PDA

View Full Version : 28 Weeks Later...



Bmwhtly
05-08-2007, 06:01 PM
And now for something completely different.

That's right, the sequel to 28 Days Later is out here on Friday. Has anyone heard anything good about it?
I've seen the trailer and it looks cheesier than the original.

THoughts, comments and insults welcome.

FredCharles
05-08-2007, 06:24 PM
And now for something completely different.

That's right, the sequel to 28 Days Later is out here on Friday. Has anyone heard anything good about it?
I've seen the trailer and it looks cheesier than the original.

THoughts, comments and insults welcome.

The only review that I read said that it was really good. They compared it to how the movie Aliens improved upon the original.

seun
05-08-2007, 06:34 PM
That's an interesting review. Have you got a link for it?

Celia Cyanide
05-08-2007, 07:24 PM
The trailer looked awesome. I see no reason to believe it sucks, other than it being a sequel, which, granted, is a big reason. But it seems like this time they made the sequel because they thought it would be cool, not just because the last one made money.

Bmwhtly
05-08-2007, 07:30 PM
The trailer looked awesome. Yeah, it does.

But it seems like this time they made the sequel because they thought it would be cool, not just because the last one made money.That argument could be made.

But the trailer (A poor source of information really) makes it look much less dramatic than the first. Much more action-orientated. Complete with US General saying things like "Code Red"

zahra
05-08-2007, 10:55 PM
Yeah, it does look kind of heavy on the running about using army equipment. I loved the first one because it was so character-driven...hope they don't lose that. I wish Naomi Harris had signed up for the sequel. She's just the biscuits.

Celia Cyanide
05-08-2007, 11:03 PM
Cillian Murphy is awesome.

AzBobby
05-08-2007, 11:42 PM
28 Days Later is one of my faves. Its "cheesy" quality was part of its appeal, especially in theaters. It was odd for having been shot on videotape. It's harder to tell when you watch it on your TV (at least my lo-def TV) but it was an unusual sight in the theater, all the subtle differences in cinematic feel blown up large. For example, the sky tended to glow brightly and cast a fringe on the outline of the landscapes under it -- something we might see all the time in our home movies without noticing it, but weird to see on the big screen. I recall it took me a few minutes to get used to the home-video look when I watched it the first time.

After a while I think it achieved the intended effect of seeming a little more immediate and unpolished, like a documentary, as if updating the original Night of the Living Dead approach of using cheap black and white photography, apparently shooting with no sound and looping all the audio, slapdash camera work and lighting, etc. for it to feel more immediate within its own time. While Romero's flick had some amateurish acting, the cast of unknowns contributed to the naturalistic non-Hollywood feeling, and so did the lack of big stars (as of its making) in 28 Days Later.

So I'm a little nervous about being disappointed with this sequel. No Danny Boyle direction, none of the same characters... and I know I'm pretty much the only one who cares, but the previews do not look like they were shot with a cheap video process.

Bmwhtly
05-09-2007, 10:41 AM
Yeah, it does look kind of heavy on the running about using army equipment.Yeah, but the clip in the trailer of Bobby Carlyle running across a field looks to take a scene prevalent in Romero zombie films (zombies roaming across open ground) and really make it scary.


It was odd for having been shot on videotape. ...
I recall it took me a few minutes to get used to the home-video look when I watched it the first time. Well, it wasn't really home-video shot. It was shot on Digital rather than film.
It does give the film a distinctive look, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Also, from a logistic point of view, it made shooting things like abandoned London and empty motorways much easier since the lead time was so short.

Bmwhtly
05-14-2007, 11:34 AM
I saw it.


Thoroughly, thoroughly dissapointing.

Not only is it not a patch on the original, it's just not that good all round.

zahra
05-14-2007, 11:02 PM
Oh, bollocks. Yes, I read a bad review. I'm still gonna see it but - sigh -

AzBobby
05-15-2007, 01:37 AM
Well, it wasn't really home-video shot. It was shot on Digital rather than film.
It does give the film a distinctive look, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Also, from a logistic point of view, it made shooting things like abandoned London and empty motorways much easier since the lead time was so short.

I didn't confuse it for home video, nor found the digital look a bad thing. On the contrary I thought it added to the feel of the story, like a choice of cinematography is supposed to do.

Thanks for the warning about it -- unfortunately, not surprising. Don't know whether I can convince my son it's not worth the money...

chartreuse
05-16-2007, 03:11 AM
.

No Danny Boyle direction...

Anyone know if Alex Garland wrote the screenplay?

FWIW, the only review I've seen said it was pretty awful. I love the original but I don't see any compelling reason for a sequel.

ALLWritety
05-21-2007, 07:33 AM
Hi
I liked 28 days but I have just one word for 28 weeks:
BOGGIN!!!!
Kev