An insult to the first film

Rating: 3/10 (27 September 2007)

In 2002 the audience was treated to 28 Days Later. A film in which a group of environmental activists release animals from a laboratory. Animals that happened to be infected with Rage, a virus that makes them incredibly aggressive and hostile. The activists get killed or infected, one by one, and the virus escapes from the laboratory. 28 days later, the whole of the country is infected. The survivors seeking shelter for the infected that have only one drive: hostility towards non-infected. It radiated desolation from the word Go and to that a quick building and never relenting tension was added. At the end one felt bad. Maybe with a slight hope that better days might come in the future, but generally bad. Despairing, lonely, looking forward to accept the inevitable death that haunted all.
Now, in 2007, the story picks up 6 months after the original film. The US army (where did the US come from all of a sudden? This happened in the UK and as far as I know the UK is closer to the European mainland than the US - insult number 1) holds a base in London. Around that base is a secure area in which survivors live and find shelter. Then two kids of one of the survivors return from their vacation abroad and are reunited with their father. From their the chaos starts.
And quite sadly, that is where the insults come flying in quicker than the Rage itself. To give examples would be giving away much of the plot and its massive holes but IMO the film insults the army quite badly, it insults the audience very badly by throwing cliché after cliché at it, and it insults the first film by taking its name and part of its story. There are gaping plot holes aplenty and the whole film is predictable from the point where the kids get home again.
3 out of 10 infect-eds eating the directors and the plot-writers