Leaves something to be desired

Rating: Null/10 (1 May 2019)

As the name suggests, months have passed since the catastrophic events of the first film. But now the infected, the Ragers, have died of starvation and the British Isles are slowly being re-inhabited. But, of course it's not that simple.
I thought the first film was okay. Not great, but okay. It had some really good action and the zombies - or the Ragers, because none of these movies dare use the Z-word - were an actual, legitimate threat. It had some social commentary, some good acting and a decent ending.
I also like the idea of this film franchise on paper. Examining the same zombie outbreak in its different stages. First some days later, then weeks, and then presumably months or even years. 28 Years Later could be something we've never seen before in this genre.
Unfortunately it's unclear whether this sequel is strong enough to warrant a third movie. Because while it keeps some of the strengths of the original - the scary zombies and the social commentary - it just isn't that strong of a movie by itself. The action especially takes a heavy nosedive. The film seems to think that the way to shoot action is to have the whole screen pitch black and then flash the lights every couple of seconds while people grunt and moan in the dark. As you can probably imagine, this makes all the action scenes nigh impossible to follow or appreciate.
The whole film also has this cold, clinical look to it. I remember the first film looking much warmer, like a real civilization in ruins. This looks like an IKEA catalog with some zombies added.
Not a terrible film by any means, and if you liked the first one, then this might be worth a watch. Here's hoping we get a third one and that it picks up the slack.