28 Days, 28 Weeks, and 28 Months Later

[suttercain]

A couple of weeks back I picked up the comic book 28 Days Later: The Aftermath by Steve Niles, which was a very good read. It reminded me how great 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later are.

I already owned 28 Days Later and decided re-watch it since it had been a couple years and as soon as I finished I went out and bought 28 Weeks Later. Both films are beautifully shot and are amazingly horrific. They are the framework of what great horror films can and should be.

After I finished 28 weeks later I was still on my "infected" kick and went out and picked up the soundtrack to 28 Days Later. For the past few days it has been in constant play as I drive around town to run errands.

Over the past month I have read some mention of Danny Boyle (director of the first film and executive producer of the second) and his aspirations to make 28 Months Later. If they can recapture the absolute beauty of the first two films, I think this may be the best horror trilogy of all time.

What say you?

[hoffmandu]

28 days later is a great take on Zombie Cinema. 28 weeks however is clearly just the search for more money. If Boyle returns for 3, I'll see it, but if he doesn't this franchise is dead.

[the goddamn batman]

28 Days later was great until they got to the military hold up. Then, as often happens with Boyle, I felt like I was watching a totally different movie.

I didn't think much of Weeks. I'd only bother with a Months if Boyle was involved.

[Bill Thompson]

The military compound made Days, if not for that entire scenario that caused the lead female and male characters to switch roles the entire moral and philosophical leanings that hold the movie up wouldn't have mattered one iota.

As for another one, I'd be down. 28 Days Later was a masterpiece of cinema, while 28 Weeks Later was a fun movie.

[suttercain]

The first time I watched Days, I agree, the military thing felt a little weird. But upon a second and third watch I really enjoyed it. Kind of a lord of the flies with adults type of mentality. Although the alternate ending (they only have a storyboard for it) featured on the DVD would have been a pretty good direction.

I may be in the minority but I actually liked 28 Weeks Later slightly better. I think the whole parallel between the Iraq war and the American occupation in Britain played well. They are trying to help rebuild. Instead of an insurgency you get the infected. The distinction between the civilians and the infected (insurgency) becomes blurred and normally good people begin to do bad things out of fear.

Also, the fact that they brought back John Murphy to do the excellent soundtrack just made it so worth while. I am optimistic for the third. I did however hear something about the possibility of a prequel, which is what the comic book covered in the first story.

[the goddamn batman]

The military compound made Days, if not for that entire scenario that caused the lead female and male characters to switch roles the entire moral and philosophical leanings that hold the movie up wouldn't have mattered one iota.


I really disagree. I won't argue the moral and philisophical leanings, mainly because I've got to go to work, but... it's jsut a complete shift in tone. All of a sudden it's an action movie and Jim is this mega bad ass.

What?

And really, I don't need another lesson about human nature in the absence of law... or specifically assholes raping teenagers. Or throwing away all of the strengths you gave the female lead for the first two thirds.

Again, a different movie. Much like Sunshine.

[Bill Thompson]

I really disagree. I won't argue the moral and philisophical leanings, mainly because I've got to go to work, but... it's jsut a complete shift in tone. All of a sudden it's an action movie and Jim is this mega bad ass.

What?

And really, I don't need another lesson about human nature in the absence of law... or specifically assholes raping teenagers. Or throwing away all of the strengths you gave the female lead for the first two thirds.

Again, a different movie. Much like Sunshine.

The female didn't lose her strength at all, she simply learned that while it's perfectly fine to be strong, you do need others. She was still the same strong character, but it took the events at the military compound to show her why she needs others and especially during the times they are ins he can't have such an isolationist tone.

Jim was never a mega bad ass, he was a man, and that was the point. He spent the first three quarters of the movie believing that others would solve his problems, that he needed others to take care of him. The military compound allowed him to finally realize that he needed to take more action and not allow others to dictate what would happen to his life, or the lives of his friends.

The tone never changed, it was always the same, it simply reached its conclusion and revelations were made and characters changed.

[Jared]

Days almost lost me when Murphy's character went on a shirtless ninjitsu rampage, somehow avoiding infected while herding them to exactly the places in the compound where they'd be beneficial.

Never saw Weeks, but I really like Rose Bryne and I'd like to check it out. A buddy of mine says the whole plot relies on one incredibly stupid character decision after another in order to move forward.

[the goddamn batman]

The female didn't lose her strength at all, she simply learned that while it's perfectly fine to be strong, you do need others. She was still the same strong character, but it took the events at the military compound to show her why she needs others and especially during the times they are ins he can't have such an isolationist tone.

Actually, that's not at all what I was refering to... I haven't seen it recently enough to argue fine details... I just remember that both times I saw it, I thought she pussed out hard once they got to the compound. Didn't feel like the same character to me.

Jim was never a mega bad ass, he was a man, and that was the point.

That was my point. All of a sudden in the third act, he's kicking all kinds of shirtless ass all over the place. There was no evolution of character, just: blamo! instant bad ass.

Didn't care for it.

The tone never changed, it was always the same,

Well, you might think so, but I don't and you're probably not going to convince me of this anymore than you'll ever convince me that Unbreakable is one of the best movies ever made.

It's all taste, and Boyle's third acts aren't to mine. Shame that, as I adore his first two acts.

[hoffmandu]

I think the 3rd act was a definite evolution in character for Jim. 1st act he was taken care of. 2nd he still was, but has definite new responsibilities. 3rd act his loved ones are in great danger and he finds himself alone and the only one who can take care of it. I wouldn't exactly call him a mega badass, but yeah, there's evolution there. Anyone ever catch Sunshine? I find that to be Boyles best.

[Treqqor]

Anyone ever catch Sunshine? I find that to be Boyles best.

I am a huge fan of everything zombie, but when the movie suddenly became (basically) a zombie movie about 2/3rds of the way through, that is when it lost me.

Everything before then was perfectly orchestrated, from every department working on that film, from sets, to acting, etc. But the shift was too jarring for me.

So it is (roughly) 2/3rds Boyles best. :cool:

[kalorama]

I really disagree. I won't argue the moral and philisophical leanings, mainly because I've got to go to work, but... it's jsut a complete shift in tone. All of a sudden it's an action movie and Jim is this mega bad ass.

What?

And really, I don't need another lesson about human nature in the absence of law... or specifically assholes raping teenagers. Or throwing away all of the strengths you gave the female lead for the first two thirds.

Again, a different movie. Much like Sunshine.

I haven't seen 28 Days or 28 Weeks, because I couldn't care less about zombie cinema. But I saw Sunshine and my biggest complaint about the film was the sudden 3rd act shift from smart, contemplative sci-fi to adrenaline-fueled monster movie. I thought it was an anomalous glitch by the director, but it sounds like it might actually be an intentional style choice

[Tobias March]

28 days later is a great take on Zombie Cinema. 28 weeks however is clearly just the search for more money. If Boyle returns for 3, I'll see it, but if he doesn't this franchise is dead.

I'd second this. Also disliked the Niles comic intensely, it was just his usual silly exercise in pedantry (the fecking monkey shows up!)

Weeks had a very interesting set up and the opening scene was wonderful, but it blew it almost instantly. 28 Days held it together for longer. Honestly both films have fantastic introductory scenes, but for some reason just can't maintain the suspense.

I've heard Boyle wants to set the third in Russia, so expect zombies running through dilapidated buildings and grey landscapes.

[Deathstroke]

28 Days Later was a really good scary film.

28 Weeks Later was a truly mesmerizingly bad movie.

[suttercain]

A buddy of mine says the whole plot relies on one incredibly stupid character decision after another in order to move forward.

I don't know about that. I loved the film myself but there is one thing that really bothered me a lot. Let me know once you see it and see if you agree.

[Bill Thompson]

I don't know about that. I loved the film myself but there is one thing that really bothered me a lot. Let me know once you see it and see if you agree.

I also wouldn't agree with that, but much like Land Of The Dead there is one progression made with a certain rager that I didn't quite like, at all.

[suttercain]

I also wouldn't agree with that, but much like Land Of The Dead there is one progression made with a certain rager that I didn't quite like, at all.

My main issue with the sequel was

The strict focus on one particular infected, the father. He should never have been seen after the firebomb. It reminded me almost like a slasher film because he was always around and he's the one that is always doing something. Too singular IMO.

[Bill Thompson]

My main issue with the sequel was

The strict focus on one particular infected, the father. He should never have been seen after the firebomb. It reminded me almost like a slasher film because he was always around and he's the one that is always doing something. Too singular IMO.


That would be my issue as well.

[The Zapper]

That would be my issue as well.

Mine as well.

[the goddamn batman]

I think the 3rd act was a definite evolution in character for Jim. 1st act he was taken care of. 2nd he still was, but has definite new responsibilities. 3rd act his loved ones are in great danger and he finds himself alone and the only one who can take care of it. I wouldn't exactly call him a mega badass, but yeah, there's evolution there. Anyone ever catch Sunshine? I find that to be Boyles best.

I'm not saying the character didint' evolve, because clearly he did... I just thought it was a sudden jump in character development.

Also, the film itself went from quiet and somber to ACTION in like, 3 seconds. Personally, I didn't care for it.

I liked the alternate endings more. The one that was only storyboarded was the best, as I remember it.

I am a huge fan of everything zombie, but when the movie suddenly became (basically) a zombie movie about 2/3rds of the way through, that is when it lost me.

Everything before then was perfectly orchestrated, from every department working on that film, from sets, to acting, etc. But the shift was too jarring for me.

So it is (roughly) 2/3rds Boyles best. :cool:

Agreed. Though, I don't know if I'd say it became a Zombie movie... so much as Event Horizon. Which, maybe counts as a sort of zombie movie.

I haven't seen 28 Days or 28 Weeks, because I couldn't care less about zombie cinema. But I saw Sunshine and my biggest complaint about the film was the sudden 3rd act shift from smart, contemplative sci-fi to adrenaline-fueled monster movie. I thought it was an anomalous glitch by the director, but it sounds like it might actually be an intentional style choice

I feel pretty much the same way about 28 Days. And Sunshine. Sunshine was about to be a personal favorite until...

[Gavin Higginbotham, BotF]

I thought 28 Weeks Later wasn't great but it was saved by three awesome scenes;

3. The helicopter being used to decapitate the zombies at the fairground

2. The sniper sacrificing himself by pushing the car to get started as the flamethrowers burn him to death

1. The opening chase scene where Robert Carlysle flees the house. The sheer terror that that scene evoked in me was genius.

[Bill Thompson]

I'm not saying the character didint' evolve, because clearly he did... I just thought it was a sudden jump in character development.

Also, the film itself went from quiet and somber to ACTION in like, 3 seconds. Personally, I didn't care for it.

I liked the alternate endings more. The one that was only storyboarded was the best, as I remember it.

I don't think any of the alternate endings worked with the theme of the movie at all. If Jim dies then the entire message of changing yourself and thus helping those around you and becoming a better person is lost.

[suttercain]

With fear of sounding like a dick. 28 Days and 28 Weeks didn't have any Zombies in it. I see why the comparison is there but it is important to know they were not Zombies.

A Zombie is a reanimated human corpse. Meaning the person had died. The "infected" in these two films were very much alive and had never died. Once they die, they stayed dead. Zombies can't starve to death like the infected did in this film. The cause of the "rage" is a virus.

[jesse_custer]

To be blunt, 28 Days Later was a bore with horrible cinematography (some of the worst I've seen even). It was overtly serious and had the dramatic punch of a television movie. Not even the great Brendan Gleeson could make it worthwhile for me.

[Bill Thompson]

To be blunt, 28 Days Later was a bore with horrible cinematography (some of the worst I've seen even). It was overtly serious and had the dramatic punch of a television movie. Not even the great Brendan Gleeson could make it worthwhile for me.

I don't know how you can watch 28 Days Later and claim it had horrible cinematography, from the beginning shots of the desolated and abandoned city to the later shots of the darkened and frenzied military compound it had tremendous cinematography throughout.

[jesse_custer]

The action scenes were so poorly shot that I couldn't tell what was going on, which clashed with the overall dramatic tone of the film. I would have to watch it again to comment on other specific scenes, but honestly I was so miserable the whole time I would rather not.

When you say "tremendous cinematography," something like A Clockwork Orange or Stagecoach or There Will Be Blood or Die Hard comes to mind.

[Bill Thompson]

The action scenes were so poorly shot that I couldn't tell what was going on, which clashed with the overall dramatic tone of the film. I would have to watch it again to comment on other specific scenes, but honestly I was so miserable the whole time I would rather not.

When you say "tremendous cinematography," something like A Clockwork Orange or Stagecoach or There Will Be Blood or Die Hard comes to mind.

The action scenes were supposed to be chaotic like that, it was supposed to be hard to see what was going on. That matched the tone of the movie where no one had any real idea what was going on, they all had theories, but no one knew for sure what was going on or why.

[jesse_custer]

No one knew what was going on in Children of Men, either, and the camerawork was definitely not steady, but the action scenes didn't look like dogshit. In 28 Days Later, Boyle has the same problem as Oliver Stone: he tries too damn hard and ends up looking like a cheap television movie director. 28 Days Later and House of the Dead actually have a lot in common in terms of action camerawork. At least Uwe Boll wasn't claiming to make a serious film.

[Monty_Cristo]

i love the soundtrack, especially 'Don's escape' or whatever that first song is. that opening scene was just great. couldn't help but empathize with that guy's desperate run to freedom; as his zombie-swarmed wife screams in the background.

[esc0]

No one knew what was going on in Children of Men, either, and the camerawork was definitely not steady, but the action scenes didn't look like dogshit. In 28 Days Later, Boyle has the same problem as Oliver Stone: he tries too damn hard and ends up looking like a cheap television movie director. 28 Days Later and House of the Dead actually have a lot in common in terms of action camerawork. At least Uwe Boll wasn't claiming to make a serious film.

How dare you!!! That's far to harsh. Uwe Boll got House of the Dead when he took it out of Satan's toilet after Satan had eaten 100 yr old bean burrito with a side of 100 yr old sushi and a pitcher of Ann Coulter's venom.

P.S. I loved the movies too but I was also bothered by the slasher vibe with the second film.

[Tobias March]

With fear of sounding like a dick. 28 Days and 28 Weeks didn't have any Zombies in it. I see why the comparison is there but it is important to know they were not Zombies.


Don't worry, Danny Boyle gave a presentation of the screening I saw and was very insistent that this was not a zombie pic. It was the writer (whose name escapes me...he did the Beach) who was jonzing on zombie lore and Romero love. Boyle compared it to Blindness interestingly, which has now been made into a film itself starring Julianne Moore.

Honestly if Don's sequence at the opening of 28 Weeks Later had been released as a short film, I would have declared it one of the greatest horror shorts ever. Everything after was downhill.

The Rage victims suffer from the same problem as 30 Days of Night's vampires. Once you've seen them on camera, they stop being frightening and instead become hordes of anonymous blood-soaked people shrieking a lot and running about. Romero zombies have an eerie horror about them that these new kids can't live up to (zombies or no).

I suspect that's why Weeks had the 'slasher vibe'. It was an attempt to inject some further suspense into the proceedings. Unfortunately audiences felt it contradicted the 'rules' of the movie by the individual demonstrating intelligence and a survival instinct.

Once again though - that's zombies. We never determined how smart the Ragers are - just that they're really pissed off.

Lock up a hundred Ragers in a barn with a canvas and maybe you'd get a Francis Bacon painting, who knows :tongue:

[the goddamn batman]

The action scenes were supposed to be chaotic like that, it was supposed to be hard to see what was going on. That matched the tone of the movie where no one had any real idea what was going on, they all had theories, but no one knew for sure what was going on or why.

S'the same arguement given about Nolan and his Batman actions scenes. It's supposed to be messed up because it's from the POV of the bad guys.

Okay, with batman Begins, in the ship yeard scene, I could buy that. Beyond that, well, it's really personal taste, but.

If I'm paying over $10 to see a fucking movie that's telling me a story and a large part of that story has to do wth the action, I'd like to see said action, and I don't think that's asking too much.

I'm not against a directors 'vision', but, to a point, you know?

And in fairness, I didn't ahve a problem with Days. But, to play devils advocate.

[Tobias March]

S'the same arguement given about Nolan and his Batman actions scenes. It's supposed to be messed up because it's from the POV of the bad guys.

Okay, with batman Begins, in the ship yeard scene, I could buy that. Beyond that, well, it's really personal taste, but.

If I'm paying over $10 to see a fucking movie that's telling me a story and a large part of that story has to do wth the action, I'd like to see said action, and I don't think that's asking too much.

I'm not against a directors 'vision', but, to a point, you know?

And in fairness, I didn't ahve a problem with Days. But, to play devils advocate.

I remember some critics making the same complaint about LOTR.

[the goddamn batman]

I dunno, I couldn't actually sit through those movies.

[Bill Thompson]

S'the same arguement given about Nolan and his Batman actions scenes. It's supposed to be messed up because it's from the POV of the bad guys.

Okay, with batman Begins, in the ship yeard scene, I could buy that. Beyond that, well, it's really personal taste, but.

If I'm paying over $10 to see a fucking movie that's telling me a story and a large part of that story has to do wth the action, I'd like to see said action, and I don't think that's asking too much.

I'm not against a directors 'vision', but, to a point, you know?

And in fairness, I didn't ahve a problem with Days. But, to play devils advocate.

Funny thing is I can't stand Nolan, thought BB was complete crap, while TDK was a good, but nowhere near great film, yet I had no problem with the way the action scenes were shot in 28.

[suttercain]

Danny Boyle set to direct 28 Months Later?
http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/14292

I hope so. Ending a trilogy with Boyle directing would be tight.

[EZMOHR]

I heard that today....and it still just seems like a pipe dream. Until a Danny Boyle 28 movie is in theatres....I just don't believe it.