all the more awesome because it looks like this sequel may just be better than the original.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_atomic/28weekslater/large.html

love how they used muse at the end as well.

Lame.
28 Weeks Later, for fuck's sake I hope this is a joke

It's bound to be a complete turd of a film. I wasn't that impressed by the first one to be honest - it looked great and the zombies were excellent, but the characters were terrible and the acting and script were shite.

I hated the whole scene in that mansion with the soldiers.

Hmmm. I've had my extreme resservations about this one since I heard about it. The trailer looks alright, but the little boy has me worried. If he's used the same way that Hannah was then it won't be a roblem, but we'll see.

ginger ninja wrote: It's bound to be a complete turd of a film. I wasn't that impressed by the first one to be honest - it looked great and the zombies were excellent, but the characters were terrible and the acting and script were shite.

I hated the whole scene in that mansion with the soldiers.

1. they weren't zombies. zombies are braindead cannibals, the creatures in this series are psychos who transmit the virus by spitting blood.

2. what was wrong with the characters? they were well-written, vivid, and believable, considering the circumstances.

3. the acting was shit? were we watching the same film? nearly all the cast members turned in great performances, particularly the guy who played major west.

4. the script was shit?

okay, i give up.

Much of the original was ripped from Romero's original trilogy, but it wasn't a bad idea, just bad execution. I like the idea for the monsters: they aren't zombies, as has been said, but rabid, infected humans. It is a good idea. And let's be honest: most of us, no matter how much we love our zombies, are sick of the shambling bags of flesh that have become almost comical anymore.

the_chillening wrote: 1. they weren't zombies. zombies are braindead cannibals, the creatures in this series are psychos who transmit the virus by spitting blood.


Yeah, big fucking difference when the 'infected' behave exactly like zombies. The writer obviously wanted to try to reinvent a horribly clichĂŠd and tired genre. He failed. Miserably.


the_chillening wrote:
2. what was wrong with the characters? they were well-written, vivid, and believable, considering the circumstances.


What circumstances? If you mean considering that the writing was abysmal, then yes, they were good.


the_chillening wrote:
3. the acting was shit? were we watching the same film? nearly all the cast members turned in great performances, particularly the guy who played major west.


They were crap. I've seen better acting in pornos/school plays. As for major west, even William Shatner would have out-acted that hack.


the_chillening wrote:
4. the script was shit?


Yep. Also the directing, acting, casting, and just about everything else about this sorry excuse of a movie.


PS. For those of you who hated the movie, try watching it again with someone who likes it, and spend the entire movie talking about how shitty it is. Now that's what I call entertainment!

I think the problem is that infected humans were too much like nu-zombies (nu-zombies are lame new-age zombies who run fast, despite being rotting piles of flesh)

Gatocamera wrote: I think the problem is that infected humans were too much like nu-zombies (nu-zombies are lame new-age zombies who run fast, despite being rotting piles of flesh)

Oh god yes, the fucking running... :...:

Unemployed Greasy Bastard wrote: the_chillening wrote: 1. they weren't zombies. zombies are braindead cannibals, the creatures in this series are psychos who transmit the virus by spitting blood.


Yeah, big fucking difference when the 'infected' behave exactly like zombies. The writer obviously wanted to try to reinvent a horribly clichĂŠd and tired genre. He failed. Miserably.


the_chillening wrote:
2. what was wrong with the characters? they were well-written, vivid, and believable, considering the circumstances.


What circumstances? If you mean considering that the writing was abysmal, then yes, they were good.


the_chillening wrote:
3. the acting was shit? were we watching the same film? nearly all the cast members turned in great performances, particularly the guy who played major west.


They were crap. I've seen better acting in pornos/school plays. As for major west, even William Shatner would have out-acted that hack.


the_chillening wrote:
4. the script was shit?


Yep. Also the directing, acting, casting, and just about everything else about this sorry excuse of a movie.


PS. For those of you who hated the movie, try watching it again with someone who likes it, and spend the entire movie talking about how shitty it is. Now that's what I call entertainment!

are you retarded?

Wow, a lot of hate for a brilliant film.

I'm not a fan of Danny Boyle's making big Hollywood dstyle films these day (I'd much prefer more Trainspotting/Shallow Grave/A Life Less Ordinary) but I have liked most of his new films. And 28 Days Later is very, very good.

Unemployed Greasy Bastard wrote: Gatocamera wrote: I think the problem is that infected humans were too much like nu-zombies (nu-zombies are lame new-age zombies who run fast, despite being rotting piles of flesh)

Oh god yes, the fucking running... :...:

I hate the runners. They're fucking zombies, so why the fuck are they sprinting through the streets like trained athletes?

the_chillening wrote: Unemployed Greasy Bastard wrote: the_chillening wrote: 1. they weren't zombies. zombies are braindead cannibals, the creatures in this series are psychos who transmit the virus by spitting blood.


Yeah, big fucking difference when the 'infected' behave exactly like zombies. The writer obviously wanted to try to reinvent a horribly clichĂŠd and tired genre. He failed. Miserably.


the_chillening wrote:
2. what was wrong with the characters? they were well-written, vivid, and believable, considering the circumstances.


What circumstances? If you mean considering that the writing was abysmal, then yes, they were good.


the_chillening wrote:
3. the acting was shit? were we watching the same film? nearly all the cast members turned in great performances, particularly the guy who played major west.


They were crap. I've seen better acting in pornos/school plays. As for major west, even William Shatner would have out-acted that hack.


the_chillening wrote:
4. the script was shit?


Yep. Also the directing, acting, casting, and just about everything else about this sorry excuse of a movie.


PS. For those of you who hated the movie, try watching it again with someone who likes it, and spend the entire movie talking about how shitty it is. Now that's what I call entertainment!

are you retarded?

No. Are you?

Actually, I don't really have any strong opinions on that movie. Saw it a couple of years ago, didn't like it, end of story. I just felt like trolling you a bit yesterday. My bad.