MovieMusic.com Message Boards: 28 WEEKS LATER . . .

Message Boards

Movie Soundtracks

28 WEEKS LATER . . .

Archive of old forum. No more postings.

Please visit our new forum, The MovieMusic Lobby, to post new topics.

Author	Topic: 28 WEEKS LATER . . .

nuts_score Standard Userer	Avoid this one like the zombie/Rage virus. If the original weren't so damn good, I'd feel this Hollywood-ized sequel would tarnish its modern horror appeal. The characters (especially the typical, Jurassic Park-light children) are underwritten. Props go out to Jeremy Renner for actually giving his tragic sniper a personality amongst a cast useless tools. On top of undervalued characters, we're given most absurb contrivances since Spider-Man 3 . . . and that was a week ago! The "shaky cam" work here is pointless as well as proof of a dim-witted director. It doesn't help that half of the movie is shot in complete darkness so that nothing is visable. Neil Marshall did so many of the techniques employed here better in his horror classic The Descent; especially the use of night vision. While the opening attack on the country house is intitially very tense, the rest of the movie wears thin by the time the new populace of London moves in. And a poor use of what could have been timely political commentary (the US occupation and control of foriegn countries). All in all, it seems like a Hollywood production that was overrun by people who felt the need to be "artistic" but instead just look hair-brained. Watch Danny Boyle's original and you'll miss his controlled, skilled direction amisdt chaos, confusion, and etherealness. John Murphy returns to score, and while his previous themes tie the movies together very well, his new music is copy-and-paste atmospherics and action music. I was really anticipating this one, and now it seems that the Summer is already 0 for 2; and it doesn't look any better from here out. It seems I've become a very disgruntled cinema-goer; surprise me for once Hollywood!
posted 05-13-2007 11:44 AM PT (US)

franz_conrad Standard Userer	Hmmm... might not get to the cinema for this. Sounds like a late night DVD option.
posted 05-13-2007 05:49 PM PT (US)

Southall Standard Userer	This has got mostly positive reviews over here. Everyone says it's one long tirade against the war in Iraq. (But the one reviewer whose opinions I usually agree with didn't like it at all and said it was a British, anti-American equivalent of something like "The Patriot", so I won't be seeing it.)
posted 05-13-2007 05:55 PM PT (US)

Stargate Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Southall: This has got mostly positive reviews over here. Everyone says it's one long tirade against the war in Iraq. (But the one reviewer whose opinions I usually agree with didn't like it at all and said it was a British, anti-American equivalent of something like "The Patriot", so I won't be seeing it.) Uck... no thanks. I'm a huge zombie buff and it really pisses me off that yet another living dead flick is going to suck. 28 Days Later was good, the Dawn of the Dead re-make was OK (uh, hello, zombies can't run), Land of the Dead was terrible and stupid, and now they're mixing in political agendas (into zombie movies of all things?! WHY..?!). I haven't seen 28 Weeks Later (I'll demote it to Netflix), so I'll reserve my final judgment until that time... but my expectations have been lowered. On a more positive note, I finished reading both World War Z and The Zombie Survival Guide a couple of months ago. Pretty enertaining stuff. I recommend both books to zombie enthusiasts (if there is such a thing).
posted 05-13-2007 06:19 PM PT (US)

franz_conrad Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Stargate: ... and now they're mixing in political agendas (into zombie movies of all things?! WHY..?!). I was under the impression those old Romero zombie films had a very thinly-veiled social perspective... almost Marxist, but with a dash of humour about it.
posted 05-13-2007 06:32 PM PT (US)

Stargate Standard Userer	It's possible... but a lot of the older zombie movies are just too funny to take seriously (save for Day of the Dead). Outside political agendas shouldn't have a place in zombie movies, IMO. [Message edited by Stargate on 05-13-2007]
posted 05-13-2007 06:45 PM PT (US)

craig Standard Userer	Ok, just a coupla points here about 2 of the movies mentioned. In 28 Days Later, the people aren't zombies. A "zombie" is a person who dies and then comes back to life. The ones in 28 Days Later are infected with a virus. They never died, they were just infected with the "rage" virus (A LOT of critics found that part of the movie FAR-fetched, even though they liked it)....ehh, just food for thought about that movie. Take it or leave it... And in Dawn of the Dead remake, the reason those zombies could run was that rigor mortis never set in like it did with the "old" zombies. Someone was bitten, they died, and 30 seconds later, they were up again. Making the "faster zombies" storyline...uh...plausible. I thought, and this is just me, the faster moving zombies made things more intense. More scare-factor. And I didn't like Land of the Dead either. Almost too schlocky for me. Either way, it just my opinion....
posted 05-13-2007 06:56 PM PT (US)

Stargate Standard Userer	Yeah, I know the 28 Days infected people aren't technically "zombies," but I use the term loosely. It still qualifies as a zombie movie in my book. Now, I still don't think zombies should run (save for 28 Days). And, I do believe you can make a pretty tense movie if the zombies are just shuffle walkers. I mean, imagine hordes of slow moving, disfigured things coming toward you and there's nothing you can do. But I can understand the need to make zombies run for easy scares. [Message edited by Stargate on 05-13-2007]
posted 05-13-2007 07:15 PM PT (US)

nuts_score Standard Userer	It doesn't help that horror movies these days are taking a downward turn. Every once in a while, you'll have a Audition, 28 Days Later, The Descent, Dawn of the Dead '04, The Host (ouch, it's hurting me to think those are the only meritable and good modern horror films) and 28 Weeks Later continues that downward spiral. The Genre film (especially Horror) used to be a great one IMO. Many great directors got there start in such low-budget mayhem. From Spielberg (both Duel and Jaws are still landmark 70s horror) to Coppolla (Dementia 13) and David Cronenberg (though, to some extent, he's still making monster movies, albeit very original, complex, and brave ones). Let's not forget overratted fanboy favorites Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson. The Coen Brothers' Blood Simple could easily be placed in the Horror category for its sheer, unrelenting audatiociousness. William Friedkin perfected Horror with The Exorcist and continues to do so with the upcoming Bug. It's unfortunate that the long lost days of what I consider "tragic, epic Horror" (namely Universal and Hammer films) have passed, as many of them have bred a pedigree of classic films. Let's not forget that at least one modern director returns to the earlier roots of Horror: Guillermo Del Toro. His unique blend of humanist stories with amazing monster effects already place him on a mantle above many other modern directors; even if I thought Pan's Labyrinth was a bit overrated, his work on Cronos, The Devil's Backbone, and even brilliant moments from his maintream efforts like Blade II (some amazing Shakespeare-ian elements) and Hellboy (what else to say other than a modern day Beauty and the Beast?). I just long for the day when studios and filmmakers take chances with their horror efforts . . . a bit like Boyle did with 28 Days Later. And, I'm sorry, political commentary is very welcome in Horror films, IMO. And I did enjoy Romero's Land of the Dead even if it was the weakest entry in the series. NP> Howard Shore's The Cell (***/***) [Message edited by nuts_score on 05-13-2007]
posted 05-13-2007 07:39 PM PT (US)

Stargate Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by nuts_score: And, I'm sorry, political commentary is very welcome in Horror films, IMO. No disrespect to your opinion, but why? I find it distracting and usually unnecessary... especially if it's a blatant parallel to a real-life situation.
posted 05-13-2007 08:04 PM PT (US)

franz_conrad Standard Userer	I like commentary if it's something like THE HOST: sly and Pythonesque. I don't like commentary like in PAN'S LABYRINTH, in part because there's nothing surprising about the discovery that there's no greater monster than fascism.
posted 05-13-2007 08:17 PM PT (US)

sean Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by nuts_score: I was really anticipating this one, and now it seems that the Summer is already 0 for 2; and it doesn't look any better from here out. It seems I've become a very disgruntled cinema-goer; surprise me for once Hollywood! What do you mean it doesn't look to get any better? Transformers, Live Free Or Die Hard, Pirates 3, and The Bourne Ultimatum all look fantastic! (And, yes, I'm also prepared for them to suck big time, as well, so I'm not blind.) At least, they'll all have worthwhile scores attached to them (eh, Beltrami freak!? HAHA!). BTW, since when is 29 Days Later considered a good film? It sucked! It has nothing I like about zombie films!!! ie. lesbians, nuns, and Goblin, for christ's sake! Also, 28 Days Later looks like junk! Did they steal my Sony Handicam and video that thing? Even on TV, that digital bunk looks horrible. Danny Boyle has only made one decent film, so far, and that's Trainspotting.
posted 05-14-2007 02:16 AM PT (US)

Old Infopop Software by UBB