TalkiesandJabberwocky
28 Weeks Later - One of my favorite zombie (yes zombie, don't start with that "they're infected with a rage virus, not zombies b.s.) movies. A much bigger budget than the first (28 Days Later), this one packs the punches and really keeps you on the edge of your seat throughout. You don't HAVE to see the first to follow this one either, so dive right in!
afrodome
28 Weeks Later is certainly not a bad movie by any means. This is why people's subjective points of view are unneeded. If you want a horror movie with lots of blood and violence, quick editing, choppy cuts, followed by more violence, etc. this one supersedes 28 Days Later by a mile.For me (note: me; what I experienced, not the foreshadowing of your experience) there was a mean spirited vibe throughout the entire film. I felt like I was just watching bodies pile followed by close-ups of brutality with In A Heartbeat (the score from the previous film) being played GOD KNOWS how many times. My biggest gripe was with the thumb-in-eye thing: what the hell? Boyle did this in the first one to show human behavior in a state of rage and survival and how it mirrored the behaviors of the infected. They throw in Don newly infected doing it to his wife while she was strapped to a bed; seriously? From then on the movie leaves horror territory and starts becoming a sadist's playground.
Scott Amundsen
Sequels do have an annoying tendency to take up the ideas from the original film and reheat them for a (presumably) new and younger audience. What makes 28 WEEKS LATER almost as good as the first film (28 DAYS LATER) is that it does not do this. It does take us over the same ground as the first film, only as the title says, six months later. And the viewer sees the passage of time in the changes from the original. The Americans have settled down in Britain and are apparently doing their best to wipe out the plague. The question is: will they succeed?It wouldn't be fair to reveal much more, but I can say that this sequel is way over-the-top in violence compared to the first film; I found this slightly irritating. As if they were simply trying to fill out the story. But that's just my take on it. It is still a terrifying film, violent and bloody (not for weak stomachs), and with the same jerky camera work as the first film, which keeps the audience off balance in addition to scaring the living daylights out of them.I really do wish there were more horror films like this one, willing to think outside the box.
talisencrw
This was a very good sequel to a fine zombie work (my favourite zombie film is STILL Jean Rollin's remarkable and extremely aesthetically-pleasing 'The Grapes of Death'), and I was very pleasantly surprised. Pardon the pun, but you would think that by this time, everything in the land of zombie movies would have been done to death, but I remain consistently admiring of just where the best and most thought-out renditions of the template can go. In THIS case, the most intriguing dynamic is a cowardly husband choosing his life rather than helping his wife out of a horrible crisis, then infanticide (or worse) of his own children, rather than face their wrath over the poor decision he had made.It's interestingly hilarious that when you think about it, humanity is doomed because a 12-year-old had to go back and get a picture of his mother, because he was afraid that without it, he would forget what she looked like...A surprisingly satisfying work, that for horror fans, is worth a purchase and rewatching. I'm admittedly more for classic films, from the 20's to 60's, but for contemporary horror cinema, I liked this a lot, especially Jeremy Renner and Imogen Poots. It's no surprise to me that they soon became superstars.
AD
