I'm a huge fan of 28 Days Later and this doesn't feel like the same world/virus and that never stopped bothering me despite liking a lot about this. But even with the bits I liked there was plenty to dislike about them. I dunno. I'm still confused about how I feel a few hours later lol
That's fair. I love the first movie. Didn't like 28 weeks at all. Loved this one but I can understand why it wouldn't land for others. It's doing a lot of different plot lines and some feel a little under baked. But in terms of visuals and sound it was such an experience.
The story with his mum really hit me hard and even tho it felt a little rushed I found it very effective. The Jimmy Savile Rangers at the end threw me for an absolute loop but I'm excited to see how that plays out in the next one. Fav moment probably the night time chase back to the island.
28 Weeks Later is shit with a few small redeeming elements. The chaos of "war" as they start sniping civilians in an artificial situation they created us harrowing. And Jeremy Renner burning to death is nice to see considering some of his less than stellar at home antics haha.
Yeah. The opening to that movie is an all timer for sure tho.
That's another great bit. Years had a pretty great opener too.
The cinematography was beautiful throughout. Though some of the action snap cuts felt weird to be, but not really bad. The logic of dragging his mum to the doctor instead of trying to bring the doctor there kind of frustrated me but 1 it's a kid and 2 it's a movie.
I don't think the doctor would be welcome in the town. The dad thinks he's a lunatic and probably would have attacked him on sight. I think the doctor was also very focused on his "work" there and probably wouldn't have left either imo. But I get it's a pretty illogical setup.
Compared to dragging a sick woman with debilitating delusions through a zombie apocalypse, and they wouldn't know how he felt about his work, and if they town hated him they could meet on the outskirts.... None of that matters because the scene didn't call for it. But it just doesn't click with me.
Yeah I mean it wasn't a good situation either way. Dad wasn't going to get the doctor to look at her and the son was desperate and took matters into his own hands in an act of desperation as he's lashing out. But I guess I read it as his only real option aside from just letting her die in town.
The visuals and concept of the scenes involving the mum at the bone temple were great, but it kinda felt forced to me and it kinda deflated the scene to me. The ending was tonal whiplash and the sequel will dictate how I feel about that I guess. My biggest issue is the infected act SO different.
They do but I put it down to them being wild infected in the sense they seem to have been there for ages. They've gone fully feral but the movie seemed to have some sorta animal like hierarchy? I figured maybe that's what late late stage infection turns into but it is very different to 28 days.
Very much more a vibes movie for me than something I'd like to try and logically dissect I guess. It just looks and sounds so different from any other movie like this and I'm all about new experiences.
This is true and what I like about it. If they hadn't called it 28 Years Later most of my problems would vanish, I like the movie Men because it's like a poem made visual lol. But they attached it to a movie that means a lot to me and doesn't add up.
The infected don't eat, that's a huge element of the virus. Now they eat, have rituals and reproduce? That just... isn't the virus from 28 Days Later. It's a different movie.
For sure but like all the infected would be dead within days due to dehydration. I just figured the virus evolved and changed. Most zombie type movies don't make a lick of sense when you start breaking them down but perhaps 28 years would have been better served as an entirely different film.
All the metaphors for pandemic related isolation, and different ways of life clashing but learning to live alongside each other despite them are very cool and interesting though.