Review of 28 Weeks Later (2007) by Callum F — 03 Sep 2012

28 Weeks Later takes place several months after the events of the first movie on a little piece of Britain which the government is attempting to use as a site to reintroduce the population. All the infected people have starved to death for lack of healthy flesh, and the US government has been tapped to manage the cleanup and security of the move, as well as study the virus itself and deal with survivors. The movie follows this effort by telling the story of one family: a father who survived the original attack, a mother who is assumed to be dead or infected, and their two children who are brought onto the island to join their father in the rebuilding effort. Through a relatively clever sequence of events (imagine that: cleverness in a horror movie), the virus is one again set loose upon the populace.

Being one of the few who left the original 28 Days Later feeling a little disappointed, I went into this sequel hoping it could simply tell the story instead of demonizing characters for secondary conflict and an overhanded moral arc, and I was pleasantly surprised. While the military/authorities again assume the role of the "other bad guy," they are not portrayed as vigilantes or overly zealous killers; they are simply acting in the best interest of society as a whole and are shown as actual human beings making the best/most logical decisions in a terrible scenario. There is far less personal interaction between them and the main characters than in the first movie, so it doesn't devolve into creepiness or intimidation.

Most of the cast does a good to superb job: Robert Carlyle impressively pulls off the father who is trying to balance his responsibilities to his family with the shame of his acts during the initial outbreak and Jeremy Renner has a good supporting role as the veteran sniper who switches sides. The Andy character does a lot of vacant staring, but considering it's a young boy, it's hard to tell if that was the actor or the directing/writing.

And the zombies, oh, the zombies. As with the first movie, these are not the barely-mobile piles of flesh shown in most horror movies from Night of the Living Dead to Shaun of the Dead. They differ in two main ways: they seem to retain or even gain mobility and strength when they're turned, and once bitten, victims are turned almost instantly. With these conditions, it seems far more plausible for the virus to move as quickly as is suggested in most zombie movies. It also grants a far higher level of suspense: it's much scarier as a viewer to see a few dozen screaming, blood-soaked zombies in an all-out sprint across a field rather than shuffling over while groaning.

Similar to the first movie, this one is also relatively light on the intense horror: many slasher flicks spend much of the movie showing deaths in detail and having things pop out for a cheap scare, but in 28 Weeks, while the individual attack scenes are brutally violent, there really aren't that many; except for the first scene, the first act basically doesn't show any blood at all There are a lot of scenes which show the zombies attacking crowds, but only a handful of close-up, individual attacks. This helps to keep their shock value instead of lazily skipping from one gruesome scene to the next.

The framing/cinematography are good: wide, sweeping shots give us a real feel for a deserted Britain, handheld/shoulder cameras are used to give the viewer a feel for the movement and point of view of the zombies, and very quick cuts during most attack scenes attempt to convey the chaos while keeping the zombies somewhat mysterious; you never really get a good look at them. The quick cuts are overused to distraction once or twice, but that's party because of the addition of slow-mo at times.

The movie had relatively few logical issues (assuming the standard horror movie suspension of belief), which is refreshing. There are only a couple scenes that make you want to smack the characters for being so dumb, and all of them I can remember featured the kids, so it's believable.

All in all, a worthy sequel to a movie that brought a fresh view on the idea of a zombie apocalypse. I personally thought it was stronger than the original, and even those who aren't fans of traditional horror films should find something to like.