It also upped the action quota, as once the re-infection hits, the sequel rarely pauses for breath. Both movies make for a great double horror double bill, but when it comes to 28 Days Later Vs 28 Weeks Later, which film comes out as the scarier experience.Ģ8 Weeks Later retained a lot of what made the original work, including the intense handheld camera work and relentless chase sequences. While talk of a third movie dubbed 28 Months Later has come up now and again, there's still no sign of it happening at this stage, 28 Years Later seems like a more appropriate title.
Related: 28 Days Later: What Happened to Cillian Murphy's Character A bigger budget sequel followed in 2007 starring Rose Byrne, Jeremy Renner and Robert Carlyle, with 28 Weeks Later detailing an attempt to repopulate London after the original outbreak the movie than follows a family as they attempt to survive when the virus reemerges. 28 Days Later became a word of mouth horror hit, made a star out of leading man Cillian Murphy and is now considered a genre classic. The movie was written by Alex Garland and follows a man who awakens from a coma to find London completely deserted, and he quickly learns a virus that infects people with pure, undistilled rage spread through the UK. While director Danny Boyle might debate the "zombie" tag for his contribution to the genre, 28 Days Later was another shot in the arm for the subgenre. That's hard to believe with their modern popularity, but the genre only came back to life thanks to the success of movies like Resident Evil and Zack Snyder's Dawn Of The Dead remake. In the battle between 28 Days Later Vs 28 Weeks Later, which is scariest? The zombie genre has somewhat died out during the 1990s, with only occasional signs of life coming from movies like Peter Jackson's Braindead.
0 kommentar(er)
