PDA

View Full Version : 28 Days Later vs 28 Weeks Later



FooFighters
08-21-2007, 11:16 PM
I searched and couldn't find anything so...

Which 28 film did you enjoy the most?

Roswell
08-22-2007, 10:33 AM
It's really hard to say which is better. It's like comparing Alien to Aliens. They're both awesome films that stand on their own very well.

I guess for the time being I'll vote for 28 Days Later, but it's a very, VERY close call.

Muse
08-22-2007, 01:56 PM
**sighs**

In the zombie section again? :p

I think exactly same as Marky Warner up there though. Both so good, so close to call, but for now, gotta say 28 Days. After all, it is my favourite horror movie.

Khan
08-22-2007, 02:12 PM
They aren't zombies!!!

Muse
08-22-2007, 02:18 PM
They aren't zombies!!!

:bow:


How right you are.

The Dark Knight
08-22-2007, 02:28 PM
if only the whole world could realize that.

101ant101
08-22-2007, 02:47 PM
i enjoyed the 2nd one better. aand whats the differrent between infection and zombies?

Halloween444
08-22-2007, 02:50 PM
Part 2 did for me .Part 1 was awesome too but 28 weeks later was just amazing.

The Dark Knight
08-23-2007, 11:52 AM
i enjoyed the 2nd one better. aand whats the differrent between infection and zombies?

they're not dead.

Khan
08-23-2007, 11:54 AM
i enjoyed the 2nd one better. aand whats the differrent between infection and zombies?

The "infected" are alive and can starve.

Zombies are undead and don't starve.

halo thirty one
08-23-2007, 01:01 PM
**sighs**

In the zombie section again? :p
Well I don't think the difference between zombies and infecteds is that significant that we should have our own "infected movies" forum. Besides, unless there is a cure for what the infected have, I don't think it's that big of a deal to consider them the "living dead." If they can't be cured then are they really enjoying a life worth living? Also, I didn't know that zombies don't starve. So what happens if everyone turns into a zombie? Do they just stumble around on Earth for the rest of eternity? Interesting, but sad.

As far as the topic of the thread, I have also compared the movies to the first to Alien movies. Both are really good, but they are also different enough to make me enjoy them.

FooFighters
08-23-2007, 01:02 PM
Well I don't think the difference between zombies and infecteds is that significant that we should have our own "infected movies" forum. Besides, unless there is a cure for what the infected have, I don't think it's that big of a deal to consider them the "living dead." If they can't be cured then are really enjoying a life worth living?

THANK YOU!

Khan
08-23-2007, 01:15 PM
Move the thread to General Horror.

FooFighters
08-23-2007, 02:22 PM
Move the thread to General Horror.


The "infected" are alive and can starve.

Zombies are undead and don't starve.


They aren't zombies!!!

:talk: Leave it, it's not a big deal.

NightmareMan84
08-27-2007, 11:44 AM
They're both very good, but I like Weeks more.

viperswat
08-28-2007, 07:40 AM
Let's see, Days has a better plot and characters, Weeks is more intense and has better action...

I'll go with Days. Love Weeks, too.

Psych0ticNemes1s
08-28-2007, 08:10 AM
I haven't seen 28 weeks later yet but Days was very good.

Khan
08-28-2007, 12:55 PM
I will catch Weeks when it comes on DVD.

FooFighters
08-28-2007, 12:58 PM
I will catch Weeks when it comes on DVD.

It is a great film. But you will hope that our army would handle things better than they do in the movie, if it were to really happen.

FooFighters
10-07-2007, 08:49 AM
I will catch Weeks when it comes on DVD.

It comes out on 10-9-07!

I'm telling you this is such a good scary ass movie!

I cannot wait for this.

mmyers78
10-08-2007, 07:37 AM
I enjoyed 28 weeks later than I did 28 days later

WhiteZombie
10-10-2007, 06:18 PM
I love both. I own Days, and want to grab Weeks ASAP. The opening to Weeks is possibly one of the sweetest parts.

Silverpsycho
10-10-2007, 09:35 PM
Wow, it is actually quite difficult to choose between the two since I love them both for totally different reasons. The first is subtle and beatifully opens up the series with an incredible cast that I cared about and serves as a very nice homage to George Romero's Day of the Dead. 28 Weeks Later is really action packed and introduces a whole new story with the ability to possibly have a vaccine for the infected. I am both happy and unhappy the original cast isn't a part of the sequel but just like Romero's series...choosing a different cast each time makes it fresh and interesting. Wow though, for a sequel, I was damn impressed. However, I believe 28 Days Later has a slight edge because it's the raw beginning and has Cillian Murphy. There are so many scenes I love in 28 Days Later, but I love 28 Weeks Later in entirety...if that even makes sense. So 28 Days Later wins for me because it has some amazing scenes that wowed me, while 28 Weeks Later has me on edge most of the way through. Quite frankly, the poll is a win-win situation really. Both are excellent and if 28 Months Later were to come out...I would be in the theatre in a heartbeat to support it.

AJ*
10-11-2007, 07:00 AM
While 28 Days Later was a good film I didn't feel the need to see it again for a long time...even when it came out on DVD. I not only saw 28 Weeks Later twice in theaters (the only movie I saw twice in theaters the whole summer) but I actually had anticipation for it coming out on DVD so there's no question which one I like better.

F@@@inlovemyers
10-28-2007, 04:45 PM
28 weeks was better but i think the re outbreak took to long to happen.

Silverpsycho
11-01-2007, 01:21 PM
Every day I always have the urge to watch Weeks! It is such a terrific film and the pace to it is excellent. It's so tough in making a decision but even though Weeks is the one that will win when it comes to which I would rather watch, but Days still has these portions of it that make it wow. I also think I prefer the soundtrack a touch more for Days. The only downside to Days is that I hate the ending. It was far too happy for my taste. Weeks sure leaves you depressed though...just how I like it, lol.

mr32
11-01-2007, 10:52 PM
I dont own Days, but i own Weeks. Both are good, but weeks just blow me away.

Quint
11-02-2007, 09:48 AM
28 Weeks Later by far. The first is good, but I didnt like it as much when I watched it recently. But Weeks was amazing!

Twisted Sister
09-03-2008, 06:17 PM
It was a tough choice for me. I love both films but the first stands out a little more for me. I do love the beginning of Weeks though, at the farmhouse.Very freaky.

MMyers89
09-22-2008, 11:04 AM
I finally saw 28 Weeks Later, and I have to say I don't get all the hype. I quite like 28 Days Later, and heard so much good stuff about 28 Weeks, but it just wasn't nearly as good. Sure, it had some good gore and a slicker look, but the story was very weak and fairly contrived and unbelievable. 28 Days Later was a much more engaging, intense, and realistic film.

Roswell
09-22-2008, 11:56 AM
I finally saw 28 Weeks Later, and I have to say I don't get all the hype. I quite like 28 Days Later, and heard so much good stuff about 28 Weeks, but it just wasn't nearly as good. Sure, it had some good gore and a slicker look, but the story was very weak and fairly contrived and unbelievable. 28 Days Later was a much more engaging, intense, and realistic film.

I agree about 28 Days Later being more engaging, but there is some stuff in the sequel that really just takes my breath away as I watch it.

And I think, as far as sequels go, its one of the best. As good as the original? That's up for debate, but I think in a world where most sequels are really terrible, 28 Weeks Later stands out as an example of how to do a sequel right.

MMyers89
09-22-2008, 02:55 PM
I dunno, it just seemed extremely contrived. Their whole country was infected with a crazy virus, and basically all killed off, and only 6 months later the army is just bringing everyone back in. There is a whole part of town that is strictly off limits, but two kids manage to just wander around, even after being spotted. And not only do they wander, but they make many disturbing discoveries, and even find their mom in their old house (how did she survive for 6 months by herself, and how and why did she go there instead of seeking help?). The army virtually becomes the badguy, with one mention of the virus spreading they get orders to just completely obliterate everyone and everything, instead of trying to contain it. This is supposed to be a re-birth of this country... Pretty much everything I saw happening seemed way too over the top and contrived for me, a complete 180 from the first film.

It did have some good gore, the opening scene was pretty damn good, and the helicopter scene in the field was pretty awesome too, but overall I just didn't really think it was that well done.

Twisted Sister
09-22-2008, 07:05 PM
I agree with alot of what both of you are saying. I love everything about 28 Days Later. 28 Weeks was a worthy follow-up and again I love the opening scenes, very intense. I'm not so sure I'm into the whole immunity-gene thing, it kind of took away from the essence of the film I guess, perhaps introducing more "clutter". The father's character was the one thing about Weeks that really annoyed me. I think it was just something about the actor, not necessarily the character. Can't quite put my finger on it.

Khan
12-28-2008, 01:01 PM
I like how Weeks clearly stated that they weren't traditional undead zombies and could die of starvation, making them Infected.

The characters were more generic, but it is still fun to watch.

Days is superior.

Chomp_on_this
12-28-2008, 01:42 PM
I finally saw 28 Weeks Later, and I have to say I don't get all the hype. I quite like 28 Days Later, and heard so much good stuff about 28 Weeks, but it just wasn't nearly as good. Sure, it had some good gore and a slicker look, but the story was very weak and fairly contrived and unbelievable. 28 Days Later was a much more engaging, intense, and realistic film.

I have to agree. But my biggest complaint wasn't the lack of character-depth, realism, or the contrived plot because generally I knew it was going to be a inferior sequel. My biggest complaint was the goddamn cameraman. Seriously, who was shooting this thing, an epileptic on meth? The camera was every place, but where the action was. Anytime there was going to be an awesome gore scene, it was ruined by the camera rapidly pointing to the floor, the ceiling, or a wall...Christ, was that an intestine over there or an uneaten doughnut on the desk? I had no idea....I was pausing and rewinding through the film like crazy. I think I watched the film 6 times in one sitting and I still have no clue what happened.

I stayed sober throughout the whole film, but about midway through, it felt as if I had already downed 8 of 12. I understand epileptics need income too, but can't we find them more suitable areas of employment to fit their handicap...?, like paint mixers perhaps?...Shitastic Hollywood horror movies just ain't working out.

spindrift68
12-28-2008, 07:54 PM
I just saw 28 Weeks last night, and liked it a lot more than 28 days.

My Dear Michael
05-03-2013, 11:31 AM
I think both are wonderful!!! I own both but I like 28 days later a little more than 28 weeks later!!!

AquiredTasteMan
07-16-2013, 03:12 PM
28 Day's Latter is the better film by far.The plot is better,The character's are more likable & It's generally a fun film. While 28 Weeks Latter was a mess.

benluvin
07-16-2013, 03:19 PM
I preferred 28 weeks later honestly. I thought it was more fun.

Mortimur Grimm
09-30-2013, 11:16 PM
As for "infection films" it doesn't get better than 28 Days Later. 28 Weeks Later wasn't bad, but I didn't like the characters as much in that film and it lacked the isolated, yet engaging, pace that the first film had.

Kitty
09-03-2014, 12:06 AM
28 Days Later, followed by 28 Weeks Later.

I'm not sure if I read right, but wasn't there meant to be another one, following on?