PDA

View Full Version : 28 What?


rhett
05-17-2007, 09:26 AM
Now that 28 WEEKS LATER is out in theaters, chime in here on which is better, the sequel or the original, 28 DAYS LATER. No, sorry, Sandra Bullock's 28 DAYS will not be included on this list.

Cujo108
05-17-2007, 11:39 AM
28 Weeks Later. As I said in the other thread, it works much better as an apocalyptic horror film. It also far surpasses the original in terms of intensity, and it has the better cast. In the original, the only character I really cared for was Brendan Gleeson's. This time around, I cared for the majority of the key characters (Flynn excluded). Combine this fact with the film's unpredictable nature, and it's all the more tense an experience. Incredible film... the reintroduction of the virus alone is worth the price of admission.

fceurich39
05-17-2007, 03:57 PM
28 weeks later

satans-sadists
05-17-2007, 05:01 PM
28 Days Later.

White Worm
05-19-2007, 04:39 PM
28 Weeks Later. BTW: I have to mention I was very glad to hear "In A Heartbeat" by John Murphy used again in this one.

othervoice1
05-19-2007, 05:35 PM
28 days later- but 28 weeks later was okay

KR~!
05-19-2007, 07:38 PM
I didn't like the 1st one and haven't seen the 2nd and don't plan to.

So I pick Sandra Bullock's 28 DAYS, since that should be far scarer than anything in these flicks.

Livingdead102
05-19-2007, 07:41 PM
28 Weeks Later. I thought they were both great, though.

skmastaz
05-19-2007, 11:10 PM
28 weeks was much better, days seemed to lose focus a bit at times, whereas weeks was awesome about 99.9% of the time.

ducktree
06-01-2007, 05:22 PM
I voted for 28 Days because I feel it was a better-made film. 28 Weeks I just saw in the theater yesterday and liked it about 95% as much as 28 Days, but just something a little more appealing to me about 28 Days even though I felt 28 Days got kinda slow towards the end and I didn't really feel the whole "military men need these women" angle and where they tried to go with it.

One thing I would have liked to see in 28 Weeks is what happened to those three survivors at the end of 28 Days...other than that, I think it carried the story on with near brilliance. Hoping for 28 Months and 28 Years to be made in the future. :D

mclay18
06-03-2007, 04:50 AM
28 Weeks Later. The ending alone is much more gutsy and appropriate than 28 Days Later, which wimped out at the ending (which also suffered from the useless "soldiers lusting after women" subplot). I haven't seen the rest of the film save for the opening and ending, but will make time in my schedule to see all of it. But the bits I've seen blow the first movie away in terms of intensity and gore, and what I've read about the movie the rest of it will live up to expectations.

Criswell
06-20-2007, 02:29 PM
2 was silly.

Having London controlled by snipers was odd to say the least.

Darga
06-21-2007, 04:09 AM
28 Weeks Later was insanely more intense at times but some of the ridiculous plot elements were just too hard to deal with. So my vote is with 28 Days.

I would still like to see a Celebrity Death Match between Begbie and "infected" Don, though.

mclay18
06-24-2007, 05:06 AM
I would still like to see a Celebrity Death Match between Begbie and "infected" Don, though.

It would end pretty quickly: Don would either infect Begbie and the two would jump out of the wrestling ring to infect the audience and the commentators. Or it could end with Don ripping Begbie to shreds and infecting the remaining people in the audience.

Same denouement, actually.

Agent Z
06-24-2007, 12:18 PM
2 was silly.

Having London controlled by snipers was odd to say the least.

I could live with that angle, but the super stalking Daddy zombie/rager made our theater groan in unison when he was still able to catch up with the kids at the end. :rolleyes: