Is anyone else psyched about this? It’s coming out on May 11th. Life is good.
Is it a film?
Much better, my friend. It’s a zombie movie! Moreover, it’s a sequel to another zombie movie!
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.
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!
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
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)
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.
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.
Er, I’m sure I’d remember that. 
Are you sure you’re talking about the same film?
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.
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.
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!
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.
Let’s go with zombiesque.
Remember when the one zombie turned to the other and said, “Have you ever been in a Turkish Prison?”
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”.
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.
They didn’t feast on flesh either, they just killed people and left them there.