Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
that was kind of my feeling too - it was more 'knowing nods towards' rather than 'comments on'.
28 Days Later was good.. 28 Weeks Later will be better
- Thread starter bouncer_the_dog
- Start date
that was kind of my feeling too - it was more 'knowing nods towards' rather than 'comments on'.
onemonkey said:
But the first film petered out and turned into a bad low-budget TV show in the second half, this one kept up the pressure throughout. It wasn't original, but then it's a genre movie anyway so what you want is a fresh spin on the genre's traditions, which i think this had in spades
Sorry but I thought it was crap, the plot was a best far fetched. Why did they start bringing poeple back? Why did Robert Carlye have a key to get into see his wife? Why where they in the middle of london, probably the hardest place manage logisticaly? Blah blah
Maybe I'm being pedantic but that just ruined it for me.
And the paralles with Iraq were just cliched rubbish really, which would have sat alright with me if the film was even a litlle bit scary/shocking/grusome. Really, I'm a wuss when it comes to horror films, saw 3 had me in bits and I still haven't watched the ring; but really the only half scary bit was in the tube tunnel when it's film throught the night vision bit of the gun.
Oh well, maybe next time-28 years later anyone?
Maybe I'm being pedantic but that just ruined it for me.
And the paralles with Iraq were just cliched rubbish really, which would have sat alright with me if the film was even a litlle bit scary/shocking/grusome. Really, I'm a wuss when it comes to horror films, saw 3 had me in bits and I still haven't watched the ring; but really the only half scary bit was in the tube tunnel when it's film throught the night vision bit of the gun.
Oh well, maybe next time-28 years later anyone?
mhendo
Aussie in San Francisco
Well, just got back from seeing it with the missus.
We both thought it was fucking ace. Sure, the plot was pretty thin, but i had already resigned myself to the fact that it was going to be quite a different film from the first one. Once i had made that leap, it was quite easy to enjoy it for what it was. The shots of London were great, and there was enough action, gore, and scary bits to keep me entertained.
And they certainly left plenty of scope for another episode.
We both thought it was fucking ace. Sure, the plot was pretty thin, but i had already resigned myself to the fact that it was going to be quite a different film from the first one. Once i had made that leap, it was quite easy to enjoy it for what it was. The shots of London were great, and there was enough action, gore, and scary bits to keep me entertained.
And they certainly left plenty of scope for another episode.
bubba_jones
Well-Known Member
They didn't actaully. The beach had been fucked up a long time ago by irresponsible tourist development. The film crew left it nicer and cleaner than what it was when they arrived there.
But the film was an opportunity for the environmentalists to get some exposure for the way the beaches are being fucked up and carved up and sold over there.
fear-n-loathing
drinking mouthwash
watched it last night thought it was great.
Reno
The In Kraut
Really wanted to like this but found it very disappointing. The plot is almost entirely reliant an coincidences and on characters and authorities doing one stupid/unbelievable thing after another. I'm happy to suspend my disbelief to some extend, but this was just taking the piss. The films sets up interesting dynamics between the characters and then absolutely nothing gets explored or developed.
The shaky cam thing got on my nerves here. The problem with throwing the camera around during every action scene means that it's difficult to keep track of events and characters and it all becomes more confusing than exciting. The scene where the infection first rages through the panicked crowd could have been great but is poorly staged, loosing any sense of tension or suspense along the way.
Everything that's good here had been done better in the first film. 28 Days Later at least bothered to explore its characters a little bit. Unlike the first film 28 Weeks Later doesn't turn rubbish after an hour, it just stays consistently mediocre. Doesn't help that I'd just seen Children of Men again the other day, a similar kind of film and a much better piece of film making by a director who knows exactly how to shoot action, combat and crown scenes.
The shaky cam thing got on my nerves here. The problem with throwing the camera around during every action scene means that it's difficult to keep track of events and characters and it all becomes more confusing than exciting. The scene where the infection first rages through the panicked crowd could have been great but is poorly staged, loosing any sense of tension or suspense along the way.
Everything that's good here had been done better in the first film. 28 Days Later at least bothered to explore its characters a little bit. Unlike the first film 28 Weeks Later doesn't turn rubbish after an hour, it just stays consistently mediocre. Doesn't help that I'd just seen Children of Men again the other day, a similar kind of film and a much better piece of film making by a director who knows exactly how to shoot action, combat and crown scenes.
i_hate_beckham
Him From A Village
Kizmet said:
That wasn't built at the time the film is set.
i_hate_beckham said:
how do you work that out?
i_hate_beckham
Him From A Village
It's set in 2003.Dubversion said:
Orang Utan
Maybe I like the misery
I though it was way better than the first.
And as for all the pickiness, come on, it's a zombie film FFS!
And as for all the pickiness, come on, it's a zombie film FFS!
Orang Utan said:
yeh, genre movies really aren't the place for plot-hole pedantry.
i_hate_beckham
Him From A Village
Pointing out the blood disapperaing and reappering on the car windsreen is is being picky, point out that a 90,000 seater stadium wouldnt have been there isnt being picky.Orang Utan said:
Great filum though.
i_hate_beckham said:
where does it say that? and have you got NO suspension of disbelief?
you know Lord of the Rings, right?
there aren't ACTUALLY any elves, you know.
i_hate_beckham
Him From A Village
It's set 28 weeks after the first one which is set in 2003.Dubversion said:where does it say that? and have you got NO suspension of disbelief?
you know Lord of the Rings, right?
there aren't ACTUALLY any elves, you know.
Reno
The In Kraut
Orang Utan said:
Even Zombie films can benefit from some internal logic and reasonably interesting characters. If I can't get that I'd like some good gore and dismemberments, which 28 Weeks Later didn't deliver either due to the Parkinson's disease style camera work.
i_hate_beckham said:
Ok, I didn't much like the film, but of the many complaints I have about it that wouldn't be one of them.
i_hate_beckham said:
well i didn't know the first one was set at a specific time and it doesn't really matter, does it? it's a dumb movie..
i_hate_beckham
Him From A Village
No in the grand sheme of things it doesn't matter where did i say it did? I was just pointing out a rather HUGE chorological error nothing more.
brixtonvilla
should be Oslovilla, really
I was so pleased there was a happy ending...
i_hate_beckham
Him From A Village
If that was my brother i would have killed him. There again i don't like my brother.brixtonvilla said:
brixtonvilla
should be Oslovilla, really
I was thinking more along the lines of "Yes! We got the French!"
Wookey
Muppet is not a slur
Just got back from the cinema.
The Wembley error was glaring to me, I sat there going: 'Hang on a minute, that's only just opened last weekend and this is set 28 weeks after the last one??'
Also, how could Robert 'The Zombie' Carlisle track his family into the Tube system, when they managed to lose an armed helicopter??
And why did the US soldier leave his post, and then sacrifice his life on the say-so of a strange woman? To forward the plot, I hear you cry! Well, it made no sense to me.
I liked the camera work, especially when all the folks were locked in the room after the virus broke out - very disorientating. And the director also showed a few shots from the POV of a zombie, which came across as very acidy and animalistic, which I thought succeeded as a device.
London looks good with no people in it.
The girl who played the daughter will be very famous I predict, she was stunning.
The Wembley error was glaring to me, I sat there going: 'Hang on a minute, that's only just opened last weekend and this is set 28 weeks after the last one??'
Also, how could Robert 'The Zombie' Carlisle track his family into the Tube system, when they managed to lose an armed helicopter??
And why did the US soldier leave his post, and then sacrifice his life on the say-so of a strange woman? To forward the plot, I hear you cry! Well, it made no sense to me.
I liked the camera work, especially when all the folks were locked in the room after the virus broke out - very disorientating. And the director also showed a few shots from the POV of a zombie, which came across as very acidy and animalistic, which I thought succeeded as a device.
London looks good with no people in it.
The girl who played the daughter will be very famous I predict, she was stunning.
Orang Utan
Maybe I like the misery
It's only a zombie film
Orang Utan
Maybe I like the misery
Godspeed You Black Emperorjaneb said:
bouncer_the_dog
Well-Known Member
i_hate_beckham said:
That and they found the time to finish the Gherkin...
bouncer_the_dog
Well-Known Member
Dubversion said:
WTF? Its historical fiction
Similar threads
