Hello Chums,
As I have written before, I'm kind of new to the zombie craze. But I am catching up fast. Now I know that the creatures in 28 Weeks Later aren't technically zombies, but what else would you call them? Fast moving zombies (FMZ) that have a hankering for any type of living meat, even brains. I don't know. Maybe it doesn't matter.
If a movie is even remotely successful, the makers will churn out a sequel (you can take that to the bank). They are usually not as good as the original, right? Although sometimes, on that really rare occasion, they are as good or better. That wasn't the case here unfortunately.
28 Weeks Later starts off right at the end of the original. They give you a kind of time line that leads up to now (28 weeks later). The story focus' on a house with people in it that are hiding out from the Rage infected. Which is pretty cool but it goes to crap quickly.
The Rage infected (ragers) follow a kid to the house and break in easily. Too easily. It was so easy, how are we to believe they've been hiding there the whole time. They had no defenses. Maybe they should have watched The Omega Man to learn how to fortify their house.
Of course one guy survives and we follow his story. (It's not nearly as interesting as the people in the first movie). He makes a few (major) bad decisions. These decisions come back to bite him and everyone else in the ass later on. You can't root for this guy.
There are some other unbelievable parts also. Like how they let people start living in areas of London that has been rid of the infected, separated only by bridges or fences. You know that this can't end well. They would never do that in real life. What if some kids snuck over to the other side? Why not fire bomb the city instead? Get rid of the ragers once and for all.
As much as I liked the first movie, I'm more than a little disappointed by this sequel. Oh well, trilogy anyone?
Rating: C+
Happy Viewing.
D.L.
No comments:
Post a Comment