You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I have just watched the original in readiness to see the new film. It's still a great film, and I know it is all make-believe, but come on – a bike courier running rings around a bunch of active army personnel aaand ones infected with the Rage Virus, like he was Jason Bourne or something. Am I over-thinking things?
Bike couriers are sneaky AF. Also, not all squaddies are special forces and I'd almost expect the ones in that scenario to be a little more unhinged than someone normal.
Yes, just disconnect the brain and enjoy the spectacle you are watching.
I fell asleep last night listening to an interview with Danny Boyle and Jodie Comer, and I wondered: I'm a big fan of Danny Boyle and his films (*separate thread: best Danny Boyle films), but is the main reason 28 Days Later did so well those eerie shots of empty London? If it had been Just Another Zombie Film, would it have had enough impact to generate the sequels?
*Best: Trainspotting?
Favourite: A Life Less Ordinary
Watched it last week and (I think)a lot of it still works. The squaddies are like the lost boys ,scared and clueless .
Saw 28 years later last night,I thought it was excellent. Good cast and just the right amount of fear and tension. Plan to watch 28 weeks ( on Prime just now) next.
I was more concerned about the lack of bodies and vehicles in that there London. 🤔
I was more concerned about the lack of bodies and vehicles in that there London.
Vehicles, yes, but there would be no bodies because, when someone gets the Rage Virus, they turn, not die. When they have turned, they live in dark places, not on the street.
28 days later - I have a question
I suspect you'll have more questions after seeing 28 years later..............................
I was more concerned about the lack of bodies and vehicles in that there London.
Vehicles, yes, but there would be no bodies because, when someone gets the Rage Virus, they turn, not die. When they have turned, they live in dark places, not on the street.
Not everyone turns though. Some are bitten/chewed on and die. The infected are not flesh-eating zombies so there should be bodies lying about.
Regardless of that, it's still a blinkin' good film.
but is the main reason 28 Days Later did so well those eerie shots of empty London? If it had been Just Another Zombie Film, would it have had enough impact to generate the sequels?
Geeky fact, the whole film except the final scene was filmed on Cannon XL-1 cameras. In part so they could get in and out of locations quickly as they had only 45minutes to film each opening scene, and that included tipping the bus on it's side and cleaning up afterwards! And in part because it was supposed to look like a nightmare, slightly divorced form reality. A lot of the cuts are also a few frames out to deliberately disorientate you.
Which is why it looks so grainy, those cameras were only 480p, and it can't be remastered because it's digital, there is nothing to remaster. Only the last scene with the plane flying over is filmed on film, partially because they re-shot the whole ending (Jim dies in the original), and partially because it's supposed to be like waking up from the nightmare.
Some scenes in 28 years were filmed on iphones.
And yes it's a great movie, just watched it last week. Without spoiling it the final scene will have you going WTF!
Rewatched the older two prior to seeing the new one just to recap.
The bone temple set was built just outside our village, they were here for months and we were given a set tour at the end.
Geeky fact, the whole film except the final scene was filmed on Cannon XL-1 cameras. In part so they could get in and out of locations quickly as they had only 45minutes to film each opening scene, and that included tipping the bus on it's side and cleaning up afterwards! And in part because it was supposed to look like a nightmare, slightly divorced form reality. A lot of the cuts are also a few frames out to deliberately disorientate you.
Which is why it looks so grainy, those cameras were only 480p, and it can't be remastered because it's digital, there is nothing to remaster. Only the last scene with the plane flying over is filmed on film, partially because they re-shot the whole ending (Jim dies in the original), and partially because it's supposed to be like waking up from the nightmare.
Yeah, that's the really memorable thing about 28 Days Later - that they achieved those shots at 5am or so, holding people back from either end of Westminster Bridge, using digital to get it quick. It was a trailblazing film in that regard
My question is what happened to 28 Months Later? We had days and weeks now we've jumped to years?!
Leaves a space for some prequels 😉 🙃
What do you call a sequel which is also a prequel?
Intersequel?
What do you call a sequel which is also a prequel?
Intersequel?
Rewatched the older two prior to seeing the new one just to recap.
Is 28 Weeks later worth re-watching? I'd heard it wasn't really necessary as they'd dropped where the story had gone in that film in order to make the story for the new one..
Having conjugated further.
28months later would be a stupid name.
It should be 2 1/3 years later.
I watched 28 days later as somehow it had escaped me when originally released and was looking to see 28 Years and thought it might give me some context - plus I like a good zombie film.
Absolutely the worst zombie film I've watched. Probably up there with Sharknado for character development but not as good a plot.
Why it gets such gushing reviews I don't know.
I'm afraid a few great shots of London in the early AM (none of which made any sense btw - I mean why was Manchester looking all post apocalyptic mad max whilst a city three times the size was looking like every person and vehicle had been beamed up to space?) couldn't make up for below average acting considering the quality cast, awful dialogue, zero characterisation or character continuity, no real plot sense, awful pacing and total lack of believability in any of the decisions made by the characters
1 star for the shaky camerawork and the cinematography but that was all it had going for it.
Tell me 28 years Later is better?
Tell me 28 years Later is better?
If you didn't like 28 weeks and think it was 'Absolutely the worst zombie film I've watched' ,then maybe you shouldn't bother.
I watched (28 weeks) last night and thought most of it was well done.
Some of the dark tunnel/rooms scenes with hand cam shots (for me) ramped up the tension meter.
As with a lot of zombie films ,there are always a few plot holes and characters/scenes that should have been edited or chopped*.
*I have no idea why a moody Idris Elba was needed 😉 😆
Is 28 Weeks later worth re-watching? I'd heard it wasn't really necessary as they'd dropped where the story had gone in that film in order to make the story for the new one.
Not really tbh it's not that good really.
As with a lot of zombie films ,there are always a few plot holes and characters/scenes that should have been edited or chopped*.
The biggest one being there are no zombies?
The biggest one being there are no zombies?
Not yet 🤣
I fell asleep last night listening to an interview with Danny Boyle and Jodie Comer, and I wondered: I'm a big fan of Danny Boyle and his films (*separate thread: best Danny Boyle films), but is the main reason 28 Days Later did so well those eerie shots of empty London? If it had been Just Another Zombie Film, would it have had enough impact to generate the sequels?
*Best: Trainspotting?
Favourite: A Life Less Ordinary
Not just the empty shots of London - the music scoring was also brilliant
Not really tbh it's not that good really
hmmm We've just re-watched both films
first one still brilliant, but loses its momentum when they meet up with ecclestones soldiers
second one was actually better than I remember it, the opening sequence is brilliant and theres a few great scenes , ultimately the story is just a bit silly.
Saw the new one last night and really enjoyed it, a lot of fun, tense, some great acting and some pretty interesting ideas thrown in.
Watched this with my 13 year old lad last night. Forgot that Jim was Cillian Murphy!
Seen 28 Years Later this afternoon. Absolutely tremendous, good action, great story within the same universe as previous 28 movies. Great acting, Jodie’s accent is really quite good and the young lad is excellent. The geographical locations were slightly frustrating if you know the areas well but that’s movies for you.
Saw 'Years' at the weekend (big fan of 28 Days Later and Danny Boyle in general but have never watched 'Weeks').
Still a bit dazed by it and struggling to even formulate any clear opinions about what it all actually means yet beyond I loved it - it's going to take a while to sink in & make sense.
Boyle is a truly original director & the whole thing is a glorious DGAF punk piece of film making. Swinging between naturally lit calmness & beauty, CGI heavy magic realism (Causeway Chase), inventive use of consumer(ish) cameras, & just plain batshit crazy brilliance (THAT ending).
Add that to Garland's 'this isn't actually a zombie or horror film' script & the whole thing just sings...
Really interested to see where the story goes in the next two (especially if it gets as dark and weird as the 'Years' ending might suggest) even though Bone Temple isn't directed by Boyle...
Some scenes in 28 years were filmed on iphones.
I don't entirely see the point of that.
It's not filmed on an iPhone in the way any consumer would expect it to be. It's not even filmed on an iphone with some sort of clip on lens adapter. It's filmed with a DOF (Depth Of Field) adapter. Which is a translucent screen in a box, with a lens adapter on the front and a phone adapter on the back. The lens projects the image onto the screen and the phone records the image from the screen, which means the camera lens itself isn't doing any work, it's just a macro lens and you can go about doing all the cinematic stuff in front of it. It's like a digital version of the focus screen in a DSLR, you're not looking directly through the prism+mirror+lense, you're looking at an image projected onto a translucent panel above the mirror.
It's probably (slightly) cheaper than hiring and Arri, but I'm not sure why you'd not just use a proper camera?
I just started rewatching days.
I don't remember it looking so dated. Like the actual picture. All soft and a bit washed out?
I just started rewatching days.
I don't remember it looking so dated. Like the actual picture. All soft and a bit washed out?
Check my previous post, it was deliberately filmed on one of the first digital video cameras which only did 480p, they were referred in the industry as ENG (electronic news gathering) cameras, as that's what they were marketed for. Something small and light for traveling and could be setup and shoot quickly. It had practical benefits but as an aesthetic it's supposed to remind you of footage of warzones, famines and other disasters as they would have looked to viewers in the 90's. You're supposed to feel like it's an out of control nightmare.
30 years on it doesn't work so well stylistically as that context has been lost. Although the BBC local news stations only went HD VERY recently!
The equivalent would probably have been to film it on a phone and mimic youtubes compression like the viewer submitted footage on the news. Stylistically even big Hollywood blockbusters do it slightly differently these days. 30 years ago the big action set pieces were filmed from a distance with the actors running out of the building towards the camera as it explodes behind them. Partially because they actually had to blow up a real building, and partially just because that's what video of a building blowing up always looked like, the news reporter stood on one hillside whilst jets flew over and bombed a distant village.
These days it's more likely to be a POV from inside the building because that's the sort of shot you get of buildings being bombed on the news. e.g. War of the Worlds leant heavily on 9/11 news footage for inspiration (shots of people in the aftermath). I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years we don't have a "Gaza effect" as so much of the news seems to be shot from a camera held overhead in the immediate aftermath of airstrikes.