28 Weeks Later

welsh

Junkmaster
As much as I liked 28 Days later, so far I am not seeing much that inspires me to see 28 Weeks later. It seems to be missing a lot of the substance that the first movie had.

Has anyone seen it? Reviews.

I found this, rather negative review, surprising-

28 Weeks Later
A Film Review by James Berardinelli
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HORROR/THRILLER
United Kingdom, 2007
U.S. Release Date: 5/11/07 (wide)
Running Length: 1:39
MPAA Classification: R (Violence, gore, profanity, brief sexuality)
Theatrical Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
Cast: Robert Carlyle, Rose Byrne, Catherine McCormack, Jeremy Renner, Harold Perrineau, Imogen Poots, Mackintosh Muggleton
Director: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo
Screenplay: Rowan Joffe and Juan Carlos Fresnadillo & Jesus Olmo
Cinematography: Enrique Chediak
Music: John Murphy
U.S. Distributor: 20th Century Fox

Another week, another disappointing summer sequel. So it goes…

In actuality, the screenplay for 28 Weeks Later isn't all that bad. Sure, it's repetitious and much of it has been regurgitated from 2003's 28 Days Later, but it contains some interesting elements and offers enough gore that horror fans might have been able to enjoy it… if, that is, it wasn't for the stylistic approach employed by director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo. Apparently, Fresnadillo believes that the proper way to film any action scene is to shake the camera violently and pan it wildly back and forth, thereby making it virtually impossible to figure out what's going on (and pushing viewers with motion sickness to the brink of voiding their stomachs). As if that wasn't bad enough, in the editing room, Fresnadillo ensured that no single shot lasted longer than about a second. Also, the climactic struggle takes place in darkness, making it that much more difficult to decode the action. I didn't realize a character had died until, a little later, it was apparent that person was no longer around.

I wish this problem was restricted to 28 Weeks Later. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly more common. It's a good way to cover mistakes and encourages laziness. What does it matter if a fight is well choreographed if the audience can't get a clear picture? (My complaint for the recently released The Condemned was similar.) In 28 Weeks Later, it's a source of frustration because I was interested in what was happening but the filmmaker's approach robbed me of the ability to appreciate any scene where there was a fight, chase, or other form of action.

28 Weeks Later is a direct sequel to Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later, although none of the characters from the first film have returned. Instead, we follow a new group of individuals from their first harrowing encounters with the infected during the initial terrorizing of Britain to their attempts to repopulate London six months later. Don (Robert Carlyle) and Alice (Catherine McCormack) have two children, Tammy (Imogen Poots) and Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton). The kids are in Spain during the outbreak, while Don and Alice are in hiding. When their hideout is discovered by a group of infected, the cowardly Don runs off, assuming that Alice has been killed. 28 weeks later, the kids come home, but it isn't long before it becomes apparent the crisis isn't over. Members of the U.S. military, including the lead medic (Rose Byrne), a sharpshooter (Jeremy Renner), and a helicopter pilot (Harold Perrineau), try to contain the new epidemic but it spreads too fast and too violently, triggering the ultimate solution: Code Red.

The first and better half of the movie is primarily devoted to setup and character development. This is where we are given a chance to get to know the new protagonists and given insight into the plan to return London to a living, breathing city from the ghost town it has been for the past half-year. As the movie approaches the one-hour mark, however, it turns into an extended chase, with people shooting, screaming, and being torn apart by the infected as they run around in dark corridors and tunnels and the viewer desperately tries to piece together what's going on. Admittedly, there are limitations to what can be done in a zombie movie, but a whiff of originality or coherence would have been appreciated. (I have a sense that the movie might play better on a television than a big screen.)

Action scenes aside, the look of the film is faithful to that of its predecessor. London appears grimy and washed-out: a dead, decaying city that at times would seem to be a comfortable fit into the world developed by Alfonso Cuaron in The Children of Men. The overhead and long-distance shots of empty streets and abandoned buildings are creepy, but no more so here than in 28 Days Later. This film will not be used by British travel agencies to promote vacations to London.

28 Days Later, while not terribly original, was suspenseful and involving. 28 Weeks Later is neither. The characters aren't as sympathetic or interesting. The kids are generic and the script doesn't care much about the adults. Robert Carlyle, Catherine McCormack, and Rose Byrne are criminally underused. Compare them to Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, and Brendan Gleeson from the first film, all of whom inhabited better developed and more sympathetic personalities. Tension in horror movies results from viewers caring about what happens to characters. The audience's connection to the protagonists of 28 Days Later made it a compelling experience. The lack of such a connection in 28 Weeks Later reduces this to a number of sequences characterized by shock moments, frenetic (and often chaotic) action, and stylized gore - all without suspense.

It's too bad, because the fundamental idea of extending the storyline introduced in 28 Days Later is an intriguing one. The problem is that the people entrusted with the responsibility of bringing this to the screen made decisions that resulted in a deeply flawed product. My advice to Fresnadillo: next time you make a movie, allow viewers to see what's happening in real time rather than have to interpolate based on the results. Technique and style are more at fault than any other issue in undermining the effectiveness of this zombie thriller.


© 2007 James Berardinelli

Berardinelli was one of two reviewers that I often go too before seeing a film. The other was Ebert, but lately Ebert's reviewers suck ass.
 
It's half a good movie, ie it feels like it stops half way through and doesn't deliver. There is no gratuitous zombie violence or zombies getting slaughtered, and the whole 'shake the fuck out of the camera' mixed in with 10 edits per second routine is extremely annoying.
 
So, when was London ever a living, breathing city?
Hell. Psycho-zombies might just liven things up around here. :twisted:
 
I liked it and didn't read any of the reviews. It wasn't until after that I saw all these claims of "Hollywood-izing" the series. The opening scene is very reminiscent of Half Life. When the shit hits the fan it doesn't hold back and gets worse and worse right up to the end.

Some spoilers ahead. I loved the nonhappy potential lead in for a second sequel. Everybody is dead. All the main characters, and most likely the kids. The rage virus has taken over Europe. If they don't do a sequel you can leave it at that. The zombies won, we lost. That's the feel I got walking out of it. On the other hand, if they do a sequel, it will likely take place hours after the helicopter crash landing. The 2 kids survived and the one who was the virus "carrier" somehow infected the pilot. He probably sneezed on him or whatever. Anyway, he made a quick landing, changed, crashed the chopper, and ran out of there to kill and spread the virus in France. The evidence in 28 Weeks Later that supports my theory is how intact the chopper was, the lack of blood, and all of the pilot's family photos and shit still on the controller.

Ok then, Just wanna add I rank this movie above the Dawn of the Dead Remake and slightly under 28 Days Later. Although the ending to the latter kinda sucked ass.
 
Yeah, well.. Resident Evil 3 had a more realistic ending in that regard.
Nukey-nukey! That's how you deal with a zombie-ridden city.
 
Vault 69er said:
Yeah, well.. Resident Evil 3 had a more realistic ending in that regard.
Nukey-nukey! That's how you deal with a zombie-ridden city.

Wasn't that Resident Evil 2?
 
Umm, no they didn't. The first one took place entirely at a mortuary. It was pretty terrible if I remember it all right.

The first sequel was larger and more insane. At the end some general orders a nuclear artillery unit to fire on Westvale or whatever the city is called.
 
28 Weeks Later is a really good movie.

I saw it without seeing 28 Days Later, and I thought it was worth watching.

So yeah, I'd recommend you go see it. 8)
 
Saw the first one and I felt like the guy in Clockwork orange that was be reprogrammed, but the end result was as bitter as the start. Its just not for me.
alex-clockwork-orange.jpg
 
Well since I had already seen 28 Days Later about 10 times before I saw 28 Weeks Later, I was very disappointed. But it was a good movie, it just didn't live up to what I expected and what they had to work with from the original.

A couple notes on its:

-The optic on Doyle's M4 (the one sitting on front) is an Eotech, it is not a X-hair, it is a circle with a dot inside.
-The optic in the rear on his M4 is a MUM (or PVS-14?) night vision. He didn't take it off during the day.
-The reticule in the scope on his M14 had too thick X-hairs. And plus, it was the same reticule it showed on his M4 I think.
-Why the fuck would they herd all the citizens into some non secure room where the infected guy could just waltz right in?
-Why the fuck wasn't the quarantine area not more secure? You would think they could have very easily stopped ONE infected person from breaking out.
-Code Red has something to do with using nuclear arms and it is universal in this way, so apparently London was in fact nuked after the initial pointless fire bombing.
-Why didn't they use more effective gas?

It didn't surprise me that this movie would make the majority of the armed forces look evil and unethical, in such a way that it doesn't even make sense.

I disagree that the movie stopped making sense at about halfway through it, it started to deteriorate sooner. It was up until the point when the man is infected by his wife that things start to go to shit, but it was still a very entertaining movie and I enjoyed it, and I would fully recommend to go see it.

Oh yeah, and I actually enjoyed the camera work when the first infected appeared at the cottage. But it was very excessive and got annoying after a while.
 
welsh said:
Vault 69er said:
Yeah, well.. Resident Evil 3 had a more realistic ending in that regard.
Nukey-nukey! That's how you deal with a zombie-ridden city.

Wasn't that Resident Evil 2?

No, it was 3. Easy to confuse the two though since they were both set in the same city at the same time.
The government nukes the city in RE3 a full day after the events of RE2 I believe.
 
DirtyDreamDesigner said:
Welsh is talking about the movie and you're talking about the game.

They made a second RE movie? Guess I'm out of the loop. That or the terribleness of the first one made me repress all memory.
 
Speaking of movies, I've heard that Uwe Boll's latest one, based on Postal, is supposed to be pretty good. The theory is, he's made so much shit, by the law of randoms and infinite possibilty, at one point one of his movies will be decent. Kind of like infinite amount of monkeys eventually typing the complete works of shakespeare.

The trailer's floating around somewhere, and I didn't retch, at least.
 
Lawl. Uwe Boll apparently claimed that he wants the movie to be ruthless, like Monty Python.

I think Postal would fit Uwe Boll's 'style' like a glove, though.
 
Back
Top