More Straight-Up Horror than the Original, and Very Good At It

Rating: 8/10 (12 May 2007)

This is a good, straight-ahead horror flick with enough story and character development, not to mention blood and gore, to keep horror fans happy. That being said, the story isn't nearly as nuanced as the "28 Days Later..." Like that movie, however, there's an obvious anti-war/anti-military message, and this time around the references are even more blatant. If there's a moral to this movie, it's "to err is human, but to really screw things up requires military intervention." 6 months after where the original leaves off, "28 Weeks Later..." picks up the story of the rage virus. After the grueling opening sequence, we see that the US military has been brought in to begin the repatriation of London. They've established a green zone (just like in Iraq. Hmmmm...) and the Brits are being flown back in from refugee camps on the continent, particularly in Spain. Two children, each of whom has two different colored eyes just like their mother, are among those being resettled. Their father has managed to survive, as has their mother, though we don't find that out until a little ways into the movie.
As it turns out, mom is a carrier. She has the rage virus in her blood, but she doesn't manifest the syndrome. That's great for her, but not so great for dad. When mom is found and brought into the green zone, she and dad are reunited. He gives her a kiss, and the virus is off once again. Before long, the situation in the green zone is out of control, and American soldiers are mowing down everything that moves in an attempt to contain the plague. In the end, they firebomb London... but the virus still gets out. The ending tells us that there's going to be another sequel, because the virus manages to jump the English channel. We see the Eiffel Tower in the background of the closing shot.
Along the way, we get some very gory images. The greatest single scene of carnage takes place when a helicopter pilot uses his rotor to mow through a crowd of rage-zombies in Regent's Square Park. Limbs, heads, and other less identifiable bits of bodies fly everywhere in a scene that reminded me of the lawnmower sequence from Peter Jackson's "Dead Alive." Even moreso than the first movie, "28 Weeks" owes a lot to George Romero's zombie movies, though for my money the rage-zombies are scarier than the lumbering corpses of "Night of the Living Dead" and its sequels. These revenants move fast, and most of their victims never really see them coming. I'd rather face a Romero-ghoul any day of the week! This film definitely succeeds in building tension and suspense. It held me throughout the slightly over 90 minute runtime, and once the action starts, it never lets up. This comes at a bit of sacrificing of the more complex human interest story that formed most of the middle of the first film. The two turn out to be very different movies in this regard. "28 Days" was largely a story about humanity set against a horror backdrop. "28" Weeks is about the horror itself. It's still a good movie on its own terms, though not quite as good as "28 Days" overall.
The only complaint I have with "28 Weeks" is the editing of some of the footage, particularly early in the film. The images flash by so quickly and disjointedly that its impossible to figure out what's going on. That's probably just the effect that was desired; at various times, we get POV's from both victims of the rage zombies and the ragers themselves. Still, the flash-flash effect gets a bit annoying after a few seconds and it literally hurt my eyes to the point where I couldn't look directly at the screen for more than a couple of seconds at a time. Sequences using the effect were a bit too long. Overall, this is a small complaint, though. "28 Weeks Later..." is a good, taught horror flick, and viewers with strong stomachs will probably enjoy it.