Where do I start? I’m going to assume the original poster for this movie was a big, fat dollar sign, but the producers felt that might reveal too much. I make it no secret that “28 Days Later” was not one of my favorite movies. It showed the growing talent of director Danny Boyle and introduced the world to the genius that is Cillian Murphy—But the movie mirrored too many past zombie flicks. My biggest problem was that the film felt like two movies incompetently mashed together-- Especially when the military storyline entered. However, after watching “28 Weeks Later,” I have come away realizing what a better movie its prequel was.
“28 Weeks Later” shows the British Isles slowly being reconstructed after the outbreak seen in “28 Days Later.” A safe zone has been designated for people willing to come back and start life anew. It’s controlled and monitored by the U.S. military and there are strict rules concerning where people can go.
Two siblings make it to the Isles and are reunited with their father, whom survived the outbreak twenty-eight weeks prior. Knowing their mother was one of the infected, the children sneak away to their old house to find a picture of their deceased parent—Only to find she’s still alive, still infected, but not showing any symptoms of having contracted the virus. Due to a poor decision on the father’s part, he meets with his wife and, without spoiling too much, all hell breaks loose…again.
Now I won’t deny that on paper this movie probably seemed really good, but everything that happens is so contrived and so quick that there is no time to construct a coherent narrative. I’ve heard some people call this the “Aliens” of the “28 … Later” series. If that’s true the world needs to stop making any subgenre of science fiction because we’ve sunk low! “Aliens” had relevance; it answered many questions that were left open by its predecessor, “Alien,” and maintained strong characters while amplifying the action. “28 Weeks Later,” on the other hand, has no purpose to exist. The characters range from moronic to useless and very little development occurs. Often a new character will be introduced and then dropped before anything can be done with him (or her).
Like “28 Days Later,” the sequel has a lot of similar themes, including how dangerous "normal" men are. Admittedly, this is done more smoothly than what we saw in the first film, but, at the same time, could it be more brutally obvious? Once again the military is used as a backdrop for “evil men.” It may also have a political agenda seeing as it’s the U.S. military that ends up gunning down as many civilians as infected. How original.
The characters infuriated me to no end. First we have the two siblings who sneak out of the safe zone to find their old house. I’m sorry, but do they realize why they’re not supposed to leave the safe zone? Do they understand what happened twenty-eight weeks prior? Do they know how hazardous it could be for them? And it’s all to find a picture of their mother. Genius. These two bright, young people find their mother who turns out to be infected, but has no symptoms. Why? The guess is that her blood has an immunity to the virus, but she’s still a carrier. So naturally daddy-dearest waltzes in, kisses her, and boom! Instant zombie! We have a new outbreak! (Now, how did their mother survive for 28 weeks without being eaten alive by infected? I don't know. In fact, there are many questions left unanswered by this film.) Calling these characters weak is an understatment. I don’t care about them enough to be concerned for their well-being, and those that are set up to reconcile for past sins (like the father) are instantly denied that chance.
The biggest mistake this film made was accepting the absence of Cillian Murphy. “28 Days Later” at least had characters worth caring about; why they were ditched for this sequel, I’ll never know. (Perhaps they read the script and figured they needed to bale while they could.) So we’re left with two, uninteresting children who need to get to safety because their blood may contain an anti-virus. This plot point seems futile due to the last few seconds of the film which is a welcome matt for the next sequel.
So what does “28 Weeks Later” offer? More gore, that’s for sure. Perhaps it’s a bit more coherent than the first film. Really I can’t find too many good things to say about it. It offers few thrills, no scares and a fruitless journey that could be described as a poor man’s “Lord of the Rings.” Watch out for the scene in the tunnel! As you follow what's going on through the night-vision of a sniper scope you may see flashes of "The Blair Witch Project's" cliched techniques. The scene couldn't be cornier.
“28 Days Later” was a standalone film; it’s not franchise material. Why are any sequels made? To cash in on a product’s name of course; but you expect a sequel with franchises like big-budget action flicks, comic book movies, or “Pirates of the Caribbean.” Those films have continuing storylines and character growth, but “28 Weeks Later” just provides more of the same and even less. Unfortunately, I’m afraid the ending of this film has ensured a “28 Months Later.” What could be scarier than that?
½ out of ****
Posts
