28 Weeks Later

It's been a full four years since 28 Days Later hit theatres, so frankly, I think this sequel is a little late in arriving. Actually, scratch that. I'm not even sure they should have made the sequel in the first place. 28 Days Later actually had an ending... and a surprisingly happy one, as the three (or two, if you watch the alternate ending) survivors presumably get rescued and the "infected" are dying off of starvation. So why the sequel? I'm guessing it did so-so at the box office, but the DVD sales made the studio realise that they could make more money off of this "rage virus infects Britain" storyline, so they decided to make a movie without the original cast, the original director and the same bloody plot. And by bloody, I mean bloody.The movie opens with the semi-predictable family gathering of survivors in an old farm house, but then the predictably dumbass young girl peeks out of a crack in the kitchen wall and is attacked by one of the infected, thus infecting the house. Only Robert Carlyle survives, at least, that's what we're supposed to think, as he deserts his wife in a bedroom full of infected and the audience presumes that she either becomes one of them, or she dies. Fast forward a bit (they go through a series of time periods on screen detailing what happened after all the bad dudes die... something to the effect of "infected die of starvation, american army comes in rah rah rah rebuilding starts". Robert Carlyle's two kids return to Britain from "a school trip" (they never say where) and are reunited with their father, who tells them their mum is dead. But *cue dramatic and creepy music*, the kids sneak out of the safe area to get some stuff at their house and find their mum alive and well, and most importantly, not infected, although she is a little crazy. So of course, the kids are pissed at their dad because he said she was dead, and the army medical officer Scarlett (Rose Byrne) discovers that dear old Robbie's wife got bitten, but due to some gene in her DNA, she is only a carrier of the rage virus. Cue scary music again. Robert Carlyle visits wifey, says sorry, kisses her and DUN DUN DUN becomes the first infected person in Britain in 6 months. Cue panic. Cue army shooting people. Cue predictable meeting up of medical officer Scarlett, the two kids, and hot army sniper Doyle (Jeremy Renner). Cue blood. Cue gore. Cue ridiculous open-ended conclusion leading to assumption that there will probably be a 28 Months Later.

I'm being a little hard on this movie actually, but considering how creepy the original is, 28 Weeks Later fell flat. The first half was fairly good, but after people started getting shot and the blood and gore started flying, it seemed like the writers forgot about the plot and opted for overwhelming guts and blood. What makes the first film so frightening was not the actual rage virus, or the bloodthirsty, blood-spewing, flesh-happy infected, but scenes like the opening sequence, as Cillian Murphy walks around a completely deserted London, or when they head to the army camp and they're the only car on the highway. The acting in the first one was pretty good, considering the plot, but you bought into the fear and panic and relief that the actors portrayed. The acting in the sequel, prior to the outbreak, isn't bad either, but it was weird to hear Rose Byrne (who is Australian) with an American accent. Once the rage virus hit, the acting was only so-so, but I was pleasantly surprised by the two kids, and Jeremy Renner, who always seems to play the bad guy (ie Dahmer and S.W.A.T.). The sequel lacked the humour and originality of 28 Days Later. There were no lighthearted moments, or even unpredictable moments when something would pop out at you. Granted, the last scenes in the sequel are freaky, mainly due to the setting, but overall it seems like the new director opted to make a horror film about zombies.

It wasn't completely awful, but if you like the original, there's no point in seeing the sequel; you'll only be disappointed.