Theatrical Review of 28 Weeks Later

---

Tools:
Send to a friend »

---

The good news? There is one heart-stopping scare in "28 Weeks Later." The bad news? It comes within the first ten minutes of the film. A group of survivors--the requisite old couple, the minority, the basket case and the young couple--are attacked when the basket case lowers part of their home's defenses to look for her boyfriend outside. She looks out the tiny slat between the logs in the wall and, without warning, a blood-dripping hand grabs onto her. Then, all hell breaks loose for the next 90 minutes.

A sequel to 2002's moderately successful "28 Days Later," this film is all style and very little substance. From the attack I mentioned previously, only half of the young couple--Robert Carlyle as Don--survives, making his way to London, where a massive rebuilding project led by the United States is in progress. He is reunited with his children (Tammy and Andy) inside the green zone, heavily fortified by the Americans. The rage virus, which is thought to be contained, finds its way into London where all hell breaks loose.

Ah, kids. How many film disasters can be traced back to the little tykes? Unfortunately, they're the catalysts for this disaster, too. Despite London being under heavy guard, Tammy and Andy are able to slip out some "side exit" and make their way home, where they find a picture (a picture!) of their mother. (In full disclosure, the army does see the kids leaving the city limits, though it takes far too long for them to mobilize.) So how do the kids lead to the downfall of the American occupation? Mom found her way back to the house, too, after being left for dead in the cottage by Don. She's taken back to the green zone by the commandos, ostensibly in order to find the reason she has delayed mutation to a zombie. Dad finds her (he has insane access to every building and every room in the zone), kisses her…well, you get the rest of the idea.

"28 Weeks Later" is disappointing on nearly every level, except when it comes to gore. There is enough blood dripping from mouths and eyes, dismembering limbs, bullet holes and torn apart bodies to give "Saw" a run for its money. Somehow, though, that's not what this movie really wants to be about-at least not totally. It seems as though the four screenwriters wanted to tell a thinly veiled metaphor for America's current predicament in Iraq, yet were told to incorporate a "28 Days Later" sequel into the premise by the studio. There is a long line of genre entertainment relating to real life (the original "Star Trek" series, for example, or "Friday the 13th," teaching the horrors of losing your virginity), which would back up this approach; here, though, it doesn't work.

Plainly, it's too heavy handed. The minute we see the rebuilding of London for the first time and hear the first American bark orders, I couldn't help but think of typical American arrogance. He is certain the rage virus won't come back because they haven't seen any indication of it in 28 weeks. The officer conducting a brief "how to" for returning citizens on a train assure everyone they're safety is of paramount importance to the American forces. Through the film, we're witness to each checkpoint being overrun by the mutated people of London and the Americans not thinking through their actions.

For instance, in the "containment" step in case of an outbreak, if the plan is to corral the uninfected in one room, wouldn't it make sense to make sure every exit is sealed and guarded? Not here, since Infected Don seeks out Andy when he's separated from Tammy and the Commanding Medical Officer for the green zone. And there's another point: we're never led to believe in the previous film any infected person thinks of anything besides chewing on a noninfected. Here, Don stalks his son and the small group of survivors through London's streets and subway tunnels. Why? Is Don trying to fight off the virus?

Hell if we know, since the movie really doesn't care about that either. It doesn't care about any sort of meaningful character development, story or anything as mundane as making sense. Why would a military "rebuilding" effort give complete and total access to anyone not associated with the military? Why does Don, who apparently works on the energy systems in the green zone, have access to every single room in the military compound, including the medical ward, where his infected wife is being held? Why are people brought back to London to repopulate it when there clearly isn't anything for them to do? And why are children brought back? If there are snipers on the rooftops and security cameras monitoring everything, how do the two sneak right past every officer there is?

It's all in advancement of the story. If Tammy and Andy were stopped before they reached their old house, the movie would effectively end there. If Don couldn't get into every nook and cranny, he'd never be able to kiss his wife, get infected and then stalk his kids.

We're told Tammy and Andy are important since Alice, their mother, successfully fought off the virus for a period of time. They must stay alive at all costs. When they, the CMO and a small group of survivors meet up with a lone sniper (Doyle, played by Jeremy Renner) and start running through London, we know it's just a matter of time until the no-names get killed off. The script doesn't even try to mislead us by developing the characters. They're just canon fodder.

Directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (apparently handpicked by the first film's director Danny Boyle), "28 Weeks Later" is kinetic and very aware of how lighting affects a horror film. But it is kinetic to a fault. Shot mostly on handheld cameras-or so it seems-the action scenes have none of the fluidity of "Children of Men" nor the assured hand of "Jaws." We're not supposed to feel suspense or the build up of dread over what can be coming because as soon as the brain registers what the camera is doing, it's already on the screen. It's edited in such a way I'm reminded of the less-than-stellar "Alien vs. Predator," where the audience can't make out who's doing what to whom. Who's being shot? Who's lying in a pool of their own blood? Who was that? We don't know and are never given enough time to care.

(Despite all this, I was very taken by the overhead shots of flames ripping through the London streets, courtesy of firebombs. They zig-zag through alleys and main drags, all connecting to one another in the end. A chilling sight to behold, especially with the real world parallels the movie invokes.)

It's hard for me to even accept the ending, in which Tammy and Andy successfully fight off Don and make their way to a rendezvous point with a military chopper. Why? We're shown early on the screening process the citizens need to go through to get back into London. I have to assume there is an equally lengthy screening process for anyone trying to leave, especially after the outbreak. But what happens? Apparently nothing, considering we see Parisians-turned-infected in front of the Eiffel Tower, setting up the inevitable sequel. What would it be called? "28 Months Later"? There won't be a world left at that point.

For all its snide poking at the current world situation, "28 Weeks Later" feels like a sequel grafted onto a discarded Michael Moore documentary outline. For that reason, and the other leaps of logic mentioned above, it rates a 5 out of 10. Some scenes of technical or visual brilliance can't overcome a heinously underwritten script.

---

---