WayneLigon
Adventurer
Excellent film, A+. The sequel is as good as the original, in different ways; lost of suspense, action, terrific amounts of gore, and quite a few very cool scenes. I was very pleased with it.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
28 Weeks Later
- Thread starter WayneLigon
- Start date
Tetsubo
First Post
My wife and I plan seeing it Saturday.
I have a few misgivings about it. While the first was enjoyable as a thriller I didn't like the mechanism used to create the Infected. Rage was depicted as a disease. The problem is that once you are infected with a disease there is an incubation period. The fastest of which can at best be measured in hours (more like 12 - 18 hours), not seconds. And yes, that did spoil the film for me. If you are going to say that something is a disease (note that the victims are called Infected...) it best behave like a disease...
The other plot points that bugged me are numerous...
But my wife is really looking forward to it... so I will be going...
I have a few misgivings about it. While the first was enjoyable as a thriller I didn't like the mechanism used to create the Infected. Rage was depicted as a disease. The problem is that once you are infected with a disease there is an incubation period. The fastest of which can at best be measured in hours (more like 12 - 18 hours), not seconds. And yes, that did spoil the film for me. If you are going to say that something is a disease (note that the victims are called Infected...) it best behave like a disease...
The other plot points that bugged me are numerous...
But my wife is really looking forward to it... so I will be going...
Upper_Krust
Legend
Hey there! 
I saw this movie last night, I thought it was good, but not as good as the first movie - which I thought was excellent. Still, it was worth the admission fee for the helicopter scene alone.
I saw this movie last night, I thought it was good, but not as good as the first movie - which I thought was excellent. Still, it was worth the admission fee for the helicopter scene alone.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
Tetsubo said:
Scent, apparently (from 28 Days Later: Aftermath, I think); they know it does them no good because they can't infect someone already infected. Another explanation I like (though I don't think there needs to really be one): Why don't wolves attack each other when they're on the hunt instead of the deer?
Tetsubo
First Post
WayneLigon said:
I do think there needs to be an explanation.
Because a deer is a prey animal and the wolves have established a complex and highly involved social order over the course of millions of years? Why don't soldiers just kill the nearest human? It would certainly shorten wars...
Humans CAN'T smell that accurately. Not possible. Dogs yes, cats MAYBE, but not humans. Remember, the Rage does its voodoo within 20-30 seconds. Giving a human the level of olfactory excellence required to tell an Infected from an unnifected would require rewiring most of the brain. And apparently Rage also somehow "tells" its victims that their new mission in life is to bite people... Yeah, information transfer via an ubervirus...
The silly factor is just too high with this sequel. A virus needs an incubation period. There is no getting around that. And incubation periods are measured in (at best) hours and more likely days. If they wanted to use the disease vector idea they really needed Rage to be airborne and have a slow onset time.
The premise of this film just fails for me. Your mileage may vary. But making a "scientific" zombie movie without any science is doomed to fail...
There were also way to many "lucky" breaks in the film. Too many things had to fall in just the right place for the story to continue. It was like watching dominoes get knocked over...
If a movie REQUIRES me to completely shut off my brain to "work" the film makers have failed at their jobs...
Now, you want a zombie plague, Romero did it first and he did it best. If you die, you rise as a ghoul. Simple, clean and elegant. I also prefer my zombies slow and stumbling. The inevitability of Romero's ghouls is where the horror lies. Sure you can out run his ghouls. But they will just keep coming, forever. And you need to rest, too sleep. And the absolute best you are going to get is watching everyone you love rise as a flesh eating fiend... now THAT is horror... he also added in social commentary that is sorely lacking in this new breed of zombie movies.
But 28 Weeks Later was just silly...
BTW, a single tank or APC actually used in this film would have ended things quickly.
trancejeremy
Adventurer
You really have to shut off your scientific knowledge part of your brain to enjoy a movie. Science and movies just don't mix.
Anyway, I don't think it was meant to be a ""scientific" zombie movie", rather political commentary (which I can't really get into here)
Anyway, I don't think it was meant to be a ""scientific" zombie movie", rather political commentary (which I can't really get into here)
Tetsubo
First Post
trancejeremy said:
No I don't. Expecting me to do that is sloppy film making.
The writers used the disease vector concept in their script. Which means they should at least understand how the disease vector concept works. Which they obviously don't... if you base a film in reality, it should conform to reality. Otherwise just go make fantasy films...
I wonder where 28 Months Later will be set and what the story will be.
