28 Sequels Later
From Days to Weeks.
In announcing their new youth-oriented film division, dubbed Fox Atomic, Fox Searchlight also unveiled Atomic's slate of films that are currently in the works. Among those being actively developed is 28 Weeks Later, a sequel to the 2002 British sleeper hit 28 Days Later.
Variety says that 28 Weeks Later will be produced by Danny Boyle, Alex Garland and Andrew Macdonald. Boyle directed the first film. Garland, who penned the first film, will script the sequel as well.
The trade adds, "The first release from Fox Atomic is expected by the end of the year, and a full slate of pics is expected for 2007."
Variety previously reported in June 2004 that a sequel was in the works but that Boyle would likely not return to helm it and that Rowan Joffe would write the screenplay.
28 Weeks Later Buzz
Harris chimes in on zombie sequel.
During an off-camera chat during Saturday's taped interviews for Miami Vice, IGN FilmForce got the chance to ask British actress Naomie Harris about 28 Weeks Later, Fox Atomic's planned sequel to the zombie sensation 28 Days Later.
The actress admitted that she had no idea whether she'd be in the movie or not but she did reveal that she was recently on a London-to-L.A. flight with 28 producer Andrew Macdonald, who advised her that there may be a part for her in the sequel.
Harris expressed interest in reprising her role as the tough survivor Selana but she did not know anything further about the sequel. She said the script is still being written (by Rowan Joffe) so it is possible that Selena might not end up in it.
28 Weeks Later will be directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo.
no danny boyle? im guessing also no cillian murphy? mehh
:yabbse-thumbdown:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoviesmedia.ign.com%2Fmovies%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F742%2F742805%2F28-weeks-later-20061031080446118.jpg&hash=24cdc38bbf72939de4fc2cce4d540c79a0278414)
Rough Teaser Trailer here. (http://www.foxatomic.com/#PAGE_101:movie=/cols/cols_1600_1_28wclip.flv&movie_id=1601)
Release Date: May 11, 2007
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Harold Perrineau Jr, Robert Carlyle, Rose Byrne, Catherine McCormack
Directed by: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (Intacto)
Premise: Six months after the rage virus has annihilated the British Isles, the US Army declares that the war against infection has been won, and that the reconstruction of the country can begin. In the first wave of returning refugees, a family is reunited -- but one of them unwittingly carries a terrible secret. The virus is not yet dead, and this time, it is more dangerous than ever.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.horroryearbook.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F03%2F28teaser_hyb.jpg&hash=0331d8888c127730f87cf011baa4705cd2e1c4a6)
Trailer here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_atomic/28weekslater/)
I can't get the trailer to play for some reason, but that is a great fucking one-sheet.
Quote from: polkablues on March 26, 2007, 09:21:37 PM
I can't get the trailer to play for some reason
I couldn't either, but the HD played fine.
that was lovely.
I think the downgrade from Godspeed to Muse describes this movie perfectly
28 Weeks Later: Book of Shadows
International Trailer here. (http://www.foxinternational.com/28weekslater/)
Quote from: elpablo on March 27, 2007, 12:10:28 PM
I think the downgrade from Godspeed to Muse describes this movie perfectly
agreed
New International Trailer here. (http://downloads.cinemas-online.co.uk/trailers/28wl_hi.mov)
today i saw juan carlos fresnadillo's iNTACTO and i gotta say i was pretty impressed. it's a neat film. this movie will be good. i'd really rather watch this one than spider-man 3. the end
Juan of the dead
Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, director of zombie movie 28 Weeks Later, talks about rage, suffering, Iraq, the Virginia Tech killings and the guilt of the survivor.
Source: Guardian Unlimited
When Juan Carlos Fresnadillo was a child, growing up in Tenerife, two Boeing 747 planes collided on the island's runway in 1977, killing over 500 people. Fresnadillo saw it happen, from the backseat of his parents'car. In his new film, 28 Weeks Later, the plot hinges on the idea that the infected seek revenge for the pain they experienced. Fresnadillo says he is dramatising a statement of Aristotle's: "rage occurs when a person gives back their own suffering".
"It is disgusting to me that in Spain every day you read stories in the newspapers about men abusing their wives. I thought a lot about that, where it comes from. I think these men must be suffering in another place, perhaps they had a difficult upbringing, or they work a terrible job. The men you read about who come back from fighting at war and beat their wives, they are giving back their own suffering. The man is a victim as well. Obviously the clear victim is the wife, but the man has suffered too I believe, at some point. I am not justifying this; I am analyzing it, and giving it context."
Fresnadillo is talking about the sequel to 28 Days Later. Danny Boyle's zombie-horror original followed a group who survived infection from the rabies-like "rage" virus that attacked Britain. 28 Weeks Later shows the US army taking charge of the repopulation of the country from a secured Isle of Dogs.
Zombies are the kind of monsters that don't just come out at night; they tend to turn up at times of social anxiety. They haunted us during the cold war, and in the dark days of Vietnam, and it is no surprise to see them back again, the embodiment of our paranoid post 9-11 climate. But it's not so simple, Fresnadillo tells me. The film's source is both more general and more specific, rooted in the culture he comes from.
"My grandfather was in the military, fighting under Franco. I was raised in a Catholic country, a controlled country," he says. This is Spain's own lurking horror, the civil war. "Rage is the main antagonist in this movie. Rage is a human feeling. We are surrounded by rage, you can read about it in the newspapers, watch it on TV. This movie is about people who are obsessed with control, with power. There is always a gap in power. The military set up a controlled area. They try to control the repopulation. They lose the control, because you can't keep order over human feelings. The control is destroyed because there are people feeling."
He is wearing all black, younger than you would expect, and a thoughtful man. Having won widespread acclaim with his first film Intacto, Fresnadillo was suggested by Danny Boyle as the sequel director, allowing him the freedom to create a movie out of his own materials. Fresnadillo turned the concept inside out. The undead are mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters, attacking people, attacking each other. "I think it is more powerful when you realise someone has a dark side," he explains.
Fresnadillo puts a human aspect into the horror. The infected, despite their inhuman behaviour, are still human. Nor is the depiction of the US army critical, Fresnadillo argues; it is real. "People don't like to feel like they could lose control. Evil is an easy word to escape the reality. It is more scary to think of those that act violently as human. I don't have bad guys and good guys."
28 Weeks Later looks very real, shot in documentary style on handheld cameras. Like the first film, the cast are not shiny Hollywood stars. You can see an Iraq analogy in this film. "The film is full of reality and present time. When you are making something this real, then it acts as a mirror, and it can reflect what is going on right now," Fresnadillo admits. "I want the movie to make you think about the world we live in. I want people to find things in it that I didn't intend. It means the movie is alive, that it is telling us something about reality."
He starts talking about the Virginia Tech killings. The media, he says, blamed it on Oldboy. "That was a Korean movie, not an American movie. It was made by a Korean director. For America, they're the bad guys. How quickly people decided that Oldboy was the Bible of the evil people. Something like that happens, people want to put a label on it, control it. They want to say, 'the killer, he is not a part of me, he is the other'."
Fresnadillo tells me he has an interest in the "guilt of the survivor". He starts talking about Virginia Tech again. Did I read about the teacher who sacrificed his life for the students? When Seung-Hui Cho came to one classroom, the teacher held the door shut with the force of his body and told the students to jump out the windows. When the door was opened, he was killed. Did I know he was a Holocaust survivor? "I suppose it was some kind of redemption for this man, sacrificing his life," says Fresnadillo.
His frown shows he is figuring this out. Fresnadillo tracks back the central character of 28 Weeks Later, Don's motivation. "He feels guilt for surviving the attack on him and his wife, and that is the suffering he bears." At the premiere, he looked around at the audience and believed, despite the gore, they appeared so shocked because the "actors are playing from a very human place".
"Zombies are a fantasy," Fresnadillo explains. He's tried to make a movie that untwists the knots in our reality. The more real it is, the more scary it is. But, he tells me, "in a fun way."
This was pretty good. The opening was fantastic, and the best sequences were when the second outbreak first occurs -- they really capture well the chain-reaction effect of both the virus and the military reaction to it. The chaos is pretty terrifying. This also has some of the best (and darkest) night photography I've seen in a long time - and conversely, there's also a sequence that makes pretty great use of nightvision goggles (although not so much as The Descent).
i had a hard time completely giving myself up to this film. while there was clearly somebody who gave a lot of thought to making a good movie, i had some problems with it. namely...
SOME SPOILERS THROUGHOUT
at the beginning of the movie, there's that brilliant opening scene which gave me chills. this scene sets up that, yes, this is a film about zombies, but it's not your typical zombie movie. we're not in this one to see a bunch of zombies' heads explode, b/c in this movie, there's emotional resonance, we don't want to see gore, we want to see how people deal with the situation internally. ok, i'm digging it. i'm a big fan of zombie movies and this is a different spin on that. even though one of my favorite things about zombie movies is how ridiculous and over the top they are, i really liked how they played with the idea in the first film and in the opening of this one.
then they go on to introduce the kids, and i wasn't really feeling them, for the most part. i really hate movies with cute little kids that you don't
want to see die just b/c they're kids. to this movie's credit, that was mostly avoided, but still, having little kids be your main characters in a zombie flick... whatever, i was still following it. however, when the kids snuck out of the containment area and nobody did anything to stop it, that's when i started getting annoyed. they're gonna risk their lives and risk infection to get some clothes and a picture of their mother? that's lazy screenwriting. i understand we needed to get the virus back into the containment area, but why couldn't they have thought of something better? i'd have to say my major beef with the first act was that there was just too much damn exposition of plot and not character. i didn't really feel the emotions that i felt in that first scene. the characters felt more like tools to get the ball rolling rather than real people, as opposed to the first film.
so then the zombies attack again and i started to have hope for the rest of the movie. i thought that the military reaction to the situation was fantastic. it was a very well executed scene and had obvious parallels to iraq that were not intrusive to the film, as many overt political connotations in a fictional film can be. so, we had that, but then they all tried to escape and i was just really confused as to where they were going. i didn't like that sniper dude or the doctor chick, or the fact that they have to save the kids b/c they're immune to the virus (and cuz they're cute little kids... who'd wanna see them get hurt?), blah blah blah. aside from some brilliant nighttime photography and a couple of pretty well done action scenes (the dawn of the dead inspired helicopter scene was pretty cool. had they followed through and made the rest of the film like the opening scene, i might have complained and called it a cheap shock tactic, but by this point, i wasn't really feeling any emotional connection to any of the characters and i needed some decent gore).
so, the movie ended, and overall i got some cool stuff, but, the problem for me was that the opening scene set up a totally different movie. it threw me off. i just wish this movie had a clearer idea of what it wanted to be, a character driven movie about zombies or a shoot-em-up zombie horror. as it was, i got a toss-up of some uneven scenes, many of which were really good and showed a lot of promise, others that just came out of nowhere. funny thing is, it's the brilliant stuff that pissed me off. i only got little tastes of it. what i got was a decent flick when i should have gotten an amazing one.
Quote from: Garam on May 13, 2007, 02:43:57 PM
Quote from: bonanzataz on May 13, 2007, 01:07:35 PM
however, when the kids snuck out of the containment area and nobody did anything to stop it, that's when i started getting annoyed. they're gonna risk their lives and risk infection to get some clothes and a picture of their mother? that's lazy screenwriting.
Just because you wouldn't take the risk, doesn't mean there aren't people who would. To some, the urge to run free around a deserted capital city would just be too great. And as far as I can tell, nobody did anything to stop it, because nobody noticed they had gone until Robert Carlyle's character checked their bedroom.
no. they made a point to show that the american sniper saw them escape and alerted everybody around him. anyway, this was a minor nitpick. i gave the movie the benefit of the doubt while watching it. it's a common complaint from my friends. they say when i'm watching a movie, i enjoy it, then in hindsight i find all these things to dislike about it. so, in the movie's defense, i, for the most part, enjoyed it while watching it, but even when watching it, i found all these things to not like. you picked out a very unimportant reason as to why i didn't like it.
but, now that you bring it up, when i was a little kid, EVERYTHING scared me. now, i know not every little kid is as big a pussy as i was/am, but still... zombies are fucking scary, i'm not sure many 11 year olds would want to take on a pack of fucking zombies. i wasn't given any information through the script that would let me know that these kids are badasses. plus, they're british.
This movie really didn't work for me. I thought the original was decent but far from great. Unfortunately many of the ideas explored in this sequel were already explored in the first movie. It's a movie where you ask "What's the point?". More blood. More zombies. But never gets particularly interesting.
Even the title is gimmicky.
why'd you go, then? you didn't like the original, you didn't like the title, you were aware of the zombies. whats the point?
Quote from: modage on May 13, 2007, 10:01:18 PM
why'd you go, then? you didn't like the original, you didn't like the title, you were aware of the zombies. whats the point?
He thought the original was decent, jesus.
i loved this movie as much as i loved the first one. i agree with taz that there's a really abrupt change of tone after the kids go to their house and a bunch of consequent silly stuff but whatever. it's such a relief to watch a horror movie without a torture scene and sex obsessed persons in this day and age. i like the fact that there's really no reason to overblow and fuck this franchise. why can't there be more franchises like this? it's daring, it explores fear in very realistic fashion and rage and innocence and it's beautiful to look at. did you guys know that danny boyle directed some of the second unit? a dude said that this movie is like photo journalism of the next urban catastrophe. that's a brilliant description.
Quote from: Garam on May 13, 2007, 02:43:57 PM
Quote from: bonanzataz on May 13, 2007, 01:07:35 PM
however, when the kids snuck out of the containment area and nobody did anything to stop it, that's when i started getting annoyed. they're gonna risk their lives and risk infection to get some clothes and a picture of their mother? that's lazy screenwriting.
Just because you wouldn't take the risk, doesn't mean there aren't people who would. To some, the urge to run free around a deserted capital city would just be too great. And as far as I can tell, nobody did anything to stop it, because nobody noticed they had gone until Robert Carlyle's character checked their bedroom.
that wasn't even the most ridiculous decision made in this movie.
the entire city was overrun with flesh eating zombies six months ago? i think it's safe to start bringing people back in. after all, all the monsters have surely starved to death by now. oh, p.s., don't walk across the bridge that's not blocked off at all and is guarded by like two guys...it's kinda dangerous over there. now
that's lazy writing.
not to mention the french kissing of a zombie.
the music was good
well i just returned from watching this flick and i had a pretty good time with it. granted, you really have to suspend your disbelief. lots of stupid, illogical things happen in the name of action and excitement, too many crazy coincidences take place, but it stays interesting the whole time and the audience was totally into it, completely silent during the entire running time, screaming at the right moment, etc.. despite it's shortcomings, there was a lot of care going in to the making of this movie and it shows. i had more fun with this one than with the original.
If the first film was Alien, then this one would be Aliens; not just meaning the addition of the military aspect, but a worthy sequel. I got caught up in it right from the opening (despite the Paul Greengrass school of photography), and I stayed tense throughout. Where Days explored a 'family' and their sacrifices, Weeks delves deeper into that theme.
SPOILERS
Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised by this one. Like everyone else said, there were some pretty ridiculous parts (helicopter blades chopping up zombies, Robert Carlyle being everywhere at once, escaping from deadly gas (lots of eye-rolling during that sequence)).
I wish they could have focused more on the story between Robert Carlyle and his wife, post zombie attack. Just that tension between the two of them would have made a great movie itself. I think that would have successfully severed the ties between this movie and the original to make it stand alone. Minor gripe, though.