ilovechristophernolan

I'm not a fan of the "28" series. But "28 Days Later" genuinely surprised me. The "zombie movie genre" is one that's already been devoured like the undead themselves-picked clean of ideas, worn out, and mostly reduced to B- or C-grade material.

I used to think "28 Days Later" was just another overrated zombie flick. But the real stars of that film aren't the zombies. It's a human drama about the twisted desires of the few survivors left in a post-apocalyptic world-and those who still seek freedom. The zombies were just the foundation, a narrative device to set the stage.

This is turning into a long preface, but after watching "28 Days Later," I finally understood why the film gets so much praise.

So-what about "28 Years Later"? (I skipped "28 Weeks Later" due to its poor reviews.)

To put it simply, "28 Years Later" leans more into horror, giving the zombies a much stronger presence, while still shaping itself into an emotional and affecting human drama. The plot is tightly constructed and well-paced, the visuals are genuinely stunning, and the camerawork is excellent-at times, it even reminded me of "Kingsman." Compared to the rough, almost destroyed look of "28 Days Later," the cinematography here is on another level.

That's exactly why the little inconsistencies and careless choices stand out so much more. For example: "characters speaking at full volume in scenes that clearly call for silence", or "Normally, you'd spend the night somewhere out of sight and absolutely out of reach of zombies-but for some reason, they choose to sleep on the ground floor. A suicidal move."

And to make matters worse, it's the ground floor of a huge building. I mean, come on, just go upstairs and sleep there... Predictably, because their choice of sleeping spot was so catastrophically bad, they end up nearly getting eaten by zombies.

Other odd moments include: "shooting a pregnant zombie point-blank with no blood splatter hitting anyone's face or mouth", or "nonchalantly washing zombie blood off a face in a river, with zero concern about it getting into the eyes or mouth". The virus could've easily entered the body in that situation. There's no denying some of these scenes feel hastily or sloppily handled.

Well, I get that some of it is just narrative convenience to make the movie work.

But still-what I really want to say is: "Speak more quietly. And use your damn head."

The film has been hailed as the most successful mafia film ever, from the time of its release to the present. Some have even called it the greatest film of all time. I went into this film with high expectations. As it turns out, the film does not have enough content to fill its long running time, and I got bored while watching it. There are some highlights, but it is not worthy of a high rating. In my opinion, since everyone gave the film a high rating, the newcomers agreed with them, and even though they felt inwardly that the film was not very interesting, they thought, "But everyone else gave it a high rating, so there must have been some good scenes in the film. Yes, that scene was good. That line was good. After all, this is a masterpiece, as everyone says!" I feel that they are evaluating the film with a kind of blind evaluation. Well, I have read commentary articles on this film and found some interesting scenes, and I have thought, "So that's what that was about...!" But it doesn't have enough impact to raise my evaluation of the film.