Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Is easily the worst film I've ever seen. I would say "spoilers" and all that crap, but if I tell you everything, you will save yourselves $7 to see a film that makes House of the Dead look like Oscar material.

This film sucks. It **** sucks. The director used only one shooting style. Shaky-cam.

If the director somehow ends up reading this review. SHAKY CAM DOES NOT EQUAL GOOD OR INNOVATIVE, OR EVEN UNIQUE SHOOTING STYLE. SHAKY CAM SUCKS.

Seriously, even the still camera shots and the pans looked as if the camera man was a retard who suffered from chronic epileptic seizures.

Everything was shaky cam. The friggin' credits were shaky cam for christ's sake.

Shaky cam should ONLY be used for documentaries(Grizzly Man), or reality tv shows, like COPS.

Now, camera work aside, lets actually get into the story.

With 28 Days Later we were presented with a unique take on zombie films. With 28 Weeks Later, we were presented with complete destruction of that unique take. They took a good story and turned it into your stereotypical zombie film.

Not to mention, there were plot holes galore. Seriously, the plot holes were such in number, that the plot holes had plot holes.

The story was so damned terrible. Small boy(who I swear on my life I thought was a girl from all the previews, and even looks like Hermoine(Harry Potter) if she was a dude, anyway, small boy shows up in England, and he has two different colored eyes, which he inherited from his mom, and is very "unique." Foreshadowing!

Anyway, turns out the mom, who turns out to be infected as seen in the first 5 minutes of this god awful film, isn't actually infected. She had the virus but has a natural immunity. So shes a carrier for the virus, as her saliva can still pass it on.

So as anyone with 1/10th of a brain can figure out the entire friggin' plot of the film from here on out. Boy has mom's genes, boy has natural immunity, boy = possible cure for the Rage virus.

The dad goes and visits the mother who's in the medical facility, they make out, and thus he becomes a zombie and kills the mom.

He not only becomes a zombie, but he's also a magical super zombie. Not only can he magically bypass a locked door, but he also shows up wherever the kid goes. He is like Jason, no matter how far you run away, drive away, fly away. He'll end up right where you are, in front of you none the less.

Like I said, plot holes galore. There were so many plot holes, combined with the shaky cam, I had no idea what the **** was going on during the film 90% of the time. Zombies magically appear on rooftops where snipers are and end up killing the zombies, even though they're on buildings with like 30 stories.

A population of 15,000 people can fit into a tiny room, but then fill a field with zombies.

The zombies are apparently so badass they can escape a firebombed district of London, breaking out of the zone, after the place was firebombed to hell and back.

Not to mention, like I said before, the dad combined with shaky came = super zombie. He is fire proof, biological weapon proof, he can even easily kill soldiers who are highly trained in the blink of an eye, like he was Jack Carver from Farcry.

Now, I didn't tell you where spoilers are for a reason. If I spoil the movie for you, then hopefully you won't go see the damned film. I had to suffer through the film, so you don't have to. If you're mad at me, go see the film anyway.

Now, I'm going to go get plastered and shoot myself in the face just so I can forget about this god awful film. Not literally, just saying so to get my point off.

harsh-i was really looking forward to this, i am gonna go see it Saturday night, i hope i can contradict you!

It's a rental at best. I already figured that.

The only good Zombie movies are the Resident Evil films, I saw dawn of the dead and thought it was crap, so unless its says "Resident Evil", I stay away from it!

Powersurge wrote:The only good Zombie movies are the Resident Evil films, I saw dawn of the dead and thought it was crap, so unless its says "Resident Evil", I stay away from it!

what are u 12? Resident Evil is by far the WORST Zombie movies ever made!

Night of the living dead 1980's, Dawn of the Dead 2000 and Shawn of the Dead are the 3 best zombie films ever!

Followed by 28 Days later and maybe brain dead

trust me i am the Zombie Master!

GrimSqueaker wrote:

Powersurge wrote:The only good Zombie movies are the Resident Evil films, I saw dawn of the dead and thought it was crap, so unless its says "Resident Evil", I stay away from it!

what are u 12? Resident Evil is by far the WORST Zombie movies ever made!

Night of the living dead 1980's, Dawn of the Dead 2000 and Shawn of the Dead are the 3 best zombie films ever!

Followed by 28 Days later and maybe brain dead

trust me i am the Zombie Master!

No I'm 22, hey I like the resident evil idea of the zombie, that and I love the games

GrimSqueaker wrote:

Powersurge wrote:The only good Zombie movies are the Resident Evil films, I saw dawn of the dead and thought it was crap, so unless its says "Resident Evil", I stay away from it!

what are u 12? Resident Evil is by far the WORST Zombie movies ever made!

Night of the living dead 1980's, Dawn of the Dead 2000 and Shawn of the Dead are the 3 best zombie films ever!

Followed by 28 Days later and maybe brain dead

trust me i am the Zombie Master!

you have obviously NEVER seen the originol night/dawn/day of the dead. george romero should have done this film. he would have done it right.

hey i just though, how did the mom make a kid without infecting the dad.......

Heavy B wrote:hey i just though, how did the mom make a kid without infecting the dad.......

Well, not having seen the movie I can't say for sure, but judging by the title, I'd say it's set 28 weeks after the outbreak. The kid is more than 28 weeks old.

Sheogorath wrote:

Heavy B wrote:hey i just though, how did the mom make a kid without infecting the dad.......

Well, not having seen the movie I can't say for sure, but judging by the title, I'd say it's set 28 weeks after the outbreak. The kid is more than 28 weeks old.

Yeah, I might not have explained it well enough.

The mom and the dad had sent their kids out of the country when the rage virus first hit. They were living with an old couple in a farm house. They saved a boy who was being chased by th infected. They let the kid in, the zombies attacked the house, crap happens I couldn't tell as the shaky cam was going. Dad and mom are upstairs, mom tries to save the random kid they saved, the zombies bust through, the dad leaves the mom behind and runs for it. She gets infected, then later randomly shows up in their old house.

Godmodule wrote:It's a rental at best. I already figured that.

I figured that out from seeing the first movie and never even seeing or hearing a thing about this crap-pie before this.

The first movie was about as scary as watching scooby-doo on monster island.

Imho the first movie was the worst horror film ever made and that says a lot cause 99 percent of horror films out today have been absolute crap.

Sad. The first one was slightly decent. I liked the fact that they weren't really zombies, just people driven insane and blood crazed. Because as we all know, zombies are defined as being corpses that are reanimated and have a hankering for living human tissue. The creatures in 28 Days are more like the crazed morons you see in riots that just want to beat the **** out of anything near them that moves.

CUY'VUL DAR wrote:

Godmodule wrote:It's a rental at best. I already figured that.

I figured that out from seeing the first movie and never even seeing or hearing a thing about this crap-pie before this.

The first movie was about as scary as watching scooby-doo on monster island.

Imho the first movie was the worst horror film ever made and that says a lot cause 99 percent of horror films out today have been absolute crap.

The first one wasn't meant to be a horror film. It was a zombie film, if you saw the first one thinking it would have jumps points, premarital sex, and more jump points. You must have been disappointed.

28 Days Later, like I said, was a zombie/disease film. It was a tale of survival, not to much run around a cave avoiding a guy with a machete, but from people who were consumed by rage, lost all sense of being.

It was a good zombie movie with a touch that made it unique.

And I agree, ever since Jason Takes Manhattan, there have been no good horror movies, ever since they introduced the whole "horror movies must be shot with a 100% grainy look to make up for our lack of story."

Resident Evil is easily not the best zombie film. It's a decent zombie movie, but a terrible video game adaptation.

The best zombie films really are all George Romero's work.

Heavy B wrote:

GrimSqueaker wrote:

Powersurge wrote:The only good Zombie movies are the Resident Evil films, I saw dawn of the dead and thought it was crap, so unless its says "Resident Evil", I stay away from it!

what are u 12? Resident Evil is by far the WORST Zombie movies ever made!

Night of the living dead 1980's, Dawn of the Dead 2000 and Shawn of the Dead are the 3 best zombie films ever!

Followed by 28 Days later and maybe brain dead

trust me i am the Zombie Master!

you have obviously NEVER seen the originol night/dawn/day of the dead. george romero should have done this film. he would have done it right.

hey i just though, how did the mom make a kid without infecting the dad.......

Too reiterate, Resident evil teh film one was ok (although the cgi was total piss) and the seecond was total intestinal scrap-like haevy said check out the real zombie movies before u swear allligance to an inferior product

p.s. i am a huge fan of the r.e. games!

I thought most Resi fans hated the movies like anyone else, as they trashed the plot and characters?

What's even worse is there is another one coming out in December. Soooo sad.

Well, i guess i lost all hope....

Another one? 28 Months later? What??

Nightwatcher wrote:What's even worse is there is another one coming out in December. Soooo sad.

Its gonna be great!

Ok well not great, but not as bad as u are all making it out to be-

I will agree that there were some problems, the director of cinematography should be shot, or at least someone should disable the "shakey camera" special effect button on his imovies! And the whole daddy-ubber zombie thing was a bad idea, they were obviously trying to put a face on the enemy, to humanise the zombies in a way. A bad idea, but perhaps from their point of view an acccebitable risk-alll in all the movie was pretty good, not as good as the original-but definatly good as far as sequals go.

It was interesting just to see how would people respond after a zombie crisis, the rebuilding of england-and of course how would the military respond if they were aware of a zombie threat.

Oh and as for the major plot hole, how did daddy escape in the first place when he had to swipe a security card to get in in the first place-well i thought that was a bit dodgy, but one of my mates who went to see it with me is a Sparky and he installs those types of locks-according to him they only have locks on one side, a simple push from the other will open then, just fyi.

p.s. the helicopter slice scene is stolen from "World
War Z" which will rock all ur socks once it hits cinemas next year!

GrimSqueaker wrote:

Nightwatcher wrote:What's even worse is there is another one coming out in December. Soooo sad.

Its gonna be great!

Ok well not great, but not as bad as u are all making it out to be-

I will agree that there were some problems, the director of cinematography should be shot, or at least someone should disable the "shakey camera" special effect button on his imovies! And the whole daddy-ubber zombie thing was a bad idea, they were obviously trying to put a face on the enemy, to humanise the zombies in a way. A bad idea, but perhaps from their point of view an acccebitable risk-alll in all the movie was pretty good, not as good as the original-but definatly good as far as sequals go.

It was interesting just to see how would people respond after a zombie crisis, the rebuilding of england-and of course how would the military respond if they were aware of a zombie threat.

Oh and as for the major plot hole, how did daddy escape in the first place when he had to swipe a security card to get in in the first place-well i thought that was a bit dodgy, but one of my mates who went to see it with me is a Sparky and he installs those types of locks-according to him they only have locks on one side, a simple push from the other will open then, just fyi.

p.s. the helicopter slice scene is stolen from "World
War Z" which will rock all ur socks once it hits cinemas next year!

Still, the plot holes are numerous. A shaky cam and a magic pass card doesn't make for an explanation on how Mr.Uber-Zombie magically appears through a door 2 seconds after looking through said door at the kid.

Not to mention, the guards sealed the doors with chains as well as the locking device. Yet didn't seal all the doors with chains. Huzzah for poor story-telling through the actions of apparently incompetent soldiers entrusted to rebuild London.

Oy, thinking back on all the crap the movie did wrong makes me angry.

Senor Hugo wrote:

GrimSqueaker wrote:

Nightwatcher wrote:What's even worse is there is another one coming out in December. Soooo sad.

Its gonna be great!

Ok well not great, but not as bad as u are all making it out to be-

I will agree that there were some problems, the director of cinematography should be shot, or at least someone should disable the "shakey camera" special effect button on his imovies! And the whole daddy-ubber zombie thing was a bad idea, they were obviously trying to put a face on the enemy, to humanise the zombies in a way. A bad idea, but perhaps from their point of view an acccebitable risk-alll in all the movie was pretty good, not as good as the original-but definatly good as far as sequals go.

It was interesting just to see how would people respond after a zombie crisis, the rebuilding of england-and of course how would the military respond if they were aware of a zombie threat.

Oh and as for the major plot hole, how did daddy escape in the first place when he had to swipe a security card to get in in the first place-well i thought that was a bit dodgy, but one of my mates who went to see it with me is a Sparky and he installs those types of locks-according to him they only have locks on one side, a simple push from the other will open then, just fyi.

p.s. the helicopter slice scene is stolen from "World
War Z" which will rock all ur socks once it hits cinemas next year!

Still, the plot holes are numerous. A shaky cam and a magic pass card doesn't make for an explanation on how Mr.Uber-Zombie magically appears through a door 2 seconds after looking through said door at the kid.

Not to mention, the guards sealed the doors with chains as well as the locking device. Yet didn't seal all the doors with chains. Huzzah for poor story-telling through the actions of apparently incompetent soldiers entrusted to rebuild London.

Oy, thinking back on all the crap the movie did wrong makes me angry.

Ok so that was really really confusing, although that was due to crap cinematrography and not crap story-although i cant explain it because i couldnt follow it-

I think they were trying to be stylish, trying to reflect the anarchy and chaos of the whole confused mess, they failed-but that does not mean that the movie sucked! They tryed something, it didnt work in a few scenes, but over all i liked it. Hell its better than Boy Eats Girl, Irelands most recent attempt at a zombie movie, watch that, tyhe tell me that u dont like 28 Weeks later!

I didn't like 28 days later, I sure wouldn't waste a second more of my life on the sequel. The problem with zombie movies is that they have a shelf life of like one movie. Any sequel, or for that matter, any like-wise movie tends to come off naturally bad. Example - Night of the Living Dead = Great! Drama is confined to a handful of people who don't know what the hell is going on. Dawn of the Dead and all sucky sequels = poopy movie where you honestly have to care about an apocalyptic world. At least Shawn of the Dead went for a comic approach, which was the most original zombie movie I've ever seen (though they couldn't seem to make up their mind if they wanted a comedy or an actual drama/thriller). Resident Evil sucked ass, I'm sorry, not only could they not get the source material right, but it went from action to bad zombie movie to and even worse monster movie in the span of 2 hours. Resident Evil reminded me of a corporate project, where a group of execs sat around a table and said "How can we anally rape a franchise with this movie?"
"Action, let's make a computer that kills everyone!"
"Great thinking! What else?"
"Zombies! Everyone loves Zombies! I think Zombies are even in the game!"
"What a coincidence! Throw them in there too! What else?"
"People love monster movies. They love it when a monster kills the heroes!"
"Great! We can stuff that in at the end. And throw in a chase scene too, you can't have a good action movie without a chase scene for no apparent reason! You've got yourself a movie!"
Six months later...Loki contemplates suing the movie company on the basis of being robbed and violated, as friends attempt to prevent him from gouging out his own eyes with a rusty spoon.

Although i agree with loki bout the res movie-i gotta say that some one who doesnt like the zombie genre shouldnt really comment on it! Its like hating chick flicks and then being surprised that a chick flick doesnt appeal to u!

GrimSqueaker wrote:

Powersurge wrote:The only good Zombie movies are the Resident Evil films, I saw dawn of the dead and thought it was crap, so unless its says "Resident Evil", I stay away from it!

what are u 12? Resident Evil is by far the WORST Zombie movies ever made!

Night of the living dead 1980's, Dawn of the Dead 2000 and Shawn of the Dead are the 3 best zombie films ever!

Followed by 28 Days later and maybe brain dead

trust me i am the Zombie Master!

The Plague of the Zombies the best damn zombie movie EVER!

You guys aren't helping me decide if I should see 28 Weeks Later or not. I loved 28 Days Later. I think it's one of the most movies of that genre that I've ever seen. I really like how it depicted the survival scenario and dealt more with the humanity of the situation and how man is ultimately evil than it actually dealt with the zombies. I thought it was a beautiful movie (especially those deserted scenes of London) and that says a lot coming from me since I'm not a big fan of horror flicks (I get startled easily in movies) or movies that have a lot of gore and/or violence. I'm afraid to see 28 Weeks Later because I don't want it to destroy my perception of how I thought the first one was a great movie and I don't want to just watch a gore fest movie.

I thought Romero's 2004 Zombie flick (Land of the Dead?) was a horrible flick. It was very boring to me and extremely typical even though it had an "intelligent" zombie. I haven't seen his other Zombie flicks but since I wasn't impressed with that one and I'm not a fan of older movies (minus Star Wars: A New Hope), I'm not thrilled at the idea of watching his other stuff.

Seibertron wrote:You guys aren't helping me decide if I should see 28 Weeks Later or not. I loved 28 Days Later. I think it's one of the most movies of that genre that I've ever seen. I really like how it depicted the survival scenario and dealt more with the humanity of the situation and how man is ultimately evil than it actually dealt with the zombies. I thought it was a beautiful movie (especially those deserted scenes of London) and that says a lot coming from me since I'm not a big fan of horror flicks (I get startled easily in movies) or movies that have a lot of gore and/or violence. I'm afraid to see 28 Weeks Later because I don't want it to destroy my perception of how I thought the first one was a great movie and I don't want to just watch a gore fest movie.

I thought Romero's 2004 Zombie flick (Land of the Dead?) was a horrible flick. It was very boring to me and extremely typical even though it had an "intelligent" zombie. I haven't seen his other Zombie flicks but since I wasn't impressed with that one and I'm not a fan of older movies (minus Star Wars: A New Hope), I'm not thrilled at the idea of watching his other stuff.

The thing about George Romero's films. If you watch them Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead and Land of the Dead. If you watch them in order, they are a good whateverology.

As a stand-alone film, Land of the Dead did suck, although when put with the movies before hand, it was a logical progression for the films.

For 28 Weeks Later, it really isn't worth seeing in theaters. If anything, it's a rental, or maybe a couple months down the road when it shows up into the dollar theaters it would be worth seeing.

I would say pirate it, but aside from peoples morals against pirating films, considering how bad the shaky cam is in the movie itself, a handycam filming of a shaky cam film...well you might as well get cracked in the head a few times by a bat.

28 Days later was awesome. The director knew what he was doing, the writers knew what they were doing.

There is a reason that 28 Weeks Later didn't have the same director, or even the same writer.