28 Weeks Later (DVD)

Six months after the population of Britain was wiped out by the Rage virus; the survivors have all cleared quarantine and the American military is repopulating the Isle of Dogs with them. Inside the green zone everything is supposed to be safe. So the first children are returned to the country. Andy and Tammy are reunited with their father and their mother is presumed dead. But the people aren't the only ones that have survived. The virus has found ...
...Days Later" was without doubt the scariest film I have ever seen at the cinema. Not only did I have to leave the screening for twenty minutes because I was so freaked out, but I also had nightmares about yellow-eyed zombies for weeks. So how could the sequel possibly compare? And why on earth did I willingly go to see it? Well "28 Weeks Later" is a very different kind of film that has far more Hollywood gloss, so is much easier to ... more

Six months after the population of Britain was wiped out by the Rage virus; the survivors have all cleared quarantine and the American military is repopulating the Isle of Dogs with them. Inside the green zone everything is supposed to be safe. So the first children are returned to the country. Andy and Tammy are reunited with their father and their mother is presumed dead. But the people aren't the only ones that have survived. The virus has found a way to live on too…

"28 Days Later" was without doubt the scariest film I have ever seen at the cinema. Not only did I have to leave the screening for twenty minutes because I was so freaked out, but I also had nightmares about yellow-eyed zombies for weeks. So how could the sequel possibly compare? And why on earth did I willingly go to see it? Well "28 Weeks Later" is a very different kind of film that has far more Hollywood gloss, so is much easier to dismiss as a simple work of fiction. For a start, it is shot on film rather than digital video, which makes the events far less immediate and believable. That's not to say it isn't scary; there are plenty of things that will make you jump and the zombies are still frightening, but this time around I knew what to expect from them, so was ready to hide at a moment's notice. Their attacks are as sudden and frenetic as those in the first movie and there are a few false starts before they actually turn up to keep you on your toes. This keeps the tension high and as a result you're always primed for terror.

Director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo's ability to maintain suspense throughout is a credit to him. But there is a feeling that this is more a standard horror movie than the original. Not only do we know what to expect from the zombies now, but there are gallons of claret to be splashed around and some humungous explosions to deal with. You can tell the production team had a much bigger budget and that they were determined to spend every penny of it. So there are more gimmicks in terms of shooting, including nosebleed edited fits as people become infected, strobing lights, blurry flashes of the infected attacking others and the grey-filtered day-for-night bombing spectacular from the trailer, where we see the London Docklands being strafed into oblivion by planes and helicopter gunships. The most successful of these effects though is a sequence in the pitch black London Underground where the use of night vision taps into our primal fear of the dark. But all this cinematic jiggery-pokery can't distract from the sketchier characterisation and less compelling storyline.

The director keeps things snappy by not lingering on the events of the initial infection, devoting five minutes to it at the beginning of the film. He uses montages to show the aftermath; all the plague pits and empty streets scattered with corpses and debris. But unlike the first film there are no truly memorable images. So it may be frightening to watch at the time, but little if anything of the ninety-nine minutes will stick in your mind once the credits have rolled.

The screenplay by Fresnadillo, Rowan Joffe, Jésus Olmo and Enrique López Lavign feels like it's been written by committee. The writers have clearly taken their favourite bits from the first film (zombies massing on the horizon, the resulting chases and their attacks) with standard action movie fare. That being said it opens in a similar vein to the original film, with a disparate group of people holed up in a country house trying to survive before the infected get in and decimate them. The film revolves around the big set pieces instead of the personal story of a ragtag bunch of survivors, so there's less emotional depth. But of course the main focus here is the American military trying to keep a lid on the situation and as a group they've never been the most subtle of people. Just look at how quickly they lock down the secure zone once one of the infected gets in and their swift recourse to brute force ("Code Red"). It leaves the way clear for plenty of fire fights and inventive zombie massacres. But there are just too many plot holes for the film to ring true. Would an army on high alert really have such lax security that a couple of kids could slip out of the secure zone unnoticed? And if the dangers were so clear, why would the kids want to get out anyway? How do the zombies get across London so quickly? And why would the head of security so willingly endanger himself?

The characterisation isn't as in-depth as I would like. Most of the American soldiers are standard Hollywood hero archetypes. You know the sort - grunts just doing their jobs and dropping the odd one-liner before realising they have a conscience and are human after all. The kids are also par for the course - Tammy is a stroppy teen princess and Andy is the innocent of the piece. The most interesting characters are their parents, though we don't see much of their mother and the only real defining feature of their father is his regret at leaving his wife behind. The dialogue is pretty sparse and there's little beyond pseudo-science from the doctor, sarcastic banter from the soldiers and ominous references to the virus.

Although this film has a bigger name cast than its predecessor, they have far less to do. As army doctor Scarlet, Rose Byrne is more damsel in distress than a new Ripley. She isn't given enough time to establish a personality for the role and though entirely adequate at running away and looking scared, isn't very memorable. Robert Carlyle has the greatest emotional burden of any of the characters as Don, a devoted father and husband who has to come to terms with having abandoned his own wife. It's to his credit that you can see the internal struggle going on as he lies to his children about what he did, but again there isn't sufficient time for him to develop the role.

The kids are played by the wonderfully named Mackintosh Muggleton (making his screen debut) and Imogen Poots. His performance feels rather stiff to be honest and he always feel like he's playing a part instead of experiencing what's happening on screen. Poots on the other hand is more relaxed and looks really freaked out by everything that occurs. She also has the most striking eyes I've seen for some time and could probably build a career on her looks alone. Of the soldiers, only Jeremy Renner as Doyle and Harold Perrineau as helicopter pilot Flynn get the chance to build a role. Both are the usual wise-cracking hero types and though they are affable enough, neither does enough to really make the parts their own.

The original music by John Murphy is a lesson in composing for horror films. He uses creeping electronic music that succeeds in setting one's nerves on edge, upping the ante with rising percussion before exploding into loud, discordant guitar chords for the initial zombie attack. Other than the soaring rock theme that accompanies the credits, the rest of the music tends towards the ambient. Murphy employs drum machine and soundscapes featuring music box-style piano that helps to unsettle the audience and keep them on their toes.

The special effects throughout are pretty strong, ranging from the make-up effects on the zombies (creepy contact lenses and gory wounds) to gunfire and enormous explosions. The computer-generated effects (like the bombing of London) are seamlessly tied in with the physical effects, so it all fits as part of the same reality.

"28 Weeks Later" is a capable horror movie that lacks the emotional depth of the original. And though gorier, it is a glossier action flick that doesn't have the power to haunt your dreams. However, it has some genuine shocks and surprises and if you're watching it in a cinema, I'd keep a tight hold of my popcorn, otherwise the person sitting behind you may end up covered in it. It isn't as daring as the first movie, but nor is it a rehash of the original. But it loses marks in my book by tacking on an ending that seems to appear only to create the possibility of further sequels. It certainly made me jump, but unlike "28 Days Later" I haven't lost any sleep over it. As far as horror movie go, it's okay but not great. 

...less