A zombie movie without a cheesy premise? It is straight out of science-fiction.
“28 Weeks Later” is the sequel to 2002’s “28 Days Later,” a modern zombie movie set in apocalyptic London.
It is 28 weeks after the deadly “rage” virus has ravaged England. In the first movie, people exposed to the virus would instantly become ravenous, rabid monsters hungry for human flesh. Now, the zombies have supposedly died off from starvation and the U.S. Army escorts British refugees back into a militarized section of London, hoping to repopulate.
The greatest part about this movie is it features realistic zombies, if there is such a thing. They don’t just walk slowly with their arms outstretched; they run, open doors, organize and bite hard. It is better when the monsters are more scary than amusing.
Scottish actor Robert Carlyle leads the ensemble cast of mostly British actors putting their cliché horror acting on display. It grows old seeing the cast scream a thousand different ways, as does the bad dialogue.
Carlyle plays a father reuniting with his children in the protected zone after watching his wife get captured by zombies weeks earlier. Juan Carlos Fresnadillo chose to focus on children, because it is easier to have children doing and saying the dumb things to cause conflict. See, normal adults would only act that way in bad horror flicks.
“28 Days Later” was a bona fide sleeper back in 2002. Horror movie watchers who were sick of “Saw” and “Hostel” look-alikes, were yearning for the classic cerebral thriller, and “28 Days Later” delivered. It wasn’t just about running from zombies, but about the fear of this new world, what normal people would do under desperation and fear. The human condition is much more interesting.
Unfortunately, the sequel relies more on gruesome deaths, cheap thrills and a typical thin horror movie plot.
It is no surprise there is a new director, Fresnadillo, and new writers this go-around.
“For the love of God, don’t go up the stairs! He is right behind you!”
The sequel runs a hair over 90 minutes, as opposed to “28 Days Later” which ran over two hours. The story does not progress, no questions are answered from the first film and the ending really does not fulfill. It’s just a lot of pasty Brits running around scared.
People watching to quench their own lust for blood will be fine, but the movie doesn’t deliver much else.
Graham Beckwith can be reached at [email protected].
