Kermode is likeable because he's a film enthusiast instead of a self-important critic. He makes a lot of good points, but never takes anything (including himself) too seriously.
Funny how he defends his stance on zombies by saying "they aren't real, but there are laws they have to conform to, like vampires", and then went on a few years later to become a massive fan of Twilight ...
@MrVinushka That is a very, very good point. Twilight is an extraordinary blindspot for someone like Kermode to have... A truly awful saga that mutilates the vampire mythology.
@TxGearhead Yes, they are zombies. They act just like zombies, so as far as it doesn't matter plot-wise whether they're infected or dead, they can be called zombies.
@YouFoolWarrenIsDead The real reason why they're not zombies but why it is a kind of neo-zombie film is simple - the writer of 28 days later, Alex Garland is a zombie-fan so 28 days later was basically the original Romero trilogy with a spin, you have the survivors in the house during act one like in Night, you have more survivors going shopping and moving on in act 2 as in Dawn and you have them running into soldiers and escaping during act 3 like in Day.
I like this film (not as much as 28 Days, but still), but I was wondering if anyone could explain why Robert Carlyle's rage-infected character seems much more...murderous, rather than infectious.
@soundslave The moment the army guy died i didnt care....seriously the kids were stupid as hell. The country just had a massive zombie epidemic, they open one safe zone in the whole country....DO NOT LEAVE THE SAFE ZONE...what do the kids do? Leave the safe zone and screw everything up
I'm not convinced that the film-makers were going for political commentary. The parallel could have been coincidental, since involving an English speaking military just makes good storytelling sense.
If commentary was intended, it probably wasn't some generic "down with American imperialism" sort of thing. The soldiers were portrayed as valiant, and weren't occupying England, but standing in for the destroyed British Army.
Dont exactly see how the whole story of the army gaurding the safe zone becoming as dangerous as the infected is original. They did the same thing in 28 days later only with a 10 man army out in the woods. The first movie was loads better
Couldn't disagree more. I'm not one of you lot with your sophisticated comments where I'm sure you have some sort of qualification in literature or media but I thought that the camera work was AWFUL. It ruined a lot of the film. There's only so much shaking and flashing that's acceptable. I thought that in the case of the helicopter scene it could have been replaced with something edgier like in days later where the idea of desperation is more prominent. Weeks later is, in my opinon...
@moonturkey , too American and sort of displaces how good the first one was. Being chased by one solitary, recurring infected in weeks later isn't as scary as the reoccurring hoards in days later. All this being said they are two different films I guess but even by itself I think weeks later was pretty weak. The "political subtext" don't cut the butter for me:P I'm sure you now think I must be uneducated for just not "getting it":P
Fantastic movie! It was by far superior to Days Later. It took the concept and took it to another level. I think the inclusion of the soldiers in Days later killed the momentum of the movie. If it had been only a few people trying to survive it would have been better. The best Days later movie stayed on the proposal stage "cutting room floor". .
While I enjoyed Days Later and have the DVD, on the disk they showed the part of the storyline originally planned with the storyboards and that would have been a better movie. While in Weeks later the soldiers added a lot to the story.
I'm an avid listener to the podcast, can someone explain to me if it's a separate recording to the actual show or is it literally just the radio show cut down for itunes?
Well ok, but the 2nd one did have decent character development for what time frame they had to fit. I thought each character was well played, which surprised me. Well, let's hope the next one is good too.
I'm confused as to why people think 28 Days was a better film. It had it's moments like the scene when London is deserted, but it simply kept dragging on. I didn't feel the powerfull moments like that of 28 Weeks. I think the English just want to stand by their film as the better one, which I understand. It was good, but it needed to be refined more. But, it's all just a difference of opinion in the end.
I preferred Days, simply because I didn't think it was quite so much of a bloodbath. Alot of the main set-piece ultra-violence mass-infection happened off-screen, so it's more like looking at the aftermath of that, analysing what kind of a person would survive these events, how they might perpetuate. That was the appeal for me. Whereas Weeks was a bit too much like 'Oh.. hordes of zombies.. chasing people.' Admittedly, they were running zombies. But after Days that's not that exciting anyway.
But, that's the beauty of the second one. It did have the larger hordes and big action scenes, which are needed in a movie like this, but still had the powerfull scenes. Part 1 just kept dragging on and on. The last 45 minutes when they get to that house wasn't done right in my opinion.
I can see that if you're into the big action scenes then the pace might seem a slow. But I happened to enjoy the suspense and the character development. Like you said, a difference of opinion. We've both got our reasons and I don't think they're unreasonable.
Really interesting. I didn't like 28 Weeks when I saw it (and it actually got boos from the audience)
I got the Iraq references, but I didn't interpret it as Anarcho-syndicalist propaganda.
My main problem was that the first 5 minutes of the film are amazing, and if they had followed through with some of the ideas that they established there, I think this could easily have been better than 28 Days.
Oh no, not at all! He's ...... well he's.... well there was that time he......
.... Okay, yes pretty much.
To many people though, his mindlessly proletarian tastes constantly clashing with Mark Kermode's well informed but overly opinionated ranting is one of the main reasons to listen in to their show.
sure there was a kid in the first movie but she played a very very small roll and had very few lines. In contrast here the kids are the main part of this film and were one of the many aspects that i felt destroyed so much of what made the first movie so effective and fantastic.
That said the intro scene of 28 weeks was very good, shame it went so downhill from there.
What bothered me so much about this movie, pretty much to the point of ruining it for me was the choice of having young children as the main characters... I really dont think it works well in horror movies because it is one of those taboos very very very rarely if ever broken to have a child who is a main character die.
It destroyed any sense of tension in the film knowing that the kids would certainly not be ripped appart by the infected, they were obviously going to survive.
haha im so sorry! i thought you were replying to another comment, i get loads of people not agreeing with me! sorry man sorrryy lol thanks for agreeing!
couldn't hold a candle to 28 days but still above and beyond most modern horror movies. but the lead kids performance is rubbish and actually hurts the film imo.
One thing I just didn't get about 28 Weeks Later was how the American Soldiers completely ridiculously became the bad guys.
Sure there was the order "Shoot everyone" but at so many points the friendly American Soldier could have yelled "Hey, we're not infected" and that makes sense since infection turns you instantly crazy.
It turned them into the bad guys in such an arbitrary way that seemed indicative of the director's own prejudice towards the American Military.
Oh come on, It's not like in the first movie where the British soldiers became the bad guys, that was slowly broken into and it made sense but if didn't make sense how here was "the one good one".
They spent the first half of the film humanising them and fleshing them out then they all turned into "Illogical, Must-Kill machines". Like the flame-thrower scene, they would never have torched one of their own, NEVER. It makes no sense.
BTW: I would expect such an attitude from an uppity Canadian.
quoting me like that... really? You lined yourself up for that one.
Don't worry, in "28 Months Later" Canadian Soldiers will suddenly turn out to be Satan worshipping paedophiles as is the trend with the "28 Something Later" series the Soldiers have to become increasingly illogically evil (Sarcasm).
What's scarier than satan-worshippers are order- following soldiers, (eg. French and Prussian troops ordered to cease shooting at each other and to start slaughtering the Communards in Paris, {-not the Jimmy Sommerville group}). Examples abound.
Correction: France lost war, (1871), Prussian troops occupied Paris, Communards barricaded and defended city, collaborationist govt. aided by Prussian officers and re-armed French troops carried out slaughter (20- 40,000 civilians, all ages, both sexes).
Good soldiers following orders to kill their countrymen (and women, and children).
The movie turns completely on its head at the end when the kids get to the helicopter where they could have flown back to the US base and be greeted by warm blankets and hot coco but no.
By this point the US military is illogically painted as specifically trying to kill the kids. The gas attacks could be explained as being caught in friendly fire but now America is simply the bad guy.
So they break quarantine to infect and kill millions.
THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE DESPERATELY TRYING TO STOP!
I find it scary that people like you think it is evil for soldiers to try to prevent an incredibly lethal infection spreading in the only way they can.
After that queue, the soldiers just become stupid (or the director is stupid) as they even knowing the infected cant shoot guns or drive cars but try to kill them anyway. They become faceless stormtroopers as the director knows he can't explain their actions.
Your Communards example was one of revenge, not to save lives but satisfy a bloodlust.
re: communard example as bloodlust: Not bloodlust but a cold execution of orders. It wasn't in the least a spontaneous act, which was the whole gist of my using it as an example. Soldiers follow orders, that's the whole point of their training: to override their fight or flight instincts and break the taboo of murder. Anyway my orig. comment had less to do with the film and more to do with the actions of real U.S. troops (and more importantly their gov.), perhaps I'm off topic.
There was no reason to kill women or kids, there was plenty of opportunity to imprison the men. It was their commanders who wanted them dead out of hatred.
28WL: There was every reason to shoot on the heaving crowd who were mostly infected. But the director seems to use that morally ambiguous point at a springboard to demonise them.
Real US troops? There was NEVER, hear me NEVER any order with ANY coalition forces to execute anyone but to accept EVERY surrender! Only to kill armed combatants.
How dare you call our soldiers murderers. You look them in they eye and tell them that they are not fighting for a worthy cause. Al Qaeda are murderers who STRIVE with all their might to kill as many civilians as possible while the Coalition work all the time to reduce civilian casualties to spite how the enemy constantly uses human shields.
They are murderers. Hell, I am not at all religious but even the bible says thou shalt not kill, equating all killing with murder. killing = murder, and it doesn't matter if it's sactioned by the united states government of the taliban.
"I am not at all religious but even the bible says thou shalt not kill"
If you are not religious why do you care what "the bible" says as the same book forbids abortion, homosexuality, sports on Sunday, meat on Friday and adultery or be sent to HELL!
And it is ONLY the Roman Catholic interpretation that says "Thou Shalt not kill" all other interpretations and the earliest sources say "Thou shalt not MURDER". Throughout the bible various killing of humans is sanctioned as long as JUSTIFIED.
no, the king james version says 'thou shalt not kill' and it was the first modern transalation widely used in all denominations. of course societies have twisted this because humans by our nature murder, but anyhow, I used it as an example to show how old the analogy between killing and murder is. Tell me, what is the difference? The only time killing isn't murder is when it is in self defence, and ALOT of the killing the US Army has commited in the last few years has not been self defence.
I don't have to suffer your religious prejudices. Just because a certain sect of a religion forbids something, doesn't mean that thing is equivalent to a much more serious crime.
Islam forbids consumption of alcohol, that doesn't mean alcohol is equivalent to taking heroin.
It's incredibly naive to say that soldiers are only justified to kill to defend themselves. Enemy is a danger if they are not captured/killed due to their declared intent.
As I said, I am not religious, I don't believe in God or the bible. It's just you were theologically wrong on the roman catholic thing. American soldiers are not murderers for attacking insurgents before the insurgents attack them, but if you read about numerous US airstrikes since World War II and the amount of civilians killed by these - that is murder. A kid with half her head blown off by american bombs dropped on residential areas in iraq during the initial invasion. That's murder.
If neither of us are religious, why cite scripture in the first place? You use the language of extremists only when it suits you, which is not acceptable.
Your naivete is borderline stupidity as a war can never be won if you wait for the enemy to shoot first. Churchill said it best: "In war, the best form of defence is attack!"
Civilians caught in the crossfire are accidental deaths, which is NOT murder. Read a dictionary.
Only terrorist supporters call these air strikes murder.
kermode must really like the crazies, he references it a lot. i think the definition of a zombie movie goes past the reanimation question, because romero's movies are typified by patronising social commentary, a lot like days/weeks. not all disaster movies involve humanity devolving and betraying itself, but all successful zombie movies do.
It's funny, I'm the hugest horror fan, but 28 Weeks Later was almost too horrific for me. When Rose Byrne got her face smashed in with a rifle butt on camera, without cutting away, I wanted to fucking puke.
Wow, he actually liked the movie. I haven't seen 28 Weeks Later myself, but I think it looks good, but I thought Mark would've ripped it a new asshole, according to what people are saying about it.
I despised the movie. Danny Boyle's move from director to producer is far too noticable.
RenaissanceMan1993 1 month ago
great review.
I love this film.....in fact some parts are actually better than 28 Days Later, which I also love
:)
WAAAAAAAAAAAY 3 months ago 2
the first 10 mins of this movie is one of the greatest of all time , shame about the other 100 mins.
chanceie12 7 months ago 14
Kermode is likeable because he's a film enthusiast instead of a self-important critic. He makes a lot of good points, but never takes anything (including himself) too seriously.
DaveM599 8 months ago
Did they sneak into the BBC in the middle of the night to do this?!
HelpMyNamesTaken 8 months ago 3
television isn't it? it's for charidee mate
77Fortran 9 months ago
Next .......next.......LMAO
majesticmaniac 11 months ago 2
Funny how he defends his stance on zombies by saying "they aren't real, but there are laws they have to conform to, like vampires", and then went on a few years later to become a massive fan of Twilight ...
MrVinushka 1 year ago
@MrVinushka That is a very, very good point. Twilight is an extraordinary blindspot for someone like Kermode to have... A truly awful saga that mutilates the vampire mythology.
arbeitsscheuer 4 months ago
Some scenes may be unsuitable for extreme homophobs lmfao!!
jacktalbot 1 year ago
I remember going to see this movie feeling all vulnerable as I was coming down off the previous night's E. Jesus, totally mashed my head in it did.
podfunk 1 year ago
They bite people and the bitten people then bite other people... THEY'RE FUCKING ZOMBIES!
YouFoolWarrenIsDead 1 year ago
@YouFoolWarrenIsDead They're not dead. If somebody with the flu bites you & you get the flu, are they -by your logic- zombies?
If a dog/bat/rodent with rabies bites you ant gets you sick, are they -by the same logic- zombies?
NOT the same thing.
TxGearhead 1 year ago
@TxGearhead Yes, they are zombies. They act just like zombies, so as far as it doesn't matter plot-wise whether they're infected or dead, they can be called zombies.
SandBarAndYou 1 year ago
@TxGearhead If somebody tries to bite me i will mark them after "ZOMBIES:" on the scoreboard.
YouFoolWarrenIsDead 1 year ago
@YouFoolWarrenIsDead The real reason why they're not zombies but why it is a kind of neo-zombie film is simple - the writer of 28 days later, Alex Garland is a zombie-fan so 28 days later was basically the original Romero trilogy with a spin, you have the survivors in the house during act one like in Night, you have more survivors going shopping and moving on in act 2 as in Dawn and you have them running into soldiers and escaping during act 3 like in Day.
AzaleaZoeliz 11 months ago
@AzaleaZoeliz Good analysis.
YouFoolWarrenIsDead 9 months ago
28 weeks later was just shit.
28 days later and dawn of the dead (remake) are the best.
TroutMaskReplicaa 1 year ago
I like this film (not as much as 28 Days, but still), but I was wondering if anyone could explain why Robert Carlyle's rage-infected character seems much more...murderous, rather than infectious.
deadblissco 1 year ago
The plot of 28 weeks only works because of a few people acting stupidly.
*spoilers*
I.e. no security guarding the room that Robert Carlyles wife is inside.
Without her infecting Robert Carlyle then there wouldn't be an outbreak.
Because the film only works because of stupid people I ended up hating it.
soundslave 1 year ago
@soundslave The moment the army guy died i didnt care....seriously the kids were stupid as hell. The country just had a massive zombie epidemic, they open one safe zone in the whole country....DO NOT LEAVE THE SAFE ZONE...what do the kids do? Leave the safe zone and screw everything up
harrinski 1 year ago
''Sexs, Drugs,Murder,Justin Timberlake Bla Bla Bla'' ROFL .. i did like alpha dogs though.
chanceie12 1 year ago
I'm not convinced that the film-makers were going for political commentary. The parallel could have been coincidental, since involving an English speaking military just makes good storytelling sense.
If commentary was intended, it probably wasn't some generic "down with American imperialism" sort of thing. The soldiers were portrayed as valiant, and weren't occupying England, but standing in for the destroyed British Army.
shrunkard 1 year ago
Dont exactly see how the whole story of the army gaurding the safe zone becoming as dangerous as the infected is original. They did the same thing in 28 days later only with a 10 man army out in the woods. The first movie was loads better
SamHain1031666 1 year ago
hannibal lecter is from baltimore. not boston.
GoinDownToJunkieTown 1 year ago
This moving was freaking awesome and an instant classic. The soundtrack is also outstanding!
Xenda 1 year ago
Couldn't disagree more. I'm not one of you lot with your sophisticated comments where I'm sure you have some sort of qualification in literature or media but I thought that the camera work was AWFUL. It ruined a lot of the film. There's only so much shaking and flashing that's acceptable. I thought that in the case of the helicopter scene it could have been replaced with something edgier like in days later where the idea of desperation is more prominent. Weeks later is, in my opinon...
moonturkey 1 year ago
@moonturkey , too American and sort of displaces how good the first one was. Being chased by one solitary, recurring infected in weeks later isn't as scary as the reoccurring hoards in days later. All this being said they are two different films I guess but even by itself I think weeks later was pretty weak. The "political subtext" don't cut the butter for me:P I'm sure you now think I must be uneducated for just not "getting it":P
moonturkey 1 year ago
28 days later may not be a zombie movie but it follows the same principles!
Villesanti 1 year ago
hes become my hero over the last 3 months i have his book and its great if you can get it and sit back with a cup of tea and enjoy!
Howler15 1 year ago
Fantastic movie! It was by far superior to Days Later. It took the concept and took it to another level. I think the inclusion of the soldiers in Days later killed the momentum of the movie. If it had been only a few people trying to survive it would have been better. The best Days later movie stayed on the proposal stage "cutting room floor". .
skinwalkerxxx 1 year ago
While I enjoyed Days Later and have the DVD, on the disk they showed the part of the storyline originally planned with the storyboards and that would have been a better movie. While in Weeks later the soldiers added a lot to the story.
skinwalkerxxx 1 year ago
Most pointless sequel ever and utterly forgettable.
BTW I only saw on on TV a few weeks back- so I didn't pay for it.
MegaPhoenixBird 1 year ago
Good movie, good sequal, the first one was better.
Could you review ALIEN?
ghostmanlostsoul 1 year ago
I'm an avid listener to the podcast, can someone explain to me if it's a separate recording to the actual show or is it literally just the radio show cut down for itunes?
bassben04 1 year ago
Well ok, but the 2nd one did have decent character development for what time frame they had to fit. I thought each character was well played, which surprised me. Well, let's hope the next one is good too.
EddieZ999 1 year ago
I'm confused as to why people think 28 Days was a better film. It had it's moments like the scene when London is deserted, but it simply kept dragging on. I didn't feel the powerfull moments like that of 28 Weeks. I think the English just want to stand by their film as the better one, which I understand. It was good, but it needed to be refined more. But, it's all just a difference of opinion in the end.
EddieZ999 1 year ago
I preferred Days, simply because I didn't think it was quite so much of a bloodbath. Alot of the main set-piece ultra-violence mass-infection happened off-screen, so it's more like looking at the aftermath of that, analysing what kind of a person would survive these events, how they might perpetuate. That was the appeal for me. Whereas Weeks was a bit too much like 'Oh.. hordes of zombies.. chasing people.' Admittedly, they were running zombies. But after Days that's not that exciting anyway.
NeonBlueAlex 1 year ago
But, that's the beauty of the second one. It did have the larger hordes and big action scenes, which are needed in a movie like this, but still had the powerfull scenes. Part 1 just kept dragging on and on. The last 45 minutes when they get to that house wasn't done right in my opinion.
EddieZ999 1 year ago
I can see that if you're into the big action scenes then the pace might seem a slow. But I happened to enjoy the suspense and the character development. Like you said, a difference of opinion. We've both got our reasons and I don't think they're unreasonable.
NeonBlueAlex 1 year ago
if u were alone in a deserted city with only infected maniacs im sure surviving would drag on
etocadet 1 year ago
screw u kemrode
320storm 2 years ago
you don't have to be dead to be a zombie
a zombie can be a brainwashed person too!
metalreign81 2 years ago
@metalreign81 like obama wants us to be
320storm 2 years ago
Really interesting. I didn't like 28 Weeks when I saw it (and it actually got boos from the audience)
I got the Iraq references, but I didn't interpret it as Anarcho-syndicalist propaganda.
My main problem was that the first 5 minutes of the film are amazing, and if they had followed through with some of the ideas that they established there, I think this could easily have been better than 28 Days.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
Holy shit, I fucking love Kermode, Brilliant trollmaster
vousdeux 2 years ago 20
the film is the shits, STFU
helloman2332 2 years ago
Im with Kermode on this- a lot of people, critics and otherwise, gave this movie a lot of crap. i enjoyed it- not as good as 28 days, but still good
TobeUK 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I dont get Simon Mayo, does he get paid to be a whiney, dreary, boring, irritating, arrogant prick?
jazz4 2 years ago
Oh no, not at all! He's ...... well he's.... well there was that time he......
.... Okay, yes pretty much.
To many people though, his mindlessly proletarian tastes constantly clashing with Mark Kermode's well informed but overly opinionated ranting is one of the main reasons to listen in to their show.
mrphood 2 years ago
sure there was a kid in the first movie but she played a very very small roll and had very few lines. In contrast here the kids are the main part of this film and were one of the many aspects that i felt destroyed so much of what made the first movie so effective and fantastic.
That said the intro scene of 28 weeks was very good, shame it went so downhill from there.
Necropenguins 2 years ago
What bothered me so much about this movie, pretty much to the point of ruining it for me was the choice of having young children as the main characters... I really dont think it works well in horror movies because it is one of those taboos very very very rarely if ever broken to have a child who is a main character die.
It destroyed any sense of tension in the film knowing that the kids would certainly not be ripped appart by the infected, they were obviously going to survive.
Necropenguins 2 years ago
I agree. Especially with it not being as good as 28 days. I mean that was fantastic.
ollymcguirk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
should be called 2 cunts talk shit
canvoodoo 2 years ago
im sorry take your bullshit somewhere else. We don't want you here, thankyou.
ollymcguirk 2 years ago 2
I second this motion. Get the fuck out.
hippotoast 2 years ago
ha, oh sure oh sure a guy called 'hippotoast' doesn't like me oh no what must i do, oh dear. get a fucking life you cunt.
ollymcguirk 2 years ago
I was agreeing with you fucking idiot. Grow a brain.
hippotoast 2 years ago
haha im so sorry! i thought you were replying to another comment, i get loads of people not agreeing with me! sorry man sorrryy lol thanks for agreeing!
ollymcguirk 2 years ago
Oh that is just too good for words. Thank you so much for injecting this poor-attention-span-based-comedy into my day.
mrphood 2 years ago
couldn't hold a candle to 28 days but still above and beyond most modern horror movies. but the lead kids performance is rubbish and actually hurts the film imo.
reservoirdog666 2 years ago
Guys, calm down or take your disagreements to a website that is a forum for such.
This is a review of a film!
plinky23 2 years ago
I like Mark's reviews , but I HATED this movie
goodkat2 3 years ago
i think weeks didn't have good characters and script like in days later
aplayaz2000 3 years ago
One thing I just didn't get about 28 Weeks Later was how the American Soldiers completely ridiculously became the bad guys.
Sure there was the order "Shoot everyone" but at so many points the friendly American Soldier could have yelled "Hey, we're not infected" and that makes sense since infection turns you instantly crazy.
It turned them into the bad guys in such an arbitrary way that seemed indicative of the director's own prejudice towards the American Military.
It was still cool as hell.
Treblaine 3 years ago
'One thing I just didn't get about 28 Weeks Later was how the American Soldiers completely ridiculously became the bad guys.'
-Treblaine, December 2008, Planet Earth
pekoe67 3 years ago
Oh come on, It's not like in the first movie where the British soldiers became the bad guys, that was slowly broken into and it made sense but if didn't make sense how here was "the one good one".
They spent the first half of the film humanising them and fleshing them out then they all turned into "Illogical, Must-Kill machines". Like the flame-thrower scene, they would never have torched one of their own, NEVER. It makes no sense.
BTW: I would expect such an attitude from an uppity Canadian.
Treblaine 3 years ago
I'm not uppity, I'm full of despair and impotent rage.
pekoe67 3 years ago
quoting me like that... really? You lined yourself up for that one.
Don't worry, in "28 Months Later" Canadian Soldiers will suddenly turn out to be Satan worshipping paedophiles as is the trend with the "28 Something Later" series the Soldiers have to become increasingly illogically evil (Sarcasm).
Treblaine 3 years ago
What's scarier than satan-worshippers are order- following soldiers, (eg. French and Prussian troops ordered to cease shooting at each other and to start slaughtering the Communards in Paris, {-not the Jimmy Sommerville group}). Examples abound.
pekoe67 3 years ago
Correction: France lost war, (1871), Prussian troops occupied Paris, Communards barricaded and defended city, collaborationist govt. aided by Prussian officers and re-armed French troops carried out slaughter (20- 40,000 civilians, all ages, both sexes).
Good soldiers following orders to kill their countrymen (and women, and children).
pekoe67 3 years ago
The movie turns completely on its head at the end when the kids get to the helicopter where they could have flown back to the US base and be greeted by warm blankets and hot coco but no.
By this point the US military is illogically painted as specifically trying to kill the kids. The gas attacks could be explained as being caught in friendly fire but now America is simply the bad guy.
So they break quarantine to infect and kill millions.
THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE DESPERATELY TRYING TO STOP!
Treblaine 3 years ago
I find it scary that people like you think it is evil for soldiers to try to prevent an incredibly lethal infection spreading in the only way they can.
After that queue, the soldiers just become stupid (or the director is stupid) as they even knowing the infected cant shoot guns or drive cars but try to kill them anyway. They become faceless stormtroopers as the director knows he can't explain their actions.
Your Communards example was one of revenge, not to save lives but satisfy a bloodlust.
Treblaine 3 years ago
re: communard example as bloodlust: Not bloodlust but a cold execution of orders. It wasn't in the least a spontaneous act, which was the whole gist of my using it as an example. Soldiers follow orders, that's the whole point of their training: to override their fight or flight instincts and break the taboo of murder. Anyway my orig. comment had less to do with the film and more to do with the actions of real U.S. troops (and more importantly their gov.), perhaps I'm off topic.
pekoe67 3 years ago
There was no reason to kill women or kids, there was plenty of opportunity to imprison the men. It was their commanders who wanted them dead out of hatred.
28WL: There was every reason to shoot on the heaving crowd who were mostly infected. But the director seems to use that morally ambiguous point at a springboard to demonise them.
Real US troops? There was NEVER, hear me NEVER any order with ANY coalition forces to execute anyone but to accept EVERY surrender! Only to kill armed combatants.
Treblaine 3 years ago
"Taboo of murder"
What
The
FUCK.
How dare you call our soldiers murderers. You look them in they eye and tell them that they are not fighting for a worthy cause. Al Qaeda are murderers who STRIVE with all their might to kill as many civilians as possible while the Coalition work all the time to reduce civilian casualties to spite how the enemy constantly uses human shields.
Treblaine 3 years ago
Too many straw men presented to bother with. Argue with someone else.
pekoe67 3 years ago
Straw men? You brought those "straw men" out that were little more than snide accusation that could not go uncontested.
Why don't you randomly pick another logical fallacy to accuse me of to desperately try to discredit me.
Clearly you have some deep seated and illogical prejudices that you probably have in common with the director.
Treblaine 3 years ago
They are murderers. Hell, I am not at all religious but even the bible says thou shalt not kill, equating all killing with murder. killing = murder, and it doesn't matter if it's sactioned by the united states government of the taliban.
FunBoy15 2 years ago
"I am not at all religious but even the bible says thou shalt not kill"
If you are not religious why do you care what "the bible" says as the same book forbids abortion, homosexuality, sports on Sunday, meat on Friday and adultery or be sent to HELL!
And it is ONLY the Roman Catholic interpretation that says "Thou Shalt not kill" all other interpretations and the earliest sources say "Thou shalt not MURDER". Throughout the bible various killing of humans is sanctioned as long as JUSTIFIED.
Treblaine 2 years ago
no, the king james version says 'thou shalt not kill' and it was the first modern transalation widely used in all denominations. of course societies have twisted this because humans by our nature murder, but anyhow, I used it as an example to show how old the analogy between killing and murder is. Tell me, what is the difference? The only time killing isn't murder is when it is in self defence, and ALOT of the killing the US Army has commited in the last few years has not been self defence.
FunBoy15 2 years ago
I don't have to suffer your religious prejudices. Just because a certain sect of a religion forbids something, doesn't mean that thing is equivalent to a much more serious crime.
Islam forbids consumption of alcohol, that doesn't mean alcohol is equivalent to taking heroin.
It's incredibly naive to say that soldiers are only justified to kill to defend themselves. Enemy is a danger if they are not captured/killed due to their declared intent.
It's so tiring arguing with religious extremists.
Treblaine 2 years ago
As I said, I am not religious, I don't believe in God or the bible. It's just you were theologically wrong on the roman catholic thing. American soldiers are not murderers for attacking insurgents before the insurgents attack them, but if you read about numerous US airstrikes since World War II and the amount of civilians killed by these - that is murder. A kid with half her head blown off by american bombs dropped on residential areas in iraq during the initial invasion. That's murder.
FunBoy15 2 years ago
If neither of us are religious, why cite scripture in the first place? You use the language of extremists only when it suits you, which is not acceptable.
Your naivete is borderline stupidity as a war can never be won if you wait for the enemy to shoot first. Churchill said it best: "In war, the best form of defence is attack!"
Civilians caught in the crossfire are accidental deaths, which is NOT murder. Read a dictionary.
Only terrorist supporters call these air strikes murder.
Treblaine 2 years ago
I agree totally. The "attitude" was so anti-american it was pathetic, but the film was still interesting.
mts1977 3 years ago 2
A fair review, it surprised me when I saw it because it was better than I expected.
EchetusXe 3 years ago
this movie was a LOT better than i thought it ever would be.
dizzyjedi 3 years ago
kermode must really like the crazies, he references it a lot. i think the definition of a zombie movie goes past the reanimation question, because romero's movies are typified by patronising social commentary, a lot like days/weeks. not all disaster movies involve humanity devolving and betraying itself, but all successful zombie movies do.
billdeal 3 years ago
Mark might come off negative to some, but i think he's spot on.
mdimitrova1 3 years ago 2
Spot on. I agree with every word about both 28 weeks and 28 days.
paraparabara 3 years ago
the Day of The Triffids thing is spot on. Great film though
TheIkaraCult 3 years ago
It's funny, I'm the hugest horror fan, but 28 Weeks Later was almost too horrific for me. When Rose Byrne got her face smashed in with a rifle butt on camera, without cutting away, I wanted to fucking puke.
derpenstein 4 years ago 7
@derpenstein NO SPOILERS PLEASE!!!!
lordtufty 11 months ago
@derpenstein Wait.... I could barely see anything in that scene....
LicoriceLain 6 months ago
Wow, he actually liked the movie. I haven't seen 28 Weeks Later myself, but I think it looks good, but I thought Mark would've ripped it a new asshole, according to what people are saying about it.
Neonman78 4 years ago
Mark Kermode use your real name ya big Fairey!!!!
MickeyLove01 4 years ago
Mayo is a lumpy-faced god botherer.
MickeyLove01 4 years ago
28 Weeks Later
ilovethesoupnot 4 years ago
okay
CERNOBE 4 years ago
lol
thefucingchamp 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is one of the worst horrormovies i've seen, has so many plot holes, wasn't in the least bit scary and the acting was poor.
Defoe9 4 years ago
try doing better then
riazomonero 4 years ago
thanks for uploading. keep up the good work.
vivace119 4 years ago 3