Latest Movie News Headlines

28 Minutes Seen!

Mar. 23, 2007by: JimmyO

We all saw what happened after the “rage virus” encompassed London . A priest who is transformed into a flesh eating monster or the family and friends that ripped and scratched at the poor souls who suffered the torture of being eaten alive… and 28 Days Later, only a few survived. Or were there more? That is the question Fox Atomic gave a handful of journalists a chance to find out the answer to. And yes, JoBlo.com went along for the ride to see what happens 28 WEEKS LATER. So the question is, can Mr. Juan Carlos Fresnadillo continue what Danny Boyle created? And for 28 minutes, I can attest that I think he may well have done it.

What made the original work was the very humanistic story behind the dreaded virus which turned people into ghouls. And with the opening moments in the new film, it seems that this trend may continue leaving the shocks as part of the story and not just a chance to put some jarring music onto the soundtrack and throw a cat across the screen. That poor cat gets thrown way too much. What happens is a nasty attack on some innocent people just trying to survive. Now since Fox asked us nicely to not give too much away, I will abide. But truthfully, the story seems to work. It even feels familiar as we have seen some pretty horrible tragedies in the past few years. Yes, there are moments that felt like it could have been taken days after Hurricane Katrina. And this gives the movie a sense of disturbing realism.

And it’s also nice to see Robert Carlyle in a movie like this. I’ve been a fan of his since Danny Boyle’s own TRAINSPOTTING and it strikes me that this dude can do anything. His work here is quite good. There are also a few other folks that I particularly dig including Catherine McCormack, Jeremy Renner and a few other faces you may recognize. As I said, 28 minutes can tell you a lot about a film and from where I was sitting, this may have a bigger budget and a bigger cast, but it presents the world in a very bleak world where a society has to be rebuilt after the tragedy of the first 28 days. And most importantly, I bought it. It didn’t smell of bad sequel.

28 WEEKS LATER looks damn promising with a great cast and some strong visuals presenting London and the aftermath of the rage virus. I would love to describe in detail what I saw but I just can’t. I will say that this looks to be a perfect continuation of the first and even though we did not see the finished project I was invested. It was also nice to see Danny Boyle and Juan Carlos Fresnadillo in a taped introduction talking about what we were to witness. Danny as Executive Producer seemed to want to be a part of another terrific thriller and not just a ‘make a bunch of moolah opening weekend box office popcorn flick’. Here’s to the rest of 28 WEEKS LATER continuing with the promise of what the first 28 minutes had to offer.

Let me know what you think. Send questions and comments to jimmyo@joblo.com.

Related Articles

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

+0
3:09PM on 03/26/2007
Guy with the bottom post -- douchebag.

I'm looking forward to seeing this movie.

I'm not expecting it to be anywhere near what Days was. It was a breath of fresh air.

Anyway, it's nice to hear it doesn't look awful -- like Hills Have Eyes 2 or something.

Either I'll be pleasantly surprised when I see it, or I'll be mildly amused by the friendly faces of rage filled citizens. Either way, I'll be happy where I plopped my $10.
Guy with the bottom post -- douchebag.

I'm looking forward to seeing this movie.

I'm not expecting it to be anywhere near what Days was. It was a breath of fresh air.

Anyway, it's nice to hear it doesn't look awful -- like Hills Have Eyes 2 or something.

Either I'll be pleasantly surprised when I see it, or I'll be mildly amused by the friendly faces of rage filled citizens. Either way, I'll be happy where I plopped my $10.
Your Reply:



7:21PM on 03/23/2007
If Joblo were any kind of sensationalist he wouldn't have allowed you to post your witless comments on his site without censorship, or give sub-par ratings in reviews of huge movies like LOTR. Larry King, psh I wish Jo had his own show. Just because he appreciates the people that invite him to their film sets doesn't mean he isn't going to fairly judge the film when it comes time to review it.
If Joblo were any kind of sensationalist he wouldn't have allowed you to post your witless comments on his site without censorship, or give sub-par ratings in reviews of huge movies like LOTR. Larry King, psh I wish Jo had his own show. Just because he appreciates the people that invite him to their film sets doesn't mean he isn't going to fairly judge the film when it comes time to review it.
Your Reply:



5:21PM on 03/23/2007

How strange...

You expect us to believe that movie studios only show you casting reels and serve you pea soup with crab juice? Unlikely!

Joblo is one of the few sites I've seen bite the pie and not come off like he clamoring the entire desert tray.

But of course I would say something like that. They mail me $.03 for every thing I say nice because that's how the biz works. It's those vs them and everyone is plotting to make you watch movies.

Sleep tight, because tomorrow you may wake up to find
You expect us to believe that movie studios only show you casting reels and serve you pea soup with crab juice? Unlikely!

Joblo is one of the few sites I've seen bite the pie and not come off like he clamoring the entire desert tray.

But of course I would say something like that. They mail me $.03 for every thing I say nice because that's how the biz works. It's those vs them and everyone is plotting to make you watch movies.

Sleep tight, because tomorrow you may wake up to find Blockbuster flyers in your mailbox.

Your Reply:



+0
4:47PM on 03/23/2007

Double-edged sword

Like jimmyo said, the studios will obviously invite all media to these events and purposely show them the "good stuff" to report. While we're not here to shill for anyone, I'm not sure if our readers would prefer we NOT cover these events at all, or just cover them, as long as everyone knows to take our reports (and everyone else who covers them) with a grain of salt.

At the end of the day, we ARE a movie site and obviously want to get movie information out there, so we try and do the best
Like jimmyo said, the studios will obviously invite all media to these events and purposely show them the "good stuff" to report. While we're not here to shill for anyone, I'm not sure if our readers would prefer we NOT cover these events at all, or just cover them, as long as everyone knows to take our reports (and everyone else who covers them) with a grain of salt.

At the end of the day, we ARE a movie site and obviously want to get movie information out there, so we try and do the best we can.

It's also to note that these are PREVIEW PIECES and not reviews per se. I'm sure you've read our reviews on the site and if we don't like a film, we LET you know about it.
Your Reply:



+0
10:46AM on 03/23/2007

Keep in mind...

When we do something like this and we are shown a "partial" film, they usually show the good stuff, they are not going to show the questionable material. So that is why when we get limited view it is usually positive. In this case, they wanted to keep hush, hush so I didn't go into specifics which is also why you didn't hear the good and the bad but truth be told with only maybe one minor issue, this looks damn good, sure it could fall apart after those first few moments but what I saw, I
When we do something like this and we are shown a "partial" film, they usually show the good stuff, they are not going to show the questionable material. So that is why when we get limited view it is usually positive. In this case, they wanted to keep hush, hush so I didn't go into specifics which is also why you didn't hear the good and the bad but truth be told with only maybe one minor issue, this looks damn good, sure it could fall apart after those first few moments but what I saw, I liked a lot. So think what you will but why would a studio invite critics and such to a few minutes of a movie and show you what doesn't work? Just a question.
Your Reply:



9:30AM on 03/23/2007

Something I've Notcied

Whenever there is a set review or something of that nature on this web site, I never hear anything bad about it. Who knows, maybe none of them are bad. But when I always am hearing things like, "it rocked" or whatever, the writer loses credibility. Joblo comes off more as a media promoter as opposed to a critic. Enough already, we don't need another Peter Travers or "gulp" Larry King.

Just a suggestion: Try to have these set reviews a little more balanced. Your movie reviews are nice in
Whenever there is a set review or something of that nature on this web site, I never hear anything bad about it. Who knows, maybe none of them are bad. But when I always am hearing things like, "it rocked" or whatever, the writer loses credibility. Joblo comes off more as a media promoter as opposed to a critic. Enough already, we don't need another Peter Travers or "gulp" Larry King.

Just a suggestion: Try to have these set reviews a little more balanced. Your movie reviews are nice in that they're concise and say some good and bad things.
Your Reply: