A couple readers wanted to hear more about what I thought of the movie. I didn’t want to offer more until I had a chance to read Andrew Stuttaford’s review from earlier this week. As a rule, I don’t like to read reviews of movies I know I’m going to see until after I see the movie. It’s not just the spoiler problem. Often when I read a thoughtful review beforehand, it makes it difficult for me to watch the movie as a movie. I’m constantly thinking: was the reviewer right? Why didn’t he think of this? Why did he downplay that? Etc.

So, anyway, I’ve now read Andrew’s thoroughly fine review and I have to say I disagree with him, if just a little bit. He basically says that while the movie was good, it wasn’t nearly as good as the first one. And, moreover, there’s not only not much reason to think long and hard about the sequel, there’s really not even much cause to review it, even in, ahem, a review of it.

I agree the first was better. But while Andrew says the film inspires some thought he then says not so much thought as to warrant actually discussing what thoughts those might be. So here are a few things I left the movie with.

First, I thought the anguish established at the very beginning of caving into fear and leaving a loved one behind was better portrayed in 28 Weeks Later than in any “zombie” movie I can recall, and many other non-zombie movies besides.

Second, I actually think the “anti-Americanism” of the movie is brilliantly subtle. It’s European in a sort of vaguely paleo-European kind of way. The modern indictment of America found in most Hollywood/horror/Euro depictions of the U.S. military is that they’re a kill-’em-all bunch of monomaniacs. The commanding general of the American forces plays just such a figure, but in a way that doesn’t make him seem like an idiot.

And while Andrew’s certainly correct that the Americans really screwed the pooch (why on earth didn’t that woman have a couple guards posted at her door!?), the real calamity stems not from American callousness but American sentimentality.* In retrospect, the general was absolutely correct to A) order the carrier-woman’s death and B) to ultimately order the mass extermination of the potential infecteds. But, the bleeding heart military men took pity on the children and ultimately destroyed all of France and perhaps Europe and the world.

It was American softness and decency that led to disaster not its militarism.

Oh, and one question. We know that the British military survived somewhat intact. Why weren’t there any British officers on the scene or even running the show?

* Just as a point of pride, it is worth noting that the Brits destroyed their own country in 28 days Later and it’s the Americans who come in to pick up the pieces 28 weeks later. Something worth pondering if we’re going to have people reading this movie as finger pointing at the United States of America.