28 weeks later!

[Mr. Excellent]

Is anyone else psyched about this? It's coming out on May 11th. Life is good.

[Cunctator]

Is it a film?

[Mr. Excellent]

Is it a film?

Much better, my friend. It's a zombie movie! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0463854/) Moreover, it's a sequel to another zombie movie! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/)

[Omniscient]

The trailers worry me because it looks like they are going for a big budget blockbuster type flick. Hope it doesn't get Michael Bay'ed.

The quasi-Indie film quality of the first one is part of what made it great.

[HazelNutCoffee]

My friend and I are going to rent 28 Days Later this weekend and watch 28 Weeks Later when it comes out next week. Yay! Squee!

[Stranger On A Train]

The trailers worry me because it looks like they are going for a big budget blockbuster type flick. Hope it doesn't get Michael Bay'ed.

The quasi-Indie film quality of the first one is part of what made it great.Yeah, the first one was...unpredictable. A zombie flick with road movie sensibilities and social critique. I'm not sure how they're going to pull it off with a sequel. I'm not totally pessimistic, but I'm suspicious that it'll just turn into a contextless gorefest, the way the unauthorized sequels of Romero's films became.

Stranger

[bbs2k]

Favorite moment from the first film: OH MY GOD, WHATS HE DOING?!?! HE'S, HE'S, MASSAGING HIS BRAIN!

(Apologies for the CAPS, but they were needed)

[Staggerlee]

I am looking forward to this - 28 Days Later produced a convincing scenario, but in my mind the last third of the film was a disappointment. All those soldiers cooped up in the country house reminded me of some godawful corporate paintballing away-day. Even if the new film is a stupid flashy film like the remake of Dawn of the Dead, at least it won't have Christopher Ecclestone in it.

[Scoundrel Swanswater]

I have a feeling this is going to be really, really, really bad.
Like From Dusk till Dawn 2 bad.
Danny Boyle isn't involved and it looks like it is just another case of ripping of someone elses movie title and making a mediocre movie.
That way you won't have to invest in things like a good story, or believable characters or even good actors.
Just using the brand will ensure you get a lot of dupes being tricked into watching it.

But then again, maybe it won't be as bad.

[Nancarrow]

Favorite moment from the first film: OH MY GOD, WHATS HE DOING?!?! HE'S, HE'S, MASSAGING HIS BRAIN!

(Apologies for the CAPS, but they were needed)

Er, I'm sure I'd remember that. :confused: Are you sure you're talking about the same film?

[Trunk]

I also hear they're making 28 Weeks. The long awaited sequel to 28 Days.

Sandra Bullock develops a tolerance to getting "high on life" and goes back to boozing and slutting. Sort of a Miss Congeniality meets Leaving Las Vegas.

[Baldwin]

There were no zombies in the movie 28 Days Later; have they added them to the sequel? Odd.

From the trailer I've seen, it looks as if they're imitating the visual style of the first film, even though Danny Boyle isn't directing. That in itself makes it seem like they're just ripping off the first movie without really adding anything. But, maybe I'm wrong.

[brewha]

I like the first one and am pretty excited about the second. My finance likes a good zombie flick as well, so we too are going to rewatch 28 days later before going to see 28 wks later. Here's to hoping it doesn't suck!

Oh yeah, I don't remeber the the brain massaging scene from the first one either.

My favorite line? Oy! That's no lion! It's a giraffe!

[Trunk]

Er, I'm sure I'd remember that. :confused: Are you sure you're talking about the same film?
I don't know if he's talking about ANY film.

A google search of "massaging his brain" turns up not much beyond a joke about george w. bush picking his nose.

[Trunk]

I like the first one and am pretty excited about the second. My finance likes a good zombie flick as well, so we too are going to rewatch 28 days later before going to see 28 wks later. Here's to hoping it doesn't suck!
Let's go with zombiesque.

[stolichnaya]

Remember when the one zombie turned to the other and said, "Have you ever been in a Turkish Prison?"

[Mr. Excellent]

There were no zombies in the movie 28 Days Later; have they added them to the sequel? Odd.



Come on - they're former humans who've been changed into raging monsters that feast on the flesh of normal people. The fact they haven't come back from the dead is unimportant - they're zombies, admittedly of the fast-moving variety.

[Trunk]

Come on - they're former humans who've been changed into raging monsters that feast on the flesh of normal people. The fact they haven't come back from the dead is unimportant - they're zombies, admittedly of the fast-moving variety.
Your definition of zombie doesn't include "came back from the dead"?

I thought that was pretty much a necessary (though not sufficient, cf. vampires, fankensteins) condition for "zombie".

[kingpengvin]

Also they really weren't feasting either or their eventual demise wouldn't really happen would it.

It was zombie style without Zombies. Kinda like an Omega man on Speed.

[scotandrsn]

Your definition of zombie doesn't include "came back from the dead"?

I thought that was pretty much a necessary (though not sufficient, cf. vampires, fankensteins) condition for "zombie".

They didn't feast on flesh either, they just killed people and left them there.

[Elendil's Heir]

I like the first one and am pretty excited about the second. My finance likes a good zombie flick as well.... (emphasis added)


Show her the money!

[Procyon]

Your definition of zombie doesn't include "came back from the dead"?

I thought that was pretty much a necessary (though not sufficient, cf. vampires, fankensteins) condition for "zombie".
Limiting zombies to the undead excludes the entire category of Voodoo zombies, which cinematically predate Romero-style living dead (see White Zombie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023694/)).

[Don Draper]

I dunno. None of the principles (either in front of or behind the camera) are returning. The trailer seems to feature a 'more-of-the-same scenario' (lots of shots of a mostly uninhabited London - just like in the first movie), and worst of all...precocious adolescent kids are apparently major characters.

Much as I loved the first film, and would like to get psyched for a sequel, I have a bad feeling about this one. I'll wait for the DVD.

[Odesio]

There were no zombies in the movie 28 Days Later; have they added them to the sequel? Odd.


There were plenty of zombies. They were those berserk people that shunned the daylight and pretty much attacked most normal people on sight. Just because they weren't the walking dead doesn't mean they aren't zombies. Firefly had the Reavers who were little more than space zombies.

Marc

[stolichnaya]

The creatures in 28 days later were like zombies, except they preyed solely on the pedantic.

[Kokopilau]

The creatures in 28 days later were like zombies, except they preyed solely on the pedantic.

Horrifying indeed!

[alphaboi867]

Limiting zombies to the undead excludes the entire category of Voodoo zombies, which cinematically predate Romero-style living dead (see White Zombie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023694/)).

Wasn't George Romero the first one to come up with the idea of zombies as mindless (no offence Bub ;) ) reaninmated corpses that craved human flesh?

[Cervaise]

From the trailer I've seen, it looks as if they're imitating the visual style of the first film, even though Danny Boyle isn't directing.The director is a Spanish fellow who is responsible for a very good film called Intacto.

Dunno about this movie, but the director ain't just some schmoe; he's got his own cred. Based on his prior work, this one has potential, at least.

[lisacurl]

The creatures in 28 days later were like zombies, except they preyed solely on the pedantic.
Our brains are in terrible danger! :D

[bbs2k]

Er, I'm sure I'd remember that. :confused: Are you sure you're talking about the same film?Sorry I was too obscure for everyone. I guess since its sort of a often used inside joke for me and a couple of my buddies I forget that it may be hard to understand. The scene I was refering to with the whole "massaging brain thing" was when Jim kills the soldier by gouging his eyes out.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Swallowed My Cellphone]

Yeah, the first one was...unpredictable. A zombie flick with road movie sensibilities and social critique. I'm not sure how they're going to pull it off with a sequel. I'm not totally pessimistic, but I'm suspicious that it'll just turn into a contextless gorefest, the way the unauthorized sequels of Romero's films became.I was excited by the trailer until one single line of dialog. Now I'm just nervous. The premise of repopulating the infected areras after all the zombie-like madhumans have been disposed of seemed cool and ominous, but that one line of dialog in the trailer is really bothering me (I'm worried it's a spoiler).

Daughter: "Dad, what really happened to mum, anyway?"

Gah! Now I'm just thinking of Shaun of the Dead where he had his zombie buddy hidden in the garage. Lemme guess, the army came and killed the zombies.... except this one guy couldn't bear to let his zombie wife get killed and has her chained up somewhere, then she finally gets loose and re-zombifies the city.

[Cat Whisperer]

The creatures in 28 days later were like zombies, except they preyed solely on the pedantic.
And The Straight Dope was decimated.

Precocious adolescents? I think I'll wait for the DVD release, too.

You're right, Swallowed - that sounds like the way it might go.

[Terrifel]

Come on - they're former humans who've been changed into raging monsters that feast on the flesh of normal people. The fact they haven't come back from the dead is unimportant - they're zombies, admittedly of the fast-moving variety.I prefer to classify them as an infectious variety of soccer hooligan.

[Cervaise]

I was excited by the trailer until one single line of dialog. Now I'm just nervous. The premise of repopulating the infected areras after all the zombie-like madhumans have been disposed of seemed cool and ominous, but that one line of dialog in the trailer is really bothering me (I'm worried it's a spoiler).Your spoiler-boxed supposition is, according to what I've heard, not accurate.

If you really want to know what that line refers to, and I mean really want to know (because it's a major twist in the movie's setup, and is being concealed in the previews), then read the following. (I haven't actually seen the movie but I've heard this from very reliable sources. It's possible this is wrong but don't think so; I'm confident it's more or less correct. BIG, BIG spoiler alert.)

Wife is married to Robert Carlyle character. (If you recognized him in the preview, he's the lead in The Full Monty and Begbie in Trainspotting.) During the initial attack, i.e. the gap in the first movie, he was forced to leave his wife behind in order to escape. He left her to the Rage people to save himself, and assumed she was killed, or was infected (and then presumably exterminated when the military moved in). Hence his awkwardness at the child's question.

But then she shows up, alive, and uninfected. He has to deal with his guilt at leaving her to her fate.

And then it turns out that she has a rare immunity to the Rage, and is a Typhoid-Mary-like carrier. Her return is the vector that triggers the new outbreak that is the bulk of this sequel. She infects the medical staff, and her husband, and basically everybody else she contacts, except her kid, with whom she goes on the run.

It's understandable why they're not providing these details in the preview, because they want it to be a surprise when Robert Carlyle, the best-known member of the cast and the person we assume will be a heroic lead, suddenly turns into a Rage zombie and begins hunting his wife.

Hope that helps.

[John Mace]

Do they call the "small area" in London "the Green Zone"?

I thought 28 Days Later was a great premise, ruined. The first half hour or so was great, but it went downhill fast with all those Zombies (or whatever you want to call them). Yeah, and the ending was pretty hokey. IIRC, the original ending was quite different.

[Just Some Guy]

I liked the initial theatrical ending in 28 Days Later because it wasn't what I was expecting. The original ending that was shown later was exactly how I was expecting the movie to end and as such it had no impact for me.

[Raygun99]

Do they call the "small area" in London "the Green Zone"?

They do indeed, with that exact term.

[Scoundrel Swanswater]

I liked the initial theatrical ending in 28 Days Later because it wasn't what I was expecting. The original ending that was shown later was exactly how I was expecting the movie to end and as such it had no impact for me.
Can you spoil for me what the difference is between the two endings?
I have only seen it on DVD and had no idea there was an alternate ending.

[Paranoid Randroid]

Can you spoil for me what the difference is between the two endings?
I have only seen it on DVD and had no idea there was an alternate ending.

Memory's a little shaky, but since nobody else is jumping up:

Almost exactly like the released ending, except the male lead dies; the woman and the girl are rescued. This is on the DVD.

Again, my it's been a while, but -- as far as radically different endings, the DVD has read-aloud storyboards for a very different second half of the film. I think the father was to be saved by having a full blood transfusion with the male lead.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, someone.

Edit: er, corrected spoiler.

[jharvey963]

I just saw this last night and thought it was pretty good. It got a B+ on Yahoo Movies from users. I'd give it a B myself. Well worth seeing, if you like this kind of movie.

Let me reply to a couple of messages. First of all, regarding the zombies

they aren't TECHNICALLY zombies, in the sense that they were dead, but have come back to life. They are living people that were infected with the Rage virus

The synopsis of the plot given above is not correct in
saying the mother, who is somehow immune to the virus, goes around infecting the medical staff, her husband, and a bunch of other people. Her husband, out of guilt, sneaks in to visit her (she's strapped to a bed), kisses her, and is infected. He then starts infecting everybody else. She never gets released from the bed, and never goes on the run with her kids.

Also, The army doesn't kill the infected from the initial outbreak of the Rage virus. They starve to death once there are no more people to eat.

:eek:

So, not a bad horror flick.
J.

[Push You Down]

Well I saw it last night....

The first ten minutes are pretty much the best the film ever gets. And oddly it's the most like the original.

The movie never felt like it hit its stride. Lots of stuff happened but I kept waiting to get to the point where I was invested and hooked. It never happened.

I have a fundamental problem with a family possibly being immune to the Rage Virus. Because the virus always seemed like more than just a simple sickness...it tapped into a part of our psyche. That element of it is still there, here in the sequel. It has to be in order to buy into why Carlye's father character so viciously kills his wife (more viciously than the average infected killing your average victim) and why he searches out his children. Apprently he has some sot of radar to keep finding them.

This is also the kind of scary movie that relies on characters not responding to their name for NO APPARENT REASON.

It also tacks on a twist ending for no good reason.

[Rodgers01]

I saw it tonight in an almost completely empty theater. I took that as a sign it wasn't doing too well at the box office, so I was surprised to see on IMDB that it's currently #2, only behind SpiderMan!!

I liked it. The camera work was a bit too frantic and the colors maybe too muted, but it had a nice, mostly logical plot, and pretty good plot. It was strangely not as scary as I expected -- not even as scary as the first one, I think. In parts it was almost more an action movie than a horror movie.

I have a fundamental problem with a family possibly being immune to the Rage Virus. Because the virus always seemed like more than just a simple sickness...it tapped into a part of our psyche. That element of it is still there, here in the sequel. It has to be in order to buy into why Carlye's father character so viciously kills his wife (more viciously than the average infected killing your average victim) and why he searches out his children. Apprently he has some sot of radar to keep finding them.Actually, I rather liked that they kept the virus biological, and gave a possibility that it could be cured. Any hint that it was somehow supernatural would have ruined it for me.

It also tacks on a twist ending for no good reason.Not sure I agree with you completely here. It seemed perfectly logical to me; ruthlessly logical, even. It wasn't even really a "twist." The girl may have known her brother was infected, but not wanted to tell anyone for fear of losing the last member of her family. From there it's very easy to imagine how the disease could spread -- maybe they shared a coke and he spread the disease to her through his saliva; who knows. Makes sense to me, within the logic of the movie.

But you're not the only one who didn't like the ending: in his review (http://movies2.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/movies/11late.html) for the New York Times, A. O. Scott notes that... "the last shot brought a burst of laughter at the screening I attended, a reaction that seemed to me both an acknowledgment of Mr. Fresnadillo’s wit and a defense against his merciless rigor." I have to admit I don't understand that reaction -- laughing was the last thing from my mind at that point. Anybody else have/see that reaction?

[Mr. Excellent]

Just saw 28 Weeks Later - and call me crazy, but in some ways I really think it's a better movie than the original, or at least equally good. The thing this movie does really, really well is show just how freaking scary the Infection is. Yah, I know we saw it was scary in 28 Days Later, too, but bear with me.

In the first movie, we only ever identified with a small band of characters, most of whom survived. Since the plague had already more-or-less run its course, we never got to see what the earlier days of the disaster must have been like. I loved how in this movie, in the first few minutes, we got to see just how fast the Infected could attack a house, and how utterly confusing and terrifying it would have been. The reviews that complain the camera-work keeps viewers from getting a clear idea of the action sort of miss the point, I think - the *characters* don't have any idea what's going on, so why should we?

I also liked seeing how quickly the infection could spread through a crowd - the first movie described it, but this time we actually got to see the horror. That was pretty cool, and again, the utter confusion seemed very real.

This movie's not as imaginative as the first, granted. But it does a superb job of doing what the best science fiction or horror does - it makes *one* impossible assumption, and then goes from there with absolute logic.

I like. :)