An enjoyable sequel that doesn't quite get it right...

Rating: 7/10 (31 December 2009)

Being a huge fan of 28 Days Later and knowing the impact that this has had on UK cinema I was looking forward to 28 Weeks Later but with an air of concern. Surely the follow up cannot be as iconic and hard hitting as the original? When I found out that it had little involvement by Danny Boyle I was even more wary.
How wrong I was. What we have here is a fast paced, stylish, brutal in places but never boring sequel. It cannot live up to the impact of Days but it doesn't disappoint.
The premise is simple: It is 28 Weeks after the outbreak of the Rage virus. Britain is completely empty and the infected have starved to death. In come the US Army to oversee the re-population of the country starting with a small section of London. We are told that 15,000 people have been repatriated already.
The opening scenes of the film take off almost directly where the last finished, albeit with a different set of survivors. Robert Carlyle's character is faced with a decision the impact of which resonates through the entire film and provides a platform for the film to strike its own identity from Days. In my opinion, this decision is a rational one and as tough as it must be for the character it makes perfect sense - why throw yourself into inevitable death when there is a chance of escape, regardless of who you are trying to save!! The film moves on pretty fast paced from here.
The characters are brought together in London, we find out that the wife/mother is not dead and, indeed, whilst being infected may hold a cure to the virus. Likewise her children may also carry the same genetic code that could save the world. From here it is only a matter of time before the virus re-awakens and it does so in shocking circumstances.
Robert Carlyles transformation into an infected shocked me. The shock and the gore served a purpose, however, and drove the film forward. His infection is different to those seen in Days, it is as if he has retained a degree of his humanity and this mixed with the Rage virus makes him even more dangerous. His poor, poor wife - what a way to go!! Up to this point I cannot fault the film.
It starts to lose marks when the focus of the story turns onto the escape of the children. I just felt there was something lacking here. I fully understood and accepted the actions that the army had to take and felt the dilemma that those shooters faced. The firebombing was unexpected (and a beautifully shot scene) but I cannot see how the children could have escaped in 4 minutes or how the fire did not reach the one street that Robert Carlyle's infected was standing on.
I felt that the rest of the film was an exercise of style over substance, that there was too much of an effort to recapture the iconic scenery of Days (I for one still get scared whenever I travel through an underground section of the motorway and Im 31!!). After setting up the story so strongly in the opening half it fell by the wayside to some extent. Thats not to say that the thrill of the chase was not enjoyable, just that the focus seemed to be too much on the children escaping the army rather than escaping the infected.
Which brings me to my main problem wit the film: I can believe that Doyle would turn his back because what he was being asked to do was tantamount to murder. The helicopter pilot, however, is another issue. I do not see there being any reason for him to break protocol, to enter into an act of desertion and to risk taking people who have been in direct contact with the infected outside of the quarantine area.
But these are the small gripes of an over pedantic film lover who has to try and find some fault!! Overall this is a very decent sequel but does not fall into that rarest of categories of sequels better than the original. It keeps you watching and is brilliantly shot but at the end of the 2 hours I was left feeling a little flat. I would recommend it to fans of the first film but would also suggest not going in with overly high expectations.