Most Active

Dougherty Pimps His Bitches
5 new posts | 5 total posts
EXCL: Quigley Returns for Night of the Demons
3 new posts | 3 total posts
Repo! The Genetic Opera
2 new posts | 31 total posts
2009 is the Year for Dracula: The Un-Dead
2 new posts | 8 total posts
Joy Ride 2: Dead Ahead
2 new posts | 4 total posts
Review: Joy Ride 2: Dead Ahead
2 new posts | 2 total posts
Friday the 13th
1 new posts | 112 total posts
Cassie Hack...Suicide Girl!
1 new posts | 9 total posts
Dern Still Down for Jurassic Park 4
1 new posts | 45 total posts
Rome Gets Fifteen Minutes of Twilight
1 new posts | 9 total posts
Zombie's Tyrannosaurus Rex Update
1 new posts | 5 total posts
Rec Director's Trailer for Damned Friday
1 new posts | 5 total posts


28 Months Later Director Found?
October 4, 2008

A sequel in the 28 Days Later series entitled 28 Months Later has been rumored for some time. Whenever director Danny Boyle surfaces to promote a new movie, the topic is breached.

Now there might be a director attached.

Reporting from the Sitges Film Festival, Arrow in the Head's John Fallon was tipped off that Paul Andrew Williams is circling the director's chair for the threequel. Williams previously helmed the horror-comedy The Cottage starring Andy Serkis. The film is a reverent take on the slasher genre. If Williams is attached, he may have to temper the humor that was a particular strength in the Cottage.

Arrow didn't get any other updates about Months (i.e. how close it is to pre-production), so keep it here for the latest!

| 26 comments | Add a comment

  Related Articles

  Related From Other Sites


Posted by: Tyler Durdan on October 4, 2008 at 18:36:55

i loved the first 2


Posted by: jasonocas on October 4, 2008 at 18:38:39

28 days later n weeks were rubbish movies. it should of gone direct to dvd. sorry but us brits can't make movies, lets leave it 2 americans, although they don't always get it right. i.e. alone in the dark 2

Posted by: slasher fetish on October 4, 2008 at 19:09:21

you are so stupid jasonocas sayin brits cant make movies, maybe you dont know a lot about movies but google the best directors and the brits have a huge list, american are so superficial, they just think in gettin money, not 4 the love of the art. the latest example:
IRON MAN & DARK KNIGHT both are great movies, but you can see the vision of the directors, ironman is good but a lot of funny stuff, ok haha its funny but looks like american need a lot the funny things, they arent too deep as europeans, think that and think before you post something. read more about cinema, not just watch movies. peace prick!

Posted by: Lol on October 4, 2008 at 19:40:39

The Dark Knight had a British director....

Posted by: Horror_Fan on October 4, 2008 at 19:44:44

To slasher fetish

Ok, first off, Im sure if you think us Americans need funny things to get us through movies, maybe you should pick up a Marvel comic or for that matter an Iron Man comic. Marvel always some or all of their characters have quick witted comebacks and lines and Tony Stark is no different in Iron Man. That and John Farveau played on Downey's comedy as a person because he resembled Tony Stark so much. Sorry but when's the last time someone in Europe made a movie based off a comic and made it that close to the source material. Maybe you should do YOUR research before you come on here and slam others. @$$HOLE!!!

P.S. By the way, the last two movies I saw from the UK SUCKED!!!!!

Posted by: ico on October 4, 2008 at 20:13:34

Big fan of the first two. Can't wait for the third.

OK, i'm fine with jasonocas' negative comments about British films because, apparently, he's British but slasher fetish's comments about Americans are jus't ignorant, and i'm not jus't saying that because i'm American. I'm not saying we're the smartest people in the world (look who we voted to become our president) but are you saying every American produced film is idiotic? If so, why and what makes British films better? Please enlighten us because apparently we don't know. Another thing you should do is look up the rules and politics of filmmaking because many British made films are written and produced by American companies and vise-versa. So please don't jump to conclusions and think before you say something.

Posted by: Doug on October 4, 2008 at 20:46:34

Aren't we supposed to be talking about movies? How did this turn into the Civil War?

Oh and I'm Canadian if anyone wants to insult my culture because I had the nerve to post something.

Posted by: hotzodpockets on October 4, 2008 at 20:59:32

What will the 4th film be called, 28 YEARS Later? ;)

Posted by: Robert on October 4, 2008 at 22:32:04

I honestly never saw the second one, but the first one was an awesome film. Especially for horror, one of the last decent horror films to come out the past few years. Now if we can just get Cillian Murphy involved somehow, that would be amazing.

And if we really wanna get into this, I'm American, and an aspiring filmmaker, and as far as certain comments go, I'll do what I have too to put food on the table, which means make MONEY (Ignorant comments such as that should be reconsidered given that if you had to feed your children, you wouldn't worry about winning an Oscar just yet either) and second, my work is my art, my passion, my energy and my life. Everything goes into what I create because for one, my name goes on it, and two, it represents who I am and the effort I put into it, I think most filmmakers (American or not) can say the same...Uwe Boll and select others not included. P.S. Doug, Canada is cool, can't hate on Canada....South Park does that enough.

You want to know why people make films the way they do? Pick up a science book. Better yet, pick up a sociology or psychology book. People LOVE to live vicariously through what we know isn't possible. Movies are a release, which is why things blowing up, sexy women, and exciting law-breaking stunts occur...Idk about you, but I'd LOVE to be a Lethal Weapon, or a rich playboy, or I don't know, a fact, I'm Batman.

I'm sorry, I'm American, I just... I just don't know what I'm saying, I...I can't understand the words that are coming out of my mouth, but I'm gonna go get me a 24 pack of Budweiser, go on down to the fishin' hole, catch me some catfish, then I'ma take my baby's momma, who coincidentally is also my sister on down and watch that there Nascar...Yeehaw....

Come on, give me a break. This thread is about a movie, not whose country is better.

Posted by: EMAN on October 4, 2008 at 23:50:38

if u saw the first, definitely watch the was a masterpiece in terms of zombie movies nothing else comes close.. and who cares how many they come out with as long as they are good films why not? not to mention the second was better than the first

Posted by: ico on October 5, 2008 at 00:17:59


Couldn't have said it better my self. I am also an "aspiring filmmaker" and i completely agree.

Posted by: slasher fetish on October 5, 2008 at 01:02:33

ok im also and aspiring filmmaker, in fact we are no on pre-production of a low budget horror movie in Ensenada, Baja (my home)im not gettin a lot of money, the money im gettin' from sponsors or friends its for the production, gas, and food, i m a waiter now, im really dont care how much money i make with the movie, what i really care is to the movie being done, and puttin on local theaters, ig i got a few bucks its a plus, and im not being mediocre, i just love to do this for passion and for the people that supports me, if i get 1000 dlls free for my wallet im couldnt be happier, im not starving, i will survive.

p.s. hope 28 months later its gonna kick ass as the first 2, see ya!

Posted by: ZOMBIE4PETA on October 5, 2008 at 02:34:08

Hey Doug, Canada Sucks!!!

The 28 days/weeks movies were great. I love the new take on the zombie genre. Danny Boyle is also a great director, has anyone ever heard of a little film called "Trainspotting"? and Sunshine was pretty good also.

Posted by: My Two Cents... on October 5, 2008 at 04:26:42

I agree EMAN, 28 Week Later... was better than the 1st movie. I was actually pretty impressed with it. The biggest problem i had with 28 DAYS Later... was that it stole a lot of ideas from Day of the Triffids, Dawn of the Dead, The Crazies, Day of the Dead and Resident Evil (the game, not the movie). The 2nd movie seemed fresher and i was pleasantly surprised that, unlike a lot of sequels, it wasn't just a rehash of the 1st. The director they chose, a relatively unknown Spanish director, seems to have an excellent understanding of what makes horror work. I thoroughly welcome the idea of another film in this series with a much wider-spread zombie outbreak across Europe. Pity they couldn't use the same director as 28 Weeks Later... He really seemed to know what he was doing.

Posted by: djblack1313 on October 5, 2008 at 14:33:37

Eman & My Two Cents, i totally agree w/ both of you! i really liked DAYS but i LOVE WEEKS. WEEKS is one of my top 5 movies ever. "The Cottage" wasn't bad, but i hope Paul Andrew Williams (if it turns out to be him directing) can do as good a job as Boyle or Juan Carlos Fresnadillo. My Two Cents, i too, wish that Fresnadillo was directing MONTHS. he did such an awesome job on WEEKS. i'm not complaining though. i'm just glad the movie is indeed moving forward. YAY!!

Posted by: Jakarah on October 5, 2008 at 17:00:49

I loved 28 Days, but weeks was a bit shallow in my opinion. A zombie that can think rationally is just beyond me. They are dead, and their only motivation is food, not how to strategize on getting the human, no, run and chase is all they should know. Like the 80's Dead movies "More Brains".

I do hope they go back to the one character in peril and fighting for his own life. Something to the like of the "Day of the Dead" opener. Complete chaos. Loved it.

Posted by: EMAN on October 5, 2008 at 18:05:15

thanx for the support. and yea it does suck that it wont be the same director, but hopefully he can take some of the things that worked for the second movie and incorporate them into the next one. i guess we'll have to see..

Posted by: Captain Rogaine on October 5, 2008 at 19:53:36

What? Getting past all the racist or countryist(?) stuff against Americans, Brits, Or Bajaonians... err... Bajaites... Uh... Bajaclerionites... Yeah we'll go with that... and onto the thread.

I loved the first movie and if you were drunk the second movie would be just as good. Sadly I had not been drinking at all when I watched the second one and spotted the major flaw. The plot was bad. It should not have been called JUST "28 Weeks Later" but "28 Weeks Later: When the worst case scenario that could never possibly ever happen DOES!" That movie just kept pushing and pushing that boundary. Granted when you are watching a movie about Zombies that you have to leave some realism behind but also that's what made the first one good. It felt like it could happen.

Then the second one came out and all I saw was bad and worse. The one person who was immune gets brought back. The one person who has unlimited access to the building is that persons husband. Kiss and break out and goes to the one place all the citizens are being kept at the one time they are not being guarded. Then it spreads and the military can't do anything about it. Somehow the main characters can't outrun the Zombies even though the Zombies don't know where the main characters are at but they somehow do. Bad and worse was that movie hopefully this next will make up for it. But if they are trying to find a director after this long than it's most likely bad.

Really I can't believe anybody that Weeks Later was good. Baffles my mind. It had good elements but not really.

Posted by: djblack1313 on October 5, 2008 at 21:05:40

Captain Rogaine, they haven't been looking for a director since 28 Weeks came out. it was reported just recently that Danny Boyle JUST turned in his story/ideas for 28 Months to Fox Studios. so actually they found a director in relatively short time.

Posted by: KHW on October 5, 2008 at 21:14:26

28 days later,28 weeks later,28 months later and 28 years later, I'M IN.

Posted by: slasher fetish on October 5, 2008 at 21:21:25

then 28 centuries later? or decades? lol

Posted by: scadamz on October 6, 2008 at 01:04:51

Shaun of the dead,couldn`t tell what they said(BRITISH) somtimes,fell out of my chair anyway.
Some people should keep their fingers off the keyboard,dumbass.

Posted by: olsen on October 6, 2008 at 01:20:50

The idium of jasonocas' post makes it clear that he isn't, in fact, British as suggested; merely pretending to be so in order to make a xenophobic, ignorant bash.
(The term "should of" instead of the correct "should have" is a bastardisation used in the U.S., but not the U.K. Bastardised phrases are perfectly acceptable parlance as long as they don't hinder communication- so got no fault with that- simply- it, and thus jasonocas, is not British.)
That rather silly and baffling lie from the poster aside-
to try and divide nations based on nonsensical prejudices makes fools of those who can catagorise such foolish stereotypes. There are far, far fewer differences between the sensibilitoes of a British and American audience than the cliche would lead you to believe. The difference that most significantly factors into the difference in output as far as films are concerned: simply relates to budget.
As it is so much more difficult to organise funding from a small country without a large devoted industry and infrastructure in place-
content for filming must be tailored as something that is achievable on a comparatively miniscule budget. Therefore, British films are predominantly smaller with less effect work involved.
Beyond that- the mere fact that what is successful in the States (at Box Office) is exactly the same as what is successful in the UK is the most obvious and clear indication that we all make and like the same thing.
Let's use our heads people; these sites are for movie lovers- not any kind of brainless haters!

Posted by: ico on October 6, 2008 at 01:44:16

My Two Cents...

I noticed that too. The basic plot of the first movie exactly follows the plot to the book "the Day of the Triffids", from the guy waking up in a hospital, being attacted to a building by flashing lights, being held captive by a group of people to meeting the army in an abandoned mansion, they both even end in a small cottage on a mountain top with people flying over and finding them. I still liked this movie but i didnt know anybody else who read the book who i could point it out go. I cant wait for the third one. I wonder where the plague will spread to next.

Posted by: zombie fan on October 6, 2008 at 05:55:49

i agree that 28 days later was like any other zombie/infection movie but boyle did make it different and interesting. i loved the first it is one of my favs! and it doesn't matter where you're from as long as you make a good movie. i blame this whole thing on jasonocas who made the anti brit comment. good work being a douch bag.

« Previous Page


Page 1 of 2


Total: 26 comments


Next Page »

Jump to page: 1 2

Add a comment







Security Code:   



 Remember my name/e-mail address




© 1998 - 2008 Coming Soon Media, L.P. All rights reserved. © 2004 - 2008 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All rights reserved
Not in any way associated with Crave Entertainment, Inc. or Crave Magazine®