What Happens in London

Rating: 7/10 (2 November 2009)

With another interesting concept for an "infected person" movie (over the typical "zombie" film) they certainly stuck with the usual platform for a sequel: 2x the gore, 2x the madness. '28 Weeks Later' takes an already wonderful movie and actually continues with originality: what happens next? How does society survive an outbreak? Well, if we were a smart race, we could certainly overcome this "rage" virus that spread roughly 7 months prior. And after a very scary introduction to those unfamiliar with the original '28 Days Later,' the movie continues with a "good solution" to rebuild humanity. Of course, the movie then dives into stupid people doing stupid stuff and the virus, supposedly eliminated by the infected starving to death (loved that over just having to shoot zombies in the head), actually resurfaces. This causes man to do even more stupid stuff to stop it once again. Watching it on a grand scale/Bird's Eye POV, it's hard to even imagine trying to contain such a brutal fast-spreading virus, especially with hordes of victims at its disposal. Though I really liked this movie, at times, it was hard to watch, due to the excessive gore (I take back what I previous said about it being 2x gorier – this was probably 10x more gorier than the now subdued '28 Days Later') and the one thing that irked me in the last third. Not to spoil it, but a certain "infected" person always seems to pop up always at the most opportune times, just when the script needs this person to, always finding the victims he/she wants when they are supposedly just running on instinct. Despite the gore (#1 didn't need that for a good story) and the Super-Infected-Phantom, it's a very good follow-up and I look forward to any more to follow.