i really disliked the first, really enjoyed the 2nd. most people are the other way round..
i've just watched 28 weeks later
- Thread starter bluestreak
- Start date
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
May Kasahara said:
yes. The first film had a small quotient of win. The sequel has minus win levels, falling into the fail spectrum quickly
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
If the first didn't impress you, the second will leave you bored shitless.
bluestreak said:
not necessarily, as i've already explained.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Alright, have it your way.
If you do watch it, please let us know what you think.
If you do watch it, please let us know what you think.
bluestreak said:
Nah. It was just more of the same. Passed a couple of hours without causing any strong emotions either way. The first has the advantage of originality, but it's a bloody Zombie film for christakes
Meh (with added unnecessary shots of deserted London and bells on)
tarannau said:
no it's not.
Oh sorry, it's a highly original remake of the Zombie theme.
Unthinking,violent subhumans chase anything living, trying to pursue and tear at human flesh, aiming to bite and infect the living, making them become as undesirably fucked and violent as them....only this time the Zombies move fast and there's some spurious guff about viruses for out hypochondriac generation.
Let's face it, as plot developments go, its slightly less advanced than the Star Wars 'Prequels' foisting a load of crap about midichlorians onto us to explain the 'force'
it's a Zombie move, you ponce.
Unthinking,violent subhumans chase anything living, trying to pursue and tear at human flesh, aiming to bite and infect the living, making them become as undesirably fucked and violent as them....only this time the Zombies move fast and there's some spurious guff about viruses for out hypochondriac generation.
Let's face it, as plot developments go, its slightly less advanced than the Star Wars 'Prequels' foisting a load of crap about midichlorians onto us to explain the 'force'
it's a Zombie move, you ponce.
it's not a zombie movie.
it's not, you know 
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
from wikipedia
On the DVD commentary, Boyle and Garland frequently call it a post apocalyptic, horror and zombie film, commenting on scenes that were specific references to George A. Romero's original Dead trilogy. However, during the initial marketing of the film Boyle did try to distance the film from such labels. Boyle identified John Wyndham's The Day of the Triffids as Garland's original inspiration for the story[2].
Although 28 Days Later and its sequel 28 Weeks Later are often categorized by many as a film of the zombie genre, the infected portrayed in the film fit few if any aspects of the traditional zombie archetype. While zombies are generally slow, unintelligent, hungry for human flesh, and are almost universally undead, the infected are merely living human beings overcome with senseless rage brought on by a highly infectious virus. They can be killed like any human being and possess no superhuman abilities, apart from an arguably increased resistance to pain and heightened, manic strength. At the same time, the infected demonstrate several zombie-like characteristics, including a bite-transmitted condition that results in the affected individual's loss of personality, impaired cognitive function, murderous rage and discoloured eyes. Although highly aggressive, they nevertheless eventually die of hunger and/or thirst as they lose any desire for food and water, and demonstrate no natural instincts to hunt or forage for some.
so there.
On the DVD commentary, Boyle and Garland frequently call it a post apocalyptic, horror and zombie film, commenting on scenes that were specific references to George A. Romero's original Dead trilogy. However, during the initial marketing of the film Boyle did try to distance the film from such labels. Boyle identified John Wyndham's The Day of the Triffids as Garland's original inspiration for the story[2].
Although 28 Days Later and its sequel 28 Weeks Later are often categorized by many as a film of the zombie genre, the infected portrayed in the film fit few if any aspects of the traditional zombie archetype. While zombies are generally slow, unintelligent, hungry for human flesh, and are almost universally undead, the infected are merely living human beings overcome with senseless rage brought on by a highly infectious virus. They can be killed like any human being and possess no superhuman abilities, apart from an arguably increased resistance to pain and heightened, manic strength. At the same time, the infected demonstrate several zombie-like characteristics, including a bite-transmitted condition that results in the affected individual's loss of personality, impaired cognitive function, murderous rage and discoloured eyes. Although highly aggressive, they nevertheless eventually die of hunger and/or thirst as they lose any desire for food and water, and demonstrate no natural instincts to hunt or forage for some.
so there.
so tarannau - you can get as Russian formalist as you want, but you're still wrong
Termite Man
zombie flesh eater
bluestreak said:
so the "infected" don't have any desire to eat but still go round biting people . Even when I'm really really angry I don't bite people .
May Kasahara
take me to the feeling
Presumably the urge to bite can be filed under 'murderous rage'.
Wookey said:Oh, you old goat, it's a great fillum!!
The silent shots of London at the start are worth the money on their own!
To be fair, Children of Men is a better fillum.
Children of Men is great, it could have been a little more adult but the dystopian vision of London is great. Clive Owen acting like Clive Owen does but it suited the part well. P D James is shite but this took her shite and made it into eadible shite.
Well, Wikipedia. That sorts it out then.
So, in summary it's a film which Boyle and co knew was a Zombie film but have tried desparately to backtrack and reason that it isn't, all to keep ponceholes like you in smartarse 'it's not a zombie film' circular arguments for years to come.
Lovely work Mr Boyle.
So, in summary it's a film which Boyle and co knew was a Zombie film but have tried desparately to backtrack and reason that it isn't, all to keep ponceholes like you in smartarse 'it's not a zombie film' circular arguments for years to come.
Lovely work Mr Boyle.
no-no
Small robot you know
Firstly , they're zombies. I don't care how they got that way, they look and behave like zombies.
Secondly, the films great.The opening minutes are jaw dropping and pretty realistic with regard to carlysle leaving his wife to the mercy of the infected.
Thirdly, It's a zombi film what do you want from it? Blood?
Secondly, the films great.The opening minutes are jaw dropping and pretty realistic with regard to carlysle leaving his wife to the mercy of the infected.
Thirdly, It's a zombi film what do you want from it? Blood?
no-no said:
except they're not - read the explanation above
Chester Copperpot
Triple stones
no-no said:
Not so. Zombies don't run like olympic sprinters. Zombies are also dead and reanimated - not infected. If yiou want to understand what a zombie is you should read World War Z By mr zombie himself - Max Brooks.
tarannau said:What the explanation above where Danny Boyle, the director of the film, calls it a Zombie film and then tries to backtrack on subsequent PR.
Real convincing...
regardless of any backtracking involved, the facts speak for themselves.
Yeah, the facts that it's a slightly-masked Zombie Film, with a little bit of a twist.
Christ, it's not as though Zombies are a genuine lifeform with cast iron characteristics. They're not going to get their undead lawyers out to start sueing people for Zombie-based misconceptions and inaccuracies. Oh no, the Zombie PM won't be saying, you can't associate us with the infected
The whole method of infection and murderous 'rage' doesn't hold together without the conventions of Zombie movies and you know it.
Christ, it's not as though Zombies are a genuine lifeform with cast iron characteristics. They're not going to get their undead lawyers out to start sueing people for Zombie-based misconceptions and inaccuracies. Oh no, the Zombie PM won't be saying, you can't associate us with the infected
The whole method of infection and murderous 'rage' doesn't hold together without the conventions of Zombie movies and you know it.
Similar threads
