 "28 Times Better (but also incredibly different)" | 2009-11-01 |
| - Reviewed By shaxper202 |
28 Days Later was an amazing film in terms of what it did for the post-apocalyptic zombie genre. The camera work, special effects, and of course modifications to the general zombie premise were all sheer genius. However, I felt no particular attachment to the story, itself. 28 Weeks Later, however, uses the same premise and directing style to deliver something far more terrifying, thought-provoking, and generally powerful.
The film begins around the time of the first one, with a band of survivors, including a loving husband and wife, holed up in a boarded shack, trying to wait out the infestation. As the infected inevitably break in, husband Don is forced to make a difficult decision. After doing an impressive job of fending off the attackers, he tries to take his wife into hiding, but she chooses, instead, to run off and protect an innocent child. As the infected swarm around her, she begs for Don to help her, but he knows (as well as we do) that she's done for. He makes the hard decision and runs for it. As he leaves the house, tearing across a sunny field with hundreds of infected chasing behind him, he looks back and sees his wife, still banging against the upstairs window, begging him to save her with accusing eyes.
Inevitably, these kinds of hard decisions come to frame the narrative of this story. As London is eventually rebuilt and repopulated, and as Don is reunited with his lost children (all the while secretly enduring the guilt of his decision), a new infection breaks out, character after character is forced to make such tough decisions, and the writing team is realistically merciless with those who choose to play hero. It's a tough, at times even cruel film where fate never intervenes to protect the good guys against improbable odds. Still, the film never leaves you questioning what the right course of action is, even in spite of the consequences it will bring.
It's an amazingly powerful film for just such a reason, the kind that entertains and terrifies the heck out of you the entire time, yet leaves you with an amazing three hour discussion on ethics and altruism to ponder with friends afterward.
And please don't get the impression that, just because this is an intelligent, thoughtful film, it must therefore not be all that scary or action-intensive. It's been a while since I saw the original 28 Days Later, but I'm reasonably sure this was far more intense. Each "scary" scene seemed more intense than the one before, often using claustrophobia, darkness, and a highly unpredictable plot to keep me on the edge.
Speaking of the plot, I think that's probably the point that polarizes the lovers and haters of this film. It takes nearly half the film for the outbreak to happen, and I can see why people looking for a mindless, action-packed horror flick would find that frustrating. As it happens, I found that mostly bloodless first half to be thoughtful, rich in character and drama, and above all else, unpredictable. It kept leaving me to wonder how things were finally going to go wrong. Where was the surviving infection going to come from? Indeed, once the blood starts splattering, the plot manages to stay somewhat unpredictable. Many thing happened, especially toward the end, that I did not expect at all.
In the end, I think 28 Weeks Later's only problem is that it isn't a mindless adrenaline rush from start to finish. The film asks you to think, feel and care, but this ultimately makes the scream-intensive second half far more thrilling than your standard fare.
|
| |
| "great beginning, now a great middle" | 2009-10-29 |
| - Reviewed By User: A1S55DMR9D13D9 |
28 Weeks Later (blu-ray)
9.3 THE FILM ITSELF
9.2 VISUALS
9.1 SOUND
8.5 PACKAGING
8.2 EXTRAS
"New writer. New Director. All new characters? This isn't going to go well..."
Those were my first thoughts after hearing about 28 Weeks Later. I've been known to call 28 Days Later a classic and I hold it high above most other horror / zomie films, so when they were going to make a sequel, I was happy and anxious to see it. But then when I heard that there would be a new writer and director? I thought that my hopes would come crashing down. Was I right?
NO!
28 Weeks Later surpasses the original in almost every way. I'd say the only area it doesn't is atmosphere, but that's only because 28DL was a very small, and focuses group of people, where 28 Weeks Later is based around a much latrger scale (but with a small family focus). The atmosphere is here, and it works, but I really was amazed by 28DL's atmosphere.
But you want action? You got it! You want explosions and frightening fleeing from zombies? Check. 28 Weeks Later is a faced past thriller more than anything. As standard with any high flying action flick, there are a ton (a ton) of obstacles for our heroes to get passed. Where 28DL was slower paced and methodical, 28WL is a vicious, steam rolling action packed joyous trip through hell.
The story is based on Britain recovering from the virus and that it appears to be dying out - until it reaches the "safe harbor" where the remaining survivors are being kept with a strong military presence. There is a wrench thrown in the works that proves that the virus - while still extremely dangerous - doesn't get everyone. That's all I'll say about that. And if you watch the special features you find out why they had this written into the story, and it makes alot of sense.
The blu-ray quality of this release is great. The bright, clean scenes and deep, dark blacks are impressive. The nighttime city scene looks wonderful. When I watched the DVD and then the blu-ray, you could really see an astounding difference.
SPECIAL FEATURES
1. commentary with writer and director
2. 2 Deleted Scenes w/ optional commentary
3. Code Red: Making 28 Weeks Later
4. The Infected
5. Getting into the Action
6. 28 Days Later: The Aftermath: Stage 1 "Development"
7. 28 Days Later: The Aftermath: Stage 3 "Decimation"
The commentary is dry at times and the two men rarely add anything beneficial to the behind the scenes of the film. The deleted scenes aren't anything special either. The making of feature is pretty neat as they discuss the more action oriented script. "The Infected" was actually really interesting as they brought in a dance instructor to teach the many extras how to move and sound like an infected. I was impressed with how much effort they put into making these people sound and look like ravanging beasts.
"Getting into the Action" was more heavily focused on just that - the action parts of the scene. The many guns, running scenes, helicopter attack... they don't offer many detials, but still a decent look. The two stages presented from 'The Aftermath' after animated chapters from the graphic novel. I don't really know why they left out stage 2, but whatever. The two stages presented are good, but they move pretty damn quickly, so if you're not paying attention, you could be lost.
Overall, 28 Weeks Later is a better film than the original in my opinion, but the blu-ray release isn't as up to par. The special features here are impressive, but not great, but this is still a great collection for its release. If you like action oriented movies, then I would invest some time in 28 Weeks Later.
BLU-RAY RATING
9.1/10 "OUTSTANDING" |
| |
 "JEREMY RENNER, ROBERT CARLYLE ARE GREAT IN THIS" | 2009-10-16 |
| - Reviewed By fmwaalex |
28 WEEKS LATER
I was extremely excited about this movie when it was first announced because one of my favorite actors ever Jeremy Renner. I have always liked him especially his performance in the great flick Dahmer. So when this first came out I was really excited but this did not turn out as great as I thought. Still the movie was fun and had a bit of that appeal that the first did although I think it was trying to hard to live up to the first. Renner definitely is what makes this movie for me, and once again they are infected not zombies.
The second film follows a some people who get stuck within an infected zone after an infected gets loose, the husband and wife. These people are being lead by a solider who feels sorry for them and disobeys orders and even shoots his fellow soldiers. They have to make it all the way across town to try to get a lift out of the quarantined zone. They have to out last a lot of infected, soldiers, napalm and all kinds of things. This one unlike the last film is a straight survival film were as the last was a mix of all kinds.
This movie seemed well directed and written for the most part but it seemed like they were trying to out do the last film more so than further the story. Don't get me wrong I love when the helicopter starts to chop away at the infected but did it feel a little like the studio was involved in stuff like that. To me the story seemed great at first but towards the last half it did not seem as developed. In fact the first half felt very much like the first film but it started to falter towards the end a little. Acting wise Jeremy Renner is brilliant but I was a little disappointed with the fate of his character, Robert Carlyle is also great in this.
I liked this second film and found it to be a fun flick but it did not seem as real as the first or even as fun. The story was good and the acting was good but it just fell a little short in my opinion. I would still recommend a purchase especially if you have the first one but a rental at least could be good for this one. Look for the two pack if you do not already own these because it is a good deal for the two films.
|
| |
| "Good Movie, but Poor Sequel" | 2009-09-21 |
| - Reviewed By User: AK0CENM3LUM28 |
28 Weeks Later / B000TJBN80
*Spoilers*
The tricky thing about sequels is that not only do they have to be good movies in their own right, but they also must weather the inevitable comparisons to the movie that it follows. And, fundamentally, this is the biggest problem with "28 Weeks Later". Following, as it does, from 28 Days Later, but with seemingly everyone who was involved with "28 Days" completely replaced, it was inevitable that the resulting sequel would have a largely different tone than the first movie. Whether or not this change is a bad thing will depend on the viewer's expectations.
"28 Weeks" starts well enough - a group of survivors are holed up tight in a country house, far away from the cities and the rage virus. It's nice to see variety in a zombie movie, and the ensuing demonstration that frightening situations needn't be restricted to the dead of midnight is welcome. Viewers may reasonably question, however, why the otherwise apparently fairly prudent occupants of the house didn't take a few more steps to ensure their safety in this new, uncertain world - such as emigrating permanently to the second story, which seems to be more than roomy enough (shaky camera notwithstanding) and which - once isolated from the downstairs - would seem to be a permanent safe-haven from the rage victims, given that they aren't lucid enough to scale walls or build ladders.
While this may seem like a small point, I feel it neatly underlines the changed between "Days" and "Weeks". The survivors in "Days" were modern 'real' people - in other words, they'd seen a zombie movie or three (as have we all) and subsequently they knew how to protect themselves. Flats barred with impenetrable walls of shopping carts, iron doors, and suits of makeshift armor were the refuge of the besieged in the city. The army out in the country employed round-the-clock shifts, mine fields, and a very prudent once-bit-then-shot policy that prevented serious disaster when one of their own was infected. The point behind all this is that "Days" was not a zombie movie in the traditional sense, but rather a movie about human nature under stressful, end-of-the-world conditions. Realistically, you could have replaced all the zombies with, say, nuclear fallout and you still would have had the same haunting themes in "Days" - namely, where our humanity begins and ends in a struggle for survival.
"Weeks", on the other hand, is pretty much a straight-up zombie movie, and in order to facilitate that, the humans have to be a lot less competent than they were in "Days". So we have desperate people failing to fall back to a secure upper story and a military with such poor security measures that it seems almost blind luck that they haven't been overrun yet. (Which isn't to say that "Weeks" doesn't attempt a point at military ethics, but the civilians-are-expendable message is so anvilicious compared to "Days" that it will likely annoy more than thoughtfully provoke.)
Once you accept "Weeks" as a straight-up zombie movie, it's not a bad one. There's a living MacGuffin that has to be tracked down, protected, and gotten to safety once the inevitable disaster overruns the safe haven. The biggest problem here, though, is that the build-up to the disaster is long and tedious, with quite a bit of dialogue that sounds like it was meant to be deep and meaningful, but just comes off as the filler dialogue we've all heard before. And once the dying starts, the characters die off so predictably that they might as well all be wearing numbered jerseys.
I guess you could say that I really loved "28 Days" because I went into the movie expecting a good, solid zombie flick, and I came out mentally shaken by the moral subtext and end-of-the-world break down of social relationships. But the downside to that meant that I went into "28 Weeks" expecting to be further mentally toyed with and was ultimately let down when the movie turned out to 'merely' be a decent, if predictable zombie flick. There's enough here to be interesting, mostly centering around the infected Typhoid Mary of the plot, but ultimately all that gets tossed down the drain in favor of running around in the dark getting eaten. And while there's nothing wrong with that, per se, "28 Weeks" doesn't end up standing out significantly from the hordes of similar movies on the market, in my opinion. |
| |
| "Passable viewing, not as good as the original" | 2009-07-26 |
| - Reviewed By User: AKU2KSH5CLZ3L |
28 Days Later was unique amongst "zombie" films (let's just use the word and not start the non-zombie argument for the time being) in that it held a certain amount of logic to it. It worked on several levels. So naturally when the sequel came out, I was supremely interested.
I probably could have saved myself the trouble and watched any "millitary bad!" movie out there, like say The Siege. This movie is nowhere near the quality of the original. The setup is great, and there's no arguing with the premise itself save for the way that the plague is reintroduced. However...
In 28 Days Later, when a character died it meant something. When you lost Frank, you cared for him and railed inwardly at his passing. In 28 Weeks, there's no real attachment to anyone. The deaths of multiple characters are basically senseless, no meaning to them nor do they add to the story. And I'm not talking the deaths of the incidental victims, that's a given for the genre. No, it's the deaths of the main characters and the supporting cast that causes such waste. It could have been violence committed on action figures with blowtorches and hammers, and it would have been the same impact.
And let's break for a moment to go into the colossal blunder that every director, filmmaker, and script writer in existence seems to make that assumes that in a disaster all military men go Apocalypse Now on everyone in their way. Oh yes, it's here alright. It's in full force...in fact, it's the drive behind the second half of the movie. It's cheap. I get tired of it. 28 Days had that same sin in force, but the movie was good enough I could forgive it.
Also, don't forget the rule that I don't think was touched on in any Scream movie: if you use night vision in a horror film, you die. And you get a first-person camera death to boot. It does not fail.
...
Alright, I'm back from my trip to Planet Rant.
Perhaps I should be fair, this is a different director and he has a completely different approach to things. 28 Days was very character and human driven in the end, this film is not.
Basically, this film is wasted potential. There are the gleanings of a good movie here, but the ingredients are not cooked well enough to make the overall dish satisfactory. The characters are not as strong, it relies more on tried and true movie tropes to run the action, everything is too "pat". No surprises, and none of the feel that makes 28 Days so special. Watch it, it's still alright, but don't expect what you saw in the previous movie. |
| |
 "Tense film marred by implausibility" | 2009-07-23 |
| - Reviewed By dallas_dredske |
The opening scene of this film immediately drew me in. I found the scene in which Robert Carlyle decides to abandon his wife to save his own life utterly gut wrenching to watch. I watch a lot of horror movies and am not easily shocked but for some reason a few scenes in the film really hit me. I kept thinking of "what if" scenarios and how would I react in this situation. Would I be humane or do what it takes to save myself just to survive. The only reason this film didn't receive 5 stars from me is not because it wasn't a worth sucessor to the original but because of all of the little unbelievable details that seemed to happen throughout the movie.
Pros
- Brutal opening and a few other tough scenes to watch, usually when the "rage" infected are attacking their victims.
- Very few slow moments and since the infected move just as fast as every one else there's not the typical run, hide and wait for the zombies to get me.
- The atmosphere of the film was very tense and I found myself tensing up several times without realizing it.
- Gore and special effects were noteworthy.
Cons
- Story was rather transparent and not very believable. Would they really let a population of 15,000 people settle in a recently infected but purged London? They mentioned several times all other areas of the city were not safe.
- Jerky and grainy camera work. Whether it was intentional or not it definitely is not for someone who would suffer from motion sickness.
- The ease of which the children escaped the military compound and get into the infected part of the city was laughable.
- The father (a janitor) who had an all access pass to the entire facility presses a lockdown button to prove a point to his kids without any reprecussions?
- The infected but immune mother (who unbelievably survived) was left unguarded! She possibly held the cure for the "rage" infection in her blood but she's left alone for the husband to find her and become reinfected, destroying the whole compound.
- The lone helicopter pilot was allowed to fly unchecked the entire film, even when military jets are firebombing the compound to destroy the infected.
- An infected father who even though he was infected by the "rage" was able to avoid being killed, firebombed and track his children to a subway station outside of the compound.
Despite all of the cons listed above I still really enjoyed the movie for the sheer tension the movie seemed to instill. While I didn't feel it had the same originality of the original 28 Days Later it's definitely worth a watch for horror fans. |
| |
![28 Weeks Later [Blu-ray]](product_images/4936000/4936758-28-weeks-later-blu-ray_medium.jpg)
Expedited Available![Buy 28 Weeks Later [Blu-ray] for $17.99](images/merchant_logos/amazon.gif)
![300 [Blu-ray]](product_images/4932000/4932325_thumb.jpg)
![Check Prices on 300 [Blu-ray]](images/v2/check_prices.png)
![Mr. Brooks [Blu-ray]](product_images/4937000/4937909-mr-brooks-blu-ray_thumb.jpg)
![Edward Scissorhands [Blu-ray]](product_images/4936000/4936771-edward-scissorhands-blu-ray_thumb.jpg)
![Dawn of the Dead [Blu-ray]](product_images/4936000/4936772-dawn-of-the-dead-blu-ray_thumb.jpg)
![Fantastic Four - Rise of the Silver Surfer [Blu-Ray]](product_images/4936000/4936754-fantastic-four-rise-of-the_thumb.jpg)
![28 Days Later [Blu-ray]](product_images/4936000/4936763-28-days-later-blu-ray_thumb.jpg)
