28 days later

Governments wouldn't really care about the rest of the people given a crisis of that proportion. Utter chaos spreading through the nation, with no real way of stopping it!!.

The U.K was left to rot as far as the authorites were concerned, but as we learned, "infection" began to slow down, and we can only presume that the threesome were saved or "taken out".
 
Whoever researched the film obviously has no geographical knowledge of northern England.

The recording of the soldiers that they pick up on the radio tells them to go to a blockade on the M602, 27 miles north-east of Manchester.

Two points on this:
1) The M602 is to the WEST of Manchester, and runs through Salford.

2) 27 miles north-east of Manchester is, erm, BRADFORD!


If they are going to go to the expense of emptying motorways, then they could at least make sure they get small details like this right first.
 
This movie lost its way from the moment the guy wakes up to an empty deserted London. I am inclined to support the person who said this movie sucks! I watched all the clap trap that was on at the end of the video (doesn't feature the alternative version in the UK) and laughed. First I have a number of questions to ask!

1. Why if everyone is infected and dead are there no more signs of chaos in the streets i.e. burning or piled up car wrecks. Oh I forgot, one has to suspend belief and remember that once infected you're first thought is to go home and neatly park the car before rampaging round the streets finding other victims!

2. If the virus is a rage that makes you attack anything that moves, then why the hell are all the zombies not attacking each other as well? Why do they just attack uninfected people?

3. Is a virus or disease that reacts in 10 seconRAB and doesn't kill the host immediately really going to wipe out a population and its goverment - suspension of belief beyond the relms of fantasy if you ask me.

4. There are loaRAB of places in London/Britain that you could hide out and wait for the infected to expire through lack of food / water and it would be a lot less than 28 days later!

5. totally unbelievable security at the research centre that the first guys break into - very unlikely!

Oh I could go on and on... I love fantasy films, horror films, Scifis etc. But lets be honest if you are going to extend the relms of reality and belief then you still have to do it obeying some controls and boundaries. Look at Star Trek and other films of the genre! It would have been a better film if it had been more honest and played more to what it was - a zombie horror film explaining little - afterall the Evil Dead films were a great success and very enjoyable.
 
apparently most brits and americans i've known thought it was shit. no offence to britanians but most british movies are quite shit, except mr. bean and johnny english and harry potter was quite a success. im not saying ALL british movies suck, most of them just do.
 
You obviously have not watched many Brittish films, the films listed as being good by you suck, apart from Harry Potter. Which means that your opinion is worth very little. :p

Just watched 28 days later, and agree that it went downhill from the time they got to manchester. I think it would have been very funny / good if the plane at the end had ripped our 3 survivors apart with a missile or cannon. Reinforcing the idea of Britain being used as a quarantine. The reports that Paris and New York also had the virus were just put out to make sure noone tried too hard to get away from our great island? All in all it left me feeling slightly annoyed that they slapped on a crap 50 minutes onto a decent film.
I also really enjoyed the last train on ITV, a great series, and am afraid to say that 28 days later did not measure up to that standard after the army blokes got involved... LOL at the scene where all the zombies randomly run on the lawn.

W.
 
There is no more chaos because almost all un-infected people are either dead or in another country. The infection neeRAB feeding and by all accounts infected meat cannot be eaten by the infected. As with most predators, if there isn't a sufficient source of food then the best thing to do is conserve your energy. If you thinks about it, it is very unlikely that people would get infected whilst driving, thats probably why there were not alot of burning or piled up car wrecks.



Thats the point, it doesn't make you attack everything that moves. They are not just attacking for the sake of attacking, they are attacking for food. As I said before, it looks like the infected cant eat infected meat.



How would a country function when its population consists of bloodthirsty beasts that are intent of feeding off every living thing on the island? Again, how would the government be able to function if every member of the cabinet was reduced to a rabid animal. Once all food sources had dried up, then surely everyone would die?



It's a case of getting to these places though, if you think about it petrol would be in short supply, as with every epidemic resources would run low, the supply chain would break down, there would eventually be no workers to maintain a supply chain of resources such as petrol or electricity. How are you going to get to these places without petrol? As for hiding in London, this place would be infested with infected people, it would be a game of cat and mouse.



Why would there need to be tight security at a lab that was researcing viruses? The scientists were researcing a new virus that was found in some monkeys, not knowing what the implications could have been if this virus escaped. Why would you need alot a security for a bunch of monkeys with a virus that was not really known about?

This film did maintain controls and boundries whilst extenting the realms of reality, everything in this film was relevant and everything tied in with the plot. The thing is alot of the stuff was not explain to you, unlike genres like star trek where everything is explained. But if you put some thought into it and realised the implications of such a epidemic, you would see this could be quite true.

But, like most peole have said, the film did turn into a pile of tosh as soon as they met up with the soldiers.
 
I am sorry to say that Craigwagebaby wrote a load of tosh because nowhere in the film did I see them explain the reasons why the infected ate only non infected meat and not infected meat. Yep of course this may have been in the book which I haven't read. However, I was under the impression that a film was meant to at least tell the full story and not be seen with a companion book.

Sure you can come up with your own reasons why things happen and I guess this might have been something the director wanted the audience to do, but I still maintain that clever films provide you with better frameworks that work while you are watching them but let you wonder about different outcomes. This film just annoyed me all the way through.

Craigwageybaby you have totally misunderstood point 3! The faster a disease reacts then surely it would be easier to contain especially if you knew how it was transmitted. The other point is that any research centre looking into new viruses does not necessarily do so in isolation of the authorities, unless it is up to no good. The research institute in the film knew the virus was deadly and still didn't have in place the most effective security system in place. And if you think that is normal then how come all the smallpox specimens held by the west and Russia are so well protected! However to be fair I would agree there may be some labs that could work in secret on deadly pathogens and viruses for the ill of mankind.

The long shot of it is that this is a terrible film that was not scary in the least and full of arthouse mumbo jumbo. The alternative ending is lame and continues to be a cop out! All in all I hated this film thought it boring, unrealistic and think there are better British movies out there. Perhaps the book would be better as books generally are. 12 Monkeys was a better film along with a film called Rabid that came out in the late 70s/ early 80s
 
6. Why did the infected only come out at night, what are they...vampires too?

7. Is Harry Potter really a 'British film' in the true sense of the meaning?

Some of the acting was pretty poor, especially the young girl, Hannah.

Didn't like the use of DV camera, although I understand why the used 'em. Surprisingly the pic looked pretty awful on DVD. Very grainy and full of artefacts.

An avg horror flick, nothing more.

Watched it a few hours ago and Dog Soldiers last night. Think RAB edges it 'cos it doesn't take itself too seriosusly which 28DL does.
 
leolion, yeah you are right, that was my interpretation on the film, so it might not be right, but the film concentrates on a group of everyday people caught in this situation, unless they were government ministers or as you say the people working for the ill of mankind, they wouldnt have access to this information, the story is told through their eyes, i suppose thats why there is alot of holes in the story. I haven't read the book tho, like I said they were just my own assumptions.
 
Just adding my two cents really. I thought the film was absolute rubbish.

It just seemed to be ripping off Day of the TriffiRAB and also owed alot to seventies UK-post-apocolypse such as TV shows Survivors, The Changes and ThreaRAB .

I agree with the numerous comments on the gaping plot holes and I'd also like to add - How come that in the whole of London there only seem to be five uninfected people? And as they're all ordinary civilians, where did they get their SAS combat and survival training eh?

Also I understand that the point of the film is that after 28 days all the infected die of starvation because they don't eat? Is this correct? I must of missed it if it was explained at some point in the movie.
 
I got the DVD for the extras. hmm, not worth it.
the alternative ending has more chicken!

great film tho. loved it.
 
Back
Top