| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 11:15:52
I'm much more disappointed by what isn't in the film than what is. Right away we can acknowledge a witty, pacy and brilliantly shot intriguing opening sequence that segues the action into this sequel. We can appreciate the build-up of tension with an extremely clever use of a musical score that approaches disturbing infra-sound with its relentless pulse until the action explodes. We can catch the subleties in Robert Carlyle's attempt to lift his character into a film more worthy of his talent. And, above all, we can be impressed by a genre film which poses such potent philosophical and cultural questions beneath the engine of what sadly turns out to be a standard and somewhat ludicrous plot.
It's not giving anything away to report that the dispersed family from 28 Days Later are united, nor that they quickly are forced apart and set against each other in quite predictable ways. But, without becoming too pretentious, that's an intriguing comment on the dissolution of the nuclear family amid the pressures of modern life. Sadly, any surprising resolution is sacrificed to the demands of the genre, which not only disappoints thematically, but has the effect of distancing us from the characters. By the end we should feel a real empathy with the daughter's inevitable final meeting with her father but by then any hint of audience involvement has been blasted away.
The film also raises other wider questions, each as easily discarded. Immediately there's the whole issue of the 1984-like matter of international domination, of the total ineptness of what amounts to an occupying force making really stupid decisions in the face of mindless threat. The political parallels are there for all to see - including the most potent that hateful cultural fundamentalisms invade us like viruses - but once again they're treated merely as plot points.
There's a great deal of intelligence peeking from the film's nooks and crannies, and some of the dialogue - particularly early on - is a treat. But the film pulls in different directions and ultimately pulls itself apart and far away from its promise. By the end, which makes its own promise of yet another sequel, you don't much care.
Here's my prediction for 28 Months Later - or whatever they'll call it: the nameless and irrational threat will have crept throughout the whole world, and what's the betting it's going to be the Americans who'll save the planet?
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 20:21:11
quote:
Jim and Selena both had moments that made me think, 'Whoah, they're as bad as the infected.'
That may have been the point, yes, but I think they stepped on that pretty badly with that ending that looked like a JC Penney ad. Plus, a friend pointed out a scene where Jim kills that soldier attacking Selena. Selena thinks Jim is a zombie first, but then realizes that it's Jim, and they smile and they're happy. This movie likes those characters, it would have been better served to keep its distance.
As for what 28 Weeks Later is "about," well... I've spoken my piece on that. |
| damalc |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 19:20:33
i liked 28WL a lot, though not as much as 28DL.
one part, that should have been really important, i thought they handled horribly.
i don't think it was an indictment of the US military, as much as the military in general. like it or not, that's how most military operations go. like Bruce Willis said in "The Siege,": "The army is a broadsword, not a scalpel."
one major point i got out of 28DL was that many of us are not far from raging out. luckily most of us are more intelligent than that. Jim and Selena both had moments that made me think, 'Whoah, they're as bad as the infected.'
i'm still not sure what they were trying to tell me with 28WL.
btw, there's single-issue comic called "28 Days Later: The Aftermath." overall, i didn't like it, but it did answer some good questions, like, where did the virus come from? and why don't the infected attack each other? |
| benj clews |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 23:36:36
Just come back from seeing this. I really enjoyed it but I'm not sure why, especially so having read the debate that's gone before.
Have to say, I didn't come away feeling it was getting at the US military. I can see how it might be read that way, but I wasn't thinking "Stupid US military" whilst I watched this or as I was running through it (trying to think up any fwfrs) on the way home after.
Afterwards, I came away from it feeling ravaged... which is how I think you should feel after a survivalist-horror film like this. Yes, it was bleak, but sometimes I want a film that I need to 'endure' to get through- surely that's what the filmmakers wanted to achieve above all else? (Like the average cinema-goer, I'm not one to sit and analyse a film in great deal afterwards) Amusingly, in some weird way, I found the whole experience a bit like 'The Pursuit of Happyness' (but without the happy ending). |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 16:06:22
No, she was there. You might have missed the brief scene in the prologue, where she left rehab and then was eaten by zombies. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 15:27:11
Yeah, I hate those sequels where you're expecting the original star and they don't turn up. 
|
| duh |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 14:46:21
I'm looking forward to watching this after it comes out on DVD. Having watched the trailer, I think I've pretty much seen the whole film?
I enjoy zombie movies, though, and I enjoyed 28 Days Later, but where was Sandra Bullock?
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 14:35:28
...
Okay, I don't know how to answer that post without escalating the hostility, which I don't want to do, but that was uncalled for. I'm expressing my opinion, you're expressing your opinion, we're engaging in debate. I'm certainly not offended by your opinion and your belief that you're right about it. Am I supposed to assume that I'm wrong? I'm willing to believe that my argument is wrong or flawed if I hear a good enough argument, and I don't think I have yet. Of course, that's also just my opinion. I don't feel like I have to preface every statement with "This is just my opinion and I could be wrong" because I feel I can reasonably assume that it's understood. If I'm abrasive, I apologize, but I don't see what you want me to do here.
That said, I want to emphasize that I don't necessarily agree with the view that every horrible military act is justified, I'm just saying that I think that that's what this movie is about and I think it's at least a defensible position. No, I wouldn't want to be in Hiroshima or Dresden. No, I wouldn't want my children gunned down by those soldiers in the movie. At the very, VERY best, I think such acts have to be acknowledged as a moral compromise.
But here's the question you didn't ask me: Do I want myself or my children risking their lives in protracted battle in World War II if it can be avoided? Do I want my children eaten alive by zombies marauding through the European mainland? If you notice, we don't see any of the main characters killed by military (except the guy who got flamebroiled, and the soldiers there thought he was just another infected). We do see that they kill the innocent, but the innocent civilians we see them kill are all faceless ciphers. We know nothing about them, we don't feel much empathy when they die. We see the military try very hard to keep the situation under control without killing civilians, and we see them turning to uglier solutions when that option has been exhausted. We understand why they do what they do, we don't see anyone rail against the military, we don't see anyone crying over their dead relatives. I just can't agree that this movie was trying to be anti-military when it ends the way it does.
Of course that's just my opinion. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 07:46:13
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
What is this film saying about the American military? Largely, it's saying that within the context of impossible situations, you have to make those difficult decisions to kill the innocent for the greater good. Or possibly you can read it as a fact that cold military logic fails because it can never take into account all the facets of human nature.
As I said b4, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the filmmakers [though ultimately they've failed] are trying to say something much more profound. That they've attempted something higher is why I'm so disappointed they haven't achieved it in filmic terms [pace Demonic's script analysis].
When Alfred Nobel invented dynamite he was convinced it would be perceived to be so unspeakably horrible that no one would ever go to war again.
The horrific overkill of the US military in this genre film of expected horror can [and imho] should be read as a wake-up call to condemn such a policy ... outwith the context of the film, as Demonic has wisely pointed out.
Rules? Whose rules? I believe one cannot jump into the moral middle of a situation. As much wiser historians than I have shown, Hiroshima and yes, even Dresden and the whole filthy war would have been avoided had the aftermath of WWI [and it's specially-bred puppy the Spanish Civil War, fomented by the burgeoning military industrial complex] been in the hands of men of peace and reconciliation who weren't hell-bent on amassing fortunes by funding some ultimate killing machine.
To justify the slaughter of innocent people not for ideals but for the personal gain of an power elite is not a moral act.
Are you volunteering to be in the front line of such an attack? Are you sending your children? Your defense of this movie seems quite ill-placed to me. Like everyone else here, yours is but an opinion, and people - whether they are better equipped to rebut you or not, also have their opinion. Opinions are not right or wrong ... they are opinions. And I suspect what's offensive to more than myself is your assumption that you're right and everyone else is wrong. It isn't even polite.
And this 4UM is a place of politeness.
Now, I'm bored with this  ... so post whoever may.
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 05:30:28
No, morally, the mother didn't deserve to die. Who said she did? We live in an unjust world, and these characters live in a REALLY unjust world. Never was there an implication that she deserved it. It was more an indication of how badly Carlyle had screwed up things.
As for the main characters being unsympathetic, well, man, I found them unsympathetic as well. But I cared what happened to them because they were human beings. Personally, that's enough for me. But there's enough of a distance that I get where the director was going with this.
What this movie is saying is love and compassion are bad ideas that get people killed. Anyone remember Jack Nicholson's famous speech in A Few Good Men. The truth he said we couldn't handle is that military leaders have to do things that seem unspeakable to the common layman. Firebombing Dresden, nuking Hiroshima; these are things that many in the modern world have judged to be bad things, and that's something they can do because they have that moral luxury. The military does mow down civilians and set them on fire in this movie, and in the context of this movie, it is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY justified. Those who acted on things like love and compassion are the ones that doomed the world.
Every time something goes wrong in this movie, it's because someone broke the rules, the rules which the military forces thrive on. The military commander tells the medical officer to burn the corpse, she resists. He tells the snipers to kill indiscriminately, one doesn't. The helicopter officer breaks protocol and rescues the kid. They all do things out of compassion for their fellow man, and they end up causing the apocalypse. If all audiences come away with is how the military shot civilians, they're missing the forest for the trees (and for what it's worth, everyone I saw it with agreed with me). This film is cold military logic personified. That's true nihilism, that's the sad facts that none of us want to admit might be true. It's not "morally suspect," it's a perfectly defensible viewpoint.
What is this film saying about the American military? Largely, it's saying that within the context of impossible situations, you have to make those difficult decisions to kill the innocent for the greater good. Or possibly you can read it as a fact that cold military logic fails because it can never take into account all the facets of human nature. |
| demonic |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 04:49:26
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I feel like I'm going to be repeating myself constantly, but here it is: I think the daughter was cast BECAUSE she wasn't particularly charismatic. Personally, I ran out of patience with those brat kids early on, when they started bitching at his dad for things they couldn't possibly understand. I have to think that's intentional.
I can't agree with that. Why would you want to cast lead characters who don't appeal to the audience? The only way I think you can elicit interest (or sympathy if required) is to make you root for their survival - if you don't have that you have no tension and no scares. If, you argue, we're not meant to feel sympathetic to them then I'd rather not have to watch them trying to escape for two hours. I think it was bad casting getting two actors with no screen presence. As for their bitching - I might have bought you were meant to think they were clueless about the situation and flippant kids but the rest of the dialogue wasn't smart enough to back that up. Certainly the kids of today wouldn't fail to understand the gravity and magnitude of the infection and death of the entire population of Britain (and all their friends and family). Beside the fact the actual events in reality would have been played out for all the world to see in grotesque detail all over the media I think the kids would have been well aware. For my money it's just not good scriptwriting.
quote:
People are reading this film precisely the wrong way. Arguing that this film is heartless is like arguing that Apocalypse Now, or more important Night of the Living Dead, is heartless. Basically, you're correct but you're missing the point.
I have no problem with heartless- an end of the world storyline has to have that nihilism to provoke geniune terror at the situation. Romero's first three Living Dead's all have very very bleak things to say - I think it's essential. But you have to care about someone, as they represent a direct connection to the story - otherwise it renders the message obsolete.
quote:
Reading the film as anti-American is easy but does NOT hold up. Really think about who the "heroes" are, what they do, and especially what happens as a result of their actions.
Yes, the sniper and the doctor and the pilot are all responsible for spreading the virus ultimately (more because no one was smart enough to actually tell anyone in charge either from the sniper's or the choppers comm system about the potential immunity carrier) but the thing people will remember having seen the film is the all powerful military force (a 'world police' if you'd like to draw a pop culture comparison...) gunning down civilians and totally decimating an area they've come to initially help. The parallels couldn't be much clearer I don't think.
quote:
Unrelentingly unpleasant is certainly true. Might be too much for some people. I don't see how someone can't derive pleasure out of a helicopter mowing down a platoon of zombies with its rotors though.
That would include me I'm afraid. Partly because they tried so hard to make the film gritty, real and utterly humourless, and the action and the violence realistic that particular moment just came across as sick, and not especially entertaining to me; not in the way the similarly excessive lawnmower sequence is entertaining in "Braindead" for example. That could be easily be described as cool and quite funny. The Helicopter was just sadistic and actually very stupid (as if a chopper wouldn't spin straight over as soon as it hit the first batch of people...)
quote:
"Morally clumsy" is a very, very curious comment that I don't understand and would like explained.
Well - in light of some of the comments I have made above it should be clearer. Things happen in this film because the scriptwriter and director presumably thought it would be a cool thing to do without thinking too hard about the finer points of what they were trying to present. Dad ripping out Mum's throat, smashing her skull and thumbing out her eyeballs is a curiously explicit thing to show without having some point (beyond he's really bad now he's infected) - but morally she didn't deserve such an appalling death. What exactly are they trying to say about the American military losing control? What are they saying about dodgy Dad and his stupid kids? Is Dad really so desperate to murder his own children that somehow he works out how to follow them all the way across London in his blood soaked rage? What are we meant to think about father and childrens climactic face off? Fathers attacking sons, daughters killing fathers - moments that are presumably meant to resonate with meaning are actually quite trivial. Are we meant to whoop and cheer when the pilot plows into the infected people with his chopper and perhaps feel admiring of him as a result for actually just being sadistic? He certainly wasn't interested in saving any of the survivors at that point.
I also have issues with movies that have characters die for an ideal or a purpose which is ultimately unfulfilled. The message is then: struggle is pointless, living is pointless. I call that morally suspect, and it's usually for the sake of a plot point or a cheap thrill. If a film like this wants to be taken seriously, which I think it does, I need a bit more intellectual meat on my action-packed infected corpse. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 18:24:04
Huh? Mine?
Well, I am professionally employed as a critic by my local paper and I did win a minor award for my reviews last year from the state press assocation. But I never really thought that credentials entered into it. It's like writing novels or songs, either you're good at it or you're not. Most of my favorite critics are online writers who are either good with a turn of phrase or have interesting interpretations of movies; Outlaw Vern, Walter Chaw and Bill Chambers of Film Freak Central, Alex Jackson of I Viddied It on the Screen, MaryAnn Johanson of Flick Filosopher. None of them have any credentials, I don't think, they just sat down at their computers and wrote a lot.
|
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 17:52:51
Just out of idle curiosity, do you care to reveal your professional critical qualifications?
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 17:31:25
I feel like I'm going to be repeating myself constantly, but here it is: I think the daughter was cast BECAUSE she wasn't particularly charismatic. Personally, I ran out of patience with those brat kids early on, when they started bitching at his dad for things they couldn't possibly understand. I have to think that's intentional.
People are reading this film precisely the wrong way. Arguing that this film is heartless is like arguing that Apocalypse Now, or more important Night of the Living Dead, is heartless. Basically, you're correct but you're missing the point. Reading the film as anti-American is easy but does NOT hold up. Really think about who the "heroes" are, what they do, and especially what happens as a result of their actions.
Unrelentingly unpleasant is certainly true. Might be too much for some people. I don't see how someone can't derive pleasure out of a helicopter mowing down a platoon of zombies with its rotors though.
"Morally clumsy" is a very, very curious comment that I don't understand and would like explained. |
| demonic |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 16:11:42
It's a zombie movie outside of the constraints of the Romero mould - they're not dead, but they may as well be, and in essence the result is the same- recieving a bite turns you bad and you crave murdering (eating in some instances) other people.
no so teensy spoilers...
For what it's worth I didn't think much of this one, much in the same way I didn't much like its predecessor. I thought the script was pretty lamentable, particularly seeing I couldn't care less about any of the characters we were being asked to follow. Some of the casting was very suspect as well - the daughter had clearly been chosen so she could show off her smoky blue eyes and smoulder a bit not because she was particularly charismatic on screen. Carlyle did a pretty good job though; more so in the second half of the film - a very unpleasant villain I thought.
Which is one of the main problems - it was unrelentingly unpleasant - there were a couple of extremely bloody and in my view excessively gory moments that turned my stomach without particularly horrifying or scaring me. It was just horrible. It shows how far gone we are in viewing and accepting violence when similar scenes of excessive violence and body trauma were outright banned in the 80s movie nasty debacle - there is one scene in particular which is far far more realistically violent than anything seen from that time.
Morally it was a clumsy film and the anti-American element, which I don't think you can really avoid or ignore with current political events, was heavy handed. Interestingly the only character I like even a bit was the AWOL American sniper. Rose Byrne is singularly boring in everything I've seen her do and she made no impact here either.
The set pieces on the whole were good ideas but in nearly every instance were fumbled. The underground sequence for example was a great idea that simply didn't work. Maybe in the hands of a more experienced director or a less epileptic DP. Talking of the director I loved "Intacto" - but mainly for it's cool restraint and fascinating premise - both things missing here in their entirity.
Looked great - the firebombing was awesome (and exactly what London needs ) - but capitalising on the only memorable image from beginning of the first film - empty London, the whole of this sequel is packed with familar sights enough to lessen their impact.
One for the obsessive gore-hound only I think. |
| Sean |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 00:14:16
I agree that this isn't a zombie film. They're alive and angry, not dead with an amoeba-like intellect.  |
|
|
