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 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?