As Dennis Miller said "ITS ONLY A F..KING MOVIE!" when a bunch of French protesters used it as a basis for their stand.
I watched the film on http://www.TV-links.co.UK and boy, are we ever painted in a bad light! The question I put forth here is "Does a film like this is propaganda that only the fringe takes seriously or does a film like this slants the general overseas public with their view of Americans and our military?

Warning - Small spoilers for "28 Days (or Weeks) Later".

I've seen the film too and I didn't think it was Anti-American propaganda in the least. Maybe I'm used to other countries viewing us as a bunch of f$%k-ups, I don't know. The same could be said about the Korean film "The Host". In fact, both films are extremely similar in the way they portray Americans, although "The Host" wins hands-down on the absurdity scale. Maybe you have to see "28 Days Later" in order to take "28 Weeks Later" in the proper context. We didn't start the outbreak, some british fringe group did when they broke into the lab doing the animal testing. It devastated the land over there, so who is the most advanced country capable of helping them clear up the aftermath? So yes, the U.S. comes in with a plan and puts it to work. Much like what happened in the first film happens again. The decisions made after that although brutal are neccessary. How do you contain it again when you can't tell the infected from the un-infected without setting up a table and having them queue up and walk by. If they tried to make it look like we actually invented the virus to begin with or we helped to spread it maliciously in hopes of taking over the country, then I could see an anti-american agenda. The rest of the decisions made are by individuals caught in a desperate situation, I did not see them as being representative of an American point of view. They were just human. What happens is unfortunate, Americans happened to be at the helm of the crashing ship. There are a lot of other films, even American made, which are a lot more anti-american than this one, IMO.

Ultimately I agree with Miller and I think the general movie-going public in any country would agree: "It's only a f$%cking movie!".

I did see the other film too but its amazing that the military command were portrayed as cold blooded fumblers. For example-why weren't British officers put on a command level at least over the US troops-as it would be under international law as a joint command (and this was a NATO mission). Why wasn't the wife put under heavy secure guard if brought into a safe area hospital with no access except medical supervision(that is standard procedure) with medical personnel in command?
There were many other holes but I personally saw that there was a strong hostile bent.
I would like to hear from anyone else who saw the film for their input.

I did see the other film too but its amazing that the military command were portrayed as cold blooded fumblers. For example-why weren't British officers put on a command level at least over the US troops-as it would be under international law as a joint command (and this was a NATO mission). Why wasn't the wife put under heavy secure guard if brought into a safe area hospital with no access except medical supervision(that is standard procedure) with medical personnel in command?
There were many other holes but I personally saw that there was a strong hostile bent.
I would like to hear from anyone else who saw the film for their input.

I saw it. I wondered the same thing about why there were no British military that I could see. It seems that the whole country was affected it may be that there was very little of a British command left after the plague. Of course Americans are often shown as pragmatic to a fault and they often, in movies, resort to doomsday like scenarios in an abortive, too late, effort to stop something from happening or getting worse.
If anything I'd view the film as pro-American in the sense of supporting American intervention in these areas where major calamity has struck.

Why wasn't the wife put under heavy secure guard if brought into a safe area hospital with no access except medical supervision(that is standard procedure) with medical personnel in command?

I didn't really speak on the film itself as cinema. I too had problems with some of the logic used. Your quote above being the biggest problem I had with the film. They made a huge, no HUGE deal out of how tight the security was at the beginning and then he just waltzes in there. I guess I didn't see this so much as a fault of the U.S. Military as much a fault of of the filmmakers or writers for thinking people wouldn't question it. Lazy, really. There are other things I had problems with, but overall I enjoyed it. Not as much as the first film though.

As an action film I personally thought it was OK it was just the slant. I'd personally would like to hear from the filmmakers themselves if confronted with this question.

I didn't get a chance to see this before I left to come over here. I went to the little video rental place on base here yesterday and looked for the original 28 Days Later and they didn't have it. I've seen it once when it first came to DVD, but wanted to see it again.

I'm not sure if 28 Weeks Later has been released to DVD yet, but if not then maybe the rental place here will get it. (They didn't have it either, but like I said...not sure if its been released yet)

Maybe I'll just have to break down and buy them, but I usually like to se something before I buy it on DVD.

I didn't get a chance to see this before I left to come over here. I went to the little video rental place on base here yesterday and looked for the original 28 Days Later and they didn't have it. I've seen it once when it first came to DVD, but wanted to see it again.

I'm not sure if 28 Weeks Later has been released to DVD yet, but if not then maybe the rental place here will get it. (They didn't have it either, but like I said...not sure if its been released yet)

Maybe I'll just have to break down and buy them, but I usually like to se something before I buy it on DVD.

Or perhaps one of us could get both of them for you and ship them. I'm sure if you don't like it, someone else would gladly take it off your hands!

As Dennis Miller said "ITS ONLY A F..KING MOVIE!" when a bunch of French protesters used it as a basis for their stand.
I watched the film on http://www.TV-links.co.UK and boy, are we ever painted in a bad light! The question I put forth here is "Does a film like this is propaganda that only the fringe takes seriously or does a film like this slants the general overseas public with their view of Americans and our military?

You've got to be kidding me! Take this with a grain of salt because I haven't seen the movie yet, but that sure sounds like nationalistic paranoia. But I'm not sure because your question is rather vague and un-grammatical.

Just watched this movie, thought it was awful. Really regret wasting £3.50 of my hard earned cash on it.

I didn't detect any particular anti-US feelings in this movie --- the sniper and the doctor-ette both died to save the kids, and the commander fella who made the decision to make everybody still moving a target for extermination was shown to be introspective and reluctant to do it. He wasnt the usual 'yee-haw!' good ol'boy that you'd expect in an anti-US movie.

I think instead that there is an anti-military vibe to this film, and the dehumanizing effect that chain of command has on people. It just so happened that the army guys were all american.