28 Weeks Later
This post could also be titled, "I saw this so you wouldn't have to." Zombie movies are one of my favorite genres and while the two "28" movies are not technically zombie movies, they fall into that catergory. Yesterday I rewatched "28 Days Later" to get a refresher for the sequel but I didn't really need to do that. This time around there is a whole new set of characters and plot points and the only thing that ties into the original is the location (UK) and the virus known as The Rage.
Basic plot points from movie #1. Scientists have infected chimps with a rage virus to learn how to cure the virus. Angry chimps get set loose and bit humans. 10 - 20 seconds later, the bitten humans are infected and need to feed on unifected humans to survive. The virus is transmitted by blood and saliva. The UK is put under quarantine. Our small band of survivors fights zombie-like victims, survivalist groups, and finally hide out in a small country farm until the infected people die from starvation due to lack of fresh humans.
Movie #2 picks up 28 weeks later where the US military is going to rebuild London. This is a UK production so the US military is depicted as easily distracted jokesters which sets up otherwise improbable situations that the military would even go into a quarantine area and rebuild a city while rotting corpses are still uncleared.
Anyhow, "28 Weeks Later" shows us that viruses never die, they just mutate. Breaking all rules of sanity and plausibility, the characters manage to expose the survivial London to the virus again and the infected run amok. (Not in the Vulcan way either) It's blood, shooting, and biting for about 91 minutes of your life.
To it's credit, the opening sequence was one of the finest suspense/impending zombie moments and decisions that a main character makes to survive. If the whole movie had lived up to the expectations set in the first 5 minutes, it could have been good. The best character is tossed aside and a 12 year old boy is cast as the hero. When it's a bloody and violent movie, a child simply isn't the best choice for the lead no matter the plot point.
After the first 30 minutes, I was ready for the whole city to be blown up and to be done with. "28 Weeks Later" falls into cliche status and there are few surprises. Some of the flesh ripping was too gory even for me and I had to close my eyes. There were about 12 people in the theater. 2 left and then there were 10.
More disturbing to me than the blood & guts, and bad plot was the wierdo who walked in the theater at the end of the movie. Was he there to preview the end? Was he 45 minutes early for the next show? Why was he sitting in my row? Sure enough, as I walked out he started demanding that I give him a Thumbs Up or Down on the movie. I refused to give him any satifaction and gave this review: "it was too boring to really judge."
I'll leave it at that. Aside from the first 5 minutes, the sum of "28 Weeks Later" is boredom.
Basic plot points from movie #1. Scientists have infected chimps with a rage virus to learn how to cure the virus. Angry chimps get set loose and bit humans. 10 - 20 seconds later, the bitten humans are infected and need to feed on unifected humans to survive. The virus is transmitted by blood and saliva. The UK is put under quarantine. Our small band of survivors fights zombie-like victims, survivalist groups, and finally hide out in a small country farm until the infected people die from starvation due to lack of fresh humans.
Movie #2 picks up 28 weeks later where the US military is going to rebuild London. This is a UK production so the US military is depicted as easily distracted jokesters which sets up otherwise improbable situations that the military would even go into a quarantine area and rebuild a city while rotting corpses are still uncleared.
Anyhow, "28 Weeks Later" shows us that viruses never die, they just mutate. Breaking all rules of sanity and plausibility, the characters manage to expose the survivial London to the virus again and the infected run amok. (Not in the Vulcan way either) It's blood, shooting, and biting for about 91 minutes of your life.
To it's credit, the opening sequence was one of the finest suspense/impending zombie moments and decisions that a main character makes to survive. If the whole movie had lived up to the expectations set in the first 5 minutes, it could have been good. The best character is tossed aside and a 12 year old boy is cast as the hero. When it's a bloody and violent movie, a child simply isn't the best choice for the lead no matter the plot point.
After the first 30 minutes, I was ready for the whole city to be blown up and to be done with. "28 Weeks Later" falls into cliche status and there are few surprises. Some of the flesh ripping was too gory even for me and I had to close my eyes. There were about 12 people in the theater. 2 left and then there were 10.
More disturbing to me than the blood & guts, and bad plot was the wierdo who walked in the theater at the end of the movie. Was he there to preview the end? Was he 45 minutes early for the next show? Why was he sitting in my row? Sure enough, as I walked out he started demanding that I give him a Thumbs Up or Down on the movie. I refused to give him any satifaction and gave this review: "it was too boring to really judge."
I'll leave it at that. Aside from the first 5 minutes, the sum of "28 Weeks Later" is boredom.
Comments
Post a Comment