28 Days Later : Worst Film Evah!

Nick, I was suckered in by genuinely quite good reviews, a liking for good horror movies and genre tweeking. I did - of course - get everything I deserved.

Probably. Haven't seen 28

I remember vividly Alex Cox decrying aspects of 13 on Moviedrome - "The female characters have identical sweaters and identical shapes" or something like that.

things i like in starship trooper: it is based on the premise that the entire human race = utterly dim but underwear-model gorgeous gay men, some of them by chance in girl's bodies

28 days vs 28 Days Later...

Starship Troopers is ABSOLUTELY more than just a stupid action film. There's quite a lot (for an action film) of stuff that the viewer has to work out between the scenes. It manages to combine both sledgehammer-blunt and "you do the math" subtle messages.

(what mark said about pi. i can't bear to watch pretty woman.)

28 Days Later is probably not the Worst Film Evah - but it certainly seems to be trying.

other poor films: jeepers creepers, cecil b demented

'Flesh and Blood' is my contender for WFE. http://us.imdb.com/Title?0089153
ha, ha, Paul Verhoeven again! i didn't realise. just saw this at film soc one week and it was laughable. not helped by the audience who'd all been drinking but...

http://uk.imdb.com/Title?0280665

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/femme_fatale/

Will Brian DePalma never fuck off?

Sophie and I secretly heart Titantic - shuddupyaartphags.....

HOWEVER the funnist thing about 28 days is the tagline - by the creators of the beach, which surely is the shittiest movie which i couldnt sit though.

ABTRACT THOUGHT ALERT - i think kate boom could be good in a play based on hilary swank's performance in boys don't cry

Nowhere near as good as Threads or Survivors (its possibly on a par with the astonishingly racist Omega Man but less exciting). And completely drops the ball with its Apocalypse in as much as its a local apocalypse for local people.

Don't go in the transport cafe, don't go in the transport cafe. He goes in the cafe, there is a zombie. SHOCK!!!!

i thought DD was grebt in many a different way.

also i am NOW, THIS VERY MOMENT, going to the postbox with a cheque for you :)

calling me a fool would do. Come one Bob, where's my money?

Anyhoo, this reanimation of the thread addresses those who watched the special features, including extra footage that would have played up the presence of the "infected" as well as established a much bleaker tone, with the main male character dying at the end. Would it have been a "better" film -- whatever your take on "better" might be -- if the more depressing ending had been used?

it's a film with people who are like zombies in it rather than a zombie film.

likewise, it has soldiers in it but is not a war film.

Let's say the Rage virus is not the same as zombification (there is no voodoo that you do is the hoodoo what you do) - certainly in the fact that they move quite quickly and the reasosn for them allow a bit more thought. What the film thinks about would have worked in any armageddon situation, and is frankly laughable considering that the people who seem to be getting particularly uptight about the situation are trained members of the army. It dropped the ball on what the infected were eating, how they were surviving, what their needs and desires were which would have been a lot more interesting (and potentially ending with a cleverer ending than "Kill all baddies".)

that was way up-thread but i felt it needed repeating.

28 Days Later isn't so bad. the last third or so is really lame tho i think. i guess the point is that the hero = "infected" once he gets really pissed off? whatever.

that strobe/shutter lens effect is being way overused. a cheap way to punch up a fairly straightforward scene into something very TENSE. seems forced im afraid. the soundtrack was god-awful too.

the only time i jumped was when the car alarm went off. needed more zombies. and the happy ending was dissapointing since the previous 15 minutes seemed to be heading for a dark conclusion that would have made the relatively zombie-less final third worth it.

agreed that the first two acts much better than the third. but i was scared out of my wits enough.

i should still stress that i liked the movie. i also liked the unnaturally quick movements of the infected.

allison anders's "things behind the sun" is a contender.

ryan: yes, that's it. it's in a lot of other stuff too.

Holy shit. Knowing the entire plot from looking at the poster - classic or dud?

it disturbed and horrrofied in all of the right places, it was shot brilliantly, well written, well acted and well written.

i am still recovering, and have been unable to intellectulize it or critically anaylze it yet.

Perhaps this thread is just great viral marketing for the film, making punters see it with low expectations sothey think its alright afterwards.

???

I can only assume he used to go out with girls with learning difficulties.

I think my dislike for this film has obviuously got personal dimensions which cannot be translated to the majority of other people.

did anyone notice the 'refuelling' scene which was suspicously similar to the helicopter refuelling scene in Dawn of the Dead.

do all british people vomit blood on each other, or is it just a weekend thing? ooh! or is it a northerner thing?

! I rather think you should.

http://chud.com/nextraimages/danny_boyle28weeks.jpg

Millions: Worst Film Evah!

anyway, yes he's good. he started on brookside, which helps.

Maybe Danny just doesn't know how to end a movie anymore (although the end of 28 Days Later doesn't bother me that much).

Tomb Raider may also be worse than 28 Days Later, I haven't seen it though.

All the London @ dawn views look perfect in grainy DV.

28 Weeks Later, unlike 28 Days Later, is astonishing, I think. At the start, I thought "Oh no, here we go again with the stupid fast cut close-up action stuff of the end section of 28DL" but it used that texture sparingly and very effectively.

The evocation of a modern war zone was more effective than anything else I've seen, despite the fantasy element.

That scene where they start the duck shoot was so fucked-up and horrible, not through graphicness, but just from the "everything's fucked" thing really being rammed down your throat. I could hear people sniffling all around the cinema. You don't often get that with an action sequence.

Loved the bravely unlit section of night, turning into morning after they escaped.

Surprised that the new Wembley Stadium let them shoot there, for a film like that, coming out just as it launches. That really packed a punch too.

Rewatched Day of the Triffids TV series last week, and had forgotten just how much 28DL borrowed from it. It wasn't really that great, though. Should have left it as a childhood memory.

The evocation of a modern war zone was more effective than anything else I've seen, despite the fantasy element.

It wasn't as effective as similar scenes in Children of Men, I don't think.

I agree that it's a pretty impressive film, up to a point. The final act is pretty bog-standard zombie chasey stuff. The opening sequence, on the other hand, is magnificent.

I thought about Children of Men on the way home, but though it had its strengths, I don't think that was really one of them, unless you count the whole thing as taking place in a war zone. The war zone bit at the end of COM was all a bit daft, for me.

28 Weeks Later had believable soldiers, being bored, being dumb fucks, being conflicted, being human. It had procedure. It has chaos. And, helpfully for someone who grew up in London, it had a context to which I could easily relate.

I couldn't disagree more. I enjoyed 28 Days Later but was really disappointed with the sequel. It had no characters worth caring about and when they tried to win our pity, it just felt cheap. (Cute but stupid kids? Innocent, faceless people? Sorry, not working for me.) The movie as a whole wasn't engaging at all. I think the fast cuts were the worst part though. Oh no, someone's been shot! Wait, who's been shot?

And if you're trying to protect the one person who may be the key to a cure, wouldn't you inform him of this, so that if something happens to you, your death wouldn't be in vain?

we've got a dedicated thread on this but no matter.

basically cf strongo on justice but: if the cuts are too fast, you're too slow.

as for not caring about the characters: speak for yourself. i was welling up when carlyle killed his wife, big style.

i still love this film.

I searched for the thread but couldn't find it. Anybody got a link?

Carlyle killing his wife was kinda funny, what with the eye-gouging.

it's not my fault you lack all human feeling.

Begbie Running from ZOMBIES: 28 Weeks Later, featuring Robert Carlyle, in theaters NOW!

Thanks!

Re: human feeling--true. I guess we aren't meant to understand one another.

;_;

Just to say that I like this film (28 Days Later) a lot. Just watched it for I think the third time and still really enjoyed it.

i like them both a lot. what's not to like?

I don't really know, but this whole thread seemed to be for the haterz, so...

Oh, the girl that plays Hannah either can't act for shit, or they're playing some weird trick on us by making her so ridiculously wooden for some obscure reason, but that's my only foible. I cannae understand that though, she's blatantly old enough to be able to act properly, but every line is delivered with clinical lack of expression.

Never saw the sequel, but I want to! I liked this movie. Maybe watching it on the shittiest of shitty VHS boots on a dark & stormy night made it scarier.

Probably don't bother with the sequel - the first act's pretty good, downhill from there. Also it takes very annoying (to me) liberties with London geography.

the sequel is better imo.

but even if not, if u liked the first, id definitely watch the second.

idk about ldn geography (well i do but could give a fuck) but it's a better sci-fi allegory than 'district 9'.

yeah district 9 did remind me of this and I vasty prefer 28 days later

yeah i think the sequel is better than the original

the problem with the first is that while i still like the third act, the whole "madman lording over a manor" thing is really an awkward plot device. the sequel is just a grisly and intense chase the whole way (though i guess the terminator-like pursuit of the two kids by that particular infected is a little lame as well...)

the opening scene of the sequel is the best thing in either of them

Yeaaah it's a stretch to say the second one is as good or better than the original (i mean the whole second half of that movie is just feels long) but the original's an undeniable classic. That said the second one probably isn't as bad as you think it is, even with the silly sequel title, I thought it was worth watching.

i liked a lot of the second half. least it wasn't as boring as the ecclescake stuff in the first film.

the opening scene of the sequel is the best thing in either of them

ha otm

but i loved the rest of the sequel too, not too fond of the original anymore though.

the opening scene of the sequel is the best thing in either of them

Oddly, that bit was done by the director of the first film, unlike the rest of the sequel.

Yeah, that opening scene from the second one is amazing. Still like the walk through deserted London from the first, ending with the church scene, which still scares the shit outta me.

Watched this again a couple nights ago (my gf hadn't seen it). Thinks it hold up pretty well.

Waiting for Pete to start ranting all over again.

http://www.cultjer.com/img/video/trance_redbtrailer_hd.jpg

Boyle peaked with Sunshine didn't he? Also, is that the CW now?

yeah Sunshine was dope

First trailer for the new one was pretty intense, new trailer is ... even more intense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYGG55qwQZQ

Though I've got to be honest, so much of life right now is constantly on edge that there are certain things I suspect I just don't have the emotional energy for.

Wow, they already shot the sequel to this (with the same cast and a different director)?

Or some sort of side project/spinoff thing, yeah.

The sequel/follow-up is/was directed by Nia DaCosta (eh), but I think I saw there's going to be a third new one iirc directed by Boyle again.

I really liked DaCosta's Candyman reboot/remake.

Started a rewatch of the second movie for the first time since whenever it was released. Didn't like it then, didn't enjoy the half I watched last night. Just ugly and unpleasant, characters and movie alike. In that regard it's a bit like "Day of the Dead," but minus the ace gore effects.

Stacked cast, though. Idris Elba, Jeremy Renner, Rose Byrne, Imogen Poots, Robert Carlyle, Catherine McCormack ...

that's the film that caused me to fall in love with Imogen Poots

I think the film that caused me to fall in love with Imogen Poots was Kill!, an obscure Italian exploitation film released in 1971. It was directed by a chap called Romain Gary. It starred Jean Seberg:
https://www.shockcinemamagazine.com/kill-seberg.html

The ending sequence stands out. It's a kind of Sam Peckinpah massacre with people jumping on trampolines. I remember seeing it on TV in the 1990s. Imogen Poots was only three or four years old at the time, but I felt a kind of emotional tingling in my guts. I have left numerous clues in the visual media purposefully on many occasions since then but she has not responded. Perhaps her lack of response is a kind of response. The path of true love is complicated.

As for 28 Days Later, I saw it at the cinema when it came out! But I wasn't on Ilxor back in 2002 because the medication was all wrong. It's a really good film up until the "twist" with the army people, at which point it falls apart. For some reason it reminded of the John Mills Quatermass, in the sense that it had all the ingredients of goodness, the concept was good, it had a distinctive tone, but it didn't build up very well.

I remember that I had seen Night of the Living Dead for the first time shortly beforehand - that film may well have been shown on TV as part of the publicity for 28 Days, who knows - and it struck me that Night was actually nastier and more nihilistic than 28. The more modern film has a fairly happy ending, with an implication that the infectees are dying off and the heroes will be rescued. I wondered at the time if that was a side-effect of Saving Private Ryan and 9/11. The kind of everybody-dies nihilistic tone that was popular in the 1970s and again in the 1990s didn't sit well with the new millennium two-two.

I could swear that the Metro newspaper at the time had some kind of promotional comic that advertised the film. Or it was a series of half-page comic-style panels that explained the plot. Probably very rare now. There's an allusion to a promotional comic here, but this version was never published. I also remember that even as early as 2002, at which point New Labour had only just invented multiculturalism, the decision to make the cast (a) an Irish man (b) an black woman (c) a little white girl who would presumably grow up to be Phoebe Waller-Bridge, e.g. white but good (d) a bunch of evil white people and their black friend (e) a buffoonish, stupid white man who dies felt like a triangulation, a calculation, a cliche designed to stick it to the man.

I have a Romain Gary book called The Ski Bum... don't think I've actually read it

So, having seen the new one yesterday, two things:

1) That is some DARK comedy right at the end. Real folk horror shit. I’m still not sure how I feel about it myself! (Because fuck a Garland in general and this is probably just him being more edgelordy than anything else.)

2) Leave it to an American writer — specifically, this one — to do a “gee let’s discuss that ending” and *not get the reference.* I partially understand him not getting it but woof.

https://gizmodo.com/28-years-later-ending-explained-jimmy-baby-2000617543

So thumbs up or down? Seeing this on Sunday.

Generally liked it -- I think its strongest points were effective visual storytelling (not TOO much expo dumping, other things revealed by context) and world-building as such. Other things not as much or so much.

It's amazing to me that Germain Lussier gets paid for writing.

ok I'll bite, what reference is the Gizmodo writer missing? that they're dressed like Teletubbies?

never mind, I get it now: Jimmy Savile. definitely did not pick up on that while watching the movie bc I only had the vaguest idea of what he looked like.

Boyle is an amazing director. I was nonplussed by the ending (and the plot in general) but Boyle’s New Wave sensibilities are so, so enjoyable to me. I was reminded of Coppola’s similar affectations on Dracula but Boyle does it better, keeps it feeling kinda-cheap and kinda-slapdash and it works so well

And I might’ve said it already but the “Boots” sync is one of the most inspired bits of music supervision I have ever experienced, both in the trailer and the film proper

Really is. And it was ultimately down to the trailer makers, not Boyle and Garland!

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/28-years-later-poem-chant-rudyard-kipling-1236437024/

Hilariously, Lussier now has a new post up basically quoting from a Business Insider interview with Boyle and Garland detailing the ending and therefore the thing that Lussier completely whiffed on:

https://gizmodo.com/28-years-later-ending-explained-jimmy-savile-2000619052

Co-sign on those FGTI posts.

I did not clock at all the Saville connection. Being American and only learning of Saville via the documentary that came out a few years ago.

Baffling as that finale was, I admired its left-turn absurdity. And assumed (correctly) there were sequels planned following that tone and line.

Enjoyed this. And the “Boots” sequence was something else. Though was similarly aware I was only partially grasping what that was about. Striking all the same.

really enjoyed this. had hung out at Cheddar Gorge a few weeks ago so kind of wacky to see a bunch of Jimmy Savilles parkouring around it. the kid was a v good actor.

Liked this a lot, was even quite moved. There's something of "Night of the Hunter" about it.

Interesting. I adore NOTH, but it didn’t come to mind watching this. Enjoy your movie takes, Ryan, will inevitably rewatch this when it hits streaming and I’ll keep that in mind.

Not to derail, sure there’s a thread for it, but I also recently watched the Trainspotting sequel and it was kind of great? Really impressed me. I’ll keep that to another thread, curious of others thoughts.

finally saw this today & really dug it - it felt almost like a folk horror, i loved how self-contained the story was. ending was wild, i had to explain Jimmy Savile to Mr Veg so that was fun

also the Lindisfarne setting was really excellent & the Kipling was A+ fucking loved that

also that mask! and the memento mori sculptures!

loved it, thank god for Danny Boyle imo! I think if it were just Garland solo it would have been far more grim

The year's most unusual hit. I'm not sure how much of the film sticks but what's there impressed me.

I enjoyed this too. I watched "28 Days Later" first, since I'd never seen it, but that wasn't really necessary since the premise is clear enough. I still haven't seen "28 Weeks Later" but that one is supposed to be the least essential of the three. The acting and directing definitely seemed to be better than one would expect in a zombie movie, so I guess credit to Boyle. There's plenty of fantasy world-building, gross-out violence and suspense, but the moments of punctum in the Barthesian sense were the moments of mundane domestic life.

astonishingly beautiful images in nearly every second of this movie. danny boyle!

i kinda hated the framing device, and it was one of the rare times i wish a movie were longer just so we could live in the world a little longer. but otherwise really phenomenal

Some of those decisions I blame -- credit? -- on editing. In many ways, though, this one's the best of the bunch. Ralph Fiennes, like every aging UK acting ham, is in his own fantasyland and is most welcome.

the scene with Ralph Fiennes made me openly sob in the theatre...

this is almost two hours???? felt like 90 mins

I never thought I'd reach a point in my movie watching where I look forward to Ralph Fiennes.

loved his character and his transformation of Spike's worldview, that the infected, the non-infected, we're all the same species, we all deserve to die with dignity. but the mom stuff, a little close to home atm

I liked it — possibly better than the first one, tho I haven't seen that since it came out so can't say for sure. Never bothered with the second one. I like the world-building, trying to think concretely about what would have happened over the course of decades. I also like the realization right at the end that for most of the movie we've been isolated on the small island and of course the mainland has all kinds of crazy shit also happening on it. (Which will obviously be fleshed out — or flayed out — in the next films.)

Boyle's editing tricks are mostly effective, it reminded me what an entertainingly kinetic director he can be. Also agree that Fiennes took an actually difficult role and imbued it with real feeling.

xpost the shots of the Alpha lying in wait as the sun set were incredible

The best in the series imo

so where do you go from here

28 decades later? jump to 2315?

28 Centuries Later.

"Remember humans?"

"no"

FIN

I still haven't seen "28 Weeks Later" but that one is supposed to be the least essential of the three.

Correct. I had never seen it before but watched it after seeing Years. It's vaguely interesting as an Iraq War allegory, but is much less effective than the other two from a dramatic standpoint.

One thing I didn't care for: Doyle intercutting bits from Hollywood versions of British history (Ivanhoe, Agincourt).

it was ok once, a bit odd to do multiple times

Also: is this the best and the hottest that Aaron Taylor-Johnson's been on film?

certainly wasn't Nocturnal Animals

I wanted him to be my papi.

One thing I didn't care for: Doyle intercutting bits from Hollywood versions of British history (Ivanhoe, Agincourt).

I've been thinking about that, in some ways it felt like the most personal part of the film for Boyle. I don't know how well it works within the context of the film, but my guess is it reflects Boyle's own absorption of British history as a postwar kid, which would have been full of stories of British conflict from William the Conqueror to World War II. The idea of England itself as a battleground, which is outside his own direct experience but no doubt ever-present in the movies and books of his childhood. (The use of "Boots" fits there too, obviously.) So I read it as a connection between this story and those stories, the sense that this has been violently contested land for most of its history.

As my wife remarked, "It's a very British film!"

I understood his intent but it came across as hamhanded.

Kudos to Alfie Williams, a quite unaffected child actor.

My sister hated this film!

so where do you go from here

28 decades later? jump to 2315?

icydk the next one is out in January and will have more of the Jimmy Savilles and Ralph Fiennes. Nia DaCosta directing, shot b2b so that Boyle could move onto post.

there is a third Years script (all three by Garland) for Boyle to shoot asap if this first one did well enough.

Williams is astounding for a debut.

Agree with everyone, this is surprisingly great with some astonishing filmmaking, and the bookends are some of the dumbest shit you’ve ever seen

Scotch kid from the beginning nick furies into the picture in a jimmy savile cosplay outfit does some xxxtreme to the max poochie moves turns to the camera and says “that’s right folks, the next movie is gonna be so fuckin stupid”

Spoiler alert, but the thing that most puzzled me is why does the orange doctor guy off the Mom as soon as he diagnoses the cancer? Is it because he wants the skull for his collection? It was weird how fast that happened.

well he told her she had mere months to live, she was in extremely agonizing pain and severe cognitive impairment since it had metastasized to her brain. the trip was Spike's idea, and not hers, and she was probably mostly just hanging around for his sake and because she didn't have anybody to give her a way to die painlessly and with dignity back at home, and the doctor was giving her exactly that.

also, it's likely that nobody ever told Spike what cancer is, obviously his parents would remember as they grew up before the outbreak and also y'know, books still exist, but once he understands what's happening, the mother probably realizes this is as good a time as any to say goodbye

It's what I loved mist about the film. Ruthless yet filled to surfeit with feeling.

the bookends are some of the dumbest shit you’ve ever seen

i liked the stupid ending. wouldn’t have been right to end it on a sappy wistful spike walking away from home scene imo

Just seen this and enjoyed myself a lot. Typical Garland in that it's pretty incoherent: he seems to enjoy world-building and moving pieces around but it's hit and miss as to what sticks, and you get the sense there are just-as-interesting things happening off screen somewhere. Felt like a graphic novel adaptation?

It was generally pretty savage about England. Slaughter of the innocents while Father prays and Tellytubbies plays; closing with a Saville cargo cult. Plus the whole loose Brexit commentary. Nice.

Also, was um Fiennes shagging Samson the alpha? No idea why he wouldn't just kill him if he's that much trouble. All that iodine to wash away the guilt.

feel like Fiennes believes that the humans who are infected are so by bad luck and not of their own free will, and if one has to be killed in self-defense, so be it, but if they can be treated humanely and tranquilized, that's preferable.

he talks of Samson as if he has tremendous respect for him as a being

I was being facetious (mostly) and yeah, he'd gone full Treadwell about Samson.

i missed 2 minutes of the beginning of the movie and am also fairly ignorant about Saville so was thankful to get that part explained to me

I liked that the Swedish guy who initially appears as a savior is basically just an asshole. Which is more likely than not in that situation.

he was a good and needed addition to demonstrate how the people in the quarantined British Isles are dismissively seen by the rest of the globe, plus an opportunity for a very on-the-nose "what's that?" when he pulls out a smart phone.

Yep!

I figured we were off spoiler tags, sorry!

Good that the doomed migrant was white European. Honestly, no idea what to make of the Saville thing. Tending towards the edgelordy.

Felt like a graphic novel adaptation?

of what?

spoiler tagging it then...

very confused by any filmmaker who would decide to follow a genuinely well earned emotional payoff with the mum, with that "lol jimmy was a paedo" edgey dickhead ending. just extremely strange, and having lost my mother in law to cancer last year - left me feeling even a little angry with the incredible dumbness of that decision making. in a sane world, the film cuts to credits the second he puts the skull at the top of the pile.

up until that ending; i was actually thinking its by far the best film in the series - it grew on me throughout but i think its only on the strength of the performances, as the world building is fairly weak and often nonsensical. one of those films where when you're watching, the editing and pace keeps you held, but within 5 minutes of leaving the cinema and your brain kicks in, you realise very little of it made sense

OK, so ... even before the ending this movie was far stranger and more visually striking than I expected it to be, which I suppose partly compensates for it being pretty uneven, with parts that were stupid and parts that were ... I was going to say smart, but none of it was particularly smart, and I'm not even taking into account the ending, which makes me think the next one will be akin to something like Sam Raimi or George Miller, (even more) stylized and goofy.

Kid was good, Fiennes a fine update on Kurtz. I barely remember Romero's "Survival of the Dead," but something in my brain recognized some similarities. Strange that a film as quirky as this one, with a setup so odd, and themes so distinctly British, is being handed off to Nia DaCosta to continue the story.

Okay, so we have Bone Temple trailer here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOwTdTZA8D8

Mad Max vibes, but tbh that trailer kinda gave me a headache.

yeah the first couple films in the franchise had a 'here & now' freakiness (like the original Mad Max) but this looks more like Game of Thrones or something fantastical

This one gave me Thunderdome vibes. Tbf, I like Thunderdome, but this doesn't look like an expansion of this world that I want to see.

Watched 28 Years this weekend. I’d seen some spoilers here and there, but wasn’t prepared for the Fiennes character being that affecting. Great standout performance as a character that has a perpendicular take to the main character’s group, and it changes the shape of the plot

Watched 28 Years Later just now and the ending was incredible, haven’t laughed that much at a film in forever. Rest of the film pretty great too but it was such an insane tonal shift that worked for some reason.

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple one of the few movies whose porn spoof doesn't need a title change

The longer the time since I saw the last one, the more impressed I am by that absolutely insane ending and the commitment to making an entire second film to continue it.

Really interesting film about Britain imo.

They wrote three, so this month's one could also have an absolutely insane ending setting up the next.

which would be saying something, given the most recent film.

yes I was responding to Ronan’s post

The third one has apparently been greenlit now. I liked 28 Years Later a lot and loved the tonal clash of the ending like you say LocalGarda. Really looking forward to Bone Temple next week.

Newsflash: Bone Temple *rules* \m/

Truly so. The music choices and scenes alone but really it's all a treat. Heavy credit to DaCosta for not simply replicating Boyle's approach either, but still having it feel like the next step in the story fully.

This was fine, felt like a Shane Meadows netflix series. No need to see it in the cinema. Jack O'Connell lacking any sort of charisma to feel like a real cult leader. Some nice work from the DP though. Saying all that, maybe i'm spoiled as it was third cinema trip in a week; other viewings being No Other Choice and Madame De... so tough competition.

I want another sequel after the trilogy which is just a mockumentary on the medical research into the infective by the rest of the uninfected world

I'm very much with VG and Ned - it was great! Brutal, moving, and hilarious. Several pretty out there scenes, which I absolutely loved.

I thought Jack O'Connell was fantastic, as was Ralph Fiennes, of course.

i'm spoiled as it was third cinema trip in a week; other viewings being No Other Choice and Madame De... so tough competition.

We also saw this the night after seeing No Other Choice, so yeah. But very much enjoyed this one too. These latter films really earn the "post-apocalyptic" label, thinking about what a place looks and feels like after 28 years of collapse and disintegration. And I like that aside from Samson — who's a great character — the zombies aren't all that much of a presence. The movie was almost entirely about the survivors and how they adapt and relate to each other.

Yeah, this was great. Sat with it that night, and it's better the more I think about it, thematically, the character journeys, etc. A bit lesser than the previous movie -- which had so much scope to cover -- but still very good.

Also the best use of Iron Maiden in a movie ever. (Surpassing the Iron Maiden joke in the Bill & Ted's Excellent adventure.)

hated the barn scenes but overall enjoyed this, even though the story was pretty slight, not really much exploration of character but wasn't really expecting that. the kid didn't have much to do. totally worth it for the old Nick bit and "no I don't have a ticket"

also good to know that there's a cure which can be cobbled together by a GP out of a few pills after thinking about it for 28 years, although possibly no-one will know about it

This thing had a genuinely demonic energy.

Ralph Fiennes -- man, this actor is on his own these days for bat-shit lunacy while being fully committed to his roles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwKaJzkE2AA

^(Um, just in case, spoilers)

I'd say the Desolation of Fiennes began when he played Voldemort.

Fiennes was a fantastic Macbeth a couple years ago in Washington

Watched 28 Days Later a couple of nights ago and 28 Years Later last night.

I was surprised to see people being a bit down on the latter in my Letterboxd feed, saying it was over-polished, unscary and had an aimless plot with nothing to say. I thought it was great! Did we watch the same film?

Zombie films have always worked as allegories about the human experience, about how we cope and collaborate in times of crisis. But usually, like in 28DL, they're about man's selfishness and hubris - it's about people discovering that people are the real monsters. That's a trope almost as old as the zombie genre itself.

The majority of zombie films only have the zombies themselves as a looming peripheral threat; a backdrop to more pertinent, terrestrial fears.

But this film presented something a bit different. Generally the humans are getting along here - either through a Hobbesian bandying-together out of fear, or through a natural sense of cooperation.

There are other, more subtle themes going on in this film beyond "People are essentially selfish and will step on you in times of crisis".

In 28YL, the infected are treated rather matter-of-factly. They're not a new threat, they're a fact of life for our characters. Jamie, Aaron Taylor-Johnson's character hunts them as though he's hunting lions or bears on safari. And Spike is along for the ride as a sacred rite of passage.

For me it was the worldbuilding that took the crown here. This return to a mishmash of ye olde Merry English tropes and traditions, jumbling together everything from Iron Age technology to post-war aesthetics. It felt really quite believable. And I liked the whole, short sideplot with Erik too, which hammered home that the rest of the world was just carrying on as per.

I didn't think the film was lacking scares or gore. There were some fantastically juicy head shots, and the whole device of using bows and arrows felt at once realistic and a good excuse for maximum visceral thrills.

I thought all the characters were portrayed wonderfully, especially Jodie Comer in her supporting role, but also Alfie Williams as Spike.

Honestly, I really don't know how much more we can mine the zombie genre at this stage. We've had the Waking Dead, The Last Of Us, all the Romero films (Land Of The Dead is this film's closest cousin) and, well, Sinners is kind of a zombie film except it's technically vampires.

But I felt like this did offer some unique ideas. It's been a while since I've seen a British horror movie that looks this good - so many of them succumb to very unscary Netflixy production styles and wooden scripting and acting.

My complaints about 28WL extend to 28YL. Years is a much better movie, but every one of these has used the child in peril trope and I don’t like the idea that there are “special” infected (the big dude in this one, the infected father in Weeks).

I like the infected being hyper-rabid, and irrational. It bugged me that the infected are bathing themselves, and showing signs of culture.

I also didn’t like the Matrix camera trick of showing multiple angles of arrow shots. It took me out of the movie. It was entertaining enough, but I’m not compelled to watch more of these.

I'd say the Desolation of Fiennes began when he played Voldemort

Just off the top of my head I'd like to remind you about Schindler's List

Na. Good work but very much in a respectable vein of Awful Villain. He's on his own plane now.

Xps see i liked the bullet time arrows - thought they were done subtly and properly enough not to be too flashy. And i also liked the twist that there might just be more to the infected than first thought, or that they are able to breed and give birth. If that's the case there must be uninfected babies everywhere. What happens to them?

I was wondering about that. Are the infected breeding or was a pregnant woman infected? Can’t wrap my head around these freaks getting busy.

I really liked the one from last year, Bone Temple not so much.

Cow_Art. I think it's heavily implied the Alpha infected was the father. Ralph Fiennes' character suggests the infection doesn't reach the baby because it's protected by amniotic fluid.

My thoughts are that they're showing this, as well as the infected washing themselves etc, because they are NOT undead zombies back from the grave, but humans with a mind virus. And that raises ethical questions over exactly how correct Jamie is that they're not human any more.

The other question is how have the infected managed to survive for so long now that humanity has learned to shut itself away?

There can't be much to snack on out there, save for a few worms. And what about other forms of survival in general? Are they immune to poor sanitation and other diseases? Can they die of old age or does the virus completely take over their systems?

It seems that, just as the humans have had to create a new kind of folklore and craft in order to survive, the infected have also had to learn a few things too. They seem to work together in groups, just as the humans do. You don't see the rage virus fighting with itself. They seem, essentially, like a new species.

It's an issue addressed in "Pluribus" as well (at its heart also a zombie story, albeit a very different take): When are humans not human? What traits make us human or not human? Is the old you still in there or not? Does it matter? The last one (I'll likely see the newest one when it streams, but I expect more of the same) had Squirmy Ground Zombies and Alpha Zombies, they for sure seem to be more than just human.

I don’t like the idea that there are “special” infected (the big dude in this one, the infected father in Weeks).

Yeah, once you start giving them personalities and traits and whatnot, it might heighten The Metaphor but it definitely downgrades the horror. This was a problem with Land of the Dead, too (and to an extent, Day of the Dead as well). Not a problem with the Smart Zombie performers or performances, per se, just that when the focus turns so fully to People are the Problem I get a little twinge of, erm, no, zombies seem to still be a pretty big problem themselves, don't forget about the zombies.

It's sort of an issue with serialized apocalypse/zombie etc. films in general, this kind of a vague hope of a solution. We can train them! They have families and loved ones, just like us! We can co-exist! But I dunno. They still eat people or tear them to pieces. The downside of course is that it becomes a (er) dead end, with the same story told over and over again. In that regard these "28" movies have a bit in common with the "Mad Max" movies, increasingly colorful variations.

Was I the only one who rather liked the artsy attempts at adding in bits of Ivanhoe and Rudyard Kipling etc? I thought it worked in subtly evoking a false memory of Merry England, and it gave the opening scenes a bit of flavour if anything.

I especially liked the short scene where young people are being taught how to bow and arrow

It's interesting that we seem to be having a short spate of zombie/hivemind films and media recently. The episode of Pluribus I saw was done extremely well.

I like the world building, how people have managed to survive and seeing the long term impact of a terrible event. The modern soldier with his cell phone.

Josh nailed it; they are less scary when they start acting more human. It’s the same problem as showing Michael Myers backstory, or explaining Cruella’s motivations.

“I agree with Josh, who hasn’t seen this movie and complains that there are too many films about roving gangs of nihilistic satanist murderteens whose only worldview is the thirdhand misunderstanding of a traumatised five-year-old’s half-memories of a serial paedophile / corpsefucker and the Teletubbies: the medical care, psychological treatment, and eventual cure of Samson is not a rich and beautiful deepening of the character of Dr Kelson, whom I knew to be elevated from revelatory cameo to protagonist before entering the theatre. It’s a betrayal of the core promise and sole premise of the Boyle/Garland parts of this series: all scares, no ruminations on any aspect of human society EVAH!”

i don’t really care if a zombie returning to some semblance of humanity isn’t “scary” if it’s deployed with enough thematic richness! which is what these movies are doing! what a narrow way to watch something

the other zombies are still scary btw!

28 Days Later was a large part of the zombie movie resurgence and despite the writer and director insisting it's not a zombie movie per se that's always going to be part of the analysis.

28 Weeks Later has been left by the wayside, as the 28 Years movies largely ignore the events of that movie, particularly the ending implying that the virus made it to the continent, but it was explicitly about the non-infected eating each other alive much more than the infected were eating the uninfected and the morality of survival. I get it, Boyle and Garland wanted to go in a slightly different direction and I like what they've done

imo 28 Years Later does something a lot more interesting by examining how different people have adapted to the new world (or the new Britain, as it may be) and I was initially let down when they announced the second movie would be titled The Bone Temple, as I kind of assumed they'd be moving on to examine more survivors and how they're rationalizing their existence, but it was 100% the right call. Fiennes as Kelson has so much to give and it's really the Crystal/Kelson movie

dl, the infected still being human is explored further in the latest one. it's a slighter film and not as good tbh but probably worth a watch

I think the thing that a lot of reviews missed or misinterpreted is that the ossuary isn't the bones of those killed by the infected or survivors who later died, it's everyone. The infected and uninfected both deserve some dignity.

I liked this one more, even if the cruelty and violence takes more of an outsized role compared to, say, further development of Spike's character. But it's not really his movie.

I mean if you have such narrow demands on this franchise to simply performatively “be more like a zombie movie” that’s fine I guess but omg there are a thousand other movies that already do those things

But Not Scary Enough is just a bummer of a way to approach these movies!
Because then you are missing the entire point of it being humanistic.

I know that sounds mean & dismissive & yr entitled to not like these movies but man, there’s so much richness here that is NOT in Scary Zombie Movie #743

Ivy, Veggie, several others otm itt

I liked Bone Temple. It was more violent yet I guess less serious in some ways, but it also felt more at peace within the new world of the previous instalment, less to establish and less plot maybe.

It obviously isn't flawless but some very good moments and I thought the atmosphere and the countryside or forest scenes and their birdsong etc was p cool.

I liked both films for being brave enough to do something original. I agree also the more deranged take on what would become of Britishness in this future goes incredibly hard in places but is also sometimes touched on quite subtly.

I wish there were more films like this tbh, like thought-provoking without feeling like some huge blockbuster or Oscar-nominee.

has been left by the wayside

(Boyle directed the opening sequence of Weeks btw, I’m counting that and Bone Temple in my “Boyle/Garland parts” above)

Was I the only one who rather liked the artsy attempts at adding in bits of Ivanhoe and Rudyard Kipling etc?

I thought lots of ppl itt liked it! If not, then I must have liked it enough to balance them out.

And Boyle did, too — the Kipling recording wasn’t in the film, but was used by the third-party trailer company. Boyle was so impressed he worked it into the actual movie afterwards.

I don't want it to be more like a zombie movie! I like the human aspects of the movie very much, most of all Ralph Fiennes. I don't like the kid in danger element because all of these movies have used that and I'm over it. I liked how the "monsters" were in the initial movies and I just think that them bathing is silly and I can't get past it. Maybe I'm too beholden to the lore of the first movie; no way were the infected in that movie going to stop and bathe or fuck. It's fine to make a movie in which those things happen, I just can't make it fit with the earlier movies and it seems goofy in light of them.

Going in to see Bone Temple now.

But Cow_Art, the point is that it's 28 years later. A long time has passed since the initial infestation. And this odd, incongruous 2 second shot of the infected bathing is meant to plant the idea that there's more to these zombies thab we think.

It's got me thinking of Mailer, the infected the soldiers chain up in the original 28DL. There are short moments where he seems to get just a glimpse of intelligence behind his eyes. He is totally infected with Rage, but unlike the animated corpses in zombie films, chances are there is still a person somewhere in there

come in from a rainy Tuesday....

Holy shit, i'm the only person at this massive screening. It's going to be creepy af

hell yes

new odeon is £4 during opening week fyi :)

Well that was the best adaptation of Frankenstein I've seen in the last six months

Xp kinder, wahoo! I'm glad it's opening

Well it's a good thing i enjoyed that or else it would have been a literal huge waste of energy. Just me, an empty cinema, and a helluva gratuitous zchlong

everything seemed normal, proportional even

*Spoilers hereon in*

The Jimmy cargo cult should not have worked. It shouldn't have made it past the Notes section of Garland's phone.

A seriously terrible idea that should have been vetoed immediately, and I wouldn't blame anyone for finding it highly distasteful or just simply edgelordy.

But somehow it worked by dint of there being no one in British pop culture more associated with creepiness, personality cults, and sheer inhumanity.
It was served with a relatively light touch too. An odd thing to say about a movie so violent and gory. You only have to stick someone in a wig and a tracksuit to telegraph what you're saying. No more. Everything else the cult were obsessed with was an assortment of other ephemera five year olds would have retained as half-remembered recollections.
I did wonder exactly how long the various Fingers had been in the cult though. Had some of them been friends with him since they were kids?
And did I hear Jimima say his real name (Callum maybe?) when she got killed?

I actually felt there could have been a tiny bit more depth to the idea of them all dressing as Savile. I think they played it a little safe. I know it could have got ridiculous or stupid but I wondered if they were as concerned by scandal as by that.

I don't mean a meticulous backstory just that it was fairly quickly sidelined in favour of the devil worship, and became like they were just wearing costumes, apart from saying how's that now and again.

I just wonder what more you could do though, considering this world changed in 2002

In this narrative the costumes mean as much as saying "Howzat?" or doing the Dipsy dance. There isn't really a rhyme or reason for it. The context is entirely meta and hinges on the viewer's own knowledge

my friend who I just saw Bone Temple with did not know he was buying tickets for Screen X, and we did not know this format existed. it uses both sides of the theatre as screens. it's probably a pointless movie format, but it worked weirdly well, with all these expanded beautiful wide shots of the landscape.

Huh! So kind of like a digital Cinerama? What and how are they projecting on the other walls?

OK, so this demo I guess does the job, but I still want to know what is being projected on the other walls. New/different footage? AI simulations?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afGIdzEqVM4

Huh. Well I did notice that the aspect ratio was fairly wide on this film as it was. And sometimes the edges of the screen were aberrated in a strange way, a bit like a fish eye lense. So I can imagine this working really well in this format. Especially the arrow shots.

Man, I really do love these films. Always a bit cautious about overrating movies straight after seeing them, but I have been thinking about them a lot since watching, can't wait fir the third instalment, so might have to upgrade my Letterboxd ratings to the full five stars.

The world of this film really is deeper enough to warrant a Knives Out style rolling series if necessary

yeah we were all shocked when the sides of the theatre came to life at the start of the movie. and I then understood why the tickets cost $23. I had to move to a higher row in the theatre instead of cricking my neck to try and look at everything. The corporate multiplex theatre we were at was not set up well for the format, there were glowing exit signs above the doors in the middle of the side-screen action.

the middle screen seemed a bit narrower than a typical screen, and there was too much to look at when there were characters or movement on the side screens. the wide vistas of the forest or golden-hour sky were lovely.

I'd assume films need to shoot extra wide footage to be used for Screen X, apparently most Hollywood blockbusters are released in the format.

very fun movie! I liked how you could never tell where the narrative was going. Spike could have run off with the pregnant survivor, and instead she just runs into the night and never returns. Samson's arc was quite moving, and Dr. Kelson must be the nicest post-apocalyptic guy out there.

Kelson seemed like a p cool hang imo

I liked how you could never tell where the narrative was going. Spike could have run off with the pregnant survivor, and instead she just runs into the night and never returns.

Yes yes yes! And I like how the first one tricks you into thinking it's going to be this typical father-son journey, not entirely disimilar to TLOU, where the son learns to be a man as they trek throug hthe zombie-infested wilderness together. But it's not. They go out, they come right back.

I wonder, if Bone Temple is set 28 Days after the first sequel, exactly how far out all the action is taking place? It all feels like it's in relative proximity - and that Lindisfarne, the Bone Temple, the barn where the Jimmys find the family, the crashed train, and Jim's cottage are all within a reasonable radius of each other.

Kelson seemed like a p cool hang imo

― werewolves of laudanum (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, February 5, 2026 11:47 AM (twenty-one minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

wkiw kelson

kelson fap?

Need to tell him about the Night Version of Girls On Film.

Stuck in the apocalypse with radio edits :/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arFMBo_W9io

kelson fap?

probably, he has a lot of time on his hands.

As evidence for Kelson being a great hang, over the course of the two movies he successfully established rapport with Spike and his mom, an Alpha zombie, and a bullshitting satanist cult leader.

For some reason I thought the new one did ok at the box office, but apparently it didn't even make its money back? About the same budget as the last one ($60 million), but made a little less than that compared to its predecessor's $151. I think the third new one has already been green lit, and given it will mark the return of Danny Boyle and, reportedly, Cillian Murphy, it should do OK, but I hope Nia DaCosta doesn't take any blame for this underperforming. Must have been bad timing or something. Weather, too soon after the last one, confusing title, etc.

I told everyone I know to go check it out in the theater, but most of my peers hadn't watched the first new one? I think the promotion on it was bad and it should have driven up the streaming numbers prior to the new one hitting the theaters. I don't think I realized until just now that 28 Years Later is on Netflix, and I don't think it's ever recommended it to me!

Both movies were distributed by Sony, who have been unable to make decent decisions on anything, though. They didn't think Kpop Demon Hunters would go anywhere so they sold the rights to Netflix, if that's any indicator of their current business acumen

I agree that poor/insufficient marketing seems largely to blame. I don't think I saw anything beyond some side of bus adverts.

I thought it was released too soon after the first one, but I don't have any expertise on film release timing, so not sure if that was a good or bad thing beyond my personal feelings.

I knew it was coming out only cos I check movie showings practically daily

I mean i knew it was coming but didn't realize it was out the day before I saw it

I thought the teaser, with the Kipling, was really striking, unsettling even, and I know I saw it a couple of times. I'm trying to remember if I saw an actual full trailer ...

The title was really confusing, maybe. I saw someone suggest that the last one should have been called "28 Years Later: The Bone Temple" and this one should have been called iirc "28 Years Later: Number of the Beast."

Yeah it's very rare that a sequel to a film would come out so soon, so I think Bone Temple will end up being a streaming success

dropping it in the movie release dead zone of january probably didn’t help, although it might temper expectations

Funny that January is considered a dead zone. That time of year is exactly when I want to go and watch films

would you if the theater was packed, though? it’s loner season imo

True.

and, reportedly

big if true

the teaser, with the Kipling

Kipling was born in India in 1865 and moved to England at 5, where he endured child abuse; Clarke was born in England in 1917 and moved to Sri Lanka at 39 in order to abuse children.

The Kipling teaser was for the first 28YL, not Bone Temple though, right?

yes, it’s Clarke in the Bone Temple trailer.

Josh’s other comment about something that he’s been told might happen in the third one is fairly futile speculation for anyone itt who has seen the second one.

No one told me anything, it's something I saw in passing weeks ago, but since I haven't seen the most recent one yet I don't know what you're talking about. As for the first thing, I guess that proves a point, because if the Kipling was for the last movie, now I'm trying to remember if I saw *any* trailer for Bone Temple. I must have, but it's not coming to mind, so maybe there *was* some failure of marketing? Or confusion/disinterest coming so quickly after the previous film.

If we're getting even mildly lost figuring out which film we're talking about in a thread dedicated to them then it doesn't bode well for the wider public.

Well, it's innately confusing, in that they all have similar names, but also that these are sequels yet also a trilogy. The new one is "part 5" but also "part 3." It's also probably confusing that they dropped the chronological organization, so we've gone from "28 Days" to "28 Weeks" to "28 Years" to ... "28 Years: The Bone Temple." I wonder if it might have been received differently if it was more explicitly a "28 Years, Part 2." Or maybe if the "28 Years" cliffhanger (as such) wasn't so jarring.

It’s been like 20 years since they split that last Harry Potter film into parts 1 and 2, I’m not sure that ppl will find it that confusing (because it isn’t)

I'm not trying to be pissy, but 28 Years Later seems to have had a much more positive reception here than just about anywhere else I've seen (not, admittedly, a super wide sample). I really disliked it, and three real life civilians independently told me they thought it was terrible. So I think part of the underperformance of this new one is simply down to people not wanting to see any more of this.

"28 Years and 28 Days Later"

The opinions I've seen have been highly divided. It's love/hate as far as I can see. I loved both these films a lot and the criticisms I've seen about them I just don't understand.

If we're getting even mildly lost figuring out which film we're talking about in a thread dedicated to them

tbf the only person here who’s getting at all confused about which film we’re talking about is someone who hasn’t seen one of them but keeps posting about it

(and has a long history of arguing here about things they got confused by in films they actually saw that week, before acknowledging that they had the same argument with their kids while walking out of the film, and the kids had said the same things happened in the film as multiple people on different continents here are also saying)

*removes bookmark*

*removes bookmark*

I think a major issue is that people are completely sick of zombies; so even if they're told these films are doing something differently; why would they run to the cinema when there are 10 different zombie series on each streaming service they pay for?

fwiw london screening of both films was packed; and most people seemed into both films

I do think it's largely down to people thinking "I'll get round to Bone Temple after i've got through the other films". Most people haven't seen 28DL since the 2000s, or haven't seen it at all. 28YL is only streaming on Netflix (I bought it reduced on Prime). So no, Bone Temple is hardly going to be a box office smash considering it's a sequel to a sequel of a film that came out before a lot of horror stans were even born

I concede that the negative 28YL reaction I heard was all from Scottish viewers, who may have felt that the opening in the Highlands promised more content of local interest than the film ultimately delivered.

Looking at friends-who-I-trusts' opinions, the complaints about 28YL were:

- Not scary/suspenseful/dreadful enough (disagree - i had high anxiety during these films and it takes a lot to frighten me these days)
- Not enough fun/laughs (not what I came to this for, but I mean there is plenty of light humour in here)
- Predictable (REALLY?! What did you predict?)
- Some nitpicking about plotholes. Considering a single drop of blood can turn you immediately, characters don't really use much protection control. (Fine, but pfff, it's whatever - didn't spoil the movie for me)
- Vagueness themes about which Garland has nothing interesting to say (Don't agree. It had plenty to say)
- Baggy, meandering, boring (Nahhhhh.... I was gripped throughout. Did people find the parts with the mum boring?)

Very hard for me to see these films through the lense of someone who found this boring or like they took nothing from it.

i really enjoyed both of the 28 years later movies but they are both very weird objects so it's not really surprising to me that some people didn't like them?

man, I got anxiety watching the zombies approach in long shot.

Not enough fun/laughs

The kid asking what was wrong with the soldier's girlfriend's face was the best laugh I've had all year.

Right?