Features

Immortal Goat · #1

Really sucked ass. That is all.

rocketsauce · #2

Care to elaborate?

kahljorn · #3

i heard it was good

Supafly345 · #4

Immortal goats opinion finally confirms that I need to see this.

Immortal Goat · #5

You want more detail? Ok. More detail.

Let's see, where to begin... well, it started off fucking awesome. Tension built up just right, the initial attack was brutal and made you jump, and one of the creatures died from motorboat blades. Pretty damned sweet.

Here's where it slows down for me. #1, they say the last infected human died of starvation 15 weeks after the initial breakout, and then they start repopulation 28 weeks after. Not after the final death, but the breakout. That means the U.S. Army decided that 13 weeks of cleanup after a MASSIVE VIRUS BREAKOUT was sufficient.

Also, the movie didn't really revolve around the infected humans this time around. It revolved around this kid who was supposedly immune to the disease. Instead of the infected being the subject of the movie, they were more like the punctuation. Think an exclamation point at the end of a very long, boring sentence.

This movie should not have happenned. 28 Days Later ended in such a way that didn't leave much room for a sequel. It was possible, but they had to stretch it. This one, on the other hand, I can guarentee leads into 28 Months Later.

So yeah, schlock, no matter what the reviews say. It also seemed at times more of a criticism over how the U.S. handles foreign affairs rather than a horror movie. I don't need that when I go see a "zombie" flick. I need flesh chewing monsters.

Supafly345 · #6

Did you think Little Miss Sunshine sucked because its not very plausable for people to break through a gate and steal a body too? I mean come on, nobody steals bodies like that.

But if we are deciding that a movie is bad for reasons that don't really make a movie bad, then here is the number 1 reason the movie sucks ass:

No Selena.

Zomboid · #7

You've got jungle fevah.

Immortal Goat · #8

Supa, the implausibility of the Army repopulating the country at that point was the smallest of my gripes. I was more disappointed in the fact that there weren't enough infected, the attacks were short-lived and far between, and when they DID attack, the camera was so frantic you couldn't see a fucking thing anyway.

It was a flop in my opinion. Some may disagree, but I thought it could have been so much more than it was. And now that I've seen what they did with it, I dread the day we see "28 Months Later".

Supafly345 · #9

All of that stuff seemed to be what made 28 days awesome. It wasn't constant bombardment, it was subtle, tasteful. In the first movie they were pretty much there for atmosphere than the central focus of the movie. The camera work is another things that made the first movie totally awesome, it was exciting, made you feel more absorbed into the movie, and made the initial "jump" factor last through the scene. All your complaints as to why this movie sucks could really be applied to the first movie as well. Other than the storyline.

Because it wasn't exactly what you expected or wanted doesn't mean it is going to be bad. Here's the thing, I fucking HATE how it isn't a survival movie and is now a military-type post-apocolyptic drama. I wanted it to be a suspensful survival movie again, where you never feel safe. But that won't ruin the movie for me. Everyone I trust who has seen it, loves it. And they were all very big loyal fans of the first like me. So I'm optimistic.

rocketsauce · #10

I think I get where you're coming from. It was more like our heroes vs. the military than just heroes trying to survive. It was an interesting idea to put that in and take things in a different direction, but I felt that there was a little too much military. For instance, I liked the survival aspect of the cottage flashback scene (though you wonder why they wouldn't have some more weapons ready).

And while I can accept it for the movie, Robert Carlyle popping up everywhere was kinda funny after a while.

Immortal Goat · #11

I loved the first movie. It just seemed that this one took everything good from the first one (panicked camera view, atmosphere, etc.) and just did it wrong. The panicked camera was TOO all over the place at times, and they just didn't build up enough of the atmosphere (in my opinion) to make the attacks a worthy payoff.

There were also way too many WTF moments for my liking. Some of them may be nitpicks, but whatever. For instance, at one point the "heroes" got in a car and started driving. The military had been instructed to shoot on sight any person at ground level. The "Infected" did not have the capacity to operate a vehicle. Why did the helicopter attack the car?

It wasn't all bad, though. The completely night-vision sequence was intense, and very well done. But it was too little, too late in the movie to really save it for me.

ArrowX · #12

This one was like Saw 3, try and make the viewers leave as depressed as possible, all of the characters cool enough to give a damn about are picked off in far to stupid ways Case in Point the flamethrowers in the gas, why the fuck would the US army use a weapon they haven't fielded since the end of Vietnam? These being non zombies shouldn't assault weapons suffice as they did the soldiers in the first? These guys would just keep running at you as they were burning, and beat you to death whilst lighting you on fire.

I still think they could have done a sort of prequel in the sense that they do one like 28 hours later, with a group of people trying to survive during the initial chaos of the outbreak. Or even have one taking place in the Chullel, have a few people running from the infected through the trains and service tunnels and areas. The pacing would have been fucking intense.

noob3 · #13

they need a prequel, 28 hours later. Everyone would be like watching TV like "oh fuck rage virus outbreak what the fuck?" and then there would be like zombies busting in through thier screen doors all "blaaargh!"