28 Days/Weeks Later

[wrathchild712]

Any fans?

Here's my review of the sequel:

Simply put, summer sequels should never work out this well.

Normally, follow-ups to reasonably successful movies fall flat. It's nothing new. But keep in mind that this is a normal scenario. In most of these cases, you'll have all of the superstars that made it's predecessor such a success coming back for more, and maybe the director if you're lucky.

By those terms, “28 Weeks Later,” the 2007 follow-up to the brilliant “28 Days Later,” went 0 for 2. It lost not only visionary director Danny Boyle, but also its entire cast. There were no real A-List stars but rather an infinitely more effective group of lesser-knowns. On paper, this movie should be doomed to fail.

But amazingly, it doesn't. New director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo creates an excellent new chapter for the franchise. He successfully maintains the style of the first film while still managing to establish its own identity in the series.

Arguably, the biggest name in the movie is Robert Carlyle as a middle-aged Englishman named Don. However, the film focuses primarily on the journey of his two children, Andy, played by Mackintosh Muggleton, and Tammy, played by Imogen Poots. We don't meet them immediately. The prologue places them at refuge in Spain shortly after the first outbreak of the mysterious rage virus, setting us up for, yes, a zombie attack and, more importantly, a key moment of cowardice from their father.

Following this, we learn of the events that followed the initial breakout of infection. Fast forward to today and we see an American occupation/restoration attempt (sound familiar?) of the lone secure area of London, the Isle of Dogs. If the new populace stays within the boundaries, they're safe from infection.

Inevitably, Andy and Tammy's curiosity gets the better of them and after a reunion with their father, they venture outside to explore their old home. This sets off a chain of events that will introduce infection to the world again. Along the way, we meet an array of genuinely likable characters, including US Army nurse Scarlet, played by Rose Byrne, and the sympathetic sniper, Doyle, played by Jeremy Renner.

From a stylistic standpoint, Fresnadillo gives the franchise a much-needed facelift. The tight, frenetic camera work from “28 Days Later” is still present, but the film no longer has that grainy quality that was one of the first film's few miscues. In other words, the franchise no longer looks as though it's being shot on a Super-8 camera, and this is a welcome change.

Special effects are perfectly utilized, particularly in one specific moment of desperation that is also the film's most notable for possible political undertone. The result is a work that looks the part of a Hollywood blockbuster
while maintaining the best qualities of its lower-budget predecessor: endearing characters and an intriguing plot.

But now we're left with the vital question whether the franchise will take the next step. “Weeks” sets up a possible venture into “28 Months Later” perfectly, and with a rumored return of Danny Boyle to the helm, one can only look forward to it with anticipation.

7/10

Any thoughts?

[overwatch]

I put both movies at aorund 7-8 out of 10. They are both great fun to watch and have more brains than the average horror movie. I read a review on Imdb that compared days and weeks to Alien and Aliens, which I think is dead on in scale and scope. For summer horror movies, they pose some pretty confronting questions about humans and relationships. I can't wait for another one especially if Danny Boyle returns and he is given whatever budget he needs to make his movie.

[LordSimen]

Both solid tens and fine additions to the zombie genre.

[Frosty_86]

Im not a huge horror fan but I love both of these films. 10/10 for both of them

[ilovemovies]

Both films are a solid 7/10. Zombies are generally not my favorite movie monster. I don't find them to be particularly scary or interesting. But both of these are very good and I especially liked the second which has a great cast(Jeremy Renner and Rose Byrne being especially good plus I really felt for Robert Carlyle's character) and while some people had a problem had a problem with the shaky cam, I thought for the most part it was exceptionally well done with some really tense moments.

[rocknblues81]

28 Days Later:6/10
28 Weeks Later:7.5/10

[echo_bravo]

28 Days Later >>> 28 Weeks Later

Weeks Later is good but I prefer Boyle's film much more.

[sbunn10]

28 Days Later is a 9/10 for me.. I love it. 28 weeks was just a 7/10 for me.. not nearly as well done imo... I didn't like the story nearly as much, and I liked the cast much better in 28 days.

[ScaryFreak1827]

I find both Days/Weeks to be some of the best horror films of the past decade; I do prefer the first for that "documentary-esque" filmaking style but the second (which shouldn't have been good given what wratchchild mentioned) was still extremely entertaining/horrific/fun. I'm hoping for a third.

[FireCaptain4]

I freakin' love these movies and, unlike many, find them both on par with each other (albeit, very different films). Danny Bole is teasing about making a third and I'd love to see it happen, especially since he says he's interested in directing.

[Beard_of_Meat]

I love both movies and find them equally as good...One thing about 28 Weeks Later I find funny is that so many people knock it because Danny Boyle didn't direct it but he was an Exective Producer and even took the helm for a scene so though he wasn't the director he was still involved...If they make a 28 Months Later I would be all for it because....


.................................Spoiler.......... ...........................................
















Now that the Rage Virus has made its way to mainland Europe as the ending suggests there will be no way to contain it so it would just spread like wild fire

















....................................End Spoiler........................................... .










I haven't heard anything about Danny Boyle wanting to direct the next film but even if he's just involved somehow in 28 Months Later I would be happy

[paul calf]

i loved 28 days later ,but thought 28 weeks later to be just above average,i would like to see a 3rd movie though.

[Sad man]

Love both. The first is a better movie, the second is a better entertainment. 8/10s.

[jaw2929]

Loved both of these movies, both were absolutely phenomenal. I think I may even like Weeks better than Days, by a little bit.

Welcome Wrathchild. Oh, and Robbie Carlyle's a Scotsman, and used his native accent in 28 Weeks Later.

[rocknblues81]

POSSIBLE SPOILERS:


A problem I had with 28 Days Later is that Murphy is very stale in that movie. I didn't care about the characters at all with the exception of the father of the little girl. The characters may have more development, but no in a good way. While he didn't turn into Rambo as some say, I just didn't buy Murphy going from being able to barely walk and chew bubble gum to saving the day. I didn't buy the character turn from Naomi Watts either.... Naomi Harris... Excuse me. lol

She goes from stereotypical roughneck black chick to near damsel in distress. It just didn't sit well with me. Character development is good when it actually makes sense or comes off as believable. I feel that 28 Days Later is one of the most overrated movies of the decade.

[fooknasty]

IMO, 28 Days Later is the best zombie movie ever, and one of the best movies of the decade. I love Boyle's direction of the movie and the conematography is beautiful. Murphy and Gleeson are awesome, and the story is just woven with so many social undertones. 10/10

28 Weeks Later is just pure chaotic fun. I love the prescence of the military, and Jeremy Renner steals the show. A really solid movie. 8/10

I can't wait for 28 Months Later.

[poopontheshoes7]

People, people. They are not zombies!!!!

The infected are alive, not re-animated corpses!

Now that I've gotten that off my chest....


Both films rock. 28 Days Later has the absolute best apocalyptic images of any film I've ever seen. Its a striking and chilling film.

Weeks is also pretty damn good. Its more brutal, intense and action oriented but it never loses the human dynamic that made the first one so good. Weeks (and now Cloverfield) is the only movie where the use of extreme shaky cam works perfectly with the film.

I cant decide which I love more.

[LordSimen]

People, people. They are not zombies!!!!

The infected are alive, not re-animated corpses!

Now that I've gotten that off my chest....


An alternate use of Zombies is large groups of brainless people. I suspect a large group of rage filled people with an inability to think or rationalize anything other than pure rage counts under that definition.

[poopontheshoes7]

An alternate use of Zombies is large groups of brainless people. I suspect a large group of rage filled people with an inability to think or rationalize anything other than pure rage counts under that definition.

We arent going by an alternate definition. We are going by the classic film definition of re-animated corpses. So in that sense, no they arent zombies.

[wisdomsword]

Both have some serious plot holes problems.
But 28 Weeks later is much better than 28 Days later.
Some parts in 28 Days later just feel kind of stupid.

[LordSimen]

We arent going by an alternate definition. We are going by the classic film definition of re-animated corpses. So in that sense, no they arent zombies.

But the word Zombie has multiple definitions therefore allowing 28 Days/Weeks later to remain under the Zombie genre.

[fooknasty]

Even though they are not technically zombies, I consider it a zombie movie for all intensive purposes.

[Beard_of_Meat]

Even though they are not technically zombies, I consider it a zombie movie for all intensive purposes.


Exactly....I mean there is no other way to explain it without splitting hairs

[chelovek]

28 Weeks Later was painfully stupid. The opening sequence was absolutely superb and the cinematography was generally beautiful, but the writing was horrendous. I was also disappointed with their shallow approach. The beginning points toward a character-focused film about survivor's guilt, but they threw that out for something less interesting, poorly executed, illogical, and downright unbelievable.

That said, 28 Days Later is one of my favorite movies (literally; it's in the top 3).

[chelovek]

Both have some serious plot holes problems.
But 28 Weeks later is much better than 28 Days later.
Some parts in 28 Days later just feel kind of stupid.

No.

The entire basis for 28 Weeks Later's plot was absolutely ridiculous. Kids sneaking by the military and going exploring? They find their infected-but-immune mother? The military doesn't keep her under constant surveillance? Someone who is a glorified janitor has access to her? After turning into a raging zombie he is able to open doors (presumably hi-tech ones), infect or kill armed soldiers, eventually leading to a new outbreak? The military "code red" still in effect even when people are clearly uninfected and driving a car? The zombified father evading death and stalking his kids?

If you don't think that's stupid, then there is seriously something wrong with you.

[rocknblues81]

Yeah... What about Rambo Murphy in 28 Days Later? Dude could barely walk and chew bubble gum for a bulk of the flick, but then it turns into some big fighter and killer out of nowhere? All for what? Some ugly chick with a bad character turn. Gleeson just happens to look up and get some blood in his eye? :rolleyes:

Murphy's stale emotionless acting... Yucky ending. And the chained up black infected? Oh brother.

These are flawed movies.

[Beard_of_Meat]

No.

The entire basis for 28 Weeks Later's plot was absolutely ridiculous. Kids sneaking by the military and going exploring? They find their infected-but-immune mother? The military doesn't keep her under constant surveillance? Someone who is a glorified janitor has access to her? After turning into a raging zombie he is able to open doors (presumably hi-tech ones), infect or kill armed soldiers, eventually leading to a new outbreak? The military "code red" still in effect even when people are clearly uninfected and driving a car? The zombified father evading death and stalking his kids?

If you don't think that's stupid, then there is seriously something wrong with you.

Ummm... hence the reason these are movies....I don't think that when 28 Days/Weeks Later was written they were going for realistic..I think they were going for a different spin on the whole zombie/horror genre...And as far as I'm concerned they pulled it off big time and brought some of the best original horror to theaters for a long time

[Lebowski707]

I am glad to hear that other people actually liked 28 Weeks Later. I thought I was the only one. The whole movie was great up to the point where they started killing the infected with a helicopter. Thats when it got too big budget for me.

All in all it was a great sequel to a great movie.

[chelovek]

Yeah... What about Rambo Murphy in 28 Days Later? Dude could barely walk and chew bubble gum for a bulk of the flick, but then it turns into some big fighter and killer out of nowhere? All for what? Some ugly chick with a bad character turn. Gleeson just happens to look up and get some blood in his eye? :rolleyes:

Murphy's stale emotionless acting... Yucky ending. And the chained up black infected? Oh brother.

These are flawed movies.

There wasn't anything "Rambo"-like about Jim. He got lucky and managed to escape, hatched a plan, and managed to take out 2 of the soldiers on his own. Extreme situations can result in extreme changes. It's not like he picked up a gun and started storming the mansion, gunning down all the soldiers. He hit one guy with a metal rod, and he tackled a guy and crushed his eyes. Nothing spectacular or unbelievable about that.

And what on earth is wrong with the chained up infected? They managed to put a chain on one and they were studying it to see how long before it died off. That's SMART, not stupid.

As for Gleeson? Bad luck, not bad writing.

Come up with some valid, non-ridiculous criticisms and maybe I'll listen. 28 Weeks Later's only merits were its cinematography/direction, and it's opening sequence. The writing was flat-out stupid.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Jim did not turn into Rambo. He was filled with rage - the emotion. The commune had regressed to a pack of animals whose behaviour was actually less excusable than the victims of the RAGE infection.

I believe there were some leit motifs in the movie.

[rocknblues81]

There wasn't anything "Rambo"-like about Jim. He got lucky and managed to escape, hatched a plan, and managed to take out 2 of the soldiers on his own. Extreme situations can result in extreme changes. It's not like he picked up a gun and started storming the mansion, gunning down all the soldiers. He hit one guy with a metal rod, and he tackled a guy and crushed his eyes. Nothing spectacular or unbelievable about that.

And he couldn't hardly do anything before.

And what on earth is wrong with the chained up infected? They managed to put a chain on one and they were studying it to see how long before it died off. That's SMART, not stupid.

I thought it was eye rolling homage to Day of the Dead. It was just just really lame. Just as the supermarket thing was.

As for Gleeson? Bad luck, not bad writing.

It was stupid. They should have came up with something better.

Naomi's character change was laughable. She went from the predictable ugly roughneck black female to damsel in distress. Murphy's character more or less what in the other direction. I didn't buy the character changes. I didn't buy Harris going from Queen Latifah to near Sarah Michelle Gellar. Seriously, it's like they kissed once and exchanged personalities.

On top of that, the first 3/4 of the movie is mostly filled with them around walking in nobody around and nothing happening. Sorry, not scary at all. Never once did this movie make me react. 28 Weeks is FAR from scary, but atleast it delivered on entertainment value.


28 Days Later is one of the most overrated movies this decade.

[chelovek]

In case you didn't notice, Sherlock, the woman was being held captive by about 10 armed soldiers who had eyes on her at all times, and wanted to rape her. I suppose you'd think it was realistic for her to grab her machete and start hacking away, right?

As for Jim: There was nothing unrealistic about his change. Period. A delivery boy wakes up from a coma to find his entire city empty and overrun by zombies. It's going to take a while to adjust to the situation. Besides, if you paid attention, they don't just flip a switch and have him turn violent. He kills a kid with a baseball bat, and although you might not think that's significant, such an event would be a major turning point for just about any person. Likewise, nearly being executed and having people you care about taken away from you would also cause a person to fight back.

If you really just mean to say that you prefer mindless, intense zombie thrillers (there's no problem with that), then you should just say so. Because frankly, your criticisms of Days suggest that you're just out of touch with reality.

[overwatch]

No.

The entire basis for 28 Weeks Later's plot was absolutely ridiculous. Kids sneaking by the military and going exploring? They find their infected-but-immune mother? The military doesn't keep her under constant surveillance? Someone who is a glorified janitor has access to her? After turning into a raging zombie he is able to open doors (presumably hi-tech ones), infect or kill armed soldiers, eventually leading to a new outbreak? The military "code red" still in effect even when people are clearly uninfected and driving a car? The zombified father evading death and stalking his kids?

If you don't think that's stupid, then there is seriously something wrong with you.Dude don't act all above 28 weeks later because it has some questionable plotholes. 28 Days Later is rife with plotholes. And if you'd take one plothole filled movie over the other you're a hypocrite. I haven't seen it for a while so I can't remember many, but everything rocknblues said.
And what's more is that the entire 3rd act of 28 Days Later is rubbish. At least Weeks had a arc for the story to arrive at. 28 Days was swapped and changed because they couldn't pick and ending to satisfy themselves. And it's obvious. When they got to the road-block there could have been a million things that happened. But Gleeson died and the soldiers rocked up.
Here's a few holes I remember, when Jim wakes up in the hospital and tries to get out but he can't because he's locked inside, he finds a key AT HIS FEET. Also when Jim comes across a child infected he says "I hate you" oh the infected speak now do they? No just that once and it's never elaborated on. If you can take a talking zombie over a stalking zombie........what does that imply?
What's more is that I think your grasping at straws some of the things you mentioned are easily explainable, and of course some aren't but they are there to further the plot.

[rocknblues81]

In case you didn't notice, Sherlock, the woman was being held captive by about 10 armed soldiers who had eyes on her at all times, and wanted to rape her. I suppose you'd think it was realistic for her to grab her machete and start hacking away, right?

Doesn't mean the change in personality comes off well because it didn't to me.

As for Jim: There was nothing unrealistic about his change. Period. A delivery boy wakes up from a coma to find his entire city empty and overrun by zombies. It's going to take a while to adjust to the situation. Besides, if you paid attention, they don't just flip a switch and have him turn violent. He kills a kid with a baseball bat, and although you might not think that's significant, such an event would be a major turning point for just about any person. Likewise, nearly being executed and having people you care about taken away from you would also cause a person to fight back.

No. Jim is a pretty weak guy in this movie. Also a pretty hollow emotionless guy. Killing a kid with a bat doesn't make you a bad@ss like his character took a bad@ss type of turn. Clearly, the viewer is supposed to get a adrenaline rush from his character turn. It just left me rolling my eyes. It would have helped if I cared about any of these characters.

If you really just mean to say that you prefer mindless, intense zombie thrillers (there's no problem with that), then you should just say so. Because frankly, your criticisms of Days suggest that you're just out of touch with reality.

Honestly, all I got to say is that this film didn't scare me the least little bit. Which is obviously a part of what it was trying to do. It failed. It aimed higher than Weeks, but it missed it's mark with me. It's not about preferring mindless thrillers. I felt Weeks (which if you read above, I didn't give a great rating to) delivered more of what it set out to do than what 28 Days did.

Next time, if Danny wants to deliver the gritty zombie flick he needs to stop worrying about homage and make his own movie and make it more intense. Gritty flicks with characters I care nothing about aren't going to work. I want the gritty horror flick to win over the more mindless horror flick, but I don't feel that happened in this case.

If you want to be a fanboy, go ahead. Even though I enjoy 28 Weeks, it probably wouldn't make my top 15 of 2007.

Let's see....

TAOJJ
There Will Be Blood
No County for Old Men
Ratatouille
The Bourne Ultimatum
3:10 to Yuma
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
The Hoax
Hot Fuzz
Knocked Up
The Lookout
The Mist
Superbad
Gone Baby Gone

It might squeeze in at 15th-17th someone and... I still haven't seen American Gangster, Zodiac, Breach, Atonement, Sweeney Todd and probably some others. It barely ranks ahead of Black Snake Moan, The Orphanage, Disturbia and Grindhouse.

[wisdomsword]

No.

The entire basis for 28 Weeks Later's plot was absolutely ridiculous. Kids sneaking by the military and going exploring? They find their infected-but-immune mother? The military doesn't keep her under constant surveillance? Someone who is a glorified janitor has access to her? After turning into a raging zombie he is able to open doors (presumably hi-tech ones), infect or kill armed soldiers, eventually leading to a new outbreak? The military "code red" still in effect even when people are clearly uninfected and driving a car? The zombified father evading death and stalking his kids?

If you don't think that's stupid, then there is seriously something wrong with you.
I never said 28 weeks later wasn't stupid. I said both have problems.
But since 28 days later has already started the stupidity trend, then I had to turn off my logical mind when I start watching 28 weeks later when it was released.
In 28 days later, the stupid thing I hate about was that you have this main male character who was this airhead trouble maker who kept getting himself and everybody else in trouble ended up defeating the whole squad of British troops and saved the 2 girls single-handedly in the end of the movie.

[chelovek]

Dude don't act all above 28 weeks later because it has some questionable plotholes. 28 Days Later is rife with plotholes. And if you'd take one plothole filled movie over the other you're a hypocrite. I haven't seen it for a while so I can't remember many, but everything rocknblues said.
And what's more is that the entire 3rd act of 28 Days Later is rubbish. At least Weeks had a arc for the story to arrive at. 28 Days was swapped and changed because they couldn't pick and ending to satisfy themselves. And it's obvious. When they got to the road-block there could have been a million things that happened. But Gleeson died and the soldiers rocked up.
Here's a few holes I remember, when Jim wakes up in the hospital and tries to get out but he can't because he's locked inside, he finds a key AT HIS FEET. Also when Jim comes across a child infected he says "I hate you" oh the infected speak now do they? No just that once and it's never elaborated on. If you can take a talking zombie over a stalking zombie........what does that imply?
What's more is that I think your grasping at straws some of the things you mentioned are easily explainable, and of course some aren't but they are there to further the plot.

You sure do have an eye for the asinine. He found a key at his feet. So what? Do you think people would put him in a locked room without a key? If there wasn't a key he'd have broken the window anyways. It's completely insignificant. The "I hate you" line? A hardly-noticeable artistic choice (tied to the theme of "rage"), and nothing more. This is supported by the fact that the kid's lips don't even match up with the words.

Again, none of these little "problems" are even in the same realm of stupidity as the major plot points of 28 Weeks Later, and that's an objective fact, not just my opinion. We aren't talking about tiny inconsistencies, we're talking about every single basis for the plot being absolutely retarded.

The only way one could enjoy 28 Weeks Later is if they shut off their brains and kept their eyes open. And...I guess a lot of people on this forum are quite skilled at that, given how few people here seem to have a problem with the movie.

[chelovek]

I never said 28 weeks later wasn't stupid. I said both have problems.
But since 28 days later has already started the stupidity trend, then I had to turn off my logical mind when I start watching 28 weeks later when it was released.
In 28 days later, the stupid thing I hate about was that you have this main male character who was this airhead trouble maker who kept getting himself and everybody else in trouble ended up defeating the whole squad of British troops and saved the 2 girls single-handedly in the end of the movie.

As I explained above, there was nothing unrealistic about Jim's character. Did you really expect him to wake up as Ving Rhames or something? The first part of the movie is about his shocked reaction to the situation. In the middle, he starts to adapt and become more hardened. By the end, after nearly being murderered and having his friends captured, he goes to extreme measures.

I'm not saying that the movie is flawless...it definitely has problems, but these are not it. These complaints basically seem to stem from a) not paying attention or b) not recognizing realism.

[Tweek]

If you don't think that's stupid, then there is seriously something wrong with you.

Shame on people for not agreeing with you!



From our list of rules:

1) You do not disrespect, insult or put down your fellow movie fan on our board. Civil debates only.

[overwatch]

You sure do have an eye for the asinine. He found a key at his feet. So what? People can't get past the janitor having the ability to open doors in a facility? But you're okay with the guy getting out of a locked room because the key was at his feet? Out of the squillions of places it could have been. I generally don't care for inane details such as this, but it's hypocritical to look part them in 28 days later just because you like it more. The "I hate you" line? A hardly-noticeable artistic choice (tied to the theme of "rage"), and nothing more. This is supported by the fact that the kid's lips don't even match up with the words. No, it's inconsistent.

[wisdomsword]

As I explained above, there was nothing unrealistic about Jim's character. Did you really expect him to wake up as Ving Rhames or something? The first part of the movie is about his shocked reaction to the situation. In the middle, he starts to adapt and become more hardened. By the end, after nearly being murderered and having his friends captured, he goes to extreme measures.

I'm not saying that the movie is flawless...it definitely has problems, but these are not it. These complaints basically seem to stem from a) not paying attention or b) not recognizing realism.

When the plot is that stupid, it's really hard to pay attention.

[chelovek]

Shame on people for not agreeing with you!



From our list of rules:

I don't understand the stigma with putting people down for their opinions. I don't care if someone doesn't agree me; I do care about what I consider to be "stupid opinions", however. If my opinion is that someone else's opinion is retarded, why am I villainized for saying so? (Aside from the rules about insulting people, I mean)

----

Back on topic:
Nothing hinges on Jim having the key at his feet. If it wasn't there, they'd show him breaking the glass on the window, or the door would have simply been unlocked. It's not rocket science. On the other hand, a janitor somehow having clearance to a major security threat on a military base...there's just no excuse for that. If he didn't have that clearance, and if they were monitoring the major security threat (another fault), then he wouldn't have gotten in. And hey, even if you overlook that blunder, there's a half dozen other logical fuck-ups.

The movie wasn't terrible, and some aspects of it are even superby executed. But I just can't handle stupid writing. Suspension of disbelief is one thing, but when everything has you rolling your eyes? It's truly insulting.

[Tweek]

I don't understand the stigma with putting people down for their opinions. I don't care if someone doesn't agree me; I do care about what I consider to be "stupid opinions", however. If my opinion is that someone else's opinion is retarded, why am I villainized for saying so? (Aside from the rules about insulting people, I mean)

The "civil debates only" part... Debate away, but it's uncool to insult someone else's intelligence because you think they have a stupid opinion.

I don't want to hijack this thread so I'll join in the conversation. :)


The movie wasn't terrible, and some aspects of it are even superby executed. But I just can't handle stupid writing. Suspension of disbelief is one thing, but when everything has you rolling your eyes? It's truly insulting.

I was too busy telling my roommates to shut up and knock off the shrieking to roll my eyes. I did enjoy it, at least visually... haha I've seen it all of once, though. :-\

The ending pissed me off a little. I rolled my eyes at that.