“weeks” sequel reprises the old “days”
Bob Ross28 Weeks Later
(R; 99 minutes)
Bob’s Grade: C
For trailers, on-camera reviews, and other great features, go to www.BobRossMovies.com
Five years ago, a shaky, scary, satiric fright flick called “28 Days Later” scored surprising success, earning some $82 million worldwide with a low-budget tale of hapless humans fleeing rabidly infected walking dead.
Actually, the zombies in this world were tough to outrun and even harder to kill.
And because they made money, those fleet-footed flesh-eaters are back for another run at the summer box office.
In the first film, the groaning, grimacing killers spread over most of England. In “28 Weeks Later,” the menace has supposedly been subdued enough to start repopulating the land, including an impressively empty-looking London.
But the “rage” virus hasn’t quite been wiped out, as hardy survivors learn the hard way in this scarily shot but negligibly plotted horror film.
Neither the original director, screenwriter nor stars return for this by-the-book sequel. The main plot is the same — flee for your life because if you get bitten, say bye-bye. But the sly humor and pop culture references that made the first film such fun have been replaced by an emphasis on dismemberment, blood and screaming. Especially the screaming.
Using hand-held cameras and stroboscopic playback, director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (”Intacto”) keeps the audience off balance with sheer nervous energy. Headaches and nausea seem like logical responses to his vibrating visions, but you’re more likely to laugh at the silly set-ups and loony chase-and-escape sequences.
Robert Carlyle is the most notable cast member, playing a guilt-ridden dad desperate to save his two daughters from the onrushing plague. Idris Elba (”The Wire”) plays an American soldier, one of the leaders of the force sent in to help the Brits clean up their isle.
But the masses of made-up extras are the meat here, if you’ll pardon the expression.
Loading ...
May 12th, 2007 at 9:43 am
not my cup of tea, but it could do well in a post-spidey week with not much competition.
nice review on bobrossmovies.com!
May 13th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
I don’t know if the review is accurate… While in generic terms, the antagonists of both films are “Zombies” I thought it was made quite clear in the stories that these were living people who were infected with a disease. The first film did a good job show you what started it all and then telling you what happened after the initial infection.
At the same time - I don’t plan on seeing this film. I like to think it’s over when Cillian Murphy and crew get rescued by the military (American? British? Whoever)…
May 15th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
What’s wrong with dismemberment, blood and screaming? Whadday, going soft on us? Bring on the gore.