Not as good as the original, but still freaky

Rating: 5/10 (15 May 2007)

SPOILERS So it comes to this. Another sequel of a decent one off movie. I'd love to know how much of the decision to make this movie was down to the American studios. Distinctively more of an Anglo American project than the first movie, "28 Weeks Later" is a weaker movie attempting to blatantly create a series out of an original one off concept. Continuing the violence and gore of it's predecessor, however distinctively less character driven, it is a suitable Americanisation of a British concept. It's freaky and sometimes fun though.
Half a year has passed since the original outbreak of the virus. With Britain quarantined and the majority of the population dead or relocated, the infected have died out. With an American lead NATO force clearing out the Isle Of Dogs in London, so begins the gradual re-population of our fair country. With an American military assuming that everything is under control and civilians increasing in numbers, you just know that things are going to go wrong. So begins the onslaught.
It's remarkable how a film can repeat so many ideas and yet get them so hideously wrong. Just like the original film, here we have a deserted London (how the hell they managed to make certain places so devoid of life, I do not know) with landmarks left to grow aged and untouched. Just like the scene on the bridge in the original, so we have major landmarks shot beautifully with a grainy camera. Whether Canary Wharf itself, or more traditional locations like Big Ben and St Pauls, so we have venues which I know and love. Yet, unlike our original film, these are not clever, subtle moments, no, instead at times it is like we are watching some form of holiday programme working for the Tourism Board. Walking across the Millennium Bridge, for example, is completely unnecessary. Yet it feels like the location is added purely for the hell of it.
Most notable in the flawed advertisements of London is the use of Wembley. Filmed prior to the completion (Another example of the slow building affecting events), the interior of the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff was used instead. To most I confess this would not be obvious, but to anyone who has watched the FA Cup, or a rugby match, or any sporting event at that venue, the switch is pathetically obvious. If the filming couldn't have been done inside the stadium, change the script.
Away from the locations chosen, the story just isn't as good as the original either. So good because of the characterisation, the first film was a joy to watch. Shocking, unnerving, but ultimately brilliant, it developed characters fully, and then bumped them off without much of a fuss. Yet in this second chapter, blatantly following on the American style, here we have badly developed individuals killed in a beautiful moment of poetry. Well, that's the intention anyway. The ultimate flaw here is that this concept is the wrong way round. Like in the original, people are interesting beings, with lives, histories, and generally a personality. They are also ridiculously mortal and can die in an instant. So, how come in this film, they are all shallow, weak, basic characters who appear to fight through multiple scenarios and come out on top. It's insane, and closer to a Die Hard movie than real life.
Another complaint, albeit slightly less important than characterisation and location, is the way that a powerful song from the first film has quickly become a soundtrack.
In the first film, as we all remember, and if you are like me, adore, Jim invades the military compound to one hell of a good piece of music. Building up slowly but surely, this tune aided the film and developed subtly. It didn't overwhelm, it appeared purely once, and it fitted perfectly. So on to the sequel, and again we have it. Yet no longer is this piece of music gradual and poetic, now it has become a soundtrack piece to be used half a dozen times whenever something "scary" happened. Over used, it looses it's power. Yes we wanted to hear it again, just like how we wanted to see the virus take form, and see a few subtle landmarks, but like everything else of beauty in the first film, it is smeared on here in excessive proportions.
It's a weary route to try to bring back some sort of reprieve for this film now. So flawed in so many ways, I want to leave it be, and yet, like I said in my introduction, there are good sides to it. Well, one good side. Basically, it's fun, and it does hit the occasional right note.
Much more low brow than the first film, for all it's flaws, "28 Weeks Later" does provide the adrenaline rush required. Gruesome and often violent, it does leave you with an uneasy feeling. Like many other Zombie films, it is out to satisfy the blood lust which we possess, and it does that well. It also possesses the occasional joke, and allows us our brief British Xenophobic dislike for the Americans. It pushes those buttons rather well in fact. Like I've said though, it is distinctively low brow. Whilst the first film was a near masterpiece of British cinema, this effort feels distinctively more like a middle of the road American gore-fest.
All in all, "28 Weeks Later" is a bit of a disappointment. Vastly inferior to the original in all the ways that made it a classic, it is a violent movie with minimal characterisation, excessive tourism agenda, and an overuse of a subtle tune. If you want a blood bath though, and feel like walking out of there with a dislike for everything American (including the woeful set up for a third film), then you are in luck as it does these well.