Topic: 28 Weeks Later (Read 19671 times)

TheFuriousWombat · « **on:** 09 May 2007, 13:55 »

Anyone else very excited for this? The first one remains not only one of my favorite horror films, but also one of my favorite films, of all time. I thought it was brilliant. Now I know this new one has a different write, director, and cast, but it still looks very very cool. The trailers have gotten my really excited and I'm actually very glad they are continuing the series. I'm even more excited that Danny Boyle, the director of 28 Days later, is already talking to Fox Atomic about 28 Months later since, apparantly, the ending of the new one leaves room for a sequal. I'll probably be seeing this friday and I'm really hoping it lives up to my expectations. What ae your guys' thoughts on this new one and the original?

Melodic · « **Reply #1 on:** 09 May 2007, 14:52 »

28 Days Later is easily one of my favorite movies of all time, and I'm aprehensive but excited for the sequel, even if it is a sequel in concept only. Hopefully the new approach to the 28 universe will be refreshing, although I've got considerable doubts.

thehoopiestfrood · « **Reply #2 on:** 09 May 2007, 15:32 »

I hope it's good and doesn't do "a Matrix".

I'll be gutted if it's not good. Or at least not so bad that it actually ruins the first film for me.

epifreak · « **Reply #3 on:** 10 May 2007, 03:20 »

I'm going to endeavor to maintain my default opinion of absolute skepticism about the film until I am proven wrong. (I usually maintain a strict diet of skepticism and pessimism about new movies, so as to be, at the worst, confirmed in my beliefs. It's been a long time since a movie has failed to live up to my expectations) With that said, maintaining said skepticism is exceedingly difficult when I think about how much I liked the first one.

0bsessions · « **Reply #4 on:** 10 May 2007, 05:59 »

I am extremely weary of it. I absolutely loved the first one, but considering that pretty much nobody from the original is involved and one of my favorite aspects of the original was the low budget, 8MM tape style cinemetoraphy and grittiness, I'm skeptical.

I'll still see it opening weekend, in all probability, but I'm not clamoring to see it like I was the original.

fish across face · « **Reply #5 on:** 10 May 2007, 06:13 »

Sorry to be a dick, but, FWIW, "weary" means "tired" and rhymes with "teary". "Wary" means "suspicious" and rhymes with "hairy".

0bsessions · « **Reply #6 on:** 10 May 2007, 06:42 »

Eh, whatever. I think that's one of the easiest misspellings I could've made. At least I didn't have any their/they're/there fuck-ups.

fish across face · « **Reply #7 on:** 10 May 2007, 07:36 »

I wasn't trying to give you shit, just clarifying something in case you didn't know it. It's trivial, of course.

valley_parade · « **Reply #8 on:** 10 May 2007, 07:53 »

I finally saw 28 Days Later last night, was quite impressed. Of course, the whole thing also seemed to be a promotion for 28 Weeks Later. If our theater gets it, I'll probably go this weekend.

mberan42 · « **Reply #9 on:** 10 May 2007, 08:10 »

Meh, I'm apprehensive towards it (about it? whichever). The original is my all-time favourite zombie/horror film - the cinematography, the lighting, the whole design is brilliant, the story is awesome... I think I'm just going to wait until it's on DVD and rent it.

Cartilage Head · « **Reply #10 on:** 10 May 2007, 12:00 »

28 Days was a pretty good movie. The absence of Cillian Murphy in 28 Weeks might kill it for me though (I have a hetero-man crush on Cillian.)

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #11 on:** 10 May 2007, 13:45 »

Quote from: valley_parade on 10 May 2007, 07:53

I finally saw 28 Days Later last night, was quite impressed. Of course, the whole thing also seemed to be a promotion for 28 Weeks Later.

Is this becuase the new one is coming out so soon? Because they made the first one with no plans for a sequal and no idea of how well it would be recieved. But I guess seeing it for the first time right before the second one is released might somehow make it seem more promotional.

EDIT:
The director of '28 Weeks Later' is the director of a fantastic spanish film called 'Intacto' which was very well done and very nicely shot. In other words, I have high hopes despite the absence of Boyle.

Dimmukane · « **Reply #12 on:** 10 May 2007, 20:05 »

Quote from: TheFuriousWombat on 10 May 2007, 13:45

In other words, I have high hopes despite the absence of Boyle.

He's not entirely absent...I was fairly certain he stayed on as a producer...

Chesire Cat · « **Reply #13 on:** 10 May 2007, 20:32 »

Quote from: epifreak on 10 May 2007, 03:20

I'm going to endeavor to maintain my default opinion of absolute skepticism about the film until I am proven wrong. (I usually maintain a strict diet of skepticism and pessimism about new movies, so as to be, at the worst, confirmed in my beliefs. It's been a long time since a movie has failed to live up to my expectations) With that said, maintaining said skepticism is exceedingly difficult when I think about how much I liked the first one.

You know, being enthusiastic and excited is way more healthy and F-U-N than being skeptical and pessimistic. Some times stupid people have the right idea, its better to be "for" something than "against"

epifreak · « **Reply #14 on:** 11 May 2007, 02:24 »

Quote from: Chesire Cat on 10 May 2007, 20:32

You know, being enthusiastic and excited is way more healthy and F-U-N than being skeptical and pessimistic. Some times stupid people have the right idea, its better to be "for" something than "against"

I dunno; my method seems to be working. I can't remember the last time I walked out of a theater and was disappointed in what I saw, since my standards are so low. Most of it comes from Hollywood consistently churning out pathetic sequel after pathetic sequel, but I find that not getting my hopes up serves me very well. In the case of 28 Weeks, you can call it extremely reserved hope. The first film was wonderful; while film-makers consistently fail at life, the second one is following a wonderful movie.

rae · « **Reply #15 on:** 11 May 2007, 05:05 »

I'm looking forward to it, although I can honestly say that I never feared zombies, or a zombie attack until I saw that film.

0bsessions · « **Reply #16 on:** 11 May 2007, 06:18 »

Quote from: epifreak on 11 May 2007, 02:24

I dunno; my method seems to be working. I can't remember the last time I walked out of a theater and was disappointed in what I saw, since my standards are so low. Most of it comes from Hollywood consistently churning out pathetic sequel after pathetic sequel, but I find that not getting my hopes up serves me very well. In the case of 28 Weeks, you can call it extremely reserved hope. The first film was wonderful; while film-makers consistently fail at life, the second one is following a wonderful movie.

You just nailed my thoughts on the matter. I've been hyped up to ridiculous extents for Spider-Man 3. Honestly, a big part of my disaproval was disappointment that it didn't hold a candle to the second and it really hurt my view of the movie. Given, it's not always like that. I went into Hot Fuzz expecting one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. I got one of the funniest movies I've ever seen coupled with some of the best action sequences ever. I'm skeptical, but a little optimistic as "zombie" movies usually please me in some manner. Land of the Dead's the only one I can think of I ever saw and hated (Even Resident Evil: Apocalypse was passable with me).

Quote from: rae on 11 May 2007, 05:05

I'm looking forward to it, although I can honestly say that I never feared zombies, or a zombie attack until I saw that film.

I actually dated someone who had a horrible and irrational fear of zombies. She once woke up screaming and smacked me after a dream where her niece got bitten and I demanded we leave her behind. I myself have set out multiple "What would I do?" scenarios with friends for laughs. I had a nice plan I set out on an Image comics message board for the comic the Walking Dead (Which I recommend to all you zombie lovers, great comic about a zombie holocaust), but since I moved into the city, I've accepted the fact I'd be absolutely fucked in a zombie attack.

valley_parade · « **Reply #17 on:** 11 May 2007, 07:37 »

Quote from: TheFuriousWombat on 10 May 2007, 13:45

Is this becuase the new one is coming out so soon? Because they made the first one with no plans for a sequal and no idea of how well it would be recieved. But I guess seeing it for the first time right before the second one is released might somehow make it seem more promotional.

Yeah. It was on FX..they had a bunch of interviews with some of the actors from 28 Weeks, and trailers and behind the scenes stuff.

Quote from: 0bsessions on 11 May 2007, 06:18

I actually dated someone who had a horrible and irrational fear of zombies. She once woke up screaming and smacked me after a dream where her niece got bitten and I demanded we leave her behind.

How did that not come up when we were talking about crazy exes? That's hilarious, dude.

(I would've done the same)

Dimmukane · « **Reply #18 on:** 11 May 2007, 08:18 »

I've read the Walking Dead, or at least parts of it. He's right, it's a great comic book. Because of it, now I have this massive idea for a zombie holocaust/Grand Theft Auto style game that I'm trying to plot out.

As for zombie movies in general, I try to find low-budget ones with crazy stories and stuff. I picked out this one because it had a chick with a triple-rigged shotgun. It turned out to be kickass. (Undead, for anyone who's interested).

My local paper reviewed 28 Weeks Later today and gave it a C-, which I think is bogus. But I'm not leaping out the door to see it.

0bsessions · « **Reply #19 on:** 11 May 2007, 08:33 »

Quote from: valley_parade on 11 May 2007, 07:37

How did that not come up when we were talking about crazy exes?

Because that one ranks rather low on my list of "batshit fucking loco shit that my exes have pulled." She actually worked in a hotel I always thought would be great for a zombie video game scenario.

This same ex asked me to move in with her, brought up the idea of marriage and then told ME I was moving too fast. She's still got nothing on the one who committed herself when I dumped her or the girl I never even went on a single date with who called me a two-timing dick when I started seeing someone else. I'm like a fuckin' campground flood-light in a sky full of psychotic lady-moths.

Back to some semblance of on topic, though: The more I read, the less excited I am about this movie. I'll see if I can catch a weekend matinee next weekend, as I'm worried about wasting the ten bucks for admission.

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #20 on:** 11 May 2007, 17:50 »

Gosh I just saw this and gosh was it good. Really really good. I was wrong, Boyle and Garland were both executive producers. The movie was incredibly intense. The New York Times called used the intensity level of this film 'excruciating' but in a good way. I couldn't agree more. From start to finish it's a genuinely scary, frightening, terrific horror film. See this now. I loved every second. There's even some homages to the first one (be ready for more eye gouging with thumbs. This time it's worse). '28 Weeks' is definetly more violent and even has some 'Grindhouse' style chopper action. I'm certainly seeing this one again and it's now gone right next to '28 Days Later' on the list of my all time favorite horror films.

godinpants · « **Reply #21 on:** 12 May 2007, 01:27 »

I will be seeing this soon.

I liked the first.

0bsessions · « **Reply #22 on:** 13 May 2007, 07:49 »

I ended up going to see it last night. It was quite good. A lot of critics have been clamouring that it was better than the first. I'm inclined to disagree, I definitely think the first was better, but it was still great. I'd recommend it.

IronOxide · « **Reply #23 on:** 13 May 2007, 17:43 »

Fast zombies are the scariest thing ever conceived.

That being said, I liked 28 Days Later a lot and I can now see R-rated movies unattended!

Johnny C · « **Reply #24 on:** 15 May 2007, 23:52 »

It was a good movie but I really hope the cinematographer recovers from whatever it is that is making him shake so much all the time.

Johnny C · « **Reply #25 on:** 16 May 2007, 19:35 »

Quote from: TheFuriousWombat on 11 May 2007, 17:50

There's even some homages to the first one (be ready for more eye gouging with thumbs. This time it's worse).

Oh I didn't watch this part. I really didn't see why it was neccessary to include it.

rae · « **Reply #26 on:** 17 May 2007, 13:19 »

Oh my god the eyes. That part felt like it went on forever

When I wasn't open mouthed in horror I was hiding behind my hand.

I'm a complete wimp when it comes to horror films yet I insist on putting myself through it every single time.

Gryff · « **Reply #27 on:** 17 May 2007, 18:02 »

Yeah, this movie was really fucking intense from start to finish. I don't think it was quite as good as the first one, but it was definitely scary, creepy, and gory enough to keep me happy. The zombies were great, the story was passable, and the opening scene was absolutely stupendous and worth the price of admission alone.

Sploilerz lol:

One gripe I have is that I thought they really missed a great opportunity to explore more about the after-effects of the main dude leaving his wife behind at the beginning. I would've liked to have seen how the family dynamic worked and changed while this huge crisis was going on, but instead it was like "I'm sorry I left you! NOW I AM A ZOMBIE BLARGH EYE GOUGE". The movie could've learned a lot from The Walking Dead I think.

amok · « **Reply #28 on:** 22 May 2007, 05:00 »

This movie was awesome, and scared the shit out of me at times. Slow zombie movies don't really get me but the 28 infected are scary as fuck. Yes, I am a complete pussy.

I couldn't watch the night-vision bit 'cos you knew exactly what was gonna happen but it just went on and on and oh god make it stop.

Amazing film. Also, d'you reckon we're gonna see France get owned in a sequel or was that just a neat ending?

Johnny C · « **Reply #29 on:** 22 May 2007, 10:28 »

To tell you the truth, I don't think it was a neat ending. I thought it was actually quite terrible. The film comes this close to ending with the perfect ambiguous shot but fucks it up. At first you're thinking, "Oh, will it be this way, or another?" and it's nice and open and leaves some room for the audience to go home and put their (delicious) brains to use, but then it's like the filmmakers step in and go "Actually, fuck you, it ends this way." It wasn't in keeping with the rest of the movie at all.

Most of my comments in this thread make it look like I didn't love the movie. I really did, it just irritated me in a couple of respects, this being one of them.

0bsessions · « **Reply #30 on:** 22 May 2007, 11:04 »

Apparently, Danny Boyle has stated he has plans to make a third one, Fox just needs to approve it. It's hard to judge at this point. Days had a stronger opening in less theaters than Weeks. If it does well enough (It currently stands at $18 mill, the original did $45 total domestically), we'll probably see a third one. It's looking like it'll probably outdo the original in terms of overall ticket sales. If it can keep something like its current pace across the next month, we'll probably see another one.

WelshPete · « **Reply #31 on:** 23 May 2007, 07:44 »

In the end it was an alright movie....definetly not as good as 28 Days Latter!

I might look into details of the film a bit to much but there were loads of problems with the story.

*Spoilers*
1. The civilian father had access to the Army medical center on his id card
2. They didnt have anyone guarding the infected mother (yet they had someone guarding the kids in isolation)
3. The fact that the infected father had was able to make it back through the locked doors to infect others.
4. The army isolates the civilians in a car park and dont think to secure the area around it

I honestly could go on with more but cant be bothered!

I did actually enjoy the film jus found the story to be a bit open badly written in places!

beat mouse · « **Reply #32 on:** 25 May 2007, 02:34 »

i think the best part about this movie is that it almost stands alone from the original and is still an excellent movie. If someone had seen this without knowing the first, they would still love ever second of it. Personally I liked the original more, but not out of any reason other than that I think it's a better movie. I loved every second of this one and scoff at all of the OMG ZOMBIES = IRAQ pucky going around. I was really pleased with what I got.

Also, on the matter of Intacto, I'm torn. I thought it was alright, though blindfolded running through the forest was absolutely awesome. I don't know why this movie didn't sell for me, I usually eat that stuff up.

0bsessions · « **Reply #33 on:** 25 May 2007, 05:51 »

Note you're judging its ability to stand on its own after having seen the first one, I assume. I loved the movie, but they don't really explain how easily the virus is transmitted, which would probably make it a little confusing to new viewers.

Johnny C · « **Reply #34 on:** 25 May 2007, 10:55 »

I didn't see the first one but I caught the general idea of how quickly it was transmitted. KISS BLOOD AGH

Gryff · « **Reply #35 on:** 31 May 2007, 03:37 »

See the first one.

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #36 on:** 31 May 2007, 20:26 »

Quote from: Gryff on 31 May 2007, 03:37

See the first one.

You'll be doing yourself a favor. It's a damn good movie. Quite possibly my favorite in the genre.

0bsessions · « **Reply #37 on:** 01 Jun 2007, 05:52 »

It's also terribly underrated. I've heard a lot of people shit on it saying they're "not real zombies" and you know what? Yeah, they're not real zombies, not by the standard formula anyways. But fuck if they aren't scarier than zombies.

Which'd freak you out more? A pack of shuffling retards that moan and if they bite you, you'll die and turn into one in a few hours to a few days...

Or a pack of screaming, slobbering freaks that run full-out at you and will beat you to death or vomit blood on you and turn you into one of them in scant seconds.

A zombie outbreak will spread out over the course of a few days, but legitimately speaking, it's easily contained if you pay attention. The rage? You're fucked if it gets into a crowd. Inside of five minutes, most of the crowd would be infected and those that aren't are dinner.

Given, the explanation as to why they exist sucks out loud, but they put it out in a comic and it's easily ignored.

Johnny C · « **Reply #38 on:** 01 Jun 2007, 14:59 »

Man, the shuffling army builds a much better sense of menace, I'd say. It's the slow but unstoppable onslaught that makes it so terrifying.

0bsessions · « **Reply #39 on:** 01 Jun 2007, 21:13 »

If you keep your wits about you, you could always get away easily enough. A giant mass of shuffling infected, though? Yeah, there isn't a word to describe how fucked you are in that situation.

Damn, I've been reading way too much of the Zombie Survival Guide lately.

Pareve · « **Reply #40 on:** 10 Jun 2007, 21:34 »

SPOILERS

Why don't the infected die earlier from dehydration? It shouldn't take months... They should all be dead in three days or less because of dehydration, since they're not drinking anything and are spurting fluids all over the place. I also really, really, desperately hope that the next movie isn't set in France. I have nothing against France, but the idea of a 'zombie' movie set in Paris just seems like it would be unbelievably stupid.

Jean-Paul: Jean-Claude! Jean-Claude, where are you!!!
Infected: BSKHRGLKJgKRNK>JGsndnm.d/dfgnjklh'jkldjkldfklj;gvnh.g.m,,

The end.

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #41 on:** 11 Jun 2007, 12:27 »

I disagree actually. Paris has a nice contrast between super metropolitan areas and very old feeling medieval areas. Now some other cities might have more of this, but Paris is a beautiful city and has some very uncontemporary parts to it. I think it would make a very interesting setting. However, we have to assume that the virus can now spread across Europe, Asia, even Africa. I think there are settings that would be better. A Saharan city, Cairo or Marrakesh would make a cool settings, as would a lot of eastern European locales. This, of course, is speaking from a purely visual point of view. A good cinematographer in these places could work wonders. Would be good stuff.

SusurrusIgnoramus · « **Reply #42 on:** 15 Oct 2007, 12:35 »

i'm sorry to bump such an old thread, but i just saw 28 weeks on DVD and needed to comment. anybody else see it recently? i also have a theory to run by those of you who have seen it so...

SPOILERS:

do you think alice infected don on purpose? i definitely do. she had to have known she was a carrier since she was obviously bitten. and, after they kissed, as he was spasming and vomiting blood and stuff, she didn't seem suprised or too scared. i think she figured she was going to get killed by the americans anyway, and wanted to have revenge on her husband for leaving her to die.

also, i've read that "28 months" might take place in russia other than paris.

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #43 on:** 16 Oct 2007, 17:01 »

Quote from: SusurrusIgnoramus on 15 Oct 2007, 12:35

SPOILERS:

do you think alice infected don on purpose? i definitely do. After they kissed, as he was spasming and vomiting blood and stuff, she didn't seem suprised or too scared.

No and that's not true.

SusurrusIgnoramus · « **Reply #44 on:** 16 Oct 2007, 17:31 »

how do you know?

MusicScribbles · « **Reply #45 on:** 16 Oct 2007, 19:30 »

He doesn't, he's in denial. This ruins Alice as a character for everyone, and now she is a total bitch in the eyes of the world, all thanks to a question. Were any of the Resident Evil movies worth it anyway? Their plots were worse then the ones in the games, which made up for that in everything else. A movie with a bad plot won't make this up in any way except if it's Final Fantasy: Advent Children.

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #46 on:** 16 Oct 2007, 21:10 »

Well I did say I don't think it was intentional, not it wasn't. And she definitely looked scared when he started flipping out. She was a weak character in general though.

tomselleck69 · « **Reply #47 on:** 16 Oct 2007, 21:29 »

saw it a few days ago, was glad to find out that it was pretty decent.

also, alice was strapped to a table and all kinds of shellshocked. wasn't much "on purpose" going on on her end.

Johnny C · « **Reply #48 on:** 17 Oct 2007, 00:29 »

Quote from: MusicScribbles on 16 Oct 2007, 19:30

He doesn't, he's in denial. This ruins Alice as a character for everyone, and now she is a total bitch in the eyes of the world, all thanks to a question. Were any of the Resident Evil movies worth it anyway? Their plots were worse then the ones in the games, which made up for that in everything else. A movie with a bad plot won't make this up in any way except if it's Final Fantasy: Advent Children.

uh you are in the wrong thread

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: 28 Weeks Later (Read 19671 times)

thehoopiestfrood

epifreak

epifreak

Pareve