And the award for most typical movie of the year goes to . . .

Rating: 1/10 (20 September 2008)

My only major problem with 28 Weeks Later is that there is nothing to separate it from the hundreds of other zombie movies, or in this case wannabe zombie movies, because the zombies really aren't zombies. Every single scene in this movie I've seen before. The virus-that-turns-people-into-zombies plot has been done more times than a dried-up hooker. And that is it. The movie doesn't try to take the sub-genre any further than it already was back in the 60s, and it doesn't attempt to add any intelligent twist to the formula. It does nothing that hasn't been copied and then copied again.
What I just mentioned is why, even with all the well-done action, I really just wanted to turn 28 Weeks Later off and go to bed. It bored me because it was predictable, unoriginal, and exactly like the other zombie movies that bored me to tears. Yes, 28 Weeks Later is far superior to bore-fests like the remake of Dawn of the Dead, which had less zombie action than god-forsaken Juno. But at the same time, 28 Weeks Later bored me just as much because it copied scenes from that remake, and copied scenes from every other zombie movieI, and most likely you as well, have seen every scene in this movie before. Every last one. Any supposed intensity is zapped out due to this fact, because you know who is going to live and who will diethe scenes are that predictable.
The other problem is the atmosphere. Or, more accurately, the problem is the fact the movie doesn't even attempt at creating a solid atmosphere, which would have helped it out a lot. The reason Cloverfeild and the original Alien were both so effective was because they understood how to create the perfect doom atmosphere. But while cliché movies like 28 Weeks Later will take up an hour of screen time to set up a drama behind the flat characters in order to give them characterization (which never works and didn't work here either), it never takes time to create atmosphere, which would be much more effective. There was no suspense. There was just the predictable: open with action, take an hour for drama, have the most action, then end with a cute, trite ending. So many directors/writers think that is the only way to develop a movie, but they're wrong. Let me repeat myself: they're wrong and cliché and pretensions and know nothing about good storytelling. I wish someone in the movie business would understand this.
Technical aspects are amazing. The flash-cutting isn't done as well as in Saw, but it's a lot better than I've seen. The movie has one of the best soundtracks, and best use of its soundtrack I've heard in a long time. The style is also pretty cool. And, I'm shocked to say, this movie had enough blood to actually earn its R-rating, which made me happy. There isn't a whole lot of violence/gore, but what is there is very nicely done and bloody. It's sad, however, to see all these nice aspects go into such a pointless movie.
Can no one take zombies and do something original with them? I can name several video games that have, but I guess movies are really just dying out.
So, I bought 28 Weeks Later for $3 in the bargain bin. Was it worth that? I guess. But I'd be lying if I didn't say I was bored enough to shoot my eyes out.
1/10