human emotion, panic, terror, realism told through sound,camera&politics

Rating: 9/10 (11 June 2008)

******************************THIS CONTAINS SPOILERS THROUGHOUT AND IS ONLY MEANT FOR THOSE WHO HAVE SEE THE FILM******************************
I have only just recently watched this film as I was very sceptical about a sequel to such a brilliant and outstanding film! Especially knowing that Danny Boyle wasn't in charge. Also, the whole Americanisation put me off quite a lot. Therefore, I was very keen for the director to bring realism,tension, the feeling of panic to this sequel if it was to ever come close to the success of the first film. From the very beginning, I found the camera shots very intense, being so close to the characters, producing a feeling of cabin fever and dread. One user said that the camera shots were somehow epileptic(cap can uk)? I do not agree. The film begins slowly, introducing you to the different characters ,luring you into a false sense of security before the dread and intoxicating feel of isolation jammed like sardines in a tin, very quickly spills into chaos.
As the directors explain in their commentary, it's as if the camera is also infected, translated through the use of fast and intense edits, flicking from one character to another (including the zombie). I loved this as I felt very insecure as an member of the audience, trapped as the characters were, in this shitty little room with just one exit! Credit to Andy4444, as the viewer, it did feel like i went from comfortable to F**K, S**T, WTF, panic mode in just a short space of time. Therefore, I don't see how people can say that the camera shots had no meaning or failed to produce any realistic connotations.
Also, how it 'brings no tension' ? I thought the music was great for the opening scene, such calm music and yet such a horrid and unpleasant scene! Excellent! made it even more intense for me! Very good combination, actually seems to enforce and instill panic in the viewer + translates what's going through the husbands(Carlisle) brain as he struggles to decide what to do!
People have complained about the camera work, yet didn't Danny Boyle help direct the scene in the barn(very "epileptic") and the boat scene, so is that a criticism of Boyle who directed the film so many people who complain, love so much? Oh, 1 more thing, people have said that the camera work is shaky throughout and that has no meaning at all. Well, how about when husband(Carlisle) sits down to talk to his kids to explain what happened? does the change from shaky camera - calm hand held, not relay the seriousness and importance of what he is trying to get across? his confession, his guilt, his consciousness, his desire to maintain honesty to his children while trying not to scare them off? I think both scenes(opening&confession) relay the contrasting moods through a change in style, very well merited in my opinion(yes i do not claim that anything i have said is objective).
In regard of the plot and situations in which the characters find themselves in, it is very easy to simply go "how cliché is that? they're in DANGER!" SHOCK HORROR! yes, this is a HORROR/THRILLER, therefore the point is that effect! Has there ever been an outbreak of a zombie virus where people have been evacuated? no, therefore how can it be argued that is isn't "realistic"? it is pretty damn hard to come across realistic when a series of events has never occurred!
**Spoilers!**
If this film was so cliché, then how is it that the solder who helps them doesn't survive and fly off into the sunset with helicopter dude ?? he doesn't just die, he gets burnt alive! I expected this film to sell out and to just have the 2 kids and either the nurse or the soldier alive, but no! the mean helicopter dude(who is black and doesn't die) saves them!
In addition, one monumental point; people who criticise this film, do so without a considering the political relations and history between the USA and Britain and of American intervention, not forgetting the inferiority complex the USA has towards Britain and always has done throughout history, such as USA lending Britain over £50billion after the 2nd world war and charging interest !! (cheeky gits lol). Also, it's constant undermining in foreign affairs, e.g. threatening to use force against Iraq/Hozbullah etc with disregard to Britain and Europe. Therefore(stay with me on this), by intervening in Britain so early on, there is obviously a political agenda. Britain is but an island, could just ignore it. But, America's intervention shows the world their 'strength' and power in literally saving a nation, if Britain owed USA £50billion after the 2nd world war, what would it owe them for saving their very existence?? many years of subordination to USA. remember, Britain exiled/kicked people out for being too radical, those radicals were the founders of USA - what better than to be the saviour of the ones who kicked you out? etc etc etc! sorry for the longness but has to be spelt out with such historical examples in order for people to understand the point of going to an island which could have quite easily been left alone(by blocking all routes out) and restarting it.
I have only touched the surface and yes, I have written way too much about the political aspect(could have been a lot more concise but this is film, not history), but I have been hugely surprised at 28weeks later and think the director and screen play people deserve a lot more credit!