5 Responsed To This Post
Subsribes to this topic Comment RSS or TrackBack URL
mygif_alt
Maine Writer Says, in 2-2-2010 at 04:52:10 from     

Calling 28 Weeks Later a story is, frankly, stretching things. Think of it more as a sequence of scenes, some frenetically frightening and deeply disturbing, some marginally gross in a puerile way, others genuinely boring — as characters trudge from point to point in search of a ride on an Apache helicopter.

Of the characters, only one is sufficiently unique or engaging to grab the audience, and she, the mother of the family at the center of the film, dies early. The most interesting stab at character and plot development — a father’s lie to his children about the fate of their mother — seems full of promise, but ends shortly after take off with a crashing, blood-soaked, and, finally, charred finish. Rather than employing the time-honored idea of a character arc (in which, perhaps, the father ultimately redeems himself through some act of heroism), the father becomes this incredibly controlled killing machine (unlike all of the other infected), which then leads to random, semi-plausible people being chased from one place to the next and dying here and there, all the while haunted a foreshadowed ending that, early in Act I, hits you between the eyes (literally) like a two-by-four.

Let me be very clear, however. 28 Weeks Later has some incredibly scary moments that will stick with you, courtesy of some terrific cinematography and post-production. The “zombies” in the film seem real, ravenous, and frightening. The opening sequences of the film are terrific for all of these reasons. And, if that’s what floats your boat, and you don’t really need much more, you’ll likely enjoy this film. Frankly, I found it more oppressive and, at times, boring than genuinely engaging.

I, too, am a life long horror (but not slasher) movie lover, and, in particular, a fan of apocalyptic films like this. But I prefer my horror films to be intelligent and plot-driven, not merely a bag of frights (no matter how effective). In the end, 28 Days Later was superior to this sequel in just about every way.
Rating: 2 / 5

mygif
Carbonadam Says, in 2-2-2010 at 04:59:33 from     

Aside from a few very well done scenes this film was no good. A few scenes do not make a good film. I am not sure how with more money it is possible to screw up the sequel to what is arguably the best zombie film ever made but they did it.

Zombie films are not for everyone. You know you are a true fan of zombie films if you were excited for this sequel. I was amongst the few hopefuls. I was let down. Mostly the film and more importantly the zombies did not have the raw, visceral, jacked, amped on speed and crack intensity the zombies from the first film did. This film just relied on shaky camera work mostly. And darkness. A lot of darkness.

Forget the plot. All I need say was that there was a star zombie and a nuclear zombie family. A zombie film with family values. The plot went no where and did not propel the story anywhere except to Paris. A small chopper can not go from London to Paris. Suspension of disbelief is one thing but common.

Skip it till DVD. Wait for cable.
Rating: 2 / 5

mygif_alt
D. Thornburg Says, in 2-2-2010 at 05:33:02 from     

After only five minutes watching this movie I had an almost overwhelming desire to walk out of the theater. I very much enjoyed the original, 28 Days Later, and thought it brought a fresh take to a tired premise; the Zombie Thriller genre. The non-steady cam techniques used through-out most of the film turned out to be nothing more than a desperate ploy by a director who didn’t have much of a story and needed something to try and make a name for himself. It was, however, an effective headache generator.

But I think the true culprit in this movie is the story. The story/screenplay was horrendous and filled with many inaccuracies and cheap thrills. Prime example; the military quarantines someone they suspect to be suffering from a contagious pathogen responsible for wiping out millions of humans and we are to accept that the janitor has unfettered access to the persons cell? The janitor who just happens to be the womans husband? Please! Could they not have come up with something more serious?

This movie was nothing more than a sham and a mockery of the original. I am surprised Danny Boyle had anything to do with it. I can only hope he was legally required to do so or maybe he thought he could turn around a hopeless cause.
Rating: 2 / 5

mygif
R. Celaya Says, in 2-2-2010 at 07:11:36 from     

Danny Boyle reinvented the Zombie genre with “28 Days Later” but this sequel does a disservice to the original. The moment you realize the plot involves children-in-peril you know the story is headed in the wrong direction. Would the US government really allow children to settle in a highly dangerous compound? Well, maybe yes, but only in a movie that disregards plausibility. If security of the compound is so critical, would it be that easy for the children to escape the quarantine? This leads to one of the most incredible coincidences in movie history, followed by what can only be described as “cinematic-stupids” when the most dangerous prisoner in the compound is left unguarded. Its better to savour the original than watch this mess of a movie.
Rating: 1 / 5

mygif_alt
D. Travis Lay Says, in 2-2-2010 at 09:22:57 from     

This film sucks. I (or you) could create better horror with a bottle of ketsup and an 8mm handcam.
Rating: 1 / 5

Leave A Reply

 Username (*required)

 Email Address (*private)

 Website (*optional)

Inform me when someone post new message here

Please Note: Comments Moderation maybe active so there is no need to resubmit your comment