28 Weeks Later
Movie Review
28 Weeks Later
by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B+
Released: May 11, 2007
Directed by:
Cast:
One of the eerie things about "28 Days Later," the remarkably scary zombie flick from 2003, was its ominously open ending. Yeah, some of the main characters had survived, but the so-called "rage virus" that had turned nearly every person in England into a frenzied killing machine had not been cured or contained. The story was far from over.
"28 Weeks Later" moves forward 6 1/2 months to show what came next, and though the original writer and director are gone (director Danny Boyle has stayed on as a producer), their replacements maintain the same grim tone and overcast skies (literally and figuratively). The sequel feels cut from the same cloth as its predecessor, and is nearly as good.
Most of England's population was either killed by the zombies or became zombies themselves, at which point they starved to death when the food supply (i.e., other people) ran out. With Great Britain's being an island having effectively quarantined it, the virus didn't spread worldwide, and now London is slowly being rebuilt. A few thousand people have been let back in to a safe zone called District 1, on the Thames River's Isle of Dogs, with tall apartment buildings, a few shops, and 24-hour electricity. Life is sort of starting to kind of get back to normal, except for the strong military presence in the form of U.S.-led NATO troops to maintain order.
Two young people are among the returning refugees: 12-year-old Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton) and his older sister, Tammy (Imogen Poots), the children of a District 1 administrator named Don (Robert Carlyle). Scarlet (Rose Byrne), the kindly American nurse who screens them for viruses before they enter, tells Andy he's now the youngest person in the country. Andy and Tammy are thrilled to see their father again, but sad to know their mother didn't make it. Don's account of why that is doesn't quite line up with what really happened, either.
Obviously, the mere fact of the film's existence means there's going to be a new outbreak of the zombie-making rage virus, but the creepy specifics of how that comes to be are chilling. Spanish director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, who wrote the screenplay with three other men, is not content to merely rehash the plot of the first film, the way many sequels do. He breaks new ground, going in unexpected directions to find delightfully twisted new details: how the virus reappears, the cowardice that sometimes emerges in a crisis, the horrifying things that can go wrong when a government tries to control something it doesn't understand.
We end up with Andy, Tammy, Scarlet the nurse, and an American soldier named Doyle (Jeremy Renner) leading a small band of people on the run not just from the zombies, but also from the military's ill-conceived methods of containing the problem. (Is there an Iraq metaphor in the film? Some have said.) Recall that these are not zombies in the strictest sense, because they are not the reanimated dead. These are living people who have been infected with a virus that renders them animalistic and savage -- but they still have all the strength, agility, and speed of regular people. Which means you can't just walk briskly away; you gotta outrun 'em.
Fresnadillo paces the film well: slow, then fast, loud, then quiet. Some scenes are thrilling rather than scary; others result in sheer wide-eyed terror. (The film is especially smart with regard to knowing when to play music and when to remain silent.) With handheld cameras and natural-looking digital-video photography, he presents the crisis in a realistic way, with all the chaos and claustrophobia an outbreak like this would cause if it really happened.
The ending (except for a fantastic final shot) is rather anti-climactic, and there are minor plot holes. I don't think I cared quite as much about these characters as I did the heroes of the first film, either. I gripped my armrest when their lives were in jeopardy, though, and I came out of the film with a few more gray hairs than I had going in. It's been a dry year for horror so far, so this burst of well-made suspense is a welcome relief.
Grade: B+
Rated R, moderate harsh profanity, brief partial nudity and brief sexuality, a lot of strong violence, some of it fairly graphic
1 hr., 39 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 18 comments
May 14, 2007 at 3:35 pm
I'm glad this doesn't suck, as I had feared. 28 Days Later is by far one of my favorite horror films and I'm glad that the sequel is not a waste of time. Huzzah!
May 14, 2007 at 4:03 pm
I'll be honest, I loved the first one, but this one didn't really do it for me. Too much military focus, not enough on the zombies who more or less dissapered from the movie other then the one they focused on. It became like Land of the Dead with the one zombie being everywhere he needs to be. I didnt hate it though, still better then most movies this year.
May 17, 2007 at 7:10 am
I can't wait for 28 Months later!
May 19, 2007 at 10:22 pm
It seemed more like "the military is evil/incompetent". They show soldiers as perverts who are only happy when they are killing things. It just didn't seem fair to the military. It's different from the first one, which was just a small group of soldiers and I really liked it. This time was all about how the military is at worst evil, at best incompetent and heartless.
May 25, 2007 at 8:08 pm
John Doe: When the entrails hit the fan, I'd say at worst incompetent and heartless, and at best uncompromising and dispassionate. The soldiers definitely weren't depicted as happy killing fellow humans. I thought the film made for an interesting depiction of being on the wrong side of "for the greater good," and I think your perception of the soldiers was more tinted by your own morality than that of the film makers.
I thought the movie was great. Different from the first one, but that's what I'd hoped for. The only real complaint I have is the omnipresent commando-like zombie dad. It was ridiculous and over-personalistic and did a lot to ruin the hyperrealism that makes this series so frightening.
June 8, 2007 at 11:24 pm
mackintosh muggleton was great.i am going to addition for 28 months later!dont tell mackintosh muggleton but i have a huge crush on him.tell imogen poots.i am mackintosh muggleton's #1 fan!i cant stop talking about him. 28 WEEKS LATER RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 15, 2007 at 4:34 am
What about 28 years later? lets see some old wrinkley flesh eaters!
August 8, 2007 at 8:50 am
i hate 28 weeks later!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 3, 2007 at 2:10 pm
BOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 21, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Great movie hope the next 1 is even better and have mackintosh muggleton.
October 26, 2007 at 1:11 pm
for all you ladies out ther e who like mackintosh muggleton...HE IS MINE AND YOU BETTER BACK OFF!
October 29, 2007 at 10:27 am
I finally rented this on video. The themes in the movie are complex, and I had to think about what it was really trying to say in the end.
28 Days Later, the first movie, seemed to show that crises bring out the best and worst in people, but that you can triumph or evil.
28 Weeks Later, which also showed the best-and-worst message, also seemed to be saying that Love Will Make You Do Unwise Things. I think the military was only mildly villified in the film -- if anything it's the soldiers who disobey commands, Doyle and Scarlet, who endanger people, even if they're disobeying commands out of compassion.
So yeah -- interesting theme. Self-preservation is the only thing that can ensure survival; love and mercy and compassion will bring death. But it doesn't say that self-preservation is good and compassion is bad -- it just sorta says "Doesn't it suck that love brings disaster?"
At least that's what I got out of it.
Besides some nasty images involving crowbars.
I'll be interested to see 28 Months Later, if they make one. It would be a nice turn to see what the writer & director think is the answer, rather than what can contribute to the problem.
January 2, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I thought 28 weeks later was great. It was definately a great sequel for the first 28 days later. One thing though. I know this might be obvious but what happened to Andy and Tammy at the end of the movie?
Definatly should be a "28 Years Later."
May 1, 2008 at 7:59 am
i absolutely loved it..ive seen it 4 times in the past month..the way it was shot gave me the feeling i was really there, im a horror movie freak and this one had so many different emotions i dont think anyone could complain..by far one of my fave flicks ever
July 24, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Whoever was in charge of editing the film sucked.
The couple of scenes where they left the Isle of Dogs showed them leaving the Isle, going over Tower Bridge, and ending up back on the Isle! Did they not think anyone would notice?
July 30, 2008 at 7:52 pm
I love 28 weeks later so much i watch it every day.
i hope they make a 28 months later
January 30, 2010 at 10:53 pm
I love 28 weeks later and I love Mackintosh mugglerton becouse hes hot
March 12, 2010 at 10:35 am
I love watching 28 weeks later but it must be sad that Tammy had to shoot her dad don just it must be bad that her brither Andy got bit. I have that movie and I watch everyday when I get back from school