More zombie action: 28 Weeks Later

[Angrist]

http://media.movies.ign.com/media/82...81/vids_1.html

Sequal to 28 Days Later. Thoughts? What made part 1 so special, was the 'dead' London and the feeling of being alone. I don't expect that here.

[MrCoffee]

haha veerr cool

[Teuthida]

I'm with you Angrist. The grit is gone.

[Typhoid]

I want to see 28 years later, when they're all old, and still running from the zombies. Or 28 centuries later, where the zombies have learned to form unions and peaceful protests against human rights.

What about 28 seconds later?
The movie takes place 28 seconds after the ending of the other one.

[KillerGremlin]

i think the premise of 28 weeks later looks far more interesting than 28 days later

romero has been hit or miss since dawn of the dead, but land of the dead was kind of cool and the remake of dawn of the dead was just awesome. i thought 28 days later was just okay, a decent zombie movie that could have been just a tad bit better. however, this looks far more interesting - they think they have everything under control, tons of living people get together in a city - and bam. hopefully it will be a decent film.

[Dylflon]

I liked 28 Days Later...

[Angrist]

My brother heard there's a special edition/ending which doesn't even include the soldiers, is that true?

[Professor S]

The best zombie films aren't about zombies, and thats been true since Romero invented the genre with Night of the Living Dead (or was it "The Last man on Earth"? that invented it?). Danny Boyle didn't revolutionize the zombie film, he just made a very good one. They have always been about how flawed people will survive this manageable disaster. I actually thought 28 Days Later was more about the zombies, just because their running zombies were more of a threat than the traditional dimwitted, plodding ones.

28 Days Later had to grow on me. I am a zombie flick fanatic, and find the whole genre to be enthralling if done correctly (read: not House of the Dead). Initially I hated the idea of running zombies, as it ruined the whole feeling of slow, crushing inevitability... and not at the hands of zombies, but because humans cannot deal with the situation without turning on one another. What always terrified me about Romero's films was the idea that this was a creeping, unavoidable destruction of society. 28 Days Later held the same themes as most of Romero's films, but it seemed to add the running zombies simply to add cheap scares. But over time, I've grown to enjoy the movie for its own qualities and I have to say I really like it.

As for the alternate ending, there are 3, and the best is the one that is only shown in storyboard. If that ending had been used, 28 Days Later would have not been just a good movie, but instead would have entered legendary status, IMO.

FYI, if you love zombie films, check out The Walking Dead comic series by Robert Kirkman. It is the best zombie story I've ever read or seen... EVER. Its absolutely fantastic, and I can;t recommend it enough. Its avalable in graphic novel form, so its easy to catch up with the story. Also, watch the afforementioned "The Last Man on Earth" starring Vincent Price. True, it centers on a form of viral vampirism rather than zombies, but all the same themes are present and it captures the desolate feeling of 28 Days Later, or should I say, 28 Days Later captures the desolate feeling of The Last Man on Earth. IMO, it is the first modern (not voodoo based) zombie film ever made.

[DeathsHand]

Originally Posted by Angrist

My brother heard there's a special edition/ending which doesn't even include the soldiers, is that true?

As The Professor has pointed out, there are 3...
The one your brother is talking about is the one that is shown only through storyboards...

Instead of being "rescued" by the soldiers at the roadblock, the surviving characters take their infected companion to the research lab that the infected chimps originally escaped from, and find a cure for the disease - complete blood transfusion...
Jim sacrifices himself so that they can carry out the procedure in the hopes that *infected character* (if you've seen the movie you know which one it is) can be cured...

As the director himself pointed out, that ending is rather far-fetched considering they had previously established that a single drop of infected blood or saliva entering your body (mouth, eyes, wound) was enough to infect you...
And I personally think it sounds a tad hokey...

I like the official ending the way it is... This wasn't like in the "Dead" series where the dead were coming back to life all over the world for no apparent reason, no matter how that person died, and to completely rid the world of the problem, humans would have to:
- Find a way to prevent natural death
- Avoid death by zombie or other violent/accidental means
- Kill every single zombie one by one
The quick-acting nature of the virus in 28 Days Later would make it nearly impossible to spread past the British Isles... And since the zombies are not really zombies, they didn't receive the added benefit of everlasting (until someone kills them in a very specific way) life...
They didn't need a cure... And the cure in the scrapped ending wasn't even a cure so much as it was the ability to decide who was going to die...

28 Days Later, as a whole, seems more... "Real" than most other zombie movies (and not just because it doesn't actually deal with the crazy idea of the dead rising from the grave)...I felt that the ending fit. *shrug*