Why we don't like sequels...

Rating: 5/10 (31 October 2009)

It is common knowledge that sequels fail to rise to the standards of the original, but for some reason or another (money?) producers tend to forget this simple fact. And of course, this one is no exception: while "28 days" was by no means original in terms of idea, it succeeded when it came to atmosphere, plot and (mostly) character development, doubled by Boyle's beautiful direction and Dod Mantle's superb cinematography. "28 weeks" is an attempt to recreate the same atmosphere - and it almost succeeds in the first scenes, only to head swiftly towards disaster as the movie unfolds - through decent (decent, not good, not brilliant) direction, but it totally fails when it comes to plot - it is no better, but less amusing, than the average B movie, with the least plausible situations, up to the point where it gets you frustrated and finally mad, yearning for a bit of common sense -, while characters get no room to develop and they often leave the impression that they are just pawns to get things moving. Last but not least, Robert Carlyle's character is just a total waste of talent. P.S. could somebody explain the ending? or was it just meant to let us know that there is another sequel coming, maybe one with Uwe Boll in the director's chair, marking the ever-improving quality of the sequels?