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.
Like the infected act so differently in 28 years that I just figured the ones that continued to survive had to have some sorta mutation that was making them more like animals than just absolute rage machines that can only... Well.. rage. They already didn't attack eachother for some reason.
All it takes for that would have been one line from anyone along the lines of "They eventually remembered how to survive". Yeah zombies are nonsense conceptually, this is a virus that spawned out of monkey's rage from watching the endless news cycle lol, but follow your own internal logic at least.
I guess. To me the "zombies" aren't really the focus they're the back drop to the human tale. Viruses mutate and change all the time. So it didn't feel like much of a leap to assume after 28 years that the rage virus has mutated and was affecting people differently.
I don't think the people in the towns really researched the zombies, they're just trying to survive in what's left of their world. I can understand the frustrations but it's truly not something that I even thought about at all. The changes and limited information felt intentional to me.
But I also assume we'll get more info about this stuff in the next film with the cult. Logically 28 years later there wouldn't be any rage virus left if it was exactly the same as portrayed in the first film, again how do the infected even know other people are infected and don't attack them?
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.