Not bad, for a sequel

Rating: 7/10 (16 November 2007)

I'm not a huge fan of horror films, but when I first saw 28 Days Later I was impressed... not only was the style wonderful, filming great, certain aspects creepy, and "zombies" fast, but there was an element of philosophy that is absent from most films... There was talk of quarantine, rage, murder, and ethical issues of repopulating...
So when I heard the sequel was getting some praise I decided to see it... My good friend, however, said the movie sucked, and he's the type who enjoys any run of the mill horror film, so I was expecting to either be let down, or heavily impressed... I was neither...
The film is good, but it never seemed to really get going, its almost like they wasted way too much time setting the story up and not nearly enough time in the "body" portion of the plot...
I don't think fans of the first will be too disappointed, but I wouldn't recommend this to people who haven't seem 28 Days Later (which, I assume, my friend who said this was terrible did not)...
I give the film about a 6.8 which I have rounded up to a 7 just because of how much I like the basic idea and enjoyed the film... it has the same panicked feel as the first and once again, the Infected are smart and fast...