Customer Reviews

28 Weeks Later [Blu-ray] [2007]

5 star:		(34)
4 star:		(53)
3 star:		(32)
2 star:		(22)
1 star:		(23)

 

 

Danny Boyle directed 28 Days Later, and he exec-produced this sequel as part of his burgeoning partnership with Alex Garland. Directing duties fell to Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, creator of 2001's ingenious Intacto. He stamps his authority on the picture with a startling opening sequence: a dizzying attack on a country farmhouse, which not only violently reminds us that these are far from George Romero's shambling knuckle-draggers, but also that anyone - man or woman, young or old - is fair game. It sets the tone. It sets the rules.

Next we're thrown into a grimy, semi-deserted London (reminiscent of another Spanish-speaking director's apocalyptic vision, Children of Men). It's here that Tammy (Imogen Poots) and Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton) arrive to meet their father, Don (Robert Carlyle). But something is rotten as a corpse within the family unit, and the kids take it upon themselves to sneak out of the militarised zone to put a full-stop on their unfinished childhood. What they discover unleashes hell, and it's up to the US occupying forces, led by a stolid Idris Elba, to quash the infected insurgency.

The film's early sequences contain some creepy, classical horror imagery, usually concerning Catherine McCormack's stricken Alice, before the film gives way to a series of expansive, logic-be-damned action set-pieces. As a marriage of styles it's not quite as broken as Alice and Don's, but it makes the film feel lopsided.

While The Walking Dead proves that the zombie holocaust genre hasn't really the flesh to fill a whole series, an extra 20 minutes wouldn't have gone amiss from 28 Weeks, just to add a little meat to the bony characters - particularly Jeremy Renner's pragmatic Doyle, who seems to be riding on a kind of Hurt Locker zephyr, but with hints of a heart. Rose Byrne, likewise, as Scarlet, can only show a glimmer of the utilitarian behind the perma-frown.

There's no profundity on offer here, just basic moral dilemmas as fleeting as a moving target in a gun sight. At a push there's a veiled allegory about post-war Britain's reliance on the US; and moreover, particularly in one barmy sniper sequence, a crack at repeated "friendly fire" debacles in the theatres of madness mired in the Middle East. But it's really about the visceral thrills. Like its predecessor, budget restraints are a blessing not a curse, forcing imaginative film-craft and rabid performances into the space that, one fears, CGI excess will occupy when the infection extends to 28 Months.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS
I enjoyed the 1st film, but found this one a let down.
The plot didn't feel remotely convincing - the idea that a well-organised military set-up would leave the only known immune carrier of the virus completely unattended and that her husband (not in the military) would be allowed to have unrestricted access to just about anywhere within the military containment area, so he could sneak in to see her (and end up getting infected and start the whole outbreak off) is hard to take seriously - not to mention a supposedly well-organised military containment of a deadly humankind-threatening virus that is so useless that even 2 teenagers can easily slip through it unnoticed.
And when the outbreak happens, why is there such a panic? It has already been established that Britain has been evacutated apart from the small group of people in the containment area - and that the infected die out naturally without other non-infected people to pass it on to - so at worst it would just mean letting the outbreak die out again (only far far quicker since there's nobody else in Britain to keep passing it on this time.)
Having the Robery Carlisle zombie miraculously appear at exactly the right point in London for an chance meeting with his kids seems riduculously unlikely too.
There are a few good bits in the film, the opening sequence is really well done, but after that it's let down by such an unconvincing plot full of implausible events that it's hard to feel drawn in and take it seriously at all.

I wasn't a fan of the first film. After a promising opening the story became laboured & I lost interest towards the end. With expectations fairly low I was caught off balance by how much I enjoyed this.

Whilst the build up is slow it's never boring. The main characters & interplay in the first half are interesting enough to draw you in & there is always a subtle sense of unease hinting that bad things are going to happen.

When the action finally kicks into gear there's a noticable shift in pace. This isn't just a series of jump scares & jolts for laughs, the objective is clearly to unsettle the viewer. There's a genuine feeling of panic. When things do turn nasty any restraint evidenced early on goes out of the window - be warned, this is not for the squeamish!

Both the performances from the actors & the script are excellent & the reactions given to the escalating horror are truly believable. It doesn't insult your intelligence by shoehorning the story elements. This feels like a genuine continuation from where the first movie left off.

A genuine surprise. A rare horror sequel that builds on the original & broadens the story rather than a lazy retread inspired by pound signs [a stigma many sequels have failed to overcome]. Highly recommended - to horror fans with a strong stomach!!

28 Weeks Later is directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo who also co-writes with Rowan Joffe, Jesus Olmo and E. L. Lavigne. It stars Robert Carlyle, Rose Byrne, Jeremy Renner, Harold Perrineau, Catherine McCormack, Mackintosh Muggleton and Imogen Poots. Music is by John Murphy and cinematography by Enrique Chediak.

Six months have passed since the Rage virus decimated the UK, but now people are returning to London's District 1 with the U.S. Military overseeing the project. However, the Rage virus can be carried in people with no outward symptoms........

After the monster success of 28 Days Later it was inevitable that a sequel would follow. With director/writer combo Danny Boyle and Alex Garland off making Sunshine with Cillian Murphy, the big players from the first film were missing (Boyle and Garland were Executive Producers here). There was reasonable cause for some concern that this would be the latest in a long line of horror sequels that, quite frankly, suck the big one. How great to find that not only is "Weeks" an excellent sequel, it also doesn't sit idle and copy Boyle's winning formula.

The blood and ick factor is considerably amped up, as is the action (there's running, lots of running, guns, lots of guns, panic, lots of panic), but the writers have put intelligence into the writing by expanding on the Rage virus victims as not just being an outwardly ferocious beast, and some topical smarts are spliced into the narrative with the presence of the American military "enforcing" the reconstruction of London. Also, with the films central focus being on a splintered family, brilliantly set up by the breathtaking/horrifying opening 10 minutes, there's a mighty heft of humanism flowing in between the blood vomit and body shredding.

Cast are mostly terrific, with Carlyle and the impressive young actors, Poots and Muggleton, leading the way. The American lads playing military men have to make do with slender written, stock, roles, but Byrne provides spunk and McCormack leaves an indelible mark in a small, but key, role. Fresnadillo (Intacto) ensures Boyle isn't missed in the director's chair, with a keen eye for action construction and an awareness of pacing for such a horror movie. While Murphy again scores with that knack for doom mongering beats. There's some missteps, logic at times goes out the window and in the case of Renner's character, outcome is a bit too much of a bitter pill to swallow. While dialogue at times shops at Cliches "R" Us. But this is still a mighty fine thrill ride, often scary and stomach turning, and even flecked with emotional worth. On this evidence a part 3 would be most welcome. 8/10

After the frankly disappointing and relentlessly derivative 28 Days Later, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo's 28 Weeks Later may have bombed at the box-office but it's a vastly superior sequel that actually explores the fallout of its central situation with a modicum of intelligence before descending into dumb cliché rather than simply using it as a framework for a grab-bag of recycled bits from Danny Boyle's favorite movies. For the most part the cheap video photography has been replaced by film (though there are still some unsatisfying moments of overly-distressed low-res video footage) and the road movie format by an initially more epic story centring on the attempted repopulation of London after the virus has supposedly run its course. That the whole thing is being handled by the US Army with the civilians penned up in a `Green Zone' on the Isle of Dogs indicates that this isn't going to go any better than the occupation of Iraq and, true to form, when the virus reawakens it's not long before they're targeting `friendlies' and infected alike in a desperate attempt to take control of the situation.

There's a decent human drama at the centre of it in the first half, with Robert Carlyle's not-exactly-father-of-the-year having abandoned his wife (Catherine McCormack) to the infected suddenly having to explain to his children why she turns out to be still alive even if she is a carrier rather than a survivor. Unfortunately that's never really developed as all Hell breaks loose after a particularly ludicrous plot contrivance that sees her left all alone and unguarded while Rose Byrne's doctor argues with Idris Elba over whether it's better to kill her or to try to use her blood for a vaccine. Before you can say "I told you so," the film shifts into chaos-and-chase mode and the plotholes multiply as Byrne and sniper Jeremy Renner try to get the kids to safety while London is firebombed and gassed and the newly-infected Carlyle still manages to outrun them and turn up in the right place at the wrong time. It's not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but it's certainly a more effective one than its predecessor even if you can pretty much predict what's going to happen and how Intacto director Fresnadillo will choose to shoot it every step of the way.

28 Days Later started strongly with the empty London (and those rats) and then drifted off with the dodgy Army unit. 28 Weeks Later also starts with a heart stopper as Begbie escapes the Infected by an act of betrayal. After the infection has died out (according to the dozy NATO doctors who clearly know nothing of sequels) the US Army reintroduces settlers in a controlled site. These are all people with a higher APS (Average Propensity to Scream) including Begbie's two children, who mysteriously don't have a Scots accent but do seem to have difficulty doing what they are told.

At this point the infection reappears by an ingenious plot device. The infection reinfects by an ingenious plot device, but victim zero then escapes manifesting an interesting talent for using ID cards while doing an impression of a man who's eaten too much chili. This is decidedly not an ingenious plot device and thereafter (until the last scene) I think the scriptwriter nipped out for 20 Rothmans and got his neighbour Keith to finish it off. All would be well still if everyone just Obeyed Orders but what would be the fun in that? Lots of shooting, chopping, screaming and a full body burn ensue. The escape is on including another non-ingenious plot device (avoiding poison gas - sit in a car!) and a lot of scenes shot in the dark.

The ending is marvellously grim.

I wrote this review the same day as watching 28 Weeks at the cinema. I'd heard some pessimistic things about the film before going in, and given that sequels often deteriorate in quality as a franchise progresses, I feared the worst.

Director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, who is new to the franchise, quickly puts paid to any fears that the 28[...] saga has been taken from Danny Boyle and delivered into the wrong hands. 28 Weeks maintains the frantic brutality and, if anything, ramps up the gloom and quintessential British grime of its predecessor.

Taking place... err... 28 weeks after the initial outbreak, the story shifts focus to a completely new set of characters, headed by a perfectly cast Robert Carlisle, a husband and father of two. Within minutes of the film's start, we follow his frantic escape from a remote cottage, which becomes beseiged by the ubiquitous infected. His flight takes him to London, where his children are, and where a US-led NATO force has begun reconstruction of the entirely depopulated country within the boundaries of a heavily militarised safe-zone.

What could easily been yet another awful big screen propaganda piece for the American military is much more cleverly handled. The film wisely portrays the US armed forces as limited, vulnerable and ultimately unable to cope with the blitzkrieg spread of a new outbreak of the virus within its own compound. Comparisons with the current situation in Iraq are unavoidable.

It's always refreshing to watch a large-scale, modern film when it's set in the relative familiarity of a city like London. A post-apocalyptic scenario is doubly effective for a British viewer when the Gherkin and St. Paul's are on the skyline. 28 Weeks reuses John Murphy's mournful, simple guitar riffs to complete the grim ambience, and we're right back in the nightmare world of blood-spitting, shrieking zombies-on-speed that made the first film a cult classic.

I think 28 Weeks Later is an even better film than 28 Days. It's everything that the stupendously, unflinchingly dreadful Resident Evil 2: Apocalypse - another zombie film franchise sequel - should have been in several ways and more. One or two of the action set pieces are a little too showy and unconvincing, but don't let that put you off.

Buy, beg, borrow or steal, but make sure you see it.

In the sequel to 28 days later, the rage virus has passed, the infected have all died and Americans come to England to restore the country.

28 days later showed the true ideology of horror, and British cinema at its best, and 28 weeks later outshines its predecessor with faster direction, closer looks at characters and a more action thriller typed genre to its plot.

Following on from the dramatic ideology of 28 days with the infected was brilliant, and we start by looking at another family who are hiding, in the complete darkness. The narrative never lacks, with the whole concept of danger keeping you on the edge of your seat all the way through. Not necessarily scary, but it will definitely play on your mind. The ending with the new stadium felt like a marketing promotion, but was still good to watch. The plot has action, suspense and drama, to make an ultimate thriller, with plenty of gory blood encoded for dramatic effect, which is helped along by stunning direction.

Danny Boyle's direction in 28 days was superb, unusual and different, particularly the opening sequences as the central character is alone in England, with the character a little man in a huge city. Fresnadillo's direction in this sequel is equally impressive, using similar shots to create the lonely and deserted effect. In contrast Fresnadillo's direction is faster and less focused, especially when the infected are involved, conforming brilliantly to the horror thriller genres. These films wouldn't have had the same impact if this style of direction hadn't been encoded, and is a film where you can really appreciate the atmospheric view of the situation.

Having Robert Carlyle (Trainspotting) star gave the film the extra credit it needed, with a fine performance as Don. He did exceptionally well, and gave a different and intriguing portrayal as a struggling family man.

Carlyle is helped along by stunning performances by all cast, but in particular Muggleton and Poots, who play Don's kids, two of the best young performances you will ever see in a British film, only behind Tom Turgoose in This is England.

28 weeks later is a fine sequel, fast and flowing, and though not necessarily scary, is a thoroughly entertaining British film.

8.5/10

Firstly, I loved 28 days later but this film was utter kack.
There were more holes in the plot than a crate of swish cheese.

The first five minutes was fab - after that is was terrible.

Just a few points
1) Snipers on the bridges to stop people leaving the island. So when 2 kids make a run for it to get back to their old house to get a photo, the army let them go.
2) The two little brats don't seem to be bothered that due to their actions, infection gets back in and literally wipes out everyone on the island.
3) When the army discovered the virus was loose they shut all the civilians in a room and then don't lock one of the doors or check there isn't any zombies down there!

Personally I was on the zombies side. I was hoping everyone would get munched as it would have made the film far more appealing.

I can't believe i waste two hours watching this utter utter drivel.

If there is a 28 months later, do me a favour, please shoot me in the head first.

Remember Aliens? This film takes the same approach, intead of repeating the same formula of 28 Days Later, it goes straight for the jugular - completeley maxing up the action & adding even more explicit gore!
Absoluteley relentless with less of the almost dream like textures of its predecessor. The opening 10 minutes will have you eating your knuckle bones!
After its countryside set beginning, the story shifts to The City Of London, now quarantined and a last refuge for survivors, under the armed protection of NATO (led by the USA)
Obviously, the quarantine fails spectacularly!
Cue lots of trigger happy Marines, big guns and bigger explosions as well as legions of The Infected! The make up FX are more elaborate than the first film, there's a neat exploding head moment, another eye gouging thats even more brutal & a scene where a helicopter tilts forward & goes rotor blades first into a pack of rabid zombies that is on a par with the latest Rambo movie!!!
There's also a bit more explanation over the Rage virus & a great twist in its evolution.
Well acted, tightly directed & shot with the same frantic editing style of 28 Days this is a very good sequel that wont let anyone down.
Pesonally i prefer the more modestly budgeted 28 Days as i enjoyed its atmosphere - it reminded of the BBC's Day Of The Triffids & ITV's Quatermass (John Mills) that i loved in my youth. This is a big budget movie which despite its City Of London settings & mostly British cast, feels more 'American' in its in your face style.
This is in no way to the movie's detriment - its going for the kill!

I await the the next installment eagerly...