28 Weeks Later

Well, as a previous Zombiephobe (After watching this movie, it's evident to me that I've overcome my fears) and as a current zombie flick fanatic, I must say that this is the single best zombie movie I've ever seen. It's absolutely fantastic! Surprising, original, smart, fast and thought-of, this movie is excellent - That much I must say.

Not too long ago it was also declared that there will be a sequel (28 Months Later) in 2011. I can't wait

Anyways, I was wondering; What did you guys make of this movie? (Yes, this is your spot to review this movie if you want, go ahead! I want to hear other opinions aside mine and my brother's)

*sighs* It's not a zombie movie. Zombie movies requires zombies to be in them, 28 days/weeks/months don't have zombies.
They have infected much like the movie Outbreak.
So really, don't call it a zombie movie, you insult zombie fans when you do.
It's like calling Transformers a werewolf movie.

Suffers from dumb sequel syndrome. I can't really understand how this can be the best zombie movie you've ever seen. Zombie movies generally aren't known to feature characters that act smart or even reasonable but the degree of stupidity shown in this movie only to move the plot along is mindboggling.

*sighs* It's not a zombie movie. Zombie movies requires zombies to be in them, 28 days/weeks/months don't have zombies.
They have infected much like the movie Outbreak.
So really, don't call it a zombie movie, you insult zombie fans when you do.
It's like calling Transformers a werewolf movie.

It's effectively a zombie movie as most movies that are zombie movies never use the word "Zombie" in it - They say "Infected" as well.

Oh, and by the way - The Marines in the movie called the "Infected" Zombies.

So yes, it is a zombie movie.

Suffers from dumb sequel syndrome. I can't really understand how this can be the best zombie movie you've ever seen. Zombie movies generally aren't known to feature characters that act smart or even reasonable but the degree of stupidity shown in this movie only to move the plot along is mindboggling.

I think you're alone on this one. Many reviews I looked at in other sites only praised the movie. Guessing you're not a zombie fan?

Originally Posted by Nazgûl Killer

It's effectively a zombie movie as most movies that are zombie movies never use the word "Zombie" in it - They say "Infected" as well.

Oh, and by the way - The Marines in the movie called the "Infected" Zombies.

So yes, it is a zombie movie.

The people that made the movie and wrote the lore, has stated many times that it is not a zombie movie and asked people to stop calling them that.
And ever since Dawn of the Dead(original) and they used the word Zombie.
So Transformers 2 is a werewolf movie since they both use the word "transform".
So the movie Outbreak has zombies in them too now since they use the word infected as well.
What you are doing is just bastardizing the sub-genres by grasping at straws to apply it to a sub-genre where it doesn't belong because people can't think.

28 days/weeks/months later is and always will be an Outbreak movie, a movie about a virus that kills people. They either make a cure or just wait it out until the infected die.

Zombie movies don't follow this, there is no waiting out nor is there a cure. They aren't fighting against a virus or disease, they are fighting against a monster. A monster that was once human but died and came back to life for unknown reasons, the undead.
A zombie movie requires zombies just as a werewolf movie or vampire movie requires a werewolf/vampire.
The infected in 28 days later or weeks, are still living people only with a disease therefore they don't qualify as a zombie and therefore this can't be a zombie movie.
Respect the sub-genre.

Guessing you're not a zombie fan?

Neither are you since you insult other zombie fans like this.

Originally Posted by TB666

The people that made the movie and wrote the lore, has stated many times that it is not a zombie movie and asked people to stop calling them that.
And ever since Dawn of the Dead(original) and they used the word Zombie.
So Transformers 2 is a werewolf movie since they both use the word "transform".
So the movie Outbreak has zombies in them too now since they use the word infected as well.
What you are doing is just bastardizing the sub-genres by grasping at straws to apply it to a sub-genre where it doesn't belong because people can't think.

28 days/weeks/months later is and always will be an Outbreak movie, a movie about a virus that kills people. They either make a cure or just wait it out until the infected die.

Zombie movies don't follow this, there is no waiting out nor is there a cure. They aren't fighting against a virus or disease, they are fighting against a monster. A monster that was once human but died and came back to life for unknown reasons, the undead.
A zombie movie requires zombies just as a werewolf movie or vampire movie requires a werewolf/vampire.
The infected in 28 days later or weeks, are still living people only with a disease therefore they don't qualify as a zombie and therefore this can't be a zombie movie.
Respect the sub-genre.


Neither are you since you insult other zombie fans like this.

I see your point, and all right, I agree with it, but I also must say that your behavior was quite petty and disrespectful. You have no right to tell me what I am or what I am not. You could have just said that in the first place and be done with it - But you decided to overreact and make a mountain out of an ant hill, so first of all you need to relax and understand that talking to people in a civil manner might just make them think better of you or understand your point - Because I can quite easily continue to call this a zombie movie and push your buttons (Which obviously works) but I won't.

Moderator or not, choose your words. No need to go hostile on random people just for the heck of it.

It's not a zombie movie, the infected are still alive, don't eat flesh (don't eat at all actually), die from every wound that would kill you,and you can basically outlive the infestation by hiding somewhere isolated and waiting till they die from hunger or thirst.
The infected just have some things in common with fast zombies, like running after you in a horde. That's about it actually.

And the original was loads better. Weeks was just an amusing gorefest, Days was actually a good movie.

Actually they do eat, because it said they died 5 weeks AFTERWARD of starvation. A human body cannot survive for 4 days without eating. Heck, even less. But in any way, yes I get it it's not a zombie flick. Now can we please drop that subject and carry on?

In any way, I honestly didn't find the original that good. I watched it again not too long ago and it was quite all right... But... I don't know. As far as I'm concerned it wasn't better.

Originally Posted by Nazgûl Killer

I see your point, and all right, I agree with it, but I also must say that your behavior was quite petty and disrespectful. You have no right to tell me what I am or what I am not. You could have just said that in the first place and be done with it - But you decided to overreact and make a mountain out of an ant hill, so first of all you need to relax and understand that talking to people in a civil manner might just make them think better of you or understand your point - Because I can quite easily continue to call this a zombie movie and push your buttons (Which obviously works) but I won't.

Moderator or not, choose your words. No need to go hostile on random people just for the heck of it.

Well I apologise for my poor wording.
I'm just tired of this debate.
I'm a zombie fan(as you might tell from my avatar) and I love the zombie genre, it's my favorite horror sub-genre.
It gets me mad that people try to put movies into sub-genres that don't belong there especially when they are being told even by the people that made the movies to stop doing it.
Again I apologise for the poor wording and hostile tone.

As for the topic, only seen 28 days later and it was a decent film.
The plot had a few holes in it and the ending was disappointing to say the least but it had some nice moments.
However not a movie I would like to watch again hence the reason why I had no interest in seeing the sequel.

Originally Posted by TB666

I'm a zombie fan(as you might tell from my avatar

I seen that face before in the movie ,but forgot what It called.

Originally Posted by Nazgûl Killer

I think you're alone on this one. Many reviews I looked at in other sites only praised the movie. Guessing you're not a zombie fan?

No he's not alone. I hated it too and I never read a good review of it either. 28 Days Later, on the other hand, was a great film.

Originally Posted by Nazgûl Killer

Actually they do eat, because it said they died 5 weeks AFTERWARD of starvation. A human body cannot survive for 4 days without eating. .

I take it you've not seen 28 Days Later? Because it was clearly stated in that movie the infected do not eat.

Originally Posted by Nazgûl Killer

I think you're alone on this one. Many reviews I looked at in other sites only praised the movie. Guessing you're not a zombie fan?

Well I generally don't need public opinion to confirm my own opinion. I suppose the movie tried to make up for its plot stupidity with fast pacing and lots of gore but I still found it stupid. If I remember correctly the whole outbreak happened because they couldn't lock a simple door/post a guard there. That was just great.

Originally Posted by Rapax

Well I generally don't need public opinion to confirm my own opinion. I suppose the movie tried to make up for its plot stupidity with fast pacing and lots of gore but I still found it stupid. If I remember correctly the whole outbreak happened because they couldn't lock a simple door/post a guard there. That was just great.

Originally Posted by Manco

herding all people together in one closed off space on ground level?
No guards at the room of the only woman surviving infection?
And there's probably a lot more

That much I agree, I found that incredibly stupid, but I try to look past it and not let it get in the way of the rest.

Yes, the movie has had its plot holes and stupid stuff (Show me a single horror movie that doesn't, I dare you), but looking past that and trying to review the movie as a whole proves a completely different experience, I promise you that much.

It's not a zombie movie, the infected are still alive, don't eat flesh (don't eat at all actually), die from every wound that would kill you,and you can basically outlive the infestation by hiding somewhere isolated and waiting till they die from hunger or thirst.
The infected just have some things in common with fast zombies, like running after you in a horde. That's about it actually.

And the original was loads better. Weeks was just an amusing gorefest, Days was actually a good movie.

Apparently the infected consume hemoglobin, and that's why they chase people.

28 Days was a really cool movie, It had some great moments an a very driving plot. But 28 Weeks was way to stupid, especially it's representation of the US Military

Originally Posted by Claudius Gothicus

28 Days was a really cool movie, It had some great moments an a very driving plot. But 28 Weeks was way to stupid, especially it's representation of the US Military

How so?

Apparently the infected consume hemoglobin, and that's why they chase people.

Euhm, no.

They are just very, very angry. It's a rage-virus, remember.

Originally Posted by Manco

Euhm, no.

They are just very, very angry. It's a rage-virus, remember.

High levels of Hemoglobin and the Rage Virus were connected somehow if I remember correctly.

But I haven't seen the movie in a year and a half at least, so I could be wrong

herding all people together in one closed off space on ground level?
No guards at the room of the only woman surviving infection?
And there's probably a lot more

High levels of Hemoglobin and the Rage Virus were connected somehow if I remember correctly

Not mentioned in Days, and I haven't seen Weeks in ages and can't remember. Haemoglobin is probably where the virus resides, since blood is what infects people that's prolly what you heard.
But if they fed on haemoglobin, they presumably wouldn't starve to death, which they do.
They would have to have some manner of recognising each other though, maybe feromones.

Well I apologise for my poor wording.
I'm just tired of this debate.
I'm a zombie fan(as you might tell from my avatar) and I love the zombie genre, it's my favorite horror sub-genre.
It gets me mad that people try to put movies into sub-genres that don't belong there especially when they are being told even by the people that made the movies to stop doing it.
Again I apologise for the poor wording and hostile tone.

No harm no foul. And yes, I can see why you took that tone

As for the topic, only seen 28 days later and it was a decent film.
The plot had a few holes in it and the ending was disappointing to say the least but it had some nice moments.
However not a movie I would like to watch again hence the reason why I had no interest in seeing the sequel.

That's what I disliked about "Days Later" - The ending was incredibly disappointing. Such is not the case with "Weeks Later".

28 weeks later was just retarded in terms of the plot. There were elements of the movie I liked, but how they moved the story along was just absurd.

Also 28 weeks later is as much a zombie movie as "I am legend". The only thing these movies all have in common with zombie films are an outbreak.

really the only thing I liked about the movie is how ruthless the military would be when trying to contain an outbreak. There were just so many stupid moments in the movie though ....uhg.

btw- I do own the movie, so take my comments for what they are worth.

28 weeks is essentially 28 days with none of the originality and more gore

ill still watch 28 months when it eventually comes around though