"28 Weeks Later" Review (1 Viewer)

[Chad R]

It was a fittingly intense film that wrings the last thrills out of the premise.

It begins with a slight throwback to the time when the isle of Britain was still overrun by the rage infected masses. Holed up in a cabin with his wife and a handful of other survivors, Robert Carlyle's character Don is surviving the best he can. Until their little cottage is attacked, and he makes a choice that is very interesting and sets the whole film in motion.

Soon enough we're back in London where American forces have cleaned up the city after the last of the infected (don't call them zombies) have died of starvation. His children soon join him, they were out of the country on a school trip during the initial outbreak. And sooner enougher, the virus breaks out again.

To say how and why spoils a bit of the fun. Needless to say that it is very intense, but the whole plot and story starts to slowly collapse. Its strongest passage comes first and each additional sequence drops a bit until the last scene. There is a clever sequence where the heroes have to go through the London subway stations, in the dark, with only the scope of a sniper's rifle to guide them. It's creative, and scary, but its resolution is a little weak.

Overall, it was a good time at the movies for an afternoon, although I can't say I'm dying for another sequel, not that I was clammoring for this installment. This idea has been taken to its logical extension.

 

[Malcolm R]

"29" Weeks Later?

 

[Chad R]

Oops.

 

[Chris]

It's another sequel

I thought it was better then I expected. It's not great, but it's a lot of fun.. and it has a few good moments. There isn't a lot of pressure on this film, and so some of the moments come off as real suprises and with low expectations I had a blast.

I didn't care for the resolution that much, but it was fitting. I had hoped that they would do something like

Shoot the kid in the field

I will say, seeing it a second time later tonight with a real audience made me realize that my impression of the final subway sequence was something that wasn't just me.. there were quite a few laughs and people who didn't know if it was written to be as goofy as it was, but it sure came off that way.

:star: :star: 1/2 / :star: :star: :star: :star:

B-

 

[Shawn.F]

You could drive two trucks through the film's plot holes, but overall it wasn't that bad (considering it is a horror sequel, it could have been a lot worse). It maintained the atmosphere of dread that the first one developed so well, and the acting wasn't bad either. But I agree with Chad: they should quit while they are ahead.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

The movie start out well with the flashback sequence but quickly dies after that. Seemingly endless shots of empty streets and buildings mixed with the herky jerky shots of the affected people make for a dull movie. Very little horror and a plot that totally unravels in the last quarter.

The subway sequence was totally retarded.

I give it a 2.75 out of 5 mostly for the acting which was good. Too bad there was no story to support it.

 

[Patrick Sun]

The last 2/3 of this film feels more like a video game version of the film than a film itself. It's short on characterization, and heavy on shaky cam and mayhem, and bits of infected zombie gore throughout the last 2/3 of the film. I've always thought it was weird how the infected know not to try and feast on other infected people.

I give it 2.5 stars or a grade of C+.

 

[AaronMan]

Where is the thread for talking about the movie and using spoilers? There was a specific moment in the film where I went from enjoying it to abolutely hating it in an instant.

 

[John Doran]

they smell different. or move different. or both.

i've always thought it was weird how there was a virus that instantaneously transformed people into insanely enraged cannibals...

 

[Kevin M]

Isn't this a review thread? I don't mean to be so picky, just asking.

 

[Phil Florian]

I think since the site is currently lacking a formal review and discussion thread, I think this is it for both!

SPOILERS below (since this is combo review/discussion thread, I feel the need to mention this).

.
.
.
.



That said, I enjoyed the subway sequence. I have only visited London 1 x in my life but the Underground really left an impression on me. I have been on subways before in NYC and Chicago and other cities but the Underground has a combination of age and, well, depth that seemed to close in on me when I visited. It packed in humanity more than the NYC trains ever do, or at least it felt that way to me.

My only concern about it was that the movie had some very derivative moments. In particular, the subway scene! ;-) My favorite horror...and almost overall favorite film of the year...in 2006 was THE DESCENT. 28 WEEKS LATER... lifted that movie's wonderful "using low-light camera to navigate in the dark" scene whole cloth, even with a similar reveal. Granted, movies are obviously stealing/borrowing from each other throughout time but so close to that movie's claustrophobic scene strikes me.

The other was the helicopter-as-lawnmower scene. Again, while fun, it was used very recently in GRINDHOUSE. In this situation I can at least feel comfortable that it was parallel development since their release dates are so close but still, it didn't help the film that this scene wasn't surprising. The part that actually I didn't like about the scene was that it took me out of the movie. The rest of the film is based on the "realistic" feel. This movie strikes me as pretty close to how the military would set itself up in such a situation. Everyone's responses up 'til then fit. The snipers, the order to shoot everyone when it got out of hand, the order to firebomb the city when it got worse than that, and so on. It was all a realistic escalation on the premise. Then to have the helicopter scene, it took me out of it because this wasn't a movie where you cheered when the mean ol' zombies get chopped up (like in GRINDHOUSE) because it wasn't that kind of horror movie. To me, anyway.

As for the rest, though, I thought the movie worked. The most tense scenes were the ones that didn't have infected in it. The ones where we THINK something might go horribly wrong were some of the best scenes in the movie. That said, the sniper scene after the initial outbreak was taught and exciting, the initial scene at the cottage in the country was effective and I enjoyed the chase through the "Green Zone" on Dog Isle where the enemy was both the Infected and the US Soldier's order to destroy everything.

I thought how the virus survived was great. It made a lot of scene, biologically. This virus acts like Ebola, in a way. It is a fast-acting virus that does damage immediately but, unless mishandled, would be easy to quarantine (which is why Ebola hasn't gotten into many Western countries as other virus infections do, like HIV and so on with their slow life-cycle). The fact that the virus evolved in a way to allow itself to survive to kill another day was cool and made for a good plot twist.

So while not the most original or scary "zombie" movie (and yes, I still would argue this is a zombie movie at its heart), it is a fun ride with some interesting characters, taught and tense scenes and, like all good zombie movies, leave you something to think about regarding the world as we know it. If you liked the original I can't see why you wouldn't like this one.

 

[Kevin M]

Gotcha, thanks Phil, I wanted to say something but the "review" word and the fact that Patrick Sun had posted a review made me think twice before discussing.