Why I Think "28 Days Later" Sucked (moderate spoilers)

Yes, it’s a provacative title. But this film inspired me in a way that few others have. Why? Because it clearly had the potential to be a really good, even great, film. But they blew it. They totally f*cking blew it. And that makes me mad. One or two plot holes, or inconsistencies, I can overlook. But when they pile up one after the other after the other after the other, none of which (after the first one or two maybe) need to be there for any plot reason, I become incapable of suspending my disbelief, and I shift from movie-watching mode to MST3K heckler mode.

Hence the bile I herewith spew onto this film, much as the zombies in it spewed blood onto those they were trying to infect. To try to keep it brisk, I am doing it in question and answer format; not FAQ, WAQ. I originally posted this to another message board a few months ago. I recently saw this thread, leading me to believe there is still some interest in this movie in this forum. So, I repost it here.

Q: So, the setup is, a bunch of researchers are researching this really nasty virus that accidently gets loose into the population?

A: Yep, basically.

Q: And a pretty powerful virus, eh? One drop in any orifice turns you into a slavering zombie in ten to twenty seconds.

A: Yes, well, they were poking their noses into Things Man Was Not Meant To Know.

Q: Mmmm-hmmm. The virus also confers an amazing ability to go without food or water for extended periods of time. Especially considering all that blood-vomitting. After 28 days those zombies…'scuse me, infected…still looked pretty spry to me.

A: Errrr…yes, well, they live on rage. Their burning rage. Plus the flesh of humans…they’re cannibals. I think…though I can’t remember a scene where they actually eat someone…

Q: Mmm-hmmm. That could cover the food thing, maybe. But water?

A: Ummm…errrr…their rage sustains them. Rage can be very powerful, you know.

Q: Mmm-hmmm. And yet for some reason, with all their towering rage, they don’t attack each other. Only uninfected humans, and by implication, rats.

A: Ummm…yeah, well, that must be another effect of the virus…somehow…

Q: Well that is just one amazing virus. And yet…it has this one striking drawback, in that it makes those infected allergic to sunlight. At least I assume it does, as you no doubt noticed that the standard zombie movie convention on this issue was followed, in which the zombies…sorry, infected…were only active at night, or in shaded places.

A: Wait, wait…that infected guy the soldiers kept on a chain…he was active in the daylight.

Q: Indeed…so why didn’t all the other zombies…I mean…ah, the hell with it, I’m gonna call 'em zombies…why didn’t all the other zombies come out and hunt in the daytime?

A: Ummmmmmm…wow. Yeah, that is pretty far-fetched…

Q: So far-fetched that it could easily ruin your enjoyment of what clearly could have been a really good movie, yes?

A: I guess, now that I think about it…

Q: But fear not, for…I Have A Theory*. A theory that can explain all this, and more. Would you like to hear my theory?

A: Well…yeah, obviously. After all, we’re only pretending to be two different people here…

Q: Hush up about that! Ok now, my theory is that the researchers were actually working for…film makers! Yes that’s right. Film makers who wanted to make the Ultimate Zombie Movie. And I do mean ultimate. None of this tedious mucking about with special effects for them. They were determined to make actual zombies. So they hired those researchers to create the perfect zombie virus. Call it Zombiecycline[sup]TM[/sup].

A: And then Something Went Horribly Wrong?

Q: Yes! Or…did it? [Cue Sinister Sounding Music] Perhaps the Zombiecycline[sup]TM[/sup] was meant to get loose the way it did, right at the same time a stupidifying agent was released into the air.

A: A stupidifying agent? (Hey, why am I asking the questions now?)

Q: (Hush up!) Yes, a stupidifying agent, developed by the same researchers. It was much more contagious than the zombie stuff, it could be passed through the air like the common cold.

A: Let me guess…the stupidifying agent explains certain boneheaded actions taken by the non-zombie characters?

Q: Yes, exactly. We’re on the same page now, I see.

A: Well duh. Like I said, we’re really the same person…

Q: Hush I said! Yes, the stupidifying agent explains such things as:

  • Blithely walking into buildings that might have zombies in them, like that inexplicably unlooted supermarket, even though showing it in a looted state might have at least partly explained where the zombies were getting food and water from.

A: Perhaps the characters could hear the lighthearted music that was being played in that scene and that’s how they knew they wouldn’t get attacked in there.

Q: Perhaps. But it doesn’t explain:

  • Jim walking into that building at the truck stop, just 'cuz he’s in a broody mood or something, where he does get attacked but not infected.

  • Camping out in an exposed place at night and not even (that I could see) setting anyone to stand watch. They were even taking valium to help them sleep. They might as well have put up a big sign that said “zombie chow”.

  • Driving into a dark, zombie-infested tunnel because “it’s the most direct route out of the city” instead of going for something more circuitous but still in daylight.

  • Frank driving like a damned maniac while in said tunnel.

A: Hey yeah. What was up with that? He was actually laughing. His daughter was in that car.

Q: I know. And those soldier guys. Don’t get me started on them. What were they guilty of?

  • Extremely…liberal use of their guns considering that hello! no one is manufacturing bullets anymore. Remember guys? Big plague, collapse of civilization? Ring a bell?

  • No precautions against getting infected whilst defending the compound from the zombies. I swear I saw, in one scene, a couple of the army guys get splattered by zombie remains after blowing up a bunch of them with an rpg. I thought they were screwed for sure, but no. They walked back in after the battle fit as a fiddle, no spastic movements, no cat-choking-on-a-hairball sounds, no sudden switch to digital camera.

  • No precautions against getting infected by the zombie they’d captured aside from a single rusty chain. Heck, that head army guy was standing about a foot or two away from him. Bodily fluids easily could have crossed that gap. A little spittle, a little projectile vomitting, and uh-oh.

  • Failure to follow the obvious, common sense rule that dictates that if you and your mate are in a dark mansion with zombies running around loose, you do not, for Gods sake, split up.

  • Failure to follow the eminently sensible maxim elucidated by one Scott Evil, in which, once you’ve decided to shoot a guy, you get a gun and shoot him. You don’t detail a couple of your guys to march them through the woods to an execution site and then shoot them.

A: Wait a minute, wait a minute! If they shoot them in the house, they have to go through the trouble and bother of taking the bodies someplace to dump them. Easier to make them move themselves.

Q: They’ve got those trucks, right? They’re making regular trips back and forth to that barricade, they can dump the bodies along the way somewhere.

A: Ummm…yeah, I guess so.

Q: Now where was I? The army guys, yes, they were pretty stupid. And nasty too, ready to engage in gang rape after 4 weeks of no women. Had they never gone that long before? I’d hate to see what happens on ships at sea in the Royal Navy.

A: Yeah well, you know, it’s not quite the same here. The constraints of civilization have been lifted by the collapse thereof.

Q: Perhaps. But the head army guy stopped the men the first time they tried to rape Celine, and he even gave her back her machete, an odd thing to do with someone you intend to rape later.

A: True.

Q: Of course, all the stupidity and nastiness on the part of the army guys notwithstanding, our Handsome Hero Jim wins the stupidity Grand Prize, hands down, when, in his attempt to rescue the ladies from the clutches of the gang-raping soldiers, he deliberately sets the chained-up zombie loose in the mansion with them in it, thus exposing them to a very grave risk of, not just a hideously gruesome death, but also a fate that is arguably much, much worse than death, never mind rape.

A: Yeah, that was a humdinger, wasn’t it?

Q: Yes indeedy. I don’t think anything can top that. Though I think the cherry on top of this frothy, whipped confection was the film-makers’ little joke, of having the protagonist Jim carry around, as his primary weapon, a baseball bat.

A: How is that funny?

Q: The film is set in bloody England!**

A: Ah.

Q: In the frame of mind this film put me in, the spectre of poor Jim forced to resort to carrying around the symbol of the American national pastime as his only defense, I’m half tempted to go off on a rant about gun control.

A: Heh. Guns don’t kill zombies, people kill zombies.

Q: Yeah, but seriously…this film would have been a lot different if set in America. In England, guns are so tightly controlled that when something like this hits, the nasty, evil soldiers have plenty of guns (and lots and lots of bullets apparently), but ordinary folks are forced to make do with machetes and baseball bats and makeshift molatov cocktails. Yes, of course, we’re not going to have a zombie invasion any time soon, but still…

A: Al-righty then, I think we’re all done here. Thanks for reading folks.

Q: Wait a minute, wait a minute! Let me make my point. I was going to say, when people give up their rights

A: Yep, definitely all done. Move along folks, nothing more to see here.

*[sub]It could be Bunnies! Yes, after two years I still just have to do that. Sorry.[/sub]

**[sub]Ok, yes, I’ve never been to England, maybe people do have baseball bats over there. If so, I’m sure someone will chime in shortly to correct me and make me look stupid. But it still looked weird to me.[/sub]


**Q:**You wrote this some months ago, for another MB. Since then, have you remembered any other plot holes that you’d like to toss in here?

**A:**Why yes, and thank you for asking. Two things:

1: Our Hero Jim, who works as a bicycle messenger in England with it’s super-strict gun control laws which, ok ok, I am not going to rant about, suddenly turns into freakin’ Rambo when he takes on a squad of fully armed and trained soldiers at the barricade, and then further demonstrates his mad, phat, but colossally unlikely skillz by shooting at, and hitting, a metal chain from about thirty feet away. In the dark. In the rain. With one shot.

2: When Our Intrepid Heros are staying at Jim’s parent’s house, why do they stay on the ground floor, right near a big honking glass window that can be easily crashed through by, oh, say, a crazed infected zombie guy who feels no pain?

Bra-VO! Haven’t seen the movie, never -wanted- to see the movie, but this topped the cake for me, as well as making me laugh my ass off. Good job! Now, I must go re-attatch my ass! :smiley:

Dude, chill. It’s a zombie movie. Meaning it’s not actually about zombies but man’s inhumanity to man. Besides, watch Resident Evil or [House of the Dead* and then get back to me about sucky zombie movies. This thing was Citizen Kane compared to those crapfests. Best zombie flick since the original Dawn of the Dead. Possibly better.

Who said they weren’t drinking whenever they weren’t on screen?

Because then there wouldn’t be a movie, smartass. They obviously recognized each other.

So the virus made them nocturnal. I don’t see your point.

Your other points fall well within suspension of disbelief or the reasonable stupidity/insanity of the characters. The soldiers were tired and desperate and quite mad. Jim and co weren’t trained for this situation, so they made bad errors.

I did laugh at the lack of firearms throughout the first half of the movie (compare to Night of the Living Dead in which it seems gun-toting rednecks have the zombie situation well in hand by the end of the movie). I do find it dramatically refreshing when I watch British films in which in inability to quickly obtain firearms (see also Snatch) causes problems for the characters.

As for Jim’s mad skills, it showed how much he had degenerated in the past few days. He had rage (little r). He was, in many ways, just as bad as the infected (and teh soldiers were even worse!). Honestly, he only killed like two guys, and mostly just used teh infected as a cover for getting the women and escaping. He wasn’t *that * good.

Lets se what we can do…
Prop 1. Zombies like to drink in the daytime from underground sewer systems
Prop 2. Zombies don’t like the taste of other zombies.

I think Jim’s action at the end were crucial to the moral of the story. The idea I felt was that Jim got the rage (small r) and saved the women from the manor house. It says that the rage isn’t caused by the virus at all, it is something inside everyone, the virus only let it out uncontrolably (plus the zombie side effects). When he was raging Jim was probably seen as a zombie by the zombies, maybe.

I just spent over an hour writing a response that completely refuted everything in the OP except the bit about the Valium. It was totally genius, eloquently written, and would have made Weird Al reverse his opinion on this movie entirely. And then I lost it. So, Al, I’d appreciate it if you’d just act like I’ve destroyed your argument about 28 Days Later being a bad movie from now on, OK?


I didn’t mind the science. I find it easy to accept almost anything in a movie. So it’s unlikely, so what? The science isn’t the point.

What I minded about the movie is that it wasn’t scary.

The entire OP is based on the idea that people in movies should always think like perfectly logical machines. So they were “laughing”… HORRORS! Look, buddy, YOU only had to deal with the movie for two hours. These characters had to deal with it for weeks. You’d think, after a while, the shock and horror of the situation would wear off, and they’d start to… y’know… cope?

Remember, Al, people ain’t Vulcans. It would be far more unrealistic to see people do things only in the most efficient, rational manner possible.

This has sig potential.

Other than that your arguments are perfectly valid. Please don’t sit next to me in the theater. Grading this on a curve with all the other crappy, BAD, godawful, BAD, maggot-infested, BAD, BAD, BAD zombie films I’ve seen (plus a few good ones), I’ll give it an A-.

Save me some popcorn.

I agree, you’re being a bit hard on the film. It was low budget and they were trying to be different. A good buddy of mine is absolutely freaked out by the fact that these zombies can run. I guess his whole world was predicated on the fact he would always be able to out-run the monsters.

As with Miller, I’ve more to say and let’s pretend I did before this post gets eaten.

This part cracked me up. And I knew what the asterisk was without looking. Am I geek?

Couple of nitpicks, though:

It was all digital camera. High-def video, to be exact. They just processed it differently from scene to scene.

I think you’re sliding over this a little too easily, since it’s really the point of the movie. And the Stanford Prison Experiment graphically demonstrates that people are capable of extraordinary cruelty and dehumanization of their fellow man under a lot less stressful conditions than those depicted in the movie.

Some of your other complaints have merit, such as the one about “don’t take the guy off into the woods a mile away to shoot him.” But when I go see a zombie movie, I’ve got my suspension-of-disbelief meter set a lot more loosely than I would for, say, 21 Grams, and most of what bugged you falls squarely within my “shrug, it’s a movie” limits. Those boundaries, of course, are entirely flexible from person to person, so I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, exactly, just that I wasn’t bothered the way you were. I’m sure there are movies you love and give a pass to on their implausibilities that I would have a hard time accepting at face value.

Yeah, I didn’t think so. Okay, here’s the second draft. I’ve only seen the movie once, and that was in the theaters, so excuse me if my memory is a little off.

I’ve heard this one before, which is weird, because it’s a pretty stupid criticism. No offence intended, but obviously the zombies we see in the movie weren’t all infected the same day as the eco-terrorists who broke into that lab. All of those died, most likely, within a week of being infected. But each of them infected dozens more. Who all also died within a week, but each of them infected another dozen. When the movie opens, the epidemic has almost run its course. Jim slept through the worst of it. Most of the infected we see in the movie have probably only been infected for a few days. The ones who were infected earlier died of, you guessed it, starvation and dehydration.

It’s an entirely artificial disease, whose purpose we can only guess at. Who knows what the scientists that made it designed it to do, or why? THe one guy we see at the lab says something about “curing rage,” apparently at a social level. Maybe the idea was that people infected with this virus would be unable to inflict violence on other people with this virus, but an unintended side-effect was insane violence towards anyone not infected. Who knows?

At any rate, both of your criticisms are endemic to the zombie-movie genre: how do the zombies continue to function, and why don’t they attack each other? Most zombie movies are even worse about this, because they use reanimated corpses instead of plague victims. Never mind about where they get the energy to move with, how do most zombies even move in the first place? They’ve been buried in damp earth, sometime for years. Their muscles should be rotting bags of half-eaten worm food. Their tendons should have shrivelled up and dropped off. They shouldn’t even have eyes at all, let alone be able to see anything with 'em. The infected in 28 Days Later are the most plausible zombies I’ve ever seen.

Since when do zombies only function at night? That must’ve made Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead pretty boring movies, huh? As far as this movie goes, I never got the impression that daylight granted any especial advantage over the infected, except that you can see them coming from further off.

However, I don’t seem to recall any zombie attacks during the day, so maybe you’re right. The virus does something to its victim’s eyes, so maybe they’re more light sensitive than normal humans. How does constitute a criticism of the film, exactly?

Two things about this: first, there’s nothing “inexplicable” about the unlooted supermarket. They’re fleeing an army of zombies, not isolating themselves from the black plague. Hording food would be pointless: it would only slow you down as you tried to outrun the advancing infected. If they can get to safety, it’ll be in an industrialized nation not infected by the rage plague, (France, say) and they can get food there.

Second, the zombies aren’t exactly hard to miss. They’re violently angry pretty much 24-7, they attack uninfected humans on sight, and they constantly vomit a disgusting mixture of blood and bile. You can probably smell the damned things from a hundred yards away. If there had been infected in that store, it would have been trashed and covered in blood and filth. Since it was in good order (as, I assume, most of the surrounding town was) that’s probably a pretty clear indication that it is zombie-free.

When this happens in the movie, Jim has been fleeing through a zombie-filled apocalypse for days, on little sleep and poor food. His judgement isn’t exactly 100%. At this point in the movie, you have been sitting for about an hour in a padded seat in a climate controlled theater munching on popcorn. You’ve only had to remain alert and vigilent for maybe seventy minutes, tops: he’s had to do it for the better part of a week.

Okay, that was dumb. That’s one for your side. Even so, I can still kinda sorta explain it: they only take (IIRC) half a valium each. That’s enough to help you sleep, but not enough to incapacitate you. And they see a family of horses in the field with them. Animals seem to instinctively flee from the infected. If the horses are calm there, it probably means that the area is zombie-free. Still, the scene did take me out of the movie for a minute, and could have been handled better.

Right, because they have so much extra gas, and will have absolutely no trouble getting more, that they can afford to tool around the city looking for alternate routes that are a) a lot harder to find (London ain’t the easiest city to navigate) and b) might be blocked by wreckage and/or infested with zombies.

So? My dad used to drive like a damned maniac on windy, rock-slide prone mountain roads. In the middle of a rainstorm. While he was drunk. And he wasn’t even fleeing zombies, just his relatives. Who are arguably worse than zombies, but that’s beside the point. All this shows is that Frank was maybe a bad father. That doesn’t mean that he’s in a bad movie.

Okay, before we get into this part, it’s made clear almost from the first moment they’re introduced that these soldiers are idiots and incompetents. When they first get there, Jim looks out a window and sees them doing doughnuts in his car while one of them hangs onto the hood. And later, there’s the scene with the bad eggs. These guys aren’t crack SAS commandos, they’re fuckups and cowards. All the competent, honorable soldiers probably died holding off the infected while they evacuated as many citizens as they could. Most likely, these guys are only alive either because they deserted when things started to go wrong (and looted their base after it had been abandoned), or because they were given assignments in the rear where they couldn’t screw up and get the useful soldiers killed. This alone explains most of your complaints about these guys, but simple logic does that for most of 'em, too.

So? They only need to hold out for another week, maybe two, max. Assuming they stripped that base of every hand-grenade and ammo clip iot had, they’ve probably got enough for months.

Yeah, I thought that they were hosed, too. But, the one nice thing about this virus is that there is absolutely no doubt if someone is infected. Symptoms present almost instantly. Sure, they should have taken more precautions. But they’re not very smart people, so they didn’t.

See above for both of these.

Not necessarily. These guys aren’t a disciplined fighting force, but neither are they heartless psychopaths. And one of the people they’re executing is one of their own. In that situation, I wouldn’t execute them in the mansion, I’d have two of my most trusted goons take them away and do it where the others can’t see or hear, and start wondering which of them is going to be next. Sure, they know their seargent was killed, but just knowing in the abstract isn’t the same as hearing the gunshot or seeing the bloodstains.

Yeah, and if you can’t expect consistency from a rapist, who can you expect it from?

Seriously, though, there’s a lot more going on here than you seem to have picked up on. For one thing, the character of the CO. He is, I think, the only one of the bunch who’s really aware of how wrong his actions are. He’s fooled his troops with some sort of situational ethics argument (“It’s okay to rape women if you’re repopulating the species”), but he knows that what he’s allowing his men to do is simply evil. But it’s the only way for him to maintain his position of power. He is, as far as he is aware, the most powerful person in England. Out of all the soldiers, only he and the seargent have a conscience. The CO is knowingly violating his, and this makes him reticent to act immediatly.

On top of that, he’s not personally interested in the girls, except as a means of controlling his men. He’s far more interested in Jim, whom he sees as a potential recruit. Before he announces open season on the girls, he wants to try to get Jim on his side. Plus, he’s worried about his seargent. Of the lot of them, the sarge is the only “real” soldier: he’s got training, discipline, and integrity. This makes him the CO’s most valuable soldier, and most dangerous rival. He knows the seargent won’t go for the rape idea, but will stick with him until the issue is forced. Postponing the rape-fest gives him that much more time to bring the seargent around or undercut his authority with the rest of the soldiers, as needed.

And, lastly, there’s always the outside chance the girls would do it voluntarily. Not so much the girl, but if Selena turns out to be a Great Big Slut, he can have the sex puppet he needs to keep the men in line, keeps his seargent from mutiny, and bags Jim as a reinforcement all at once. Sure, staggeringly unlikely, but these aren’t rocket scientists we’re talking about here, these are venal, vicious, stupid men.

Calculated risk. Without freeing the zombie, he can’t possibly save the girls. By freeing the zombie, the girls might be killed or infected. By notfreeing the girls, they will be raped repeatedly and regularly, possibly for a period of years. And I don’t think I’m qualified to judge wether spending the rest of your life being gang-raped by heavily armed cretins is a better or worse fate than being turned into a rage-filled zombie. Since the plan worked, it looks like Jim made the right decision.

Never really thought of that. Interesting point, and I wonder if we’re supposed to infer something from that choice of weapons, or if baseball is simply more popular in England than either of us suspect. Whichever, I don’t see how this is particularly stupid. Maybe if it had been an American film-maker, I’d roll my eyes at this, but Danny Boyle is British. If British Danny Boyle thinks a baseball bat has superior zombie-fighting properties than, say, a cricket bat, it’s not a stretch to assume that British Jim No-name thinks the same way.

As others have pointed out, he only kills two or three of them, and then usually by means of surprise attack. I highly doubt these soldiers (the seargent and maybe CO excepted) had ever seen any action prior to the Rage outbreak, and since then, have only been fighting enraged zombie hordes. They have no experience with, and have errected no defenses against, a single, sane human who can move quietly and plot effectively.

Besides which, a hero who is marekedly more competent than his enemy’s henchmen is hardly a feature unique to this film. It’s not even unique to zombie pictures, or cinema in general. It’s part and parcel of the entire tradition of storytelling in Western civilization. Probably civilizations in other cardinal directions, too, but I’m only familiar with the one.

Because, unlike almost everything else you’ve criticized this film for, this would have been an actual stupid idea. If they stay on the ground floor, and a bunch of zombies show up, they can still escape the house and try to run for safety. If they stay on the second floor, and a bunch of zombies show up, they’re trapped on the second floor.

Now, in the spirit of compromise, here are a couple of nitpicks you overlooked.

After they escape London, but before they get to the mansion, they come to another major city (Birmingham?) that’s engulfed in flames. Considering the speed and circumstances of the evacuation, shouldn’t every major city be burning? Especially London, which until recently had a bunch of people in it indiscriminately throwing molotov cocktails and blowing up gas stations?

And, speaking of dumb moves by characters in this movie, the entire catastrophe could have been prevented if that first scientist in the lab, instead of babbling about Rage, had said, “They’re all infected with Ebola!”

Damn, I really don’t know when to shut up, do I? I posted that into Word before I submitted (so I wouldn’t have to type it again), and it came out at six pages! I apologzie to anyone who had the fortitude to read the entire thing.

Two other comments:

First, although I disagreed with the OP in almost every regard, it was still a very well-written and entertaining post. Totally wrong, obviously, but fun to read. :wink:

Generally speaking, I expect a good zombie movie to be maggot-infested.

In all fairness to those criticizing the movie’s realism (which is weird to me, since it’s basically a zombie movie, but whatever), this interpretation means there should be hundreds of thousands of cadavers everywhere. Even allowing the zombies don’t need to eat or drink for a week and don’t attack each other, there should be bodies in the street where the zombies expired where they stood, or mutilated corpses representing people who were attacked but damaged too badly to “rise.”

I assume that London was mostly evacuated by the time the plague reached it, and once infected were showing up in the city, most of those left probably ran for the hills. (I remember the first guy Selene was with talking about a riot at the docks, but I don’t remember if that was in London or some other city.) Pursued, likely, by the bulk of the infected. Other areas of the city might be much more corpse-laden. Central London, where we have the best views of abandoned streets, would be especially empty because there’re no homes there, and people would have stopped going to the office long before the plague got that far South. Other areas might be stacked neck high in rotting corpses, its just that Jim never went there.

Besides, I think it was a little bit of both: most of the zombies starved to death within a few days of being infected, but a significant number were left to scour the streets of carrion (including dead infected) and carry it back to eat in some sort of lair, marginally expanding their life span. By the time Jim woke up, most of the corpses in London had been consumed, and the last of the infected were finally starting to die off.

A zombie, by definition, is one who returns from the dead. As far as I know no one in the movie returned from the dead.

It is not a zombie movie.

I don’t think they had the money to pay 100 people to play dead in the streets when they were shooting.

Actually I thought it was very clever how they manged to show a derseted London by shooting in early AM or carefully cropping shots.

Zombies don’t have to be dead, just devoid of free-thinking and often, free-will. You can create living zombies threw the use of voodoo, curses, or a well placed ice pick just above the eye and into the brain threw the eye socket. Just because they’re not dead, doesn’t mean they’re not zombies. They’re a respresentation of some inner aspect of humanity brought to light in horrifying detail (much like how Romero’s are an archtype for humanity’s need to consume…but that’s really just illustrated in Dawn of the Dead). Moving on…

Eh, just read the other thread for most of my refutes to this incredibly long, but unoriginal OP. For someone who grilled me about defending the merits of this film, Miller does a great job here doing his part :slight_smile:

Again, though, I want to know why everyone has such a damn issue about the fact the infected don’t attack one another? Why is this such a huge hurtle for people to accept? There’s only two scenes where an infected attacks people on their own (the little boy in the dinner and the military guy), and in the second case, the first thing he does is infect another person so he has an accomplice. Jim gets attacked by a group of about six or so at the church; two jump him at his home; two chase him and Selena into Frank’s place; a swarm of them live under the bridge; and multiple ones attack the outpost. Obviously, the infected have enough intuition to know that hunting in groups works best. Maybe once they’re worked up into a feeding frenzy they’ll turn on one another, but the movie seems to take pains to point out that the infected aren’t solitary creatures. I still don’t get why this is so hard to accept.

Also, I’m sick of people calling the vacant and empty shots of London “a mistake.” A mistake is when something is done unintentionally; like when you’re watching a movie about a store clerk, and in one shot his nametag’s on the left, but in the close up, it’s on the right. That’s a mistake. Leaving a city empty and devoid of corpses and feces deliberately to help bring about a sense of isolation, dread, confusion, and give the scene impact is NOT a mistake!

I mean, think about it. Do you think those shots of Jim walking around would have been anywhere nearly as imactful as they were if the city were strewn with bodies and looking more like the alternate ending to Army of Darkness? Personally, I really doubt it.

Amen brother! Can I get a witness?!

Let’s not forget my favorite stupid act. After having managed to locate your machette wielding honey in the mansion where you turned loose infected…and then killing the soldier gaurding her with your bare hands in a manner decidedly like an infected might do…do you A) Get up and say in a lucid manner “Thank goodness I found you. Honey, it’s me.”…or do you B) stand there incoherantly without saying a word and look at her menacingly?

Remember, her last squeeze only lasted about three seconds after valiantly fighting by her side before she cut him up.

What a piece of cinematic trash. Makes me mad too, because it did have potential.

Bravo, Al.


I feel for you, Weird Al. Not because I remotely agree with you, but because it must be hard to enjoy movies with that kind of intellectual rigidity.

The film in question… was quite good.

I have to agree with Weird Al, this wasn’t the greatest movie. Wasn’t it a lot like Omega Man, anyway?

One other question: If there were people alive and safe outside the U.K. why didn’t they broadcast a radio message? Wouldn’t the soldiers be in contact with the U.N. or NATO? Couldn’t someone find a satellite phone?

I’m all for suspending disbelief for a movie but this movie really pushed the limits.