"Johnny Betts is a rude 'abnoxious' jerk who needs to be 'punced' in the face."- A grammatically-challenged non-fan  
Movie Review - 28 Weeks Later (2007)  

ratings
 
(What this rating means)  
   
Director: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo
Starring: Robert Carlyle, Rose Byrne, Jeremy Renner, Imogen Poots, Mackintosh Muggleton, Catherine McCormack, and Harold Perrineau
Rated: R (for strong violence and gore, language and some sexuality/nudity)
Length: 99 minutes
Genre: Horror/Thriller
Tagline: It All Begins Again.
Studio: Fox Atomic
Website: 28 Weeks Later

PLOT

Picking up six months after the rage virus has annihilated the Mainland Britain, 28 Weeks Later tells the story of how the infection seems to have been eliminated only for it to return with tragic consequences. The U.S. army is called in and effectively contains (and presumably defeats) the infection, allowing the reconstruction of the country to begin. Unfortunately, a carrier of the virus remains. Zombie bedlam ensues.

JOHNNY'S TAKE

Johnny Betts I'm sure my upcoming comments will enrage some of the most die-hard 28 Days Later fans who'll likely deem my words blasphemous. But you know what? I don't care. This is a forum for my thoughts regarding the film. And my opinion is that 28 Weeks Later is in every way superior to its predecessor. The most important for me being that it's not boring.

That's right; you can count me among those who weren't absolutely blown away by the slow-paced meandering of 28 Days Later. It isn't a bad movie, but there are long stretches where I was just plain disinterested. Not so with this sequel. The film is loud (the zombie screeching is absolutely ear piercing) and immediately chaotic, offering only brief respites from the tension. In other words, this is more my kind of zombie movie.

Joan Rivers Don't let the added action fool you into thinking there's any sacrifice of story though. The film does a good job of making the "infection" feel like a real possibility, taking away a little of the completely fictional aspect of zombies. One thing most "zombie movies" lack is a look at how the government, and more specifically the military, would handle such an outbreak. I appreciated the glimpse at what the strategy might be. However, I get annoyed at reviewers who puff out their bird-like chests and proclaim this is a fine example of the United States' "oppressive" foreign policy.

Hey thesaurus lovers, the U.S. military is called in to help defeat the infection, and you know what? They answered the call. They could have just said, "Screw you, Britain, we're comfortable not being involved," but they decided to graciously lend a hand. Yep, everything goes to Hades when the military loses control and a "Code Red" must be issued, but what would you have the soldiers do? Allow the infection to get out and spread to the entire world's population?

One legitimate complaint regarding the film is its use of the ol' close-up shaky cam. I'd recommend sitting far back from the screen or you'll risk some major dizziness. It does make it hard to discern what's happening, but it didn't bother me as much as it normally does. Though it is a bit much to handle at times, it ultimately adds to the chaos.

Detroit One of the film's biggest strengths is its lighting (and sometimes the lack thereof), particularly a scene where the only light source available is the night vision from a soldier's sniper rifle. Good luck finding a moment to breathe as you get a green-tinted view of the characters walking their way around and over dead bodies but having no idea what's in their path or what might be jumping out. Brilliant stuff.

And, once again, I'll reiterate that fast-moving zombies are infinitely scarier than the slow, lumbering zombies of old. A zombie whose grasp I can escape without so much as a brisk walk? Not scary. But a zombie who can break through doors and outrun me? Now there's something worth freaking out about.

My apologies to all you 28 Days Later purists. This is the film I was expecting from the original, especially given all its hype. Most of y'all will probably disagree and complain how the first had more story and character development, etc. And that's fine; you're more than welcome to be wrong.

ODDS & ENDS

  • 28 Days Later made $45,064,915 in the U.S. and an additional $37,654,970 worldwide against a meager $8 million budget.


  • Imogen Poots really should consider changing her name. I can see the headline now - Imogen Poots' Movie Not Worth Crap.


  • That's about all I feel like coming up with. Sorry.


  • Rose Byrne was in The Dead Girl with Josh Brolin who was in Hollow Man with Kevin Bacon.
MAMA'S APPROVAL

No way this meets mama's approval, and the people who took their three-year old to the screening deserve to be paid a visit by social services. Morons.

Strong violence and gore - In abundance.

Language - Quite a few "f" bombs and other choice words I doubt mama taught you to use.

Some sexuality/nudity - There's a scene where Catherine McCormack is being hosed down and shows a little side nudity.

TRAILER COMPARISON

The trailer led me to believe the film would offer a lot more action and carnage than 28 Days Later, and I'm happy to report that it delivers.

THE GIST

If you like your zombie movies frenetic, tense, and action-packed then 28 Weeks Later will satisfy. Whether you prefer this or the original is all a matter of personal taste.

RETURN TO
HOME PAGE

Underworld 3

Yes Man

Transporter 3

Four Christmases

Twilight

Quantum of Solace

Ghouls

Eagle Eye

Righteous Kill

Tropic Thunder



Weekend Results:

1. Watchmen($55,214,334)

2. Tyler Perry's Madea Goes to Jail($8,532,412)

3. Taken($7,334,814)

4. Slumdog Millionaire($6,808,383)

5. Paul Blart: Mall Cop($4,146,316)