* Prices may differ from that shown
***Film Only Review***
Some years after the ground-breaking 28 Days Later came the sequel, 28 Weeks Later.
Anyone who has seen the dark, stripped-down, ominous scenario portrayed whereby our little island became overrun with the "rage" virus will know that this isn't going to be a barrel of laughs, and from the outset this film is dark and tense.
Originally tested on apes in a laboratory before one was freed by animal activists, the Rage virus ripped through the UK civilisation and ultimately saw humanity reduced to its most feral and fundamental in the first film. Transferred by blood, it reduces the victims to raging, violent, murderous beasts, not shuffling like zombies but with equal lethal intent but frenetic and fast and desperate in their murderous urges. The spread was so quick, so thorough, that the uninfected were soon forced into hiding, with no support from the army or outside countries, relying on luck and their own stealth for survival.
The opening frames, let alone scene, are pivotal to the plot. A match is struck, and lights the face of a woman, who you can clearly see has eyes that are different colours, one green, one brown.
It soon becomes apparent that the owner of these striking eyes is the significant other of Robert Carlisle's character. They are in a boarded-up farmhouse with a group of other people, the differences between whom suggest instantly that they are barricaded together by necessity and survival rather than choice - so anyone who has seen the first film can tell straight away, as the group make a "luxury" meal of what they could find in the house they have sheltered in, that the Rage virus is still rampant outside. Within minutes tensions between the group rise as one girl's refusal to accept the loss of her boyfriend causes an argument with her fellow survivor. Then, a frantic knocking on the door sounds, accompanied by the desperate shouts of a child seeking sanctuary. The group hesitate, knowing what could be outside, then risk letting the child in.
The first shock of the film comes as the child tells how he reached them, that he was being chased, as he desperately wolfs down food. The blonde girl who is mourning the loss of her boyfriend risks moving some cloth that fills a gap between two boards of wood, and suddenly an infected victim appears, and their quiet sanctuary is instantly ruined as the hoardes of infected invade.
Within seconds the house is overrun and Carlisle's wife tries to save the child who has come into the house. The infected come between Carlisle and his wife and the child, and he runs. A breathtaking dramatic scene sees the fantastic score of this film kick in as Carlisle runs for his life towards a boat waiting at the bottom of a hill as hoardes of the raging beasts that once were human pursue him, and somehow he makes a breathless, lonely escape as everyone else seems perished behind him, including his beloved wife.
As the title suggests, this film is set 28 weeks after infection. Graphics tell us that the infected started to starve after five weeks, and that a NATO-led American force took over London to try to reintegrate people into Britain soon after, starting with a small, secure section of the city to which people would be gradually reintroduced.
We next see American soldiers on patrol joking and this is our first sight of Jeremy Renner, in what had to be one of his breakthrough roles that has now seen him in the cast of the Avengers Assemble movie currently flying high in the global charts. Here he plays Doyle, initially another joking American troop but later a far more integral character.
We next see a woman, Scarlet, (Rose Byrne) watch two children. She is a military scientist, who had not been told that they were admitting children to the new complex. The children she had just seen were the tall, lithe blonde teenage girl and her slightly younger brother who are the offspring of Don (Carlisle) and his wife, Alice. Played by the brilliantly-named Imogen Poots (Tammy) and Mackintosh Muggleton (Andy), they are put straight through military checks and we next see Scarlet noting that Andy carries the same eye colour variation that his mother had. Everything at this point of the film is cold, efficient and just what you would expect from a portrayal of a military reintegration of a society into a controlled area. It is not until Tammy and Andy are reintroduced to Don that we see gentle, affectionate human interaction, as it seems not only did Don survive his ordeal alone but also made contact with other humans enough to have found himself employment at the new facility in London, giving him freedom throughout the complex. Before then, we hear through a recorded voice on the train that transports the returning civilians that they are forbidden from leaving their new living area and crossing the river from London's Isle of Dogs due to the lack of security, but that they have their own little society, "even a pub", waiting for them.
This stark situation is underlined by aerial shots of a devastated London, and footage of military staff trying to rebuild a ruined city, and the boredom amongst the ranks of soldiers enlisted to guard the new facility is shown through their camaraderie and tendencies to watch their charges through the windows of their new homes. All in all this creates a very cold, alien environment and there is little sense amongst those present about being glad to be "home", more trying to adjust to an entirely new society.
Scarlet instantly makes her concerns about the reintegration of children known; is the disease completely eradicated? Her concerns are answered simply; if the disease returns, it's a Code Red, responded to by swift military intervention. It seems her voice of concern is the only one.
Don is faced with a deep emotional issue which counters his joy at seeing his children; he has to lie to them about the death of their mother. He knows that, when they were attacked, he ran rather than try to save her, even though the situation had seemed hopeless at the time. He also has to tell the children that they will never go "home" to their London house, as it was outside of the security zone and that he would not want to return regardless.
Tammy isn't exactly rebellious but she is a strong-willed teenage girl, who leads her little brother, who is brilliantly portrayed by the young actor, on a forbidden jaunt outside of the perimeters of the compound. Doyle spies them as they make their escape, heading to their old home. During these scenes the devastation outside of the compound is underlined, with bodies still littering buildings and the entirety of the old civilisation just devoid of humanity and awaiting eventual rebuild. Initially shocked, Tammy presses on with her intention of taking her brother back to their childhood home, although what they find there could never be imagined by either youngster, throwing their faith in their father into doubt and changing the plot of the entire film.
There is little point in trying to avoid what happens in this film - but if you would rather be surprised then this might be a good part to skip. Yes, of course there is another outbreak of Rage, and it is this which brings out the strength of the characters of Scarlet and Doyle who take it upon themselves to try to save the two youngest people in the country when chaos breaks loose again, this time not outside the supposed safe zones but inside it. The initial appeal to many of 28 Days Later was that it soon wasn't just the infected that were the threat to survivors, but those in charge of the military, and this new approach to the same tale gives another approach to that which is equally, if not more chilling and, due to the success of the first film, able to be filmed on a much grander scale.
To hark back to the characters, it is under this extreme situation that Jeremy Renner becomes, for me, outstanding as Doyle, whilst Scarlet is a wholly committed and believable character. Both young actors deserve high praise for their thoroughly believable portrayals of Tammy and Andy.
I loved this film, possibly more so than the predecessor. I like a variety of films so my appreciation for this film is not merely down to the grander scale on which it is executed, I merely think there is more depth to the plot than the first film, which I found deeply disturbing and visceral. This has elements of that too but I like that, rather than just be a let down, it holds its own against a remarkable first film by taking the concepts behind it - of our vulnerability as an island and a society in such situations, and the possibility of military rule going out of control - to a new level of consideration.
I love the filming style. It's cold and raw, with amazing aerial shots of London, a city I love a great deal, showing it to be the familiar landscape providing the starting point of a scary and alien new society. The use of cold blue light in some of the lab scenes allows the deep brown eyes of Rose Byrne to convey her concerns with close-up camera work whilst also setting a clinical, chilling environment, and the American military presence is initially ominously overprotective and domineering, setting the scene for their later reaction to a return of the Rage virus.
I think that the casting is remarkably good, with, as I said earlier, particular plaudits to the previously little-known Jeremy Renner as Doyle. For me, Doyle is one of those moments of cinematic brilliance whereby a little-known actor puts forth a fabulous portrayal of a pivotal and well-written character, perfectly understanding that he needs to show not just the conflict between duty and morals of the man himself and how he deals with that process, but also being absolutely essential in documenting the human effect of the scariest concept behind this film - not just the blood-thirsty, enraged victims but that our danger in a situation like this, being a small, secluded island society, could also come from our fellow survivors and those in who we put our trust to protect us.
This is a fabulously unnerving film. The Rage victims are scary, filmed with a very disturbing stop-start action that fully portrays the chaos and danger that they bring, and as in the first film, our beautiful capital city is used to great effect to show the stark and desperate situation our characters find themselves in as various shots are filmed with nobody but them, or the infected, in the usually rammed streets.
There is a deeply disturbing scene that I find hard to watch, so this, as a certificate 18, might be best watched through before you let anyone younger view it in the "safety" of your own home. The effects are brilliantly convincing and there is no fault that I can find with this film; you sympathise and root for the main characters yet at no point, particularly if you have seen the first film, do you feel safe to assume you will find a happy ending.
The film never lags, but grows in intensity after the stripped-down, almost documentary-style portrayal of the rebuild of the city, but the feeling of imminent danger is already set by the terrifying farmhouse invasion and chase that claimed the mother of Tammy and Andy. With a pedigree behind the camera that includes Danny Boyle, who instigated the first film, and Alex Garland of The Beach, it is no surprise that this is so brilliantly done.
If you like your horror movies to have intellect and an intensity that goes beyond gore and shock but that will instead stay with you for days after viewing, this could well be the film for you.
Widely available - £2.63 DVD via Amazon, also on Blueray and as a double film pack with 28 Days Later.
Duration 95 minutes
***Includes strobe lighting***
***Certificate 18 - contains strong bloody violence and gore***
28 Weeks Later
Movie Length: 100 minutes
Director: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo
Country: United States
Robert Carlyle as Don Harris
Jeremy Renner as Doyle
Rose Byrne as Major Scarlet Ross
Imogen Poots as Tammy Harris
This film is the sequel to the film 28 days later, where a virus called 'rage' changes people into evil zombies and attack other people. The virus has all England in its grasp. Now 28 weeks later after the outbreak of the virus, it's relatively safe to begin rebuilding the country. It seems that the infected have died from lack of food. Led by General Stone they start to bring new and old residents back to England, including Tammy and Andy, two children who stayed in Spain during the outbreak of the virus. Tammy and Andy are the children of Don and Alice who we meet at the beginning of the movie. Meanwhile Don has managed to get a high position in the rebuilding project. Alice is killed early in the film, but how she died is Don not really honest about. Everything seems to be safe in the area and the virus seems to be away, but soon they will be faced by a little surprise.
The performances are excellent in this film, but the characters doesn't have a lot of depth. They are quiet superficial but just sufficient enough to care about them, especially the children. The actors do a pretty good job, but they only do what they really can do. I liked Imogen Poots as Tammy Harris. I though he was the strongest of the actors.
There are several extras on the DVD, including commentary from director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo and producer Enrique Lopex Lavigne. Most of the commentary is a bit dull, but they give insight into how certain scenes and why certain scenes had to be improvised. Besides the comments there are also deleted scenes and more, with the option to listen to commentary. Funny just to watch, but it is clear why they have not made the film. In addition, there's an extra that shows how the actors had to play as the infected.
28 Weeks Later is a great film, but after watching 28 days later, it's just not as strong as the first one. The first movie was good and exciting because the whole idea was new and the way they filmed was really good. With this sequel you already know the story and what's going on and now it feels more like a repeat of the first. Nevertheless the movie still is entertaining to watch and some scenes are still pretty scary. I just think they could have made a lot more out of it. The amount of extras is good so that's a plus.
This is the sequel to the brilliant 28 days later which had a nice twist on the zombie genre, with copy cat movies such as The Crazies still making the rounds it's not surprising they made this sequel. The film stars Robert Carlyle whose shown his acting chops many a time, unfortunately he doesn't get a huge amount of screen time here. The rest of the cast do good as well with a few newcomers and a few American actors from TV shows such as Jeremy Renner (Angel, House) and Harold Perrineau (Lost).
The plot isn't a million miles from the first but that's ok because zombies' killing everyone is fun. I like that the writers were obviously not afraid to be dark and kill off the characters. The twist at the end was nice and possibly previewing a future sequel, 28 months later maybe.
The soundtrack to the 28 days was brilliant and has recently been reused in Kick ass (along with Sunshine's soundtrack), this films music is also brilliant and sets the mood nicely.
The film comes on a single disc with features such as: making of, deleted scenes and a featurette on the action sequences.
*This is a film only review
Ok, I will admit this right off the bat - I have never seen 28 Days Later, the original of which this sequel is based and I am also definitely not a horror movie fan! I do however know the basic premise and my husband who had seen it wanted to watch this
The premise is pretty simple. A incurable virus called RAGE has infected the UK, the focus is on London mainly in particularly. It has turned those infected into zombie-like creatures who then spread it en masse to 'civillians' through their saliva - that is through bites.
When we begin, we join a rural farmhouse where a number of people are holed up including a husband and wife (played by Robert Carlyle and Catherine McCormack) who have been separated from their children in their escape from the disease and are unaware of their fate. The building soon comes under attack from the diseased people and Carlyle escapes alone on a nearby boat.
We then join him sometime later, and in the preceding months since the initial outbreak London has become a martial state, governed by the army - in particular the US army. The survivors are closely monitored and controlled in a quarantined facility whilst the military powers that be try to assess their next move. Meanwhile, Carlyle's character is happily reunited with his children and faces the sad task of informing them of the death of their mother. Through curiosity, the children break the quarantine - setting in motion a chain of events which puts the disease firmly in control once again.
I did enjoy the film. It is certainly pacey and provides a few fair short sharp shocks. In places it is also suitably claustrophobic engaging a number of clever tricks in order for us to follow the actions as the few remaining survivors endeavour to escape. It comes to best effect towards the end when we can only see the action through a night-vision camera.
All of the characters are expendable, maintaining a real sense of unpredictability and novelty. As with the iconic imagery that I have seen in reference to the first film, the eerily empty streets and landmarks of London are used to devastating effect - although losing the element of surprise and icon status that the promotion around the first one had. It has a real sense of gritty realism but also feels fresh well-made and cinematic.
The performances are uniformly very good. Particularly those of Robert Carlyle's children. There is not much in the way of plot to be fair, focussing mainly on the action but that is not to say that it is any the less engaging. Needless to say, it is very violent - largely of the bloody variety. Being of a very squeamish nature, I just about managed it but did jump several times.
In conclusion, whilst it is not a film which I would choose to watch again and again - it is a smart film with enough shocks and surprises to keep you entertained as well as being very visually stunning.
This is the sequel to 28 Days later which most people would have probably have guessed. It doesnt have any of the original characters which is a shame (no cillian! :( ) however the storyline is carryed on very well. It is obviously 28 weeks after the outbreak and is about rehabitating London. It is fast paced and gets straight into it. There is a good twist aswell when the two main characters (brother and sister) escape from the protected area to go back home they find their mother there who is then taken back to the quarantine and tests are done on her. They then realise that the mother has the virus but is a carrier of it which means that although she isn't showing and of the symptoms she could still pass the virus on to other people. As you guessed the virus breaks out again and it is another fight for survival. The ending is quite unexpected and sad but definately worth watching. I would also recomend seeing 28 days later first although you can still make sense of it without.
28 weeks later is the sequel to 28 days later and continues the story of a virus infected Britain. 28 days later introduced the concept of virus which turns people into raving slavering monsters, they become mindless and live only to taste human flesh.
28 days later was a 2002 film directed by Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire) of a screenplay written by Alex Garland (The Beach). The film showed an infected British Isles and left us with a island quarantined as the infected start dying of starvation.
28 weeks later bring together Boyle and Garland and shows us the outcome of the virus 28 weeks after the initial infection. Again the film shows the infected as ravaging beasts only coverting one thing, human flesh. The film starts with a quiet scene in a lonely farmstead with Dan Harris (Robert Carlyle) sharing the farm with his wife, the farms elderly couple, a girl and a young man. There comes a knock on the door and a young boy enters the house saying he's being chased, the infected soon arrive and at a terrible moment Dan has to abandon his wife and run for his life.
DAn escapes and the story moves forward a few months to show a london under quarantine by the US army, all the infected have died and the army is allowed non-infected children back into the country including Dan's teenage daughter and 11 year old son.
The pair soon escape into london on an adventure and return to their old house, they encounter their mother who has somehow survived. She is soon diagnosed as a carrier, and Dan goes to visit her and becomes infected. The virus is now back and the army has to use punitive efforts to suppress the outbreak. So the film begins.
Dan Harris - Robert Carlyle, Carlyle is his usual brilliant intensity, he is insecure after letting his wife be infected but has managed to rebuild his life and is delighted to get his children back. He's now an important official and everything seems to be going his way until his wife re-appears.
Major Scarlett Ross - The head of the infectious disease department played by Rose Byrne. She's the nominal eye candy for the film and Rose is truly beautiful. She helps protect the children once the virus escapes.
Mackintosh Muggleton and Catherine McCormack play the Harris children and play the role competently, they are analogous to the children in Jurassic park, that is they run around a lot and are protected by adults. Though they are 5-6 years older than the pair in Jurassic Park, they become crucial as the film progresses.
Jeremy Renner plays Doyle, a sniper who aids the escapees. Its nice to see Jeremy play a hero rather than his usual dark anti-hero. He leads the children but of course you can guess the end!!
Other characters are the army general who deems that there will be zero tolerance on any humans found in London once the virus escapes.
The scenes where the army fires on the populace are probably the darkest in the film, its interesting that the moment of pure evil are not by the virus crazed humans but the army trying to keep the virus in check.
The bombing of the city is particularly vivid and shocking.
The film is shot as a blood filled slasher movie very much in the style of the classic early eighties video nasty, in now way is this sanitised with plenty of gnashing teeth, blood and gore. The scenes are shot in a way to keep everything calm until a moment of blood and madness speeds the story from the pedantic to the frenetic.
Its only when the situation spins out of control that the true horror of the situation become apparent, here command has to take terrible choices, there are no grey here only black and white, kill or be killed. We find out later that the decision of the commander is the right one and we should be routing for the soldiers chasing the kids rather than the other way around, but of course we want the kids to get to safety.
28 days later was a very low budget horror film which hit all the right notes, sequels usually miss their target and tend to slide into sloppy writing and short of ideas but this sequel has the same writer and director and is at least as good as the first. There is something deeply satisfying to anyone who grew up when zombies film where shown on dodgy betamax (ask your mum if your younger than 20), the love of crazed eyes, teeth blood and gore is a simple one.
The film also ends with an obvious sequel and there is a possible 28 months later which any Danny Boyle fan will anticipate with eagerness.
28 Days Later was a horror film released in 2002 to considerable audience and critical acclaim as a visceral, gritty, original horror from mastermind and recent Academy Award winner (for Slumdog Millionaire) Danny Boyle. When a sequel was announced, few, myself included, really expected it to be any good, but alas, this is a film that understands the essence of the original, despite Boyle being substitued for director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo this time.
The film opens with an unforgettable scene, as Don (Robert Carlyle) and his wife Alice (Catherine McCormack) are holed up in a dilapidated house as the "rage" virus has taken its grip on the UK mainland. They are assailed by the infected, resulting in an intense escape sequence that really cements the tone for the next 100 minutes. The film picks up 28 weeks later, with the infected having seemingly starved to death, and the country is being brought back to a more civil state, although the UK has become more like a dystopia thanks to the American-led NATO force that are occupying the country (opening the film up to countless political readings regarding the Iraq war).
The film largely consists of Don attempting to locate his two children, and then attempting to get back to a normal life, but of course, the outbreak begins once again, kickstarting a wealth of chaos, underpinned by some intense and insanely gory setpieces. While this isn't the tense and psychologically compelling outing that the first film was, it really does deliver thanks to its inflated budget - the action scenes are extremely well directed, delivering both explosions and gore. Despite the expectations being low for this one, I don't think many will be let down, and many will be pleasantly surprised - it's not as great as the superb original, but it delivers on every front a "zombie" film should deliver.
This film is a follow on to the film 28 Days Later and apparently a third film in the series is planned called 28 Months Later so I reckon I could make a killing betting on what the fourth film in the series will be called.
This is certainly not the worst horror movie that I have seen and as far as sequels go it was not bad. In a world where there are those who are healthy and those who are infected Don played by Robert Carlyle runs out on his wife when their house is attacked by a gang of infected humans. Moving forward and Enland is now seen to be safe and attempts are being made to repopulate the country as the infected ones are believed to have all died through lack of food. Needless to say this is far from the reality of the situation and soon things start to look bad for Don and his two children.
There is a lot of blood and guts in this film and it is certainly not for the feint hearted who do not like the gory special effects in their films.There is a decent amount of suspense in this film and my only real criticsm is that the plot is a little weak in a few places and events do not always add up.
You do not have to have seen the first film, this one can stand up for itself but it probably helps and the two compare well together. Not a bad horror film at all but certainly not likely to make the classics lists either.
28 weeks later is the horror sequel to 28 days later and was released in 2007. It is rated 18 due to strong violence, gore and language and is 95 minutes long.
At the start of the film we meet Don and Alice, husband and wife, getting ready to sit down to a nice meal when a little boy knocks on the door begging to be let in. Against his better judgement, Don agrees but the little boy is being followed by a hungry pack of the infected. Not wanting to die, Don runs away, leaving his wife behind.
28 weeks later and the country is trying to repopulate by bringing old and new residents to England. Britain has been declared relatively safe and everyone believes that most of the infected have now starved to death. While bringing in new residents, chief medical officer is surprised that children are now being brought back, including Tammy and Andy, Don and Alice's children.
After going through medical examinations, Tammy and Andy are taken to District 1, a highly guarded section of London, and reunited with their father who has to tell them that their mother is dead but he fails to tell them that he left her behind. Tammy and Andy desperately want to go back to their old house so they escape from District 1. When they get to their old house, the realise they're not alone and this is where everything starts to get a little crazy.
Robert Carlyle - Don Harris
Jeremy Renner - Doyle
Rose Byrne - Major Scarlet Ross
Imogen Poots - Tammy Harris
Mackintosh Muggleton - Andy Harris
Catherine McCormack - Alice Harris
Harold Perrineau - Flynn
Shahid Ahmed - Jacob
Emily Beecham - Karen
Garfield Morgan - Geoff
Amanda Walker - Sally
Idris Elba - Brigadier General Stone
I really enjoyed 28 days later and considering how horror sequels normally go, I was a bit wary about watching this but I did go into it with an open mind. It turns out, someone finally did a horror sequel well.
As good as this film is, be warned, it is extremely gory. If you thought the first film was sick then prepare to be shocked. I'm normally pretty OK when it comes to blood etc and sat through the Saw films without having to look away but this one really grossed me out. 28 weeks later really has some scream at the screen moments.
Britain is really starting to up the ante when it comes to horror films and it is about damn time. I'm finding British horror films a hell of a lot scarier than anything Hollywood has released recently.
I first thought that 28 weeks later was going to be just like the first film but there are a lot of great differences/ changes. I loved how we get to see the country trying to repopulate and the extreme care that the forces take to make sure the virus doesn't return. In this aspect, it makes 28 weeks later completely different to the first film.
The way the action scenes are done was amazing and kept to the same feel that Danny Boyle gave us before. The shaky/ unsteady camera movements help to make this film really scary.
28 weeks later is a fantastic sequel and with 28 months later being released in 2011, I'm left wondering if a third film will be one too many.
Set 28 weeks after the rage outbreak killed off most of the public in the UK, the virus has disappeared so the US Army has set up a new home in London in an attempt of rebuilding England. The story follows two kids Tammy & Andy who have returned from a refugee camp in Spain to meet up with there dad (Robert Carlyle) who survived the original outbreak. After settling in there new homes which is heavily guarded by the army the kids decide to sneak out and visit their old house to bring back a few items but end up bumping into there mum who was apparently taken by the rage victims according to there dad. There mum was immune from the rage that is how she survived but she is an unaware she is carrying the virus and It is not long to the virus has infected the population.
The gore in this movie is quite bad but it is not anywhere near the likes of the saw movies. It did get a bit over the top when one of the characters was pushing his fingers in another persons eye. There wasn't many points in the movie which made you jump, the one that stands out is when the kids are in the subway using the camcorders night vision mode to see where they are going.
Technically, the film looks and feels extremely rushed, especially in the cinematography. Attack sequences (and otherwise) are spliced with mindless hand-held camera-shaking, adding a dose of nausea to an already visually jarring film.
The acting was good in this film Rose Byrne and Jeremy Renner leading the plot put over a convincing performance as members of the US Army trying to escape the infection. The one problem I had was of Mackintosh Muggleton who played Andy, he was annoying and he didn't seem right as the kid who was the cure to the virus.
Overall this is an enjoyable horror/action film that will keep you entertained throughout.
28 Days Later is a 2007 "post apocolyptic horror " movie and is the sequel to the critically acclaimed 2002 Movie 28 days later and is set as the title suggests 28 weeks after the outbreak of the Rage virus depicted in the first movie.
Don ( Robert Carlyle ) and his wife Alice ( Catherine McCormack ) are seen preparing dinner in a heavily reinforced cottage somewhere in englands countryside, they are sharing the cottage with four other people and sharing a meal when there is a knock at the door, after much hesitation they open the door and there is a child begging to be let in, he tells them he's from Sandford and all his family are infected with the Rage Virus we saw in the first movie, as he is explaining a pack of infected attack and enter the house, they quickly overwhelm the group and infect almost everyone, Alice refuses to leave without the boy and after the bedroom Don and Alice are barricaded inside is overrun Don abandons Alice and the boy and escapes on the river in a boat.
We find out that over the course of the 28 weeks following the original outbreak the infected have all starved to death and Britain has been declared relatively safe and re-population has been ordered.
An American led NATO force are populating the country with old and new residents in the designated safe zone "district 1" ( Isle of Dogs ) , amongst the new residents are Don and Alices children Tammy ( Imogen Poots ) and Andy ( Mackintosh Muggleton ) who were in spain during the initial outbreak.
At 12 years old Andy is the youngest person in Britain and after a medical inspection they are cleared to enter the District, after entering they are greeted by their father Don ( who obviously escaped unharmed ) and after settling into their new home are told a fictitious story of how their mother was killed and their father watched her die.
During the night Andy and Tammy sneak out of the District and return to their own home, where they discover their mother disheveled but quite alive, they are all recaptured by the US Army and Alice is quarantined.
A Blood test reveals she is infected with the Rage virus but due to a gene abnormality she doesn't show symptoms, however that being said her blood and saliva do contain the virus and she is highly contagious, and as such it is determined that she will be killed to prevent a further outbreak.
However during this time Don has been confronted by his kids after they discovered he lied about their mothers fate, and after sneaking into her quarantine area he shares a kiss with her, unfortunately he doesn't realise that she is contagious and very soon he is overrun with the symptoms of the rage virus, he gruesomely kills Alice and very soon begins to infect other people as well and a new outbreak begins, and as such Tammy, Andy and others are engaged in a new fight for survival.
So there you have it, I really wasn't expecting as much from the sequel as I did from the original, as I found 28 days later to be one of the best Horror movies of the last 15 years ( Horror is a genre that I thought had taken a severe downturn since the 90's ) , the sequel manages to keep the same great horror feel and even make it more terrifying ( the scene where Don kills Alice is actually quite stomach churning ) while keeping the great camera angles and cinematography that Danny Boyle made unique in the original.
It really does that rare thing in the movie business where it is as good as the original, something not many sequels manage to do, and the ending of the movie certainly leaves it open for another movie in the series, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised.
Truly terrifying stuff and a must see for fans of Horror movies.
At first this looks like another lazy sequel. Keep the same story, change the title a little, swap all the main characters, add some Americans, plonk a random director in and hear the cash registers ching away.
But it's not quite as bad as it seems. For one thing the sequel is leap-frogging off a strong original. 28 Days... was from Danny Boyle/Alex Garland (the duo who made the excellent Sunshine) and featured a new breed of zombie fun. Instead of shambling slow morons, 28 Days had super-speedy, bloody-faced lunatics. And though Boyle and Garland are absent from this sequel, the new director is Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, the Spanish writer/director of excellent 2001 flick Intacto. Chuck in Robert Carlyle and a bigger budget, and suddenly things start looking up.
Well, things aren't exactly looking up for the characters, or the world for that matter. The film takes place 28 weeks after the original (hence the name). England has been purged of the 'rage virus' that caused so much havoc and the American army are supervising the reintegration of a non bloody-faced-lunatic population. But uh-oh - is that a fresh out-break I spy? Before you can say 'is that blood you're weeping', London is back into a state of chaos. And now our new batch of survivors have to battle with both the angry infected, and also the crazy army, whose idea of 'only trying to help' is by horribly killing lots of civilians (seems familiar...)
With the luxury of not having to set up the scenario, Fresnadillo can leap straight into lots and lots of frantic running, violence and general horror. It's great fun, and the director plays around with some neat little set pieces, in particular a pitch-black stumble through a deserted tube station, seen only through the night-vision of a sniper rifle. There's jumps, thrills and a fantastic use of a helicopter. It's enough to raise your heart rate throughout, and satisfies all basic speedy-zombie necessities. Watching Robert Carlyle pegging down a hillside, closely followed by a flock of rabid, scary people, is definitely my definition of fun.
The film does suffer a little from the removed original British roots. The slow set-up and story of the first film is abandoned in favour of a basic "we have to get from here to there" mentality, which seems to perfectly mirror your traditional horror computer game. "I'll meet you over there, once you've performed a series of tasks" says their potential saviour. No, bloody-well meet me right here, please. You can almost count the levels as they work their way through. The characters are also fairly generic, and almost all action pieces take place in front of some sort of London landmark.
Still, it's great fun to watch and a worthy sequel.
28 Weeks Later leaves the characters from the prequel behind and shows other perspectives from different survivors of the infection. The main characters this time are a family who survived the initial outbreak of the RAGE virus.
The movies starts off in the past showing the mother and father of the family living with others in a bordered up house, close to running out of supplies. There is a tense but quick scene as the infected attack them and the father (Robert Carlysle as Don) is the only one that escapes.
You then see him meeting his kids again in London where American forces have dropped by to lend a hand... although they end up doing more damage after the virus breaks out again.
There are some very good action scenes, due to the bigger budget for this movie, such as the sniping scenes. Although the acting isn't perfect again, it's not bad. I thought the American soldiers were well-picked, as was the wife but Robert Carlysle was a questionable choice and I don't think he really suited the theme.
Overall, it's a fairly gory horror, with more action than survival this time round, and a less British feel. It's nothing special but I preferred it to the first mainly because of the picture quality to be honest, although it definitely seemed less believable and a little wooden. I actually hope they skip "28 Months Later" and go straight to "28 Years Later" if they do make another sequel as it would be far more interesting.
28 weeks later, shock horror, takes place 28 weeks after the initial outbreak of the Rage virus. If you have watched 28 days later, skip to the next paragraph, if you haven't, i'll give you a brief overview: The rage virus is a virus which instantly turn people, when they have contracted it via blood, saliva etc, into psychotic zombie like killers, who attack any uninfected people. Apparently like the rabies virus made extreme by scientists, the virus quickly spreads through england, leaving only pockets of survivors.
The story begins with a group of survivors in a house, almost running out of food. The are attacked by a group of infected people, this scene was very intense, and happening so near the start was a bit shocking, and made me excited about what was to come. Only one man gets away from the infected, leaving his wife behind to the fate of infected.
The story then picks up with the man living in a safe community in london, run by americans, who have came to help out poor little england. There are very strict rules here, so it comes as a surprise to some people when the mans children, who were on holiday at the time of the outbreak, arrive being the youngest people in england.
Naturally the virus breaks out again, and while i wont ruin the story too much, it is very exciting. The community gets locked down, and at one point, many people are trapped in a room, with no exit, an infected manages to get in, leading to mass chaos!
While the film is not as good as the first one, as most sequels aren't, it still is a great film. I thought it was a bit more corny and unbelievable that the first film, which had a gritty real vibe about it. There are some great scenes though, and great for anyone who wants a scare.
The end also leaves room for a sequel, which i think it coming out; 28 months later. While these time frames are getting a bit silly, i am still excited to see it, as i want more RAGE!
From the moment back in 1898 in "War of the Worlds" when HG Wells first imagined London's population using the defeated Martians' alien plants as kindling for their fires, most post-apocalyptic works of art have had to deal with the ideas of reconstruction and rebirth. Without that, it would not be "post-" and most stories would end quite quickly and very definitively.
"28 Weeks Later" is the sequel (of course) to "28 Days Later", and deals with exactly that: the reconstruction and rebirth of a post-Rage-ravaged London. The original movie, released in 2002, was a startling mixture of post-modernism and technical innovation which successfully walked the tightrope of parody (as a pre-production "Shaun of the Dead" was waiting in the wings) and also managed to avoid clear, blatant plagiarism. Certainly, as you can see from my earlier review of "28 Days", it is possible to pick apart many of the influences - John Wyndham, Terry Nation, and George Romero, basically - but unlike the proverbial dissection of the frog, none of the charm is killed off in the process (or even left undead).
"28 Weeks Later", however, is a very different film, in atmosphere, execution and (it appears) budget. If you have not seen "28 Days" I would recommend you watch it before watching this film, and most importantly, before reading any more of this review - there will be spoilers!
The film opens fantastically well, with a hugely dramatic scene (happening during the original outbreak of the Rage disease) in a picturesque farmhouse. Some of the scene is filmed in almost total darkness, before some Infected human burst into the house and all hell breaks loose. Main character Don (played by Robert Carlyle) soon finds himself running through a field, chased by several hundred of the Infected, hungry for blood. Most importantly, he has left his wife Ann trapped in an upstairs room in the farmhouse, about to die. Unable to save her, he finally bursts through the undergrowth onto a riverbank, and escapes the Infected in a small boat (in a scene which has rather unfortunately humorous echoes of Indiana Jones) ...
Half a year later, the Rage disease (and the by now starving, zombie-like Infected) has died out in an empty Britain. One small area of the East End of London has been designated a "safe zone" by UN forces (the American Army, in reality). The enforced quarantine of the UK (as seen in the last half hour of the first film) seems to have been a success, and Rage has not spread to any other country. Now Don is returning to "District 1" London to be reunited with his two children. The subsequent introductory scenes about this tiny enclave of civilisation, guttering and flickering amidst the huge, gleaming expanse of an empty London, are particularly affecting and unique. We see public transport happening in a demilitarised zone, with a demoralised population. We see surreally clean and modern flat accomodation set up for the returning population. This part of the film is appropriately eery, as the sheer quiet of London is conveyed in both sound and shot. This is not the confusing silence of the London from the first movie - this is a London of loss and grief, a scar with no voice.
It is after this point, I must admit, that I began to lose interest in "28 Weeks Later". The director, Juan Fresnadillo, is very keen on dramatic cuts, juxtapositions, and unusual or overly-obvious camera angles. But it has the effect of a very rich meal: if your starter is prawn cocktail with a side order of chicken curry, you probably won't plough into the main course with much enthusiasm. Then, there's the problem of Robert Carlyle. Previously to "28 Weeks Later", Oor Bobby had appeared in the dreadful, Walmart-checkout-friendly disaster flick "Flood", which was show on British TV in two parts on the May Bank Holiday of 2008. Quite frankly, "Flood" is rubbish - and Carlyle seems to have carried his character over into "28 Weeks". There's lots of earnestness, and not enough depth. (As a side issue, Carlyle now seems to have cornered the market in slightly down-market sci-fi and fantasy, with appearances in "Eragon" and "Stargate Universe", and a new movie about the - yawn - Knights Templar in pre-production).
Thankfully, Carlyle is soon Infected (by a kiss from his wife, a dormant carrier of the Rage virus who is discovered hiding in a deserted London flat when her children go AWOL from "District 1") and we no longer have to withstand his cod-stern determination. The Rage Virus is suddenly out in the general population again, and spreads rapidly (mostly from the lips and teeth of the rabid Carlyle himself). In the first movie, all of the Infected were unknown bit (no pun intended) actors: this time, the main protagonist of the disease is a well-known movie star, which does seem to alter the chemistry a bit. Rather than think 'there's a terrifying member of the Infected', we instead ponder 'hmm ... there's Bobby Carlyle with red contact lenses ... ' which just adds an extra barrier to the suspension of disbelief.
Plot-wise, I really don't want to reveal any more about the movie that I already have. Suffice is to say, I found the last hour pretty unwatchable, as ra[idly turned into a charmless slasher movie (and believe me, there are many charming ones). Imagine a night at a rave with a Nintendo DS strapped to your eyes, and you get some idea of the fast-cut, fast-flashing "delights" of the second half of "28 Weeks Later". However ... getting through to the end is worth it for the final twist, a terrifying expose of the one thing that humanity hoped would never happen (and never did, at least in the first film ... )
Of the DVD extras, the director's commentary is actually very interesting - partly because it shines light upon the rather strange "franchise" mentality that Alex Garland/Danny Boyle had about the follow-up to their original movie. I'm sure Fresnadillo's direction and writing were seen as being a valuable and necessary change in speed from the first movie (which, despite its greatness, is admittedly probably quite slow). But for me, it didn't quite work.
£3 in Morrison's. Sold - but with reservations!
Put that cynical look away, because the critics were right. 28 Weeks Later really is a sequel that delivers, that expands on the original, and in many ways even surpasses it. Faithful in many ways to the enjoyable, if derivative, 28 Days Later, this sequel sees original director Danny Boyle (who went off to make Sunshine instead) replaced by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo behind the camera(director of the excellent Spanish film Intacto). And Fresnadillo is an inspired choice, putting together a film thats not bereft of flaws of its own, but one that proves to be an ambitious and surprisingly thought-provoking follow-up. Many of the building blocks are the same. Primarily set over six months after the Rage virus engulfed Britain, turning many of its inhabitants into deadly zombie-esque creatures in the process, the film this time though sees the American military arrive to help sort things out. Only things quickly go wrong, allowing Fresnadillo to mould a pacey, exciting and desperately enjoyable action carnival, thats got a little more under the surface. Grounded by Robert Carlyle as one of the survivors of the virus, replete with his kids in tow, 28 Weeks Later skilfully navigates the labyrinth of sequel hell and really, really delivers. Whats more, it opens up the enticing possibility of a further sequel, and on the evidence of this film, thats a very welcome thought. 28 Weeks Later, like its predecessor, isnt a film for the faint-hearted, and wholesome family entertainment it absolutely isnt. But its a very good, energetic horror movie, and far, far better than you might've originally given it credit for. --Jon Foster