28 weeks later

I loved 28 days later and i originally thought 28 weeks later had a high possiblity of being lame but then i thought "zombie" flicks (general term-notice quotations) are usually entertaining to say the least so Im all for it. The trailers seem to show the same tone and mood of the first one which I loved the most.
 
Empire gave it a pretty good review, which I wasn't expecting. I just might watch it, I reckon.
 
I enjoyed 28 days later,thought it was close to par with Dawn of the Dead remake. I was little skeptical about a sequel to 28days later, w/o any of the cast returning.
Just seeing the trailers kindof has me actually wanting to see this movie. I think its the music they play with the trailer,kindof gets ya pumped up...
 
I just got back from a screening, here are my thoughts:

First of all, this movie is a cheap imitation of 28 Days Later. It was shot the same way, but this time the camera work was so shakey there's probably a good 30 minutes of the entire movie were I couldn't make out a thing that was going on. There's a difference between frenetic camera work, and just piss poor hackery.

Secondly, while the tone of the movie is on par with the first one, the story is not. I won't spoil anything, but I find it very hard to believe that a certain zombie seems to be in the right place at the right time ALL the time. That's just cliched garbage.

Thirdly, one of biggest differences was how the story was laid out. In 28 Days Later, Jim wakes up from a coma has to deal with the disturbing reality around him. In this film, the characters create their own disturbing reality, and it just comes off as standard horror movie fare. What I mean is, 28 Days Later was about characters dealing with a terrible situation. 28 Weeks Later is about the cheap thrills of characters opening doors they clearly shouldn't. You know the stuff. You've seen it all before.

It's definitely not as bad as I thought it would be based on the trailers, and there is some human emotion put into it. It just fell flat for me. I'm glad I didn't waste any money on it.
 
Loved the first movie and Stringer in it, so ill probably see it.
 
I just got back from a screening, here are my thoughts:

First of all, this movie is a cheap imitation of 28 Days Later. It was shot the same way, but this time the camera work was so shakey there's probably a good 30 minutes of the entire movie were I couldn't make out a thing that was going on. There's a difference between frenetic camera work, and just piss poor hackery.

Secondly, while the tone of the movie is on par with the first one, the story is not. I won't spoil anything, but I find it very hard to believe that a certain zombie seems to be in the right place at the right time ALL the time. That's just cliched garbage.

Thirdly, one of biggest differences was how the story was laid out. In 28 Days Later, Jim wakes up from a coma has to deal with the disturbing reality around him. In this film, the characters create their own disturbing reality, and it just comes off as standard horror movie fare. What I mean is, 28 Days Later was about characters dealing with a terrible situation. 28 Weeks Later is about the cheap thrills of characters opening doors they clearly shouldn't. You know the stuff. You've seen it all before.

It's definitely not as bad as I thought it would be based on the trailers, and there is some human emotion put into it. It just fell flat for me. I'm glad I didn't waste any money on it.


If I wasn't sure before, I am now; this movie is going to ROCK.
 
Well, it has received good reviews where I've looked. It's surprised a few people apparently. Dunno if it's going to rock as such, but I'll watch it :up:
 
Well, it has received good reviews where I've looked. It's surprised a few people apparently. Dunno if it's going to rock as such, but I'll watch it :up:

It's worth seeing for the sole reason that it's a zombie flick. And compared to recent movies like Land of the Dead, it's pretty good. But compared to 28 Days Later, it's awlful. Like I said, in my original post, it's as if the film makers were just trying way too hard on this one, and completely missed what made 28 Days Later such a great film.
 
It's worth seeing for the sole reason that it's a zombie flick. And compared to recent movies like Land of the Dead, it's pretty good. But compared to 28 Days Later, it's awlful. Like I said, in my original post, it's as if the film makers were just trying way too hard on this one, and completely missed what made 28 Days Later such a great film.

All the reviews I have seen have said that it's superior to 28DL, which is one of my favourites of all time, and said it's the series Dawn to the first's Night of the living dead. This will be the movie of the year I think. For me anyway.
 
All the reviews I have seen have said that it's superior to 28DL, which is one of my favourites of all time, and said it's the series Dawn to the first's Night of the living dead. This will be the movie of the year I think. For me anyway.

Good for you. :up:
 
I was going to see this movie this weekend...but the freaking theater got Grindhouse and Georgia Rule instead. :csad: boo those movies. I wanted to see some good ol zombie action.
 
Ah, **** it. I just get me a medium diet coke and watch Grindhouse. Does have zombies in the Planet Terror flick.
 
I wasn't trying to make you look bad (honestly this time lol) , but it just seems like the majority of reviews seem to disagree with you.

First of all, there is no way you can make anyone look bad.

Secondly, what do I care if other people liked the movie? If they liked, great. If not, that's fine, too. I'm not making any money off of it.
 
FDM Review: Fox Atomic's '28 Weeks Later'

28 WEEKS LATER
Review by: Horrorholic
Score: 6/10

When 28 Days hit US theatres in June 2003, it was released in the middle of the Blockbuster season when horror fare usually doesn’t even register at the box office. However, since audiences ate it up at the theatre and then on DVD, it should be no surprise that the film is getting a sequel, appropriately named 28 WEEKS LATER.

The film starts out with Don (Robert Carlyle) and Alice (Catherine McCormack), a married couple, living in a boarded up house with several other survivors of the Rage virus outbreak. In an instant, the “infected” storm the house and begin feasting on its inhabitants. Don manages to make it out alive and to a motorboat in a nearby river, leaving his wife behind to die.

The story then picks up 28 weeks later, after US troops have helped rebuild London and have begun letting citizens back in. Don’s two children, Tammy and Andy, arrive back in London after being on a school trip and reunite with their father, living in a safe zone designated District One. Don regales the tale of his wife’s death to the two children and lies, saying that she was dead before he could do anything about it. The children, holding onto the memory of their mother, decide to sneak out of District One and to their old house, to gather some sentimental items.

Tammy and Andy make it back to their house, to find their mother hiding out in the attic. She’s been infected, but not affected by the virus and the military conveniently shows up at this exact moment to take her back to District One for study. There is some sort of abnormality in her genes that makes her immune to the Rage virus, but the military sees her as a risk and wants her to be destroyed. After a security breach mishap, the virus is reintroduced into the population by Don and all hell breaks loose. London is soon turned into a Code Red situation and is ordered to be decimated. Along with a scientist, a renegade sniper and a helicopter pilot, Tammy and Andy try to make their way to safety.

I actually enjoy the premise of the film quite a bit. Aside from its shortcomings (there are plenty), the story doesn’t really stutter. The whole second half of the film is a giant chase scene, most of which was enjoyable.

The problem is that the director, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, doesn’t know how to show us what his vision of the film is. We’re treated to what is known as “Blair Witch Syndrome”, where a director doesn’t know how to film an action sequence, so he has the camera shake a lot and says that’s his definition of tension. Many films have used this technique in the last year or so and hopefully this trend will die soon. If I cared enough to keep watching to see what happened to the characters, the least Fresnadillo could do is actually show me what happened. While this downside doesn’t apply to every action sequence, it is used in quite a few.

The film also moved beyond my suspension of belief quite a few times. One that comes to mind is when Tammy and Andy sneak out of District One to their old house and manage to get past an endless supply of guards. These are children, not James Bond. These must be the worst military personnel in the history of mankind. Another involves a subplot involving a possible psychic connection in the family, which is seemingly abandoned within the first 20 minutes and never referred to again.

Given the recent rash of below average horror sequels, I went into this film with low expectations and came out relieved. While the film loses a lot, in terms of character development and story, when compared to the original, it’s still a moderately fun ride. If you’re looking for a fast paced ride with some good gore, this is right up your alley.
http://www.freezedriedmovies.com/bl...-Official-Review-28-Weeks-Later.html#extended
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"