I've recently seen 28 Weeks Later, the sequel to 2002's 28 Days Later. First impressions were that it was a bit heavy on the gore. I've struggled to understand why I see zombie movies at all when I'm not a fan of gore, and I settled on the survivor stories. I like seeing how people hold up under life or death struggles. Zombie movies provide a setting of a well-defined yet somehow unpredictable enemy.
In 28 Weeks Later, post-zombie England is being repopulated by the US army, but one immune carrier of the Rage virus starts a new outbreak and the fragile reconstruction comes to an unfortunate end. Everyone becomes a target, not just for the infected humans, but for the "peace-keeping" snipers too. The story follows the children of the immune woman, whose blood may be the key to fighting the deadly infection.
The story plays out well enough, except perhaps for the hero-sacrifice moments that tend to grate a bit - when a character makes the "supreme sacrifice" of his own life for that of others. If it's not done well, it's just cheesy, and that 28 Weeks Later moment had me making cringing faces. The other worrisome aspect is when infected humans stop and stare for a menacing moment. It seems out of character, but necessary for the tension. A tough call for the director, I'm sure.
The verdict: 4 out of 5. Subtract 2 if you can't stand gore.
Mokalus of Borg
PS - Yes, I know it's only Thursday.
PPS - But it's my blog and I'll do what I want, so there. Nyah.
No comments:
Post a Comment