>>25640972 having low expectations is the only way to approach these things

The first movie was good and the second had a good intro, and the original guys are back directing

28 weeks later was kinda shit but it was made by different people

I haven't even seen all the other "28" movies, I assume this will be shit too

trailer is good

>>25641047 the first was a legitimately good low budget film, it redefined the zombie genre and had a unique guerrilla marketing campaign I remember joining online and handing out discs at uni with the opening church scene however, like the matrix, it's not as impactful if you watch it nearly three decades later

only saw the first, I'm sick of Rafe Fines, didn't know they were making it pass

yes

>>25641069 > a legitimately good low budget film The only good low budget film I've seen is Clerks. > however, like the matrix, it's not as impactful if you watch it nearly three decades later Matrix is still good, aged much better than many 90s movies.

Its a modern movie: whyte man bad, strong women, niggers, faggots, killing blow for the ip, the end. 8/10 t. IMDB™

>>25641154 There was a film that caught my eye but then I saw the director was a nigger, if niggers feature prominently I won’t watch this

>coming soon usually means 2-15 years, so no.