[Sony] 28 Years Later

[Old_Nash_II]

First trailer and poster 

Well, part of the trailer reminds me a little of Crossed

[Big s]

I know there was days, weeks and now years, but was there Months?

[electric indigo]

Boyle x Garland still look solid.

[TangledThorns]

3 hours ago, Big s said:

I know there was days, weeks and now years, but was there Months?

 

Found it odd they didn't make that film especially since the Weeks Later was very well received. I recall seeing Jeremy Renner in it and immediately knew he would be a huge actor in his career.

That being said it's interesting we're seeing a return of vampire and zombie films in higher quality form.

 

Edited December 10, 2024 by TangledThorns

[Thom]

Not interested in the movie, but this clearly will be a better movie for Taylor-Johnson than Kraven.

[Big s]

1 hour ago, TangledThorns said:

 

Found it odd they didn't make that film especially since the Weeks Later was very well received. I recall seeing Jeremy Renner in it and immediately knew he would be a huge actor in his career.

That being said it's interesting we're seeing a return of vampire and zombie films in higher quality form.

 

Thanks for the info, I thought I missed one.

 

1 minute ago, Thom said:

Not interested in the movie, but this clearly will be a better movie for Taylor-Johnson than Kraven.

Definitely. They already pulled Kraven from over a thousand theaters in the states and it hasn’t even opened yet 

[Tking22]

Damn, that looks great, I'm definitely in!

[kajnrig]

3 hours ago, TangledThorns said:

 

Weeks Later was very well received.

Was it? I vaguely remember the sentiment being that it was a letdown. I thought it was fine myself, even if it didn't reach the same heights as the first.

I forget what it's about, though. The only things I remember are 1) a horde of infected chasing some dude down the verdant English countryside to a boat on a river; 2) some guy kissing an infected (an unsymptomatic carrier?) on the lips while she's strapped down and immediately becoming infected himself; and 3) Jeremy Renner's character doing a heroic sacrifice moment and pushing a car down the road while getting flamethrowered.

Anyway, looking forward to this. Apparently Cillian Murphy is returning as well, so that'll be interesting to see. I don't think we see him in the trailer; I'll have to check again.

EDIT:

What's the voiceover narration? Seems to be reciting I want to say a poem, probably some old WW1/2 radio broadcast or something...

EDIT 2:

"Boots" by Rudyard Kipling. Written in 1903, recorded as apparently psychological warfare in 1915 by Taylor Holmes. (Not recorded to be psychological warfare, but used "for its psychological effects in US military SERE schools," according to Wikipedia.)

Edited December 10, 2024 by kajnrig

[electric indigo]

Brilliant mix, the voiceover is haunting:

 

[kajnrig]

Seems to be the new trailer meme now.

 

[electric indigo]

It works perfectly.

To be fair, the Godzilla teaser already was heading in the right direction.

 

[TangledThorns]

New trailer. It'll be a date night film for us!

 

 

[Old_Nash_II]

2 hours ago, TangledThorns said:

New trailer. It'll be a date night film for us!

 

 

Oppressive and hopeless. Militaristic narration in the background makes everything more intense

[Dynaman]

28 years later and the living have still have not learned to stay near armored vehicles...

But yes, I will still watch it.

[Tking22]

I still don't get how anything other then freshly turned infected can still be alive, unless they evolved to learn the concept of self-preservation these things all should've starved off in the first couple of months at most. The only ones running around should be freshly turned, to which, if older ones should've been long dead how are more people getting freshly infected to keep the population of relevant-threat infected up? These are infected people, not the undead, or zombies, they need to eat, sleep, drink, and they can catch diseases and die.

I'm sure it'll be a fun, tense film, but the idea this virus and outbreak lasted this long makes absolutely zero sense if you think about it at all. That one in the trailer that everyone thought was Cillian's character from the first movie is a solid example, how old can that frakker be? It's clearly not a threat, but I'd imagine the vast majority of these things should be in that condition, or once again, long died off. 

[Tking22]

I watched this Sunday night and enjoyed it overall, I think the beginning was great, the middle was solid, and the ending was lame as all hell lol. It's been spreading online since opening weekend, the ending is divisive as hell, for good reason, it didn't work for me, I'm in the camp of it came out of left field and was tonally a complete misfire.

That all said, I liked the world building, the performances were good, and the infected were scary, and several of my complaints from the post above were answered in some way or another for the most part, not in the most satisfying ways, but they tried. I read the sequel for this was shot back to back so it's definitely happening sooner rather then later, I'm in, but yeah we'll see, the ending of this one jumped the shark like an episode of Happy Days. 

Spoiler

The Savile Pedo Rangers were frakking odd, there's no way around that, I don't feel the ending ruined the movie, but god damn was it goofy and came out of nowhere. 

 

[Thom]

On 4/18/2025 at 12:51 PM, Tking22 said:

I still don't get how anything other then freshly turned infected can still be alive, unless they evolved to learn the concept of self-preservation these things all should've starved off in the first couple of months at most. The only ones running around should be freshly turned, to which, if older ones should've been long dead how are more people getting freshly infected to keep the population of relevant-threat infected up? These are infected people, not the undead, or zombies, they need to eat, sleep, drink, and they can catch diseases and die.

I'm sure it'll be a fun, tense film, but the idea this virus and outbreak lasted this long makes absolutely zero sense if you think about it at all. That one in the trailer that everyone thought was Cillian's character from the first movie is a solid example, how old can that frakker be? It's clearly not a threat, but I'd imagine the vast majority of these things should be in that condition, or once again, long died off. 

They showed that at the end of the first movie. The infected were dying because they weren't taking care of themselves, or at least that was how I took it. I do prefer the first movie as a one and done. Perfect as is.

[Tking22]

23 minutes ago, Thom said:

They showed that at the end of the first movie. The infected were dying because they weren't taking care of themselves, or at least that was how I took it. I do prefer the first movie as a one and done. Perfect as is.

Yeah the first film just works so well as a stand-alone sequels were never necessary IMO, especially considering 28 Weeks was really bad IMO so that should've been it.

I definitely liked 28 Years, and they tried to really expand the world and the infected, there are explanations for how everything survived and continued, but as I said above, those explanations aren't as satisfying as one would hope. I think what was done with the infected worked overall, there's some interesting ideas and revelations that come about, things weren't explained too much either, there's still a sense of mystery behind them, overall I think the infected worked. It's really just that ending, man, that thing will really make or break the film for a lot of people, 95% of the movie worked really well, especially the beginning.