd The fact the kids can get out and aren't A) Shot instantly B) Caught instantly is absurd The fact that the mother is alive is absurd. How did she get away? They just decided to scratch her for fun, then stopped? Did she taste a bit funny? They tear everyone else apart and apparently she couldn't get out. The way the mother acts in the house is absurd The fact that she is taken into the commune is absurd The fact that she isn't quarantined properly is absurd The fact that There are no guards is absurd The fact that her husband has access is absurd The fact he would kiss his wife is absurd The fact he retains his intelligence once infected is absurd and a contradiction of the films logic The fact he can so easily disappear is absurd, when there are snipers and cameras on every rough. He is infected isn't he? The fact he is intelligent enough to know where the door is is absurd. The fact the door exists is absurd. The fact the door isn't protected is absurd The fact that the people are all squeezed in when they are supposed to be protected from an infectious disease is absurd The fact he can open the door when hundreds of people inside couldn't is absurd. The fact that they started firing on the innocents without giving them instructions first is absurd (the infected are infected instantly, and couldn't follow any kind of instructions). You can defend this all you want, but it just wouldn't happen in reality. The fact that the snipers deliberately target people who clearly aren't infected is absurd, fine if they hit some by accident, but lets at least pretend that this is a real military. The fact that they don't mobilise their attack choppers or their heavy artillery that we have seen in the film is absurd. It doesn't even have the decency to follow  its own stupid logic. The fact that the mindless zombies suddenly appear on roof tops is absurd Again, this is the military isn't it? They've built a safe zone that a child can penetrate and they are incapable of  even locking doors? The fact that Carlyle follows the group is absurd and remembers his family is absurd. The fact he has a clear plan is absurd. Why doesn't he mindlessly attack? The fact that without a car he managed to escape the firebombing is absurd. So what if they said that some survived over the phone? It doesn't disguise the fact it was a huge plot hole, indeed it actually highlights it. Its one of the few that someone picked up on. This is what i mean by plot devices, they use the firebombin to give a timescale to the escape of the main charcaters, but they don't even follow through the films internal logic. The fact that they cover what is in reality about 10 miles in four minutes on foot , the underground alone is about 5 miles, is absurd. The fact they went into the underground is absurd. It made no sense it was just for effect, like the rest of the film The fact that the helicopter wouldn't pick them up anywhere but wembley was absurd The fact that the tribe of zombies somehow knew where they were was absurd The way they lay around in the disused fairground was absurd The way that the chopper pilot wouldn't pick up the civilians was absurd The fact that they were planning to take Andy to France without first contacting the French was absurd The fact that it was a Doctor who suggested it was absurd The fact that a soldier went along with it was absurd. What would the French do if they saw it coming? Blow it out of the sky perhaps? The way that Carlyle caught up with them was absurd The way that the chopper pilot took a clearly infected Andy with him was absurd The ending of the film was absurd. Those are pretty much all the plot events that I remember. All of them are ridiciulous in their own way. I've never seen anything like it. ;D I challenge you to find me a script anywhere that has even half the number of plot holes. It's incredible.

I honestly have no idea how you manage to watch any movie at all if that's the scrutiny you put every one of them through.

In my opinion I already debunked 90% of the things you call "absurd" (an inflated term at this point), and yet you keep bringing them up, so your challenge of finding a script with just half the plotholes is futile since I don't consider your "plotholes" plotholes. I mean, you don't even address the ones I've questioned, you just keep bringing them up without elaboration. You disregard the fact that I've already explained the snipers, that the movie actually SHOWS Carlyle surviving the firebombing (we don't just hear about it) and reiterate that the zombies "knew" where they were when they didn't.

If you were that scrutinous towards all movies then how about the rage virus itself? Isn't that absurd? That's the BASIS of the entire franchise?

I'm sorry, but I can't really take this seriously. It's like you're trying to make up absudities where there are none.

This movie actually scared me.
Not many movies do that.
If the infected could not run, pfft, no problem.
But these guys run like a (bad word) and that is what makes it scary.
Also, in the parts where the infected just pop up... yeah, that was very disturbing.
But that first scene with the family is what gets me. Very real(ish) and very likely, that is what someone (most people) would do.