What exactly was 28 weeks later?

Rating: 5/10 (14 May 2007)

As a big fan of 28 days later, I was looking forward to this. Unfortunately, it did not live up to my expectations. I think as a film it was torn between the thought provoking ideas and phenomenal camera work of 28 days later and a more straightforward horror film. The scenes of a deserted London, especially with the gas pouring through the streets, were brilliant but this is nothing new. Most of the ideas were recycled from the original, without adding anything new. Particularly irritating was the repetition of the 'thumbs in the eyes' scene. However, the parallels to the ongoing situation in Iraq, particularly the U.S. occupation of London were really well done and effecting. Undoubtedly Danny Boyle's role as executive producer gave the film some of the qualities of his original but other than that I was not that impressed.
OK, so i admit that I jumped when expected, and was unsurprisingly horrified by the film's brutality and gore but it was all too predictable. I began to get annoyed by the choices people made that in real life would not have been made.
The children deciding to leave the safety of the compound was the stupidest decision made, but was ultimately necessary as the only means of creating the plot. The film was riddled with these unrealistic choices and, combined with the excessive scenes of various people running away from various zombies, it descended into a run of the mill series of horror scenarios.
Robert Carlyle was, admittedly. Ultimately this, and some other redeeming features, was not enough to counter the film's inadequacies. Leaving the cinema I didn't feel thrilled, or happy, I was pretty disconsolate. I guess that was the point though.