free counter with statistics 28 Weeks Later | Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

28weekslater1.jpg
Come the Apocalypse

28 Weeks Later / Phillip Stephens

Film Reviews | May 13, 2007 | Comments (72)


Ideally a zombie film or, more broadly, all post-apocalyptic fare — while made evocative through its frightening conceit — should serve as an excellent springboard for human allegory. The end-of-civilization motif made popular by such authors as John Wyndham and Richard Matheson was seized by George Romero and his original zombie trilogy and used to create an excellent vehicle for satire, exploiting the disturbing pitfalls faced by the human race once the veneer of civilization was stripped away.

Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later energetically reinvented Romero’s model, using a new zombie-as-crack-addict formula and frenetic style to expand the satirical potential. Though Boyle only served as an executive producer for this sequel, director/writer Juan Carlos Fresnadillo has successfully magnified Boyle’s original idea and made a worthy, if not altogether superior follow-up, a gore-drenched anarchic vision of utter cataclysm with few comparisons for sheer nihilistic fury.

As the title suggests, the film picks up months after the original’s virus has annihilated the population of mainland Britain. An American-led NATO expedition is attempting to reclaim the country, claiming with arrogant certainty that the virus has been eliminated, and attempting to repatriate a quarantined section of London with refugees. The story follows two children, Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton) and Tammy (Imogen Poots), who were schooling in Spain when the original outbreak occurred. The kids return to London to be reunited with their father (Robert Carlyle), a survivor who, we see in a pre-credit sequence, harbors a dark secret about the death of their mother (Catherine McCormack).

Boyle’s vision in the original film, while chilling, was much more optimistic than Fresnadillo’s — Boyle found hope in the improvised family unit that formed among the small band of survivors. Fresnadillo turns this outlook on its head, depicting the devolution and destruction of a real nuclear family. When their small commune is invaded by the undead, Carlyle panics and abandons his wife to an (apparently) gruesome fate and then lies about it to the children. This is, of course, a decision that comes back to haunt them all.

But Fresnadillo’s real satirical target is much less subtle — his axe to grind is more political than social, and it is of course regarding the American military overseers. The repatriation and nation-building of American forces certainly has benevolent intentions and appearances, but the soldiers and administrators who rule over the tiny enclave, watching the inhabitants through sniper scopes and surveillance cameras, are almost as dispassionate toward their charges as the murderous infected. And when the chaos arrives, as we know it inevitably will, they prove to be equally if not more dangerous toward the inhabitants, incapable of distinguishing enemy from victim and, ultimately, becoming both unable and unwilling to bother.

Fresnadillo’s greatest achievement with 28 Weeks Later is his magnification of Boyle’s original style. The film is shot in the same grainy, digital beauty, letting us soak up the saturated vision of a destroyed or abandoned city with grimy corpses littered throughout. But where Boyle relied on slow dread and tension to magnify the horror, Fresnadillo lets the luridness of the whole enterprise do the work for him; when pandemonium breaks out, the camera bobs, the lights flicker, and the resultant carnage is flashed at for milliseconds at a time — 28 Weeks Later is an epileptic nightmare that numbs as much as it horrifies.

In this regard, the film is an aesthetic improvement over the original. Unfortunately, the writing is nowhere near as ingenuous. Fresnadillo’s characters are too often scant vehicles to move the wildly paced plot along, and his political allegory, while disturbing in its proximity to Baghdad, is a bit too bald to serve as effective commentary. But for these occasional weaknesses, the overall effect of frenetic gore and nihilistic savagery is a commanding one, and it makes 28 Weeks Later an exceptional horror film in its own right.

Phillip Stephens is the lead critic for Pajiba. He lives in Fayetteville, AR.


Georgia Rule | Pajiba Love 05/14/07



Comments

Oooh...Wyndham and Matheson...And in the first paragraph!

Consider me your fan for life.

Posted by: Jerce at May 13, 2007 12:28 PM

So, so happy to hear that this is a worthy successor; and welcome back from hacker hell.

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at May 13, 2007 12:43 PM

Wait. The little girl's name is Imogen Poots?

That poor child...

Posted by: Angel H. at May 13, 2007 1:42 PM

I am all over this. Can't wait to see it this afternoon.

Posted by: wandereraz at May 13, 2007 2:34 PM

"grainy, digital beauty"

If it was shot with a digital camera then it is called noise. Only film can have grain. 28 Days Later was shot mostly on digital. I am assuming this sequel was the same.

Posted by: Beni at May 13, 2007 2:38 PM

Mackintosh Muggleton? Who are these childrens' parents??

I don't know why, but I just read a terrible review for this movie on MSN or something. I wonder why the disparity?

Posted by: Brianne at May 13, 2007 3:14 PM

Yeah, I saw this movie last night, and I'm sorry to disagree so strongly with you Phillip, but man I thought it sucked big time. The violence and gore are very disturbing, and the movie does provide a lot to chew on visually...but the plot was too narrow, and the circumstances under which it was locomoted are completely ridiculous...who organized security at this medical base? Who leaves the infected woman in a dark room completely unguarded??? And the americanized "god damn it meet me at the fucking pick up point!" as opposed to interesting dialogue of any kind was just incredibly lame. And add it to the long list of movies that for a sequel throws in a bunch of "badasses" with guns to make it more interesting - a cheap and boring solution. At the same time though I walked out with an eerie feeling and my girlfriend was disturbed to her core..so I guess it succeeded its purpose.

Posted by: Ricky at May 13, 2007 3:43 PM

Just got back from it and "unrelenting" is a good word to describe 28 Weeks Later. The intensity of the first movie is there, as is the sudden violence that kept you on edge the first time around. The movie is very violent, nihilistic and completely humorless. Not quite on par with the original or The Descent, but still a very effective horror movie and well worth seeing.

Posted by: Rob at May 13, 2007 4:06 PM

Yes, yes, yes. I can't wait to see this! Glad to read that I won't be disappointed.

Posted by: Sharon at May 13, 2007 6:02 PM

28 Weeks Later is both mesmerising and painful to watch! The aerial shots of a deserted London are awesome but the constant tension had me jittering - especially the part in the underground with night vision. I thought 'Poots' acted particularly well out of the whole cast and I bet my bottom pajiba that there will be a third installment - the idea of thousands of frenchies getting mauled is just too delicious.

Posted by: Rosie at May 13, 2007 6:05 PM

Has the world gone completely insane? This movie was just entirely unworthy of being connected to the first. Unbelievable coincidence after unbelievable coincidence led to the downfall of humanity. Why is a pretty (my point here is that they prettied up the cast, not that pretty people can't run things effectively) 26 year old in charge of everything medical in a country where an unimaginable virus has destroyed everything? No way she would have experience with this as she hasn't even been through any major wars that she souldve been old enough to learn from (she couldn't have been old enough for the gulf war). WHy would they repopulate when there was still human waste to be incinerated? WHY LET CHILDREN HAVE ACCESS TO THE DEADLIEST WEAPON KNOWN TO MAN? I don't like to sit and askquestions about movies, but COME ON! The military is not that incompetent. Why not just fire bomb the hell out of Britain in the first place? IF THE VIRUS CAN'T JUMP SPECIES THAN WE WOULD NEVER HAVE GOTTEN THE DISEASE IN THE FIRST PLACE! I had to turn from the movie when it became so nauseatingly violent. NOT showing the blood would have been much more affective. 28 days was a movie about humanity, it was so chilling because it was realistic and entirely possible. There was comic relief (my only comic relief in 28 weeks was noticing two old ladies behind me not flinching at allat the violence.) There were two good things about thismovie, the visuals and the soundtrack. Even the virus infected people looked silly and ridiculous running and chasing after everyone. The shaky way they moved in the first movie was lost.

Posted by: j at May 13, 2007 6:20 PM

No, no, no. This is the most right-wing, pro-American movie in years. And I dug it.

There are no explicit, labored Iraq references - thank goodness. Those were a cliche from the word go. If the makers think their movie is commenting on the war, well, it isn't saying anything negative.

Without spoiling the ending, the American Soldiers are proven absolutely correct in everything they do. It's only the protagonists' constant and repeated violation of the common sense rules (OK, common sense for a zombified wasteland) that causes each and every awful development. In other words, this movie shows (intentionally or not) that American cowboyism is the answer. And it's right. Yeah, I dug it.

Posted by: KDawg at May 13, 2007 6:30 PM

I walked out of that theater with my heart in my chest, taking just a brief moment to look at the crack-heads lying outside, just to see if their eyes had not bleed over.

This had to be the most violent, piece of film I've ever seen. And yet it didn't really grasp my attention as the first one had.

Posted by: Shidedaion at May 13, 2007 6:51 PM

I'll have to admit I walked out of the theater after the movie reminded of W. C. Field's line about working with children and animals. In a way I was reminded of Children of Men, with that whole beatification of youth thing. While the soldiers may not have genuflected towards the 12-year old corpse fodder, they stopped just short.

Plot aside, I was pleased. Looking forward to 28 Months Later.

Posted by: Ray at May 13, 2007 8:52 PM

ugh, i hated it. when will shaky cam go away? i honestly had no idea who was dying or what was going on 90% of the time, and since when did the rules for the zombies change? why can the main zombie (those who have seen it, know..i dont want to spoil it for those who havent) follow these people specifically, then use a weapon to kill someone, and even kind of act conflicted about things? weird logic. also, yeah, the whole it only sticks to humans and doesnt infect anything else....pretty sure the virus came from monkeys, as shown first thing in 28 days later. the one really inspired shot in the film (a wide angle on the weird fairground place) was even OUT OF FOCUS. jesus. did anyone else feel like it ended when it was just starting? and dont get me started on the lame ending that just servs to give us an inevitable shit sequel. maan. the worst part is, 28 days later is one of my favorite films of all time, and i was incredibly excited for this. blech. for gorehounds only.

Posted by: jordan at May 13, 2007 9:13 PM

I hate most any horror film, simply for the fact that I'm too much of a wuss to sit through any of then, but 28 Days Later... was jsut so good (despite the slightly unsettling switch from a story about running away from the undead to a story about running away from the living) and so fascinating that I loved every bloody, suspenseful, gripping moment, and I am SO glad to hear that the sequel wasn't a giant mess to follow it up. Great review! It had exactly what I wanted to hear.

Posted by: annie at May 13, 2007 9:20 PM

wow, my brother and father went today and said they *hated* it: confusing, overly violent (and they both like that) and pointless. my litle brother is not at all picky about movies either--really, just having zombies run around is normally enough to satisfy him (he's 17). my dad said the whole theater reacted badly and the person behind him called it "the worst movie he had seen in his entire life." this review surprises me based on that.

Posted by: Kat... at May 13, 2007 10:16 PM

i couldn't disagree with the review more. sure, it was intense and had the same style that worked so well for 28 days later, but so much was missing. the plot was extremely messy and entirely unbelievable! i kept wondering what the writers were thinking!? the first film was so great because everything seemed plausible; the way the characters acted, the way the infected looked, the way rage devastated the country. everything fit. i left 28 weeks later completely unconvinced and angry how sloppy and poorly conceived the film was. i really loved 28 days later and i really wanted this one to be as good, but it just isn't.

Posted by: kristin at May 13, 2007 10:20 PM

"Mackintosh Muggleton" and "Imogen Poots"? Those cannot possibly be their real names. Somebody's been reading too much Harry Potter.

Posted by: magic8ball at May 13, 2007 10:43 PM

I have been waiting for you to write about this because there have been mixed reviews and I wasn't sure what to believe. I will admit to not going through the entire review because I don't want to spoil it, so you better be right!This better be 'superior' and unrelenting.
I kid. But I need someone to blame for all the terrible movies that I watch (even if you have said they were terrible and I watched them nonetheless.).

Posted by: Samantha at May 13, 2007 11:44 PM

I agree almost entirely with the review. The movie was utterly horrifying and brutal. Easily the scariest zombie movie yet.

Some of you criticized the plot, but there's no formula for what's supposed to happen when zombies attack.

The handcam thrashes a bit much at times, so I'd recommend sitting a safe distance from the screen.
But on the whole, I was more than satisfied.

Posted by: Scott at May 14, 2007 12:08 AM

After seeing it Friday I have to say, don't watch this anywhere near the front of the screen. I got through the Blair Witch Project fine, but by the end of this I had a huge migraine.


Okay as far as zombie movies go, but there was no shortage of plot holes.

-----------------------------------SPOILERS--- -------------------------------------------------


Aside from what was already pointed out: How the hell did the mother manage to get away? And with only a few bite marks? They lock up the civilians and completely forget about the backdoor? Was there even a lock on that thing? I realize you need stupid people to make a horror movie work, but there were just too many.

Posted by: gravyboat at May 14, 2007 12:58 AM

I didn't see the 'days' one.

I just saw this one, (weeks).

Had they cut it down by about a half hour,
I'd really have few complaints.

Yes, the Hot Bio Chemist Babe is a shameless stock
character- but somehow it didn't matter. Same with the American Sniper With A Heart of Gold.

Perhaps because the opening sequence- the viceral violence and the moral failure, and the follow up- the scene of the Dad talking about it with the kids, with the daughter looking at him with those eyes subconsciously rendering their damning judgement, were so gut wrenching, I tend to cut the film slack for its obvious stupidities.

And while it is a relentlessly pommeling experience, the movie contains moments of exquisite quiet. In particular, the night scenes with the new redeemed family walking through empty London- the indescribable mood of the experience is created out of nothing by a brilliant series of unassuming, near-silent images that simply nailed it, one after another.

Really great movie; awful experience to sit through, though.

Posted by: landru at May 14, 2007 2:23 AM

Maybe you were watching a different version of this movie than I was Stephens because I thought that it sucked. I generally love all zombie movies - its my thing - even the shitty 80s ones and I'm a massive fan of 28 Days Later. This had some great ideas for scenes that just weren't held together by a decvent story, script or performances. The makers obviously watched the first movie and thought 'ooh wouldn't it be cool if there were like snipers shooting at the infected or something? Lets do that!And remeber that bit in the Descent with the night vision? Lets do that with Zombies it'll rock.' Well it didn't. I was massively disappointed. My feelings were probably best summed up by my girlfriend - whom I have been teaching to love zombie flicks. After we alked out she just said 'Shit, I wish we'd been watching Dawn of the Dead.'

Posted by: The Chief at May 14, 2007 8:14 AM

The review/comments have done nothing to edge me out of my dilemma about whether or not even to see this. Ever. I loved the first one so much, and--Carlyle aside--the trailer for this one shows me a version of 28 Days Later with all the care and characterization sucked right out of it.

Also, I'm confused--the first film (I thought!) suggests that Continental Europe is also pretty much wiped out--how could the kids be any safer in Spain? Isn't that an Icelandic rescue plane that picks up the survivors at the end of the first film? (it's definitely a Scandinavian language, but my Norwegian is rusty and I can't distinguish them anymore). Someone guide me through this, please.

Posted by: Ranylt at May 14, 2007 9:01 AM

"Mainland Britain"? You do know that Britain is an island nation, right?

Posted by: Tatertot at May 14, 2007 9:31 AM

Ranylt, I believe in the first one, Cillian's friends said that there were reports of infection in Paris and New York right before the news went off the air, so it was left open whether those places were destroyed. (Since there was money to be made by the producers, Paris and New York were saved, hurray!!) But the origin of the rescue plane (and lack of other flyover or radio contact from anywhere) did seem to indicate that most of civilization had been overrun. If NATO was still there, you'd think they would be flying surveillance planes over Britain constantly during the "28 days later" after the breakout -- in fact, I think the NATO charter would have required that kind of assistance.

As my only movie business friend likes to say about implausible plot devices: "Of course it makes sense; it's in the script!"

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at May 14, 2007 9:57 AM

First thing: they're not "zombies", technically. Zombies are reanimated corpses, these people were infected living. Second, I completely agree about the biochemist chick, who was apparently a major, a rank that usually takes ten to fifteen years to attain, after six to eight years of med school. That nagged at me all through the film.

Third, I found the level of violence effectively chilling (shaky camera aside,) but the most disturbing thing about this movie was the audience that laughed every time someone (infected or not) was shot, mauled, burned, or otherwise horribly mutilated. Maybe that's the real message here.

Posted by: Nate at May 14, 2007 10:04 AM

Tatertot: The Americans in the film also referred to "mainland Britain" so either the Hebrides were disease-free or the script-writer was trying to put Anglo-Irish relations back fifty years!
Nonetheless, I liked this movie very much (Mr. PaddyDog, not so much). Oddly enough I didn't get a Baghdad vibe from it really. It was much more of a New Orleans thing to me...rooftops with messages on them, people herded into an enclosure where they didn't want to be, military trying to keep order but then having panic set in, etc.
Yes, the plot was quite thin, but maybe they had to put the young pretty doc heading things up in London because all the more senior people were still bogged down in Iraq!

Posted by: PaddyDog at May 14, 2007 10:27 AM

"Mainland Britain"? You do know that Britain is an island nation, right?"

Umm... and the Shetland Isles, the Scilly Isles, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, etc - even Northern Ireland would all count as what exactly? Certainly not 'mainland Britain'.

Posted by: Wandring_Soul at May 14, 2007 11:09 AM

"Shetland Isles, the Scilly Isles, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight...would all count as what exactly"

They're islands, too. Hence the use of the word "isle". As in "British Isles".

Look, I don't want to get into a pissing contest over this, but since the Brits consider themselves an island nation and refer to Europe as the mainland, I think they might actually know better on this subject.

Oh, and Northern Island is actually physically part (if not politically part) of another island nation called "Ireland".

Posted by: Tatertot at May 14, 2007 11:43 AM

Loved this movie- it was so intense I think I was holding my breath most of the time.

My bf & I had a lively discussion about our 'contingency plan' should we ever need to fight off infected zombies. (Break into the gun mega-store 1st). He asked me If I'd be able to shoot him if he turned zombie, and I said, "yup". "That's my girl!" he says proudly.

I hadn't thought about the fact that they were saying that the virus doesn't species-jump (when it came from monkeys in the original), but isn't that the same as HIV? If I am totally dumb, sorry.

**********************Semi-Spoilers************


My one caveat with the movie was that the Dad's "AAA" access card really was all access- into any and all parts of the military compound.

Other than that, I employeed my willing suspension of disbelief for other discrepencies and just enjoyed the ride.

I don't know why, but I really dig the music.

The funniest part of the entire movie, though, was at the final scene, when the guy sitting in front of me yells, "Damn right, it's France!!!"
(I live in Texas)

Posted by: slc at May 14, 2007 11:46 AM

28 Days Later is one of my favorites...and I mean top ten. So no matter what, I had to see the sequel. See, I'm of the mind that they can screw up a sequel all they want...it will never affect my love for the first movie. It's a seperate entity to me.
28 Weeks Later was great. No, it doesn't come anywhere close to the amazingness that was the original. It is, however, a worthy sequel. Some things annoyed me, and they've all been mentioned. But it didn't affect my overall opinion of the movie which is that it did the job.
----itsy bitsy spoiler that's already been spoiled-----
Nevertheless, I'm so disappointed that they are going to make another (come on, with that ending?) because I know I have to see it and I know it will suck. My (British) boyfriend had the same reaction to the ending as many others..."Hahaha...f*ck the French!"

Posted by: jamie at May 14, 2007 12:28 PM

Loved, loved, loved the movie. Shows how we are all screwed if an epidemic breaks out.

Posted by: xxx at May 14, 2007 1:09 PM

Yeah....the review ehre is totally wrong in every way possible. This film does a great disservice to the genius in 28 Days. And Why did they kill off the best actor in the movie so soon(The Father)??? I didnt get that. And why does he keep showing up throughout the film? That was just silly. And the zombies were a bit more silly this time around in that the blood was almost in excess when they were vomiting it up. I will say though that Imogen Poots was friggin way hot. SO if I have to sit through a so so gore flick to watch those eyes, its a small price to pay. She's 18 right?

Posted by: Mat at May 14, 2007 1:14 PM

I'm sorry, I couldn't get past the names Mackintosh Muggleton and Imogen Poots. I'm still sitting at my desk attempting to get my laughter under control. Do these children hail from the magical land of Hogwarts??

Posted by: DollyLlama at May 14, 2007 1:20 PM

This movie is worth the $10.50 if only for the scene of the helicopter mowing down a fieldful of zobmies. Spectacular!

The 1st scene is fantastic as well.

Posted by: RicaB at May 14, 2007 1:21 PM

I saw this movie Sunday afternoon and absolutely loved. I more or less agree with this review.

My only nitpick was the father seemingly stalking the kids and finally attacking at the end. That's just not how the infected behave.

For all the people who criticize the security breakdowns as a plot hole:

I think it demonstrates the arrogance of the military in believing the infection was contained and there was no way it could come from the inside. After all, the infection took hold immediately so there was no chance of inadvertantly letting one in, right? As my roommate said at the end. Security was great as long as no one opened the door from the inside. And lo and behold, a kid who has never had first hand experience with the infected, sees his dad and lets him in. It's entropy at it's finest. A giant fuck you to those who think you can impose order on nature.

Posted by: Babypants at May 14, 2007 3:07 PM

If i see another movie this summer where a helicopter's rotor blades are used as a weapon while mid-flight, someone is getting the shit slapped out of them.
In what universe does this make sense?

Also no offense, but when your cameraman has full blown Parkinsons... it's time to let him go.

Posted by: Scott at May 14, 2007 3:40 PM

Fresnadillo has successfully magnified Boyle's original idea and made a worthy, if not altogether superior follow-up, a gore-drenched anarchic vision of utter cataclysm with few comparisons for sheer nihilistic fury.



Is it superior....



Unfortunately, the writing is nowhere near as ingenuous. Fresnadillo's characters are too often scant vehicles to move the wildly paced plot along, and his political allegory, while disturbing in its proximity to Baghdad, is a bit too bald to serve as effective commentary.



Or is it weaker? I'm confused. Either way, this one was made for profit, and I'm so sick of money-grubbing sequels.

Posted by: Ariel at May 14, 2007 3:57 PM

Oops.....sorry for the craaaaazy spacing. I still can't get the hang of HTML.

Posted by: Ariel at May 14, 2007 3:58 PM

"Also no offense, but when your cameraman has full blown Parkinsons... it's time to let him go."
Scott, I know it was wrong but I laughed! A lot!

Posted by: Trixie at May 14, 2007 4:31 PM

This is the first positive review I've read about this movie.

Posted by: Candy at May 14, 2007 4:33 PM

it's a Finnish fighter plane at the end of 28 days later that finds them, the guy says 'Lähettäkää helikopteri' if I remember correctly, and that means 'Send the helicopter'.

Brought to you by your token Finnish reader.

And unsure of weather to see the new installment, as 28 days was awesomesauce, and this one getting people equally loving and hating it...

Posted by: Mirri at May 14, 2007 4:57 PM

"This movie is worth the $10.50 if only for the scene of the helicopter mowing down a fieldful of zobmies. Spectacular!"



Spectacular maybe in Grindhouse, where it was meant to be over the top and fit right in with the tone of the movie. Not so much here, where it was just another whiz-bang set piece existing to try and cover up the fact that the movie had nothing to say and was such a far cry from the original.



It certainly was intense and scary, but it didn't take long after it was over for me to go, "wait a minute...that SUCKED." Everything that's been mentioned before - plot holes, the hugely overused Plot Moved Forward by Idiot Character's Stupid Decision device, and all the story tie-ins and "coincidences" served to make this such a far cry from the original.


As for the shaky camera work, in the original (I saw it again last night) it was used far less often and more effectively. Here it was just amped up way too much, to the point where it became obvious that it was only being employed to serve as a substitute for spending money and effort on better-crafted scenes.


Such a shame, because the story line had some potential and there were some truly magnificent scenes stuck in there, but nothing close to enough to save the movie in my view.

Posted by: kristuphir at May 14, 2007 5:01 PM

No- gotta agree with most of the rabble-horde down here in comments: this one sucked.

Posted by: Bunny at May 14, 2007 5:15 PM

I thought this movie sucked. The characters made one stupid choice after another. The plot was ridiculous and KDawg is right. For a movie that is blatantly anti American military, why does it turn out that if they had succeeded in their plan the rest of the world would have been saved? Yes, the plan was morally repugnant but would have saved millions of other lives if completely carried out. Surely, the ending must have been tacked on for another sequel as it negated the entire message they were trying to make!

Posted by: Kate at May 14, 2007 5:32 PM

socalledonlycousins - thanks for confirming my suspicions re. back$crabbling blunder. ;)

Mirri - Thanks for IDing the language--I was hoping someone like you would show up.

Posted by: Ranylt at May 14, 2007 5:42 PM

I just don't get how so many people saw this as an anti-US military film, and believe me, I am a lefty, liberal who usually loves to find fault with US military tactics. What I saw in this film was a typical plan to deal with a possible escalation scenario that required extreme measures if the worst were to happen (i.e., losing control). This is actually normal procedure in the scenario planning of EIS (the Epidemiological Intelligence Service) in the event of a catastrophic infectious disease. But what happened here was that there were several individuals who didn't have the stomach to carry out what seemed to them to be something too extreme. The outcome was that the virus was not ultimately contained. But the military did nothing evil or uncalled for in the circumstances.

Posted by: PaddyDog at May 14, 2007 6:12 PM

I still an't believe anyone liked this. If I were to take it as a stock horror film without seeing the original, then I can totally see the positive. It just wasn't very well put together or thought out. I hate adult movies with children (as main) too. Children tend to ruin everything---it's been done to death. I saw the movie outbreak when I was maybe 9 and that would've been enough to convince me not to go wonder into a previously diseased city if I had strict orders not to. Instead of enjoying the movie, I was frustrated at the kids the whole time. The beginning was good as was the soundtrack and sweeping city caps. But the infected looked very fake. It replaced rawness with gore and brutality--such a shame of a movie.

Posted by: jac at May 14, 2007 8:10 PM

you girls complain about everything, at least travolta or larry the cable guy wasn`t in it..

Posted by: pasadenamike at May 14, 2007 11:19 PM

28 weeks is to 28 days what aliens was to alien.

Posted by: nic at May 15, 2007 10:19 AM

Right, except for the part where *Aliens* was an excellent action movie with scads of character development, strong and dynamic main AND supporting characters, and humor and wit in both its dialogue and construction.

I think "frenetic gore and nihilistic savagery" is the LEAST one can expect from a horror movie. I fail to see how it renders a film--especially a horror film--"exceptional": even the shorts you can only get on YouTube about nuns have THAT.

So I'm a little confused: if the characters are "scant vehicles," the plot is "wildly paced" and artificially driven, and the style is "a bit too bald" to provide "effective commentary"--how exactly is this a good movie, again?

Posted by: The Scarlet Pervygirl at May 16, 2007 1:58 AM

Muggleton and Poots: Looks like M's finally naming her boobs.

Posted by: M at May 16, 2007 9:40 AM

I agree with Ricky. It was a disturbing film - my girlfriend didn't make it past the first twenty minutes (and left in favor of catching an hour of Spiderman 3), but that doesn't make it a great film, certainly not better than the first as suggested. The plot was thin, and I have to say, when the father breaks into the military facility with his "janitor key" to see his wife, and ultimately repopulate the Rage virus, I nearly laughed out loud. For a chilling film dealing with one of the more terrifying prospects in life - leaving your wife behind to save your own ass - it might have helped to make some of the other elements vaguely believable.

I did love the Blair Witch underground tunnel scene where they raced through corpses in total darkness. And I appreciate the inherent horror in showing the violence in epileptic fits of crazy camera work, which is far scarier than the typical slash and gore of mainstream horror.

But overall, I would say watch 28 Days Later, and pretend like that is the end. I am certainly not interested in joining the producers in France in two years...

Posted by: Robby at May 16, 2007 10:34 AM

I can't add much that hasn't already been said - the movie was great visually and the desired dread and intensity was achieved, but the plot seemed like an afterthought, which was the opposite of 28 Days Later, the superior, by far, movie of the two.

As for the person getting bent over "British mainland" - that is a correct term for England, Scotland and Wales, whether GB is an island or not. The islands - Isle of Wight, Orkney, Isle of Man etc., etc would definitely consider it the British Mainland. As a Brit you should know that, moron. I'm a Brit too incidentally.

Posted by: ZGB at May 16, 2007 12:25 PM

i really enjoyed this movie i did have a few things that i did not like about it but in all it was pretty good an excellent viral outbreak movie(not zombie they are still alive and can die from a shot to the chest the only way to kill a zombie is massive head trauma)and i loved your review of it very spot on

Posted by: mystro at May 17, 2007 12:55 PM

Bit of advice... lay off the crack pipe.

Honestly, is anyone surprised? I looked at my husband the moment I head about a second film, and literally said "why the fuck would they do that?"

Answer: $$$$$$$$$$$$

But they shall not have mine.

Posted by: Theresa at May 17, 2007 7:41 PM

"Honestly, is anyone surprised? I looked at my husband the moment I head about a second film, and literally said "why the fuck would they do that?"

Answer: $$$$$$$$$$$$"

Why do they make any film?

Answer: $$$$$$$$$$$$. The key to enjoying this film is to sit back and suspend belief. Then nitpick it to death in the pub afterwards.

Posted by: JO at May 19, 2007 2:03 AM

Here's my contribution to the list of crippling implausibilities, considerably after the fact.

Even if, in complete suspension of disbelief and all intimations of common sense, the father had a swipe card that would allow him to gain access to what should have been the single most secure room in the whole compound, how did he manage to get out!?

The father, infected with the Rage virus that renders all brain functions higher than, say, face-eating useless, used a fucking swipe card?

You're on my list, Juan.

Posted by: Brett at May 20, 2007 8:03 PM

Any political allegory in the film falls pretty flat. In such a scenario ( instantly virulent and incurable infection that destroys higher brain function and is 100% fatal, turning its victims into aggressive vectors of its spread ) the only possible response would be a slash and burn policy, including a shoot-to-kill quarantine. To see this as allegory for anything in the real world stretches credulity, though of course one can see nods to current events and themes. Though I do maintain that this is a good film, but more effective at the gut rather than cerebral level.

www.postmodernspectator.com

Posted by: David at May 25, 2007 6:38 PM

I apologize for the rambling nature of my post, but I'm responding to several comments.

Ranylt, I believe in the first one, Cillian's friends said that there were reports of infection in Paris and New York right before the news went off the air, so it was left open whether those places were destroyed. (Since there was money to be made by the producers, Paris and New York were saved, hurray!!) But the origin of the rescue plane (and lack of other flyover or radio contact from anywhere) did seem to indicate that most of civilization had been overrun.

Actually, those news reports that Selena says were broadcast were false; they were trying to keep people from leaving England so that the virus would be contained. The soldier tells Jim toward the end that the island was actually quarantined. Then a bit later, when Jim is running from the soldiers, he takes a dive and looks up to see a plane flying, so in fact life was going along as usual outside of England.

Somebody else asked a question about the virus not species-jumping: I suspect that's why the apes were used in 28 Days Later -- while it's not specifically stated in the film, technically humans are just highly evolved primates, so we would be the exception to the rule. It makes sense too, if you think about it -- apes infected humans, but the human infected couldn't do anything to other species; only kill them. There's a couple of examples in 28 Days: (1) It's apparent in the scene when Frank gets infected at the roadblock but the crow doesn't. (2) When Jim and Co. were in the Tunnel in 28 Days, the rats were running away from the infected, but they didn't seem to have the virus themselves.

To 28 Weeks Later:
The mother managed to get away because she had some kind of genetic anomaly that made her immune to the virus, but she was still a carrier. Obvious plot device, but it's plausible.

I was also reminded of New Orleans with the signs painted on houses and such, but I think there's definite commentary or inferences to Iraq. The U.S. arrogantly sends in the military, anticipating a quick fix to a horrible situation and ultimately ends up making everything worse with no solution to the problem in sight. Their efforts to contain the virus after it starts up again fails, and the problem/conflict spreads to another country. Read: the U.S. wanting to scrap it up with Iran next, but it will just be another big mess we can't extricate ourselves from. I could be reaching, though.

That said, I really liked 28 Weeks. I don't think it was as strong a film as the first, sequels almost never are, but I enjoyed it anyway, plot holes and all. I was kinda mad, though, that Catherine McCormack's character died so soon -- I was really hoping she'd suddenly go apeshit, break her constraints and beat the hell out of the husband for ditching her.

Posted by: Donna at May 26, 2007 2:13 AM

I thought this was a boring movie. I thought 28 Days Later was much better as I actually cared about what happened about the characters. However, with 28 Weeks Later I couldn't have cared less about the two kids. In fact I willed them both dead in the hope we would be presented with some more interesting characters. The ending was predictable, the film was too long bordering on tedium.

Posted by: Germeze at May 27, 2007 12:50 PM

This was what my friends and I saw Memorial Day weekend and I gotta say, I thought it was even better than the first one. We figure that the next installment should be called "28 Months Later: The French Get Even Ruder."

Posted by: Kris at May 29, 2007 6:28 PM

The biggest problem I have is what the fuck do the "infected" eat, I know they are suppose to eat humans, but they don´t seem to show any interest in eating them, just bitting and vommiting blood on them. And they are constanly moving, running and such stuff that would mean they need a whole lot of food. They say they starved to death in the days leading up to 28 weeks.
This is one of the things I dislike about all thease "new age" zombies ( I know that they are tecnicaly not zombies in 28) the dawn of the dead remake did the same thing, a person who has been dead for some time is stiff and rigged wich explanes the slow moving, and once they get one of you they eat him up. They don´t just run around on trak record speed biting and vommiting on everyone they see. imo.

Posted by: 13thDuke at June 5, 2007 1:24 PM

I have to agree with a great number of the above posters. This movie's plot had some incredible plot holes, and weak story.

Since the kids were kids, they were allowed to be incredibly stupid, then the generic soldiers that disobeyed orders, and the doctor who didn't know how to use a gun, then the running with wounded that still was faster than a group of high speed pseudo zombies (possibly since the virus was dubbed as the rage virus, it would give reference to what a human body could acomplish if it was set to permanently 'full out' mode, as stupid as that sounds), then a number of other plot holes, one glaring one was, 'how the f*** did the father get through doors in a "secured" compound if he was (and since the virus is called rage, so I have to use anger references), angry to use his key card?' (If you watched this movie, you are aware just how many security points that the father had to go through, and why didn't such a 'secure' millitary force not set up a way to observe their immune carrier (the mom)).

Seriously, plot holes like this just ruined large chunks of the movie for me. This movie just seemed more of a 'how stupid people ruin the world' setup. I don't actually believe this movie was any slander against the american millitary (or gov't for that matter).

This movie is to 28 days later what alien 3 was to alien(s). A way to ruin a series by killing off all of the great reasons to watch it (weak storyline, massive plotholes, etc.).

I will have to say that seeing zombies run through Paris was very funny (and even though it is 'wrong' to be pollitically incorect) I got quite a good laugh out of seeing a country with no real millitary prowess (historically), have a bunch of zombies run around.

Posted by: Flyz at July 23, 2007 5:01 AM

i am insane with 28 weeks later.i even know some people who knows imogen and mackintosh.i have the biggest crush on mack.he is so cute and i will let nothing get in the way of that.i wish i knew him. it feels wierd not knowing him.i wish people could feel how i feel.i love this movie to the death!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: nyla at October 11, 2007 9:57 PM

imogen is cool too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: nyla at October 11, 2007 9:59 PM

ths movie is #1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: nyla at October 11, 2007 10:01 PM

"I will have to say that seeing zombies run through Paris was very funny (and even though it is 'wrong' to be pollitically incorect) I got quite a good laugh out of seeing a country with no real millitary prowess (historically), have a bunch of zombies run around"

Uh Right. But what about that French(originally Corsican) guy named Napleon? I thought he and France displayed some historical miltary prowess circa 1799-1815?

Posted by: Michael E Johnson at October 24, 2007 7:05 PM

I just attempted to watch this movie. I say attempted because I turned it off about half an hour in due to frustration. In the first half an hour, there were at least four HUGE plot holes:

1. What kid on this planet says to themselves "Ok, I know mom was killed by raging infected people and the military has locked us in here because they haven't cleaned up all the blood and guts out there...Hey! Let's go find our old house!"

2. "Ok, there's a dead body over there that was probably previously an infected guy...it's probably safe to grab a helmet off of his head and stick it on my little brother."

3. The fact that any child could sneak through a military checkpoint that easily is absurd enough to warrant never watching this movie. The fact that they were spotted and still managed to make it all the way to their home is icing on the cake.

4. Ok, forget the fact that the dad has an all access pass to secure military areas...forget the fact that after he becomes infected he was able to operate the key card on the door and get back outside...but there is an infected survivor sitting in a room in an area of the compound with no guard or supervision of any kind?!

I agree that this movie was anti-US Military. They are portrayed to be so incompetent it's not even funny.

Posted by: Jim at November 3, 2007 12:33 AM

***************SPOILER**********************************
*****************************SPOILER********************
I didn't get what happened at the end. Why was there the helicopter (?) there with the kid's drawing and the radio squawking? Are they trying to say that the kid did go zombie in the end and kill his sister and the pilot, or what? Or, as they show in the final shots, (possibly) did the zombies get to France by running through the Chunnel?
I thought it was pretty unclear....anyone else have any thoughts????

Posted by: Becky at November 3, 2007 1:09 AM