28 Weeks Later

[SOC]

Every so often, a sequel comes along that is better than the original. Yes, I know, it's a rare event, but it does happen — just look at The Godfather Part II, The Empire Strikes Back and Terminator II: Judgment Day, to name but three. And now you can add to that list 28 Weeks Later, the ferociously brilliant follow-up to Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later.

But it's not just a follow-up as such; Spanish writer/director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo takes the ideas from the original and adds a whole fresh layer, moving the story in a different, far bleaker direction. It opens with a pre-credit sequence set during the initial plague. Married couple Don and Alice (Robert Carlyle and Catherine McCormack) are holed up in house in the English countryside, along with a handful of other survivors. Their two children, Tammy and Andy (Imogen Poots and Mackintosh Muggleton), are on a school camping trip in Spain, safely away from the horror unfolding across the UK. The house is suddenly overrun with infected; Don gets away, leaving behind his wife, who he assumes is dead.

Jump forward six months. The Rage virus has run its course and been erradicated. Mainland Britain is virtualy devoid of human life — there's a small colony, under the tight control of the US Army, at London's Canary Wharf, which has been sealed off as a safe zone. As the refugees are brought back to London, Don is reunited with his children — and, soon after, the wife he's left for dead. Of course, not everything is as rosy as it seems. Thanks to a genetic mutation, Alice is immune to the Rage virus. But she's a carrier, and as you'd expect (thanks partly to the typical incompetance of the US Army) there's a fresh outbreak that spreads at lightening speed. And that's pretty much the plot in a nutshell. Mum's dead, Dad's a homicidal zombie and Rage is quickly taking over the remaining survivors, so with the help of a couple of soldiers (Rose Byrne and Jeremy Renner), Tammy and Andy head into deserted London. The plan is to hook up with helicopter pilot Flynn (LOST's Harold Perrineau) in Regents Park and fly to the continent. But first they have to survive.

28 Weeks Later is one of the best horror films to come along in years. It's beautifully shot and edited, fast paced, well acted and, best of all, genuinely scary — a rare feat these days. There are some wonderful set pieces — the firebombing of Canary wharf, and a lovely scene (reminiscent of George Romero's Dawn of the Dead) with chopper pilot Flynn mowing through a mob of infected at Regents Park — along with topical political allegory (the US in Iraq) and a surprisingly downbeat ending. I can't wait to see 28 Months Later.

[pleed]

Sounds promising, hopefully just as good as the 1st one. Can't wait to see it.

[Haggisboy]

Gotta agree with SOC here. My only regret is having read advance reviews and knowing key plot points ahead of time. I think I would have enjoyed it even more if I hadn't. The only downside, and it's really a minor one, is that the viewer is told that the rage virus has run its course and that all the infected have died of starvation, so when the two kids decide to slip out of the restricted zone and into greater London to visit their old home, the tension is lost as there is no fear that a zombie/infected will come after them.

Overall, a terrifically worthy follow-up to a terrific original. You've got to hand it to the Brits when it comes to making top quality, bone-chilling horror.

[Munchkin]

I really liked the film, and it certainly didn't finish with that glimmer of hope like the first film did . I did rather like the helicopter scene. I thought that I might not feel as on edge as I did in the first one, but some of the shit that happened did make me shiver (hate the eyeball pushing thing!)

[Several-Ninjas]

Story: Weak. Zombies are living dead: Not infected. 5

Plot: Entirely awesome, paves way for much brutality and even a scene where woman and children (non infected) run head first into a .50 cal mounted machine gun opened up on them as they flee a zombie infested building. DUGGA DUGGA DUGGA! How do you shot women and children?! Its easy! Just don't lead em so much! 10

Visuals: Some of the best seen in a Zombie romp so far. Although the zombies themselves are still not quite as shit-hot scary as Dawn of the Dead 2004. 8

Wow Factor: Many scenes will have squeemish people looking away, or even leaving the film I could imagine. You get to know a character just long enough to like/hate them before they have their eyeballs thumbed out. The sound and visual presentation really bring it all home. 9

Crap Level: Non-existent. OK I gave a 1 because well, I can't really say without spoiling the story for you. 1

Overall Rating: 9? NINE! Not quite Dawn of the Dead 2004, but fucking hot-damn it was an AWESOME movie. 9

[StrungOut]

pretty much exactly agree with Several-Ninjas, hits just about everything on the head. really is alot better than the first movie, an with some parts i dont know if scary is the word but more of gross/squeemish, which you see straight away from when the infected return through the dad as said earlier. great to see him go from the full monty into a movie like this an do a great job

[SOC]

Story: Weak. Zombies are living dead: Not infected. 5

Um... what do zombies have to do with anything? This isn't a zombie movie...

[That Bloke]

Um... what do zombies have to do with anything? This isn't a zombie movie...

Exactly what I was going to say, when 28 days later came out some hype had said it was a Zombie flick but it never was, these are living people turned to vicious animals.

[ezer]

i must say, i saw this the day it came out, having not seen the original (saw that 3 days later) and it did well to bring me up to speed.

that being said, it had shithouse character development and an overly predictable plot with some holes you could fly that chopper through.

on the otherhand, its a great improvement on similar movies, i especially ejoy the speed of the infection and of the infected. none of this slowly hobbling around bs. its also amusing watching the portrayal of an incompetant us army.

but again i found the whole thing predictable and while there were parts that sure surprised me, i didnt find it scary, but meh, the people next to me did.

oh yeah, firebombing canary warf won this movie many points, along with the senseless slaughter of so many.

[drrevenge]

Although both movies do feature the Rage virus, I think that's the only similarity between the two (although the music does seem to be the same from both.)

The first movie was a zombie movie (don't get caught up on symantics people. It kills people and then reanimates the body. That's a zombie as far as I'm concerned.), but a character development movie.

This one is more a zombie movie with action. I think both are just as good as each other, but in different ways.

Unfortunately I thought the ending was a little predictable (the part about brother and sister, not the after the chopper stuff (trying to avoid spoilers. :) )

Cheers
Dr. Revenge

[That Bloke]

The first movie was a zombie movie (don't get caught up on symantics people. It kills people and then reanimates the body. That's a zombie as far as I'm concerned.),e

It doesn't kill them at all, that is the point everyone is making, at no point in the first movie are they shown to die(nor is it ever suggested), they just turn wild.

[chris_F]

Like the first one, the imagery of a deserted english city was chilling. Some powerful visuals in this movie, pretty damn good as far as zombie movies go

[annie]

I just came back from seeing this, and I thought it was pretty damn good. I enjoyed 28 days later, but I'm not sure if I would say this is better than, but I wouldn't say worse than either.

The visuals were amazing (line of infected on top of the hill!!), as others have said the firebombing and helicopter scenes were very cool.
I found the soundtrack really lifted it, as it did in 28 days later. Some scenes made me jump (in the subway) although it was expected.

[wenches.inc]

I only saw 28 Weeks Later a few weeks ago. I have to say I don't think it was quite as good as 28 Days Later but close. Perhaps it was because I was alone when I saw the first one and had someone else at least in the house when I watched 28 Weeks Later. You're right about the pace, flat out. Bring on 28 Months Later!

[Cpt Jellybean]

I saw this just a bit ago and was surprised by how fast it moved and the gore.

I think the franchise is doing well with this sequel.

I liked it but it was a full ON ride.

[Lurgen]

I wrote this response somehow thinking the thread was about the first film. It isn't. So I updated it.

28 weeks later felt like the typical holywood attempt to follow up a brilliant semi-independent film. Sure, they managed to capture a bit of the atmosphere from the first one but the "safe" city felt more like something out of Minority Report, than an temporary safe-haven. Mind you, it was amusing to see they'd kept the military force realistic... unable to defend jack shit, and underestimating the bleeding obvious at every opportunity.

It was nowhere near as good as the first movie, but that's a little bit unfair. The first was brilliant, so the second had a lot to live up to.

And now for my original comments about the first one...

For a lower-budget film that clearly had no interest in being "mainstream", 28 Days Later truly managed to surprise me. As Cpt Jellybean points out, it most incredibly fast, and as everybody who ever sees it says, the visuals of a deserted and dead London are plain freaky. I saw the film immediately after my first ever visit to England, and had a lot of trouble accepting that they could have actually shot it on location - to see the place empty like that was enough to set my teeth on edge for the entire film.

As far as zombie flicks go, this has to be my second-favourite of them all. Partly because it was so damned convincing. The location, people, and the element of fear that you start thinking might actually be geniune - did the director somehow get the actors so caught up in the whole thing that they started feeling the fear themselves? But largely because they weren't zombies. They weren't anything like the traditional definition of zombie... they were fast, smart, effective.

Oh, and my favourite zombie flick? Shaun of the Dead. So sue me.

[biomechanic]

An awful movie, I cringed whilst watching it. Nothing beats Danny Boyle's original for tension, excitement, and horror. It gets a Fail out of 10 from me.

[Kyle]

While the story isn't as collected and intricate as the original, I really enjoyed this iteration of the series. I'd even say it was better than the first.

It's sort of a weird thing because I think the original has more merit when it comes to storyline, but I can't really watch that one more than once in a month. Lots of downtime and if you've already seen the story, it's not as riveting. 28 Weeks, however, is one of those films I could watch over and over and not really get bored with it.

[motherduck]

I still prefer the first but that's my preference for character development over eye-candy. both were bloody brilliant though.