← Back to Reviews
in
There might be some SPOILERS included
Survival is the most basic human instinct. As living species, we strive to, well, stay alive; sometimes against insurmountable odds and maybe even at the expense of others, if it comes to that. Are we willing to risk ourselves for others? And if we can't, or don't, can we live with the cost? Those are questions that come often in this sequel to Danny Boyle's zombie hit film.
28 Weeks Later kickstarts with what is probably one of the most intense openings in any horror film; one where those questions are crucial, as we see the cost by which Don (Robert Carlyle) manages to survive the original zombie outbreak. 28 weeks later *wink, wink* as London is recovering, he reunites with his two children, Tammy and Andy (Imogen Poots and Mackintosh Muggleton) in a quarantined section of the city led by a NATO force. But obviously, there wouldn't be a film if the sh-it didn't hit the fan.
Like 28 Days Later, this is a film I hadn't seen in a while. However, my recollection was that I enjoyed it more than the original (probably one of the few that did). Although my appreciation of the original grew, this one pretty much stayed at the same spot, to the point that I think I have them on similar levels.
First, Fresnadillo's direction is competent, but isn't as elegant as Boyle. He has a knack to effectively transmit the frantic nature of what's happening, but I think he leans into shaky handheld more than Boyle does. Also, the logistics of how the outbreak gets out of control doesn't really make a lot of sense: herd everybody into a dark, cramped up warehouse until? Going into blackout as people and "infected" are running loose, and snipers are trying to maintain control?
What I like most about this sequel is how relentless and full of despair it is. From that kickass opening, it is as if the film just won't let go, and that desperation oozes through the screen. It's a bit of a stretch that the main focus of this rampage falls on one character, but the actor sells it well. Jeremy Renner has a supporting role as a sniper with a conscience that tries to protect the siblings, but my attachment to them wasn't as strong as with, say, Jim and Selena in the first film.
That said, I won't deny my enjoyment of the visceral appeal of this film and how savage it is. But deep down, I love that it takes those questions about survival, self-preservation, and sacrifice, and hangs them above several of its characters (and us, by proxy). How much are we willing to sacrifice to survive? or how much can we sacrifice for others to stay alive?
Grade:
28 WEEKS LATER
(2007, Fresnadillo)
A film from the 2000s • A film about a virus
(2007, Fresnadillo)
A film from the 2000s • A film about a virus
"We were, uh... just trying to stay alive, I suppose."
There might be some SPOILERS included
Survival is the most basic human instinct. As living species, we strive to, well, stay alive; sometimes against insurmountable odds and maybe even at the expense of others, if it comes to that. Are we willing to risk ourselves for others? And if we can't, or don't, can we live with the cost? Those are questions that come often in this sequel to Danny Boyle's zombie hit film.
28 Weeks Later kickstarts with what is probably one of the most intense openings in any horror film; one where those questions are crucial, as we see the cost by which Don (Robert Carlyle) manages to survive the original zombie outbreak. 28 weeks later *wink, wink* as London is recovering, he reunites with his two children, Tammy and Andy (Imogen Poots and Mackintosh Muggleton) in a quarantined section of the city led by a NATO force. But obviously, there wouldn't be a film if the sh-it didn't hit the fan.
Like 28 Days Later, this is a film I hadn't seen in a while. However, my recollection was that I enjoyed it more than the original (probably one of the few that did). Although my appreciation of the original grew, this one pretty much stayed at the same spot, to the point that I think I have them on similar levels.
First, Fresnadillo's direction is competent, but isn't as elegant as Boyle. He has a knack to effectively transmit the frantic nature of what's happening, but I think he leans into shaky handheld more than Boyle does. Also, the logistics of how the outbreak gets out of control doesn't really make a lot of sense: herd everybody into a dark, cramped up warehouse until? Going into blackout as people and "infected" are running loose, and snipers are trying to maintain control?
What I like most about this sequel is how relentless and full of despair it is. From that kickass opening, it is as if the film just won't let go, and that desperation oozes through the screen. It's a bit of a stretch that the main focus of this rampage falls on one character, but the actor sells it well. Jeremy Renner has a supporting role as a sniper with a conscience that tries to protect the siblings, but my attachment to them wasn't as strong as with, say, Jim and Selena in the first film.
That said, I won't deny my enjoyment of the visceral appeal of this film and how savage it is. But deep down, I love that it takes those questions about survival, self-preservation, and sacrifice, and hangs them above several of its characters (and us, by proxy). How much are we willing to sacrifice to survive? or how much can we sacrifice for others to stay alive?
Grade: