One of the worst sequels of all time

Rating: 1/10 (18 April 2013)

If rating 28 Weeks Later with a zero was possible, I'd have done it.
Now, I usually hate sequels that have neither the original cast or creative team behind them. This film is no exception. I'll try and keep it succinct.
So: you take a BRILLIANT film with poignant and beautiful direction and a stellar cast and script about a story of the apocalypse and how derelict and alone the world is. And you takeaway the meaning behind it, destroy the lore of the film, nullify the impact and sense of the ending, change the director and script writer and Americanize the hell out of it.
The first film had no scope for a sequel, least of all one that makes absolutely no sense and opens a plethora of gaping plot holes.
The whole idea of the first one was that THE INFECTION WAS ONLY HAPPENING IN ENGLAND. The whole world was operating normally. It was just England, sitting there by itself. Left alone. And that's how it should have stayed. We can see in the end that there IS a cure to infection. Starvation. They AREN'T (although the sequel would have you think otherwise), zombies. They starve out in a matter of weeks.
So, in summation. If you like: big explosions, lots of gore, Americans, ridiculous and unrealistic scenes and a plot that makes no sense. . . this is the film for you.
If you are a fan of good cinematography, cohesion and general sense. . . watch 28 Days Later (and its stand-alone series THE RAGE - you can find it on YouTube), and give this pisspoor excuse for a film a miss.
Happy watching,
Labrat