"28 Weeks Later..." ** (out of four): Sequel to "28 Days Later" ditches its promising opening premise in favor of convenient plot contrivances and increasingly shaky handheld camerawork.
In 2002, “28 Days Later...” opened in theaters with the promise: “Danny Boyle reinvents zombie horror”. The talented Mr. Boyle (“Trainspotting”) did little “reinventing”, opting instead to make his creatures – who were not technically zombies - scream, vomit blood, bleed from the eyes and run really really fast. Sure we hadn’t seen zombies do that before, but was that really a reinvention? It’s not Mr. Boyle’s fault that the “r-word” was already overused by the time his workmanlike, but ultimately unsatisfying, film hit theaters. And now, five years later, we have the amusingly titled “28 Weeks Later…”. As it turns out, this sequel does even less reinventing than its predecessor, opting instead for more of the same, with decidedly mixed results.
Stumble This
Reddit!If you liked this story, you might also like...
- Our complete archive of Big Picture Reviews.
ugh? seriously? whats up with that website? and all the? question marks?
How can this reviewer be taken seriously? He commented that the movie shouldn't have been lazy because there were four writers. One way of determining the quality of a movie is to see the number of writers. If there's more than one credited writer, you should worry about its quality. Rewriting kills movies.