Waitress: I really liked the way they portrayed the husband: completely unlikeable, unsympathetic, and yet, pathetic. He wasn't evil; he was a spoiled little boy throwing tantrums. He wasn't a stock "Bad Husband" character. I liked his depiction because he never beat her. He got physically violent a couple times, but he never hurt her. It's an important distinction, to me, because so many women - and their friends and family - convince themselves that abuse isn't happening because no one's being beaten. Only physical abuse, physical hurt, "counts". I've heard it said: "Well, does he hit you? Has he hurt you? No? Well, then, it can't be that bad, can it? Maybe you need to be nicer to him." This movie, and the actors, did an excellent job of showing the damage caused by emotional abuse. I'm hoping it will show some people who need to get the idea what psychological abuse is.

Earl was indeed a realistic portrayal; take my word for it. That was basically my ex. I loved it when Jenna told him to get out, but I don't believe for a second that he would actually have left her alone. But Earl stalking Jenna would have skewed off into a very different movie, so I understand why they left it alone.

I also thought I would hate the affair aspect, but I didn't; I agree that it was about Jenna learning how to be loved, and in the end, his marriage made it easier for her to choose to leave him, to go and live her own life. It also made their love affair equitable: if she had been cheating and he had not, there would have been inequality between them.

Japanese ghost-story horror movies scare the living fuck out of me.

Oh, a friend of mine told me something about PotC3 that may be important (I haven't yet seen it): He said they cut out some important exposition about how if your love waits for you for ten years, you're free of the curse and become mortal again. Does that make sense in the context of the movie? He said it made a big difference in understanding what characters were doing, and that it was dumb to cut it out.

It doesn't so much make a difference as it does recast the ending. I think they changed the story (deliberately or no) by not having that made clear.

28 Days Later made $10 million in its opening weekend. 28 Weeks Later made... $9.8 million. I'm sure they hoped it would do better, but that's not exactly a shocking decline, especially when there were 4 years between the two movies.

But shouldn't sequels open better than the first one? Because there's a built-in audience, presumably? Note that I have no idea what actually happens in general.

Arguably the built-in audience was decimated by the fact that the only the producer and editor remained between the two movies. Sequels generally make more than the original, though.

Arguably the built-in audience was decimated by the fact that the only the producer and editor remained between the two movies. Sequels generally make more than the original, though.

I thought Danny Boyle was involved from a production/story end, albeit obviously not to the extent he was with the first.

A studio can generally count on a sequel making at least half of what the previous film made. Sequels which surpass previous films are not all that common.

Danny Boyle did some second unit directing on 28 Weeks.

Who really knew that in the general public, though? Joe Public looks at the credits and doesn't see Danny Boyle in the writer or director slot and thinks it's a crappy knock-off sequel.

Yes that's exactly what I thought at first.

Joe Public looks at the credits and doesn't see Danny Boyle in the writer or director slot and thinks it's a crappy knock-off sequel.

Betchya Joe Public doesn't look at the credits, or if he does, it's not for the director.