28 WEEKS LATER REVIEW SERIES
28 WEEKS LATER REVIEW TV

I also found the cast to be quite impressive. So, in that way I like what the film tried to do. Usually we either see everything as the apocalypse is going down, or maybe several years later.

28 WEEKS LATER REVIEW SERIES

Implausible probably, but we've never really seen an apocalyptic series that attempts to go back and restart civilization from the same area. Of course, apparently it was a good idea for the military to reoccupy London and start building up a civilization again, even though it was the center of disaster only a half a year earlier.

28 Weeks Later picks up after London is deemed safe and virus free, as the undead have starved to death after the events of the previous film. Similar to how the Cloverfield films are related but not directly tied in, 28 Days Later is a prequel of sorts, but the characters and plot are entirely different. There's something so glorious about seeing the streets of London be a wasteland that only occupies a select few living and undead. But there's something about the '28' series that really hits well for me.

28 WEEKS LATER REVIEW TV

perhaps in much the same way a potential suicide bomber in a crowd would.The 21st century has been flooded with films and TV shows about zombie apocalypses, so it's difficult for any of them to stand out and feel completely fresh. It creates a stark fear of the condition that would obviously lead to very itchy trigger fingers. There simply is no time to react to the infected. That is where the edginess and fear of all the characters comes from. I have to strongly disagree with the comment about a slow transformation too. A couple of cheap shots about the impact of the slavering hordes and an admittedly thin plot device spoil an otherwise good review. Powerful stuff made all the more gripping by the London setting and the believable politics of the occupation (a US-led NATO policy no less). What may take a US soldier a year to end up believing is horribly realised in five minutes in one scene, ie: they are all the enemy. The parallels with the way US troops end up viewing all Iraqi citizens are hard to ignore. Yes it's more of the same but its impact is in its frenetic pace, and believable character reactions to the main plotline - that of a terrible virus that instantly transforms an ordinary person into a violent monster. While in 28 Days Later, in a densely packed metropolis like London, it's obvious how it could maybe spread quickly, but its just not plausible in 28 Weeks Later, nor is it plausible in both films that these kind of diseases couldn't be quite easily constrained (if nothing else, by distances - and measures like cutting bridges etc.įunny, really, this could have been a really good film, but too many of the characters do things that are utterly implausible and this, for me, leaves it a flawed film.Ī worthy sequel. In Outbreak, infected people can get on planes and spread the infection, and the dame with other films in the genre. This would make any outbreak easier to contain, as symptons show up instantly. I guess the central premise troubles me - infection films and zombie films work brilliantly with the window of infection and no symptoms - Dawn of the Dead remake, even Outbreak. I think much the same about 28 Days Later. I can suspend my disbelief to accept zombies, but one stupid decision after another, after another, along with contrivances in the plot time and again meant that I just found myself thinking this was almost a good film. I think it fell down in asking the viewer to simply suspend too much disbelief.

Overall, a poor film, but one that had enough in it for me to enjoy in parts.

28 weeks later review