| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 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 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
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. |
|
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
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?
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
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. 
|
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
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. |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 05/17/2007 16:06:50 |
|
|
|
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). |
|
|
|
damalc 
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
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? |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
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. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
28 WEEKS LATER [only teensy spoilers]
