ENJOY THE MOVIES
Did 28 Months Later Already Find its Director?
by Kevin Powers
October 6, 2008
Source: Arrow in the Head
No sooner had I mentioned 28 Days (and Weeks) Later that I came across news about the upcoming third installment in the series, presumably titled 28 Months Later. The director or the original, Danny Boyle, has talked of another sequel since last year, but recently a rumor surfaced on Arrow in the Head saying that perhaps a director has been chosen - one Paul Andrew Williams, who most probably don't know. If you recall, Boyle directed 28 Days Later, but turned the helm over to Juan Carlos Fresnadillo for the sequel, 28 Weeks Later, since Boyle was kept busy with one of my sci-fi faves, Sunshine. I'm not sure if securing an outside director this time around is similarly related to scheduling or something else.
That being said, I'm only half-interested. I recently re-watched 28 Days Later and continue to simply love the film, despite what zombie legend George Romero may say about the undead's mobility. The sequel, on the other hand, was ridiculously overloaded and gratuitous, even though the central storyline was pretty intriguing. 28 Weeks Later felt like it traded uber-violence and blood for plot, something many horror films are guilty of. So how does this bode for 28 Months Later? At the closing of Weeks, there's a scene of zombies running out onto a landscape with the Eiffel Tower in the distance. We know that the new film won't exactly follow the previous' storyline as Boyle said last year it will be set in Russia. "It’s to do with Russia actually. It's to do with that part of the world. Not France. The second film hints that it gets to France eventually, and wipes out the French. But this third idea is actually more to do with Russia."
So that's a glimpse at the prospective plot, but what can we expect of the quality? Boyle will probably still be heavily involved as a producer, but Williams' will obviously have the final say over the end result. All told, unless it's Boyle at the helm as in the original, I can't say I'm overly excited for a third installment. Is there anybody who is? And if you know of Paul Andrew Williams' stuff, is this a good fit for him?
 |
29 Comments
1
Not undead not undead not undead.
Richard on Oct 6, 2008
2
Well, I have to say I'm a big fan of the second but not really the first. I will admit the second is way bloodier than the first, but the second also has a better script in my opinion. The story is more interesting and the movie is shot better. None the less I'm excited for the third, I'm glad the movies aren't following a certain set of people for the entire series like most horror films do, I think that's what sets this series off from others. Honestly though how much farther can they go, if the do a 28 Years Later it will end up being a sci-fi movie, and in 28 years the whole world should be extinct.
kdr on Oct 6, 2008
3
I really liked the first two films and i definitely think Williams can pull that off. Boyle probably will be co-directing like "weeks"
vic on Oct 6, 2008
4
28 Days Later can be described as a legitimate drama. The story was totally character driven, with an underexplored take on the zombie genre. The fiends in 28 Days and 28 Weeks can not really be called zombies. They are simply living people infected with a virus that supresses high level thinking and amplifies more autonomous parts of the brain. They aren't under any outside control which is how a true zombie is defined. 28 Weeks Later was a good movie, but it strayed from Days in the way that it was much more action-packed and violent. I definitely prefer Danny Boyle to Fresnadillo. His style is just so much more realistic. If you don't believe me, watch Trainspotting. The best possible thing for a third installment would be for Boyle to take the reins again. It would be interesting to see each movie in this trilogy shot from three different directors' perspectives, but if they go a similar route as they did with Weeks, it won't be as good. Sure, it may draw crowds and get more revenue than Days, but the overall quality will suffer.
JL on Oct 6, 2008
5
If you're interested in the truly bizarre, look up HAITIAN ZOMBIES on google and watch Wes Craven's "The Serpent and the Rainbow." That shit is creepier than any conventional zombie horror I've ever seen.
JL on Oct 6, 2008
6
i never had a liking for zombie movies until i saw 28 days later. it was not only a character-driven story, but it beautifully portrayed the beginning of a post-apocalyptic atmosphere through awesome visuals and music. 28 weeks later did a good job in exploring more of "zombie" behavior and introduced intriguing story lines through a possible cure or immunity and the invasion of france. however, it is still inferior to the original. perhaps Boyle is one who simply does not like to film sequels, but his return to the franchise would be certainly welcomed. and i too loved Sunshine.
Matt Suhu on Oct 6, 2008
7
I LOVED 28 days later...right up until they get to the castle. Then it stopped being a zombie movie and turned into a damn slasher movie with a little zombie side story. It completely ruined the movie for me. 28 weeks later is by far my favorite of the two, especially the opening bit. I have yet to find a more intense opening; that part where he's looking through the boards and the zombie throws his hand in...wow I get chills just thinking about it.
Vader on Oct 6, 2008
8
28 Weeks story was so ridiculous i couldn't stand it. Hey i'm 10 years old and the infected scare me but hey lets wander out into the dangerous area. Yeah right. The infected v chopper thing? come on. There were so many stupid coincidences in that film it was unbearable.
Heckle0 on Oct 6, 2008
9
I like the idea of changing the director and the characters each time, it keeps things fresh and shows the post-apocalyptic world from a different perspective. I loved the first two, and will be looking foreword to a third.
chris. c. on Oct 6, 2008
10
@#6 Matt Suhu, you could be right about Boyle not wanting to get into sequels. Maybe he's afraid it will tarnish his reputation. Most of the time, sequels don't measure up to the first in a series. But he seems very attached to the story and the scenario. He may not have directed the second one, but he was involved as a producer. I will say one thing in the defense of Weeks. Robert Carlyle is one of my favorite actors, and he always brings something of his own to any role. He did a good job in 28 weeks later and the movie probably benefitted from him being in it. If you haven't seen Ravenous, take a look. Very entertaining. And to #7, that part of the movie was crucial. It didn't change the whole story, because the story is character driven. It was a turning point for the characters, especially Jim. He overcame fear, and then he succumbed to his own rage, though not like the virals all around him. It was about our beloved main characters encountering enemies that were possibly worse than the rage infected souls outside the walls.
JL on Oct 6, 2008
11
Dude they are not flippin zombies, they are people who are infected! yeah big fan huh, anyway if Boyle does not want to helm 28 M.L. and give it to this new guy, I respect that. Besides the First was scary as hell, the second had its moments, especially in the tunnel, and when Doyle get lit on fucking fire, the sniper scene was hard to watch, overall for a horror film sequal it was good, but the first was even more scary due to the fact that Jim was basically alone for a good while, And when you first hear In the House/In a Heartbeat, you get chills. The most f'd up scene was the eye gouging, in Week Later was by far very incomfortable to watch, and here I thought the first Eye Gougin in Day Later was bad eeh! Jim when completely over dose on his attack against the military gentlemen, and killed a lot of 'em. Back to 28 Months i hope they can bring even more f'd up scenes, and a even more intriguing story line I see no problem...
Xerxex on Oct 6, 2008
12
Ditto # 10. The reason 28 days later was so good, and scary, is because it had A) real characters acting accordingly towards the end of society, because of that plague and B) characters you could care about and survive "with". Having them band together like a family made everything real. I'll never understand why horror movie directors don't clue in and make a realistic movie with characters who you can care about. It makes it actual cinema instead of cheap stupid gore. Most characters in horror movies are worthless and therefore make the plot worthless. Horror movies as good as "28 days" are one in a decade. 28 weeks, except for Carlyle and the beginning opener, was a departure and one scene of gore after another. You can find that anywhere, in any other movie made lately. Gore is not plot or even good entertainment. BRING BACK BOYLE
Big Zero on Oct 6, 2008
13
28 Days Later, as many people believe, was a classic for the zombie/horror genre. Weeks was decent but like many sequels fell a little short of the original. So tacking a 3rd director ono the franchise dont think would be the best idea. If Danny Boyle directed then all my hesitations would be put to rest. But seeing how the sequel fell a little flat of the first im just not convinced. At least not yet.
Chris Henry on Oct 6, 2008
15
Much appreciated Big Zero. I agree with your insight. Horror movies that don't pull you into the scenario are not horror movies. They are a test to see how much carnage your stomach can handle. Making charaters relatable is of much importance. You won't be afraid of what's around the next corner if you don't give a shit what happens to the character, because they're either stupid or complete assholes. I doubt a fourth one will even be made. But in Hollywood, any amount of absurdity is possible. A third installment isn't even set in stone and so far, I find it doubtful it will ever come to fruition. No matter. 28 days later is one of my favorite movies of all time and stands well enough on its own without inumerable sequels following it.
JL on Oct 7, 2008
16
"The fiends in 28 Days and 28 Weeks can not really be called zombies. They are simply living people infected with a virus that supresses high level thinking and amplifies more autonomous parts of the brain. They aren't under any outside control which is how a true zombie is defined." Really? Webster says: Main Entry: zom·bie Function: noun Etymology: Louisiana Creole or Haitian Creole zonbi, of Bantu origin; Date: circa 1871 1. usually zombi a: the supernatural power that according to voodoo belief may enter into and reanimate a dead body b: a will-less and speechless human in the West Indies capable only of automatic movement who is held to have died and been supernaturally reanimated 2 a: a person held to resemble the so-called walking dead ; especially : automaton b: a person markedly strange in appearance or behavior Goodness it looks like the zombies in 28DL meet the second definition, don't they. The whole "those aren't zombie" nonsense is nothing more than another attempt by genre fanboys to secure their elite status. Give it up.
joel on Oct 7, 2008
17
zombie=undead. Therefore, they're not zombies.
Richard on Oct 7, 2008
18
Maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully. Not how zombie is defined, but what a zombie really is. Anyway, Webster is full of shit. And a definition is not just a jumble of incoherent babble you find in a dictionary. Just because something is established by a small group of so-called experts doesn't make it valid. Though I understand the word's origin, I also understand the story behind it. Secondly, I mentioned Haitian zombies. Most of it is supernatural nonsense. If you ever read about them, you would have discovered that they were living people who were under the influence of powerful drugs, one of which is derived from a certain type of blowfish. One witness said they had buried a relative they thought was dead, and years later, they saw someone they swore was the same person. He had the same appearance and he had a scar that convinced the witness that she was seeing her loved one. The chemical found in the powder is capable of putting a person under extremely slow metabolic process and paralysis. They can appear to be dead, and then when the chemical wears off, it appears as though they are rising from the dead. The chemical is called tetrodotoxin or TTX from the Fugu pufferfish. Lastly, I'm not a fan boy. I don't defend tradition and I am very open minded. I like both Romero's Living Dead series and Boyle's 28 days later.
JL on Oct 7, 2008
19
Your info is only coming from one source, joel. A dictionary is condensed and inaccurate. It doesn't give you any history or let you come to your own conclusions.
JL on Oct 7, 2008
20
Its a movie. Enjoy it or not lol.
Red Buttons on Oct 7, 2008
21
THE NEXT THING IS: 28 YEARS LATER 28 DECADES LATER 28 CENTURIES LATER 28 THOUSAND YEARS LATER (this is where star trek starts!!) 28 10000 YEARS LATER 28 BILLION YEARS LATER and after all that movies they will release a PREQUEL... 28 DAYS BEFORE 28 WEEKS BEFORE 28 YEARS BEFORE 28 CENTURIES LATER (THIS IS WHERE STAR WARS STARTS HAHAHA)
asfassaf on Oct 8, 2008
22
Starring James Mcavoy, Olga Artemoff, Stephen Graham, Directed bt Kai Van Der Putten. Looks like a couple of previous characters return too. Lots of military action......looking good.
vision impossible on Dec 25, 2008
23
please i love the first and second movie !!!! did they start making 28 months ???? i cant wait !!!, i hope they did ..
gary on Apr 7, 2009
24
i think that Boyle should go ahead with the sequal, but i would like to see the director to tie in the third with all what happened i the first and second films
stu on Sep 16, 2009
25
to 21: "omg THIS IS WHERE STAR WARS STARTS!" well starwas is the past not science fiction fail...
star wars on Oct 4, 2009
26
hope its a good film but i am not bothered if its nasty in it i still watch it as i watched them gouge that guys eyes in the 28 days later (JIM) and the husband kissing his wife who was infected with the rage virus and infects fully her husband when he gouges his wifes eyes out i wonder if their is any of that in this one as everyone up until now has got it in it unless this one is made to set and look different cany wait to see it 28 MONTHS LATER woo hoo lol
craig fredrick costello on Nov 1, 2009
27
To 25: If you woulda read his whole post you would probably be able to tell that he most likely put later instead of before, like the rest of them, on accident. Good interpretation skills....fail
Mailer on Dec 19, 2009
28
I loved, LOVED 28 Days Later, it was a character-driven drama with some excellent, classic zombie social commentary. It was a fantastic film, and by far one of my favorites. (I am also a huge fan of Sunshine) When I heard that they were even making 28 Weeks Later my heart sank. The end of 28 days, regardless of what ending you saw, had all the closure I would ever ask for from a movie. Making a sequel seemed cheap. Making ANOTHER sequel seems even worse. I refuse to see 28 weeks and unless boyle is directing months I doubt I'll spend my money on that either.
Erica on Jan 5, 2010
29
Come on guys. You like it you don't apparently if your here you freakin like it... if your here and you dont look your a loser. zombies or not who really honestly cares its faaake duuh. Good movie(s) everyones hoping for a 3rd one to say good things or to be an amateur critic/jeeez people get over yourselves... or be a failure.. grab the gf sit back put the movie on and get those extra points from the scary part lol 😀
efrain on Nov 17, 2010
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.
FEATURED POSTS
FOLLOW FS HERE
Follow Alex's new account on Bluesky:
Get the latest posts sent via Telegram 
Add our posts to your Feedly: click here
LATEST TO WATCH