I saw this last night in an almost empty theater. It was interesting to say the least... really focused on the human element more than the infected. They did drive the story forward appropriately enough. I was really hoping to see what life was like outside the quarantine zone, but not much added there. The last 45 min of the movie was very different. I understand they filmed a sequel at the same time this movie was being filmed. Very interesting setting and character... looking forward to seeing that explored more. 7/10
No spoilers, but the last 2 minutes almost seemed to belong to another movie. I wouldn't say it ruined the movie for me, but it was completely out of left field. I know they'll explore that in the sequel too, but less excited for that. 1/10
Went to see it yesterday, it was very quiet in the cinema.
I enjoyed the fact this film did something a bit different to the other two films. I think we got the real shoot 'em up type entry into the 28 franchise with the second film, 28 Weeks Later that very American, guns and gung ho type film. I think 28 Years Later told a more human story and it worked well.
I agree the last few minutes were a huge tonal shift. I think I will have to wait for the next film to really decide whether it works.
I love these movies and also saw the film in an almost empty theater. My biggest question is how are there still any infected left in Britain? It's been 30 years of quarantine so there shouldn't be any new people to infect. Realistically I think they all would have died off long ago. But that's a nit-pick with every zombie movie but this one in particular since the infected are trapped on an island.
I saw this a couple nights ago, a late showing, with the standard crew of theater employees who I've become friends with, also in an empty theater.
I freaking loved this movie and haven't stopped thinking about this since.
This was a genuine surprise and I came in kind of lamenting the fact there was another entry to follow "28 Days Later". I consider "28 Days" a perfect film and never needed a sequel, especially one so lack-luster, mediocre, and forgettable like "28 Weeks Later". "Days" is so impactful and influential that in the years since its initial release, all kinds of zombie stories have come out and exhausted the concept to the point where there's nothing left to do with it. So going into this, I wasn't expecting anything at all and bore little excitement.
Then the movie plays and while it remained throughout the movie that I really didn't care much for the characters or story, I was floored by the bold and wild swings this movie took just to stand out from "28 Days Later" and all the zombie movies that have come out since. I think the filmmakers also realized that "28 Days" didn't need sequels (even 'hand-waiving' away "28 Weeks" was a funny touch) and to do one and keep it interesting for them was to throw the standard tropes (ones they helped make) out the window and just go big and silly but still dropping nuggets of humanity in there. The cinematography and editing gives the movie such live and palpable energy that I really didn't care that it was a bare bones survival story. It's not very scary (what zombie property is now?) but it makes up in tension, continuous tension that's broken by moments of peace and calm, moments of fun and unexpected, and moments of genuine beauty; the bone temple being the stand-out piece of the entire movie. Nobody makes movies like Danny Boyle, especially when he's at his most creative like here, and it won me over, to the moon and back, man. This movie is pure punk and I loved it.
If the original movie was "Evil Dead", then this movie is "Evil Dead 2" and it's setup the sequel(s) to be "Army of Darkness" and I can't wait to experience more of this mayhem. "28 Days Later" doesn't need a sequel and I think it's better that it never had them, but the fact that it did get sequels, and this kind of sequel, answers the age old question of 'what do you do when you have to make sequels to a perfect movie that doesn't need one?' You go nuts.
My biggest question is how are there still any infected left in Britain? It's been 30 years of quarantine so there shouldn't be any new people to infect. Realistically I think they all would have died off long ago. But that's a nit-pick with every zombie movie but this one in particular since the infected are trapped on an island.
If we're gonna really be picky, the biggest problem of "Days" is how was anyone able to quarantine if the virus was spread as rapidly as it did? People get infected and change immediately if any infected blood enters their system. There wouldn't be time for anyone to react quickly enough to enforce quarantine procedures. Furthermore, it wouldn't have been able to spread far at all if it only spread by blood entering victims as the infected would just all be shot and killed immediately once word got out. It spreads host to host without pathogens or any other form of carrier; it being entirely self-contained to limited hosts makes it very easy to eradicate. But, it's a movie, let's not try to think about it too logically. It's not why movies exist.
While it's never directly stated in "28 Days Later", the ending highly implies that the virus and the infected eventually dies off on its own. Those infected just rage until they wear themselves out physically and die of starvation and exhaustion (all those skinny and emaciated zombies on the road at the end). They don't eat, they don't sleep, just chase and vomit until there's nothing left of them. By that measure, this is why "28 Days" is a perfect movie because it is wholly self contained and kind of set up that there wasn't going to be any more story; that was it.
The sequel (28 Weeks Later) kind of throws this out the window and repeats what the first did, only without the flash and style that Danny Boyle possess. This is also where it implies that you can be an asymptomatic carrier of the "rage" and can pass it on with saliva (kissing in this movie) or any kind of excretion.
"28 Years" throws all this out, baby in the bathwater, and makes up complete silly nonsense because "who cares?" "Years" not only disregards "Weeks" but "Days" and shows they continue to live even when they're bloated, rotting corpses eating worms and wild animals to keep sustained; the virus acts like a steroid turning some into muscle bound, hung-like-an-elephant, super-zombies with some limited intellect; it even implies these zombies have sex and have babies. This movie doesn't care, it makes up its own rules to be its own thing and it does it in the name of having a good time. I was all for it.
The ending was set up in the beginning of the movie with the kid being a fan of "Power Rangers". How it ends is so surprising and fun and unexpected as a pay-off for a set-up literally in the first minute of the movie, and the way it was done was so goofy and silly that I couldn't help but have a laugh. It was so punk. Honestly, the rest of the movie is as silly as how it ended but it was still a surprise. I don't know how people couldn't love it.
(We saw it last Sunday on our Wedding Anniversary, We had a themed wedding and used the requiem from the first movie at the reception.)
Well without giving it away..
The previous movies happen before the real events of a certain person were able to be brought to light so time has stopped or rather historic events never happened in their timeline.
DB is obviously pushing buttons here a With his concepts but hey its just a movie but then saying that I wouldnt want to see the next movie idolise that person with Statues and iconography it would certainly upset a lot of people.
The start was slow but ok
I enjoyed the thump thump soundtrack but my wife didn't.
The middle section of the movie played out best it was an interesting concept and think there might be more of a connection with the doctor and Samson?
Not sure how what was happening was so easily accepted but hey Stranger Days..
The last part was slightly jarring and reminded me of The Beach Oh hang on it was a Danny Boyle film too wasnt it.
The part where Leo starts running round the forrest All Video Game like ugh!!
Can we just remind folk they are Not Zombies they are Not dead they are Alive.
It even says in the movie they have evolved learnt to eat to survive and there is some level of connect.. The part on the Hill and the Train showed this.
I wished we had seen more interaction in the train section but maybe thats to come especially as Samson seems to show connect with a certain small package.
I really enjoyed the movie, I did think the last scene was a mistake as it seriously detracted from the experience of the preceding film. I know that the sequel is already filmed, but this movie should have been allowed to be its own thing, without attaching such a jarring shift.
I rewatched the previous two installments, and whichever way you look at it, 28 Years does not make sense as a sequel to 28 Weeks. At the end of that movie the UK is essentially empty aside from the possibility of a small amount of surviving infected from the second outbreak and perhaps some isolated survivors the UN failed to locate. The degree of survivors and infected seen in the new movie doesn't add up.
I really enjoyed the movie, I did think the last scene was a mistake as it seriously detracted from the experience of the preceding film. I know that the sequel is already filmed, but this movie should have been allowed to be its own thing, without attaching such a jarring shift.
I rewatched the previous two installments, and whichever way you look at it, 28 Years does not make sense as a sequel to 28 Weeks. At the end of that movie the UK is essentially empty aside from the possibility of a small amount of surviving infected from the second outbreak and perhaps some isolated survivors the UN failed to locate. The degree of survivors and infected seen in the new movie doesn't add up.
Yes its like every film runs on its own set of logic.
Luckily the wife still wants to see the next one. I thought it was supposed to be a trilogy but so far its been talked about as a two parter..
I rewatched the previous two installments, and whichever way you look at it, 28 Years does not make sense as a sequel to 28 Weeks. At the end of that movie the UK is essentially empty aside from the possibility of a small amount of surviving infected from the second outbreak and perhaps some isolated survivors the UN failed to locate. The degree of survivors and infected seen in the new movie doesn't add up.
Remember, the new film is showing 28 years later, so imagine how the infection could have grown in that time. The significant increase in the number of infected individuals compared to "28 Weeks Later" is from the virus's continued spread and evolution. The movie introduces new variations of the infected, including the powerful "Alpha" infected, showcasing how the virus has mutated and adapted in different individuals. And yes... "28 Weeks Later" implied a potential containment of the virus in Europe, "28 Years Later" reveals a more complex reality with the virus still active and evolving with continued activity in other areas.
Yes its like every film runs on its own set of logic.
Luckily the wife still wants to see the next one. I thought it was supposed to be a trilogy but so far its been talked about as a two parter..
They have a script for the third one which is supposed to reintroduce Cillian Murphy's character from 28 Days. It's apparently reliant on how successful the other two are.
Remember, the new film is showing 28 years later, so imagine how the infection could have grown in that time. The significant increase in the number of infected individuals compared to "28 Weeks Later" is from the virus's continued spread and evolution. The movie introduces new variations of the infected, including the powerful "Alpha" infected, showcasing how the virus has mutated and adapted in different individuals. And yes... "28 Weeks Later" implied a potential containment of the virus in Europe, "28 Years Later" reveals a more complex reality with the virus still active and evolving with continued activity in other areas.
So the infected breed, raise children and at some point infect them? Or the uninfected child in the movie was a one off and others are born already infected? Seems a stretch, but I guess there were a lot of those in the movie
So the infected breed, raise children and at some point infect them? Or the uninfected child in the movie was a one off and others are born already infected? Seems a stretch, but I guess there were a lot of those in the movie
We learned at the end of the last film that you could be a carrier, and not be transformed. With new variants, we don't know how that progressed, but I suppose the went in that direction, where people went on infected, not knowing they were infected, and they could have procreated and assumed a more normal life. But as a carrier, they could have passed it on in the future. But I agree, they make many stretches, but then again, most zombie movies as a whole are one BIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGG stretch, lol
They have a script for the third one which is supposed to reintroduce Cillian Murphy's character from 28 Days. It's apparently reliant on how successful the other two are.
Remember that shot of her father but neck down... Thats my guess at his character.
I think they have prolly been breeding all along but this baby is like a messiah untouched by the Rage virus..
Remember that shot of her father but neck down... Thats my guess at his character.
I think they have prolly been breeding all along but this baby is like a messiah untouched by the Rage virus..
