As swift and ferocious as its virus-infected undead cannibals, 28 Weeks Later – the follow-up to Danny Boyle’s gritty 2002 zombies-in-London hit – confirms that a Fox Atomic-produced horror sequel need not be technically clumsy, stupid, crass and fright-free. Directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (Intacto), the film picks up its predecessor’s story twenty-eight weeks after the outbreak, finding all of London seemingly free of zombies (who’ve starved) and one portion of it, dubbed the Green Zone, transformed into a safe haven under strict U.S.-NATO military control. Security, however, is a fleeting concept in 28 Weeks Later, which subscribes to a take-no-prisoners ethos in which every character, no matter how sympathetic or apparently integral to the plot, is a potential fatality. As did Boyle, Fresnadillo employs shaky DV camerawork to unsettling effect, especially in a bravura opening sequence in which a husband and father (Robert Carlyle) saves himself and leaves his wife to perish during a zombie ambush. The disconcertingly hazy image quality proves a suitable aesthetic both for a constantly volatile narrative (focused on a besieged family unit), as well as a specific centerpiece sequence in which the military – attempting to deal with the virus’ reemergence, but unable to discern the zombies from the healthy humans – implements a kill-them-all policy. That frenzied zombie attacks are routinely shot in borderline-incoherent close-up somewhat detracts from the terror of said incidents (which are incessantly layered with crashing guitars), and pale in comparison to the hauntingly calm eye-of-the-maelstrom moments involving American snipers and Carlyle’s two (frustratingly underwritten) kids. In its portrait of an occupying U.S. military force that’s not only incapable of safekeeping, but actually a threat to innocents, 28 Weeks Later proves a damning allegory for America’s deteriorating handle on the situation in Iraq. Yet if such parallels are to be drawn, then equally chilling is the film’s complementary depiction of radical Islam as a rampaging virus that no amount of military or diplomatic might can properly contain.
Radical Islam is worse than a virus; at least the zombies don't claim they have the moral high ground.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg | May 17, 2007 at 03:57 PM
The radicalism lining is a good one I hadn't thought of. I just posted my review tonight as well. Good read!
http://strangersong.com/?p=117
Posted by: rob | May 18, 2007 at 12:25 AM
What about all of the holes in the narrative? Such things as no guards on the infected woman, all of the lights being turned off when the outbreak occurred so the soldiers couldn't see who to shoot, the two young kids easily sneaking by what is supposedly tight security, the infected father acting differently than every other infected person, the plot device to get the son inexplicably separated from the his sister and the doctor to confront the father, and others...
Posted by: Dennis | May 19, 2007 at 12:07 AM
I guess the plot holes didn't strike me as major, or distracting. But I won't argue that a few of your examples - such as the kids easily sneaking out of the quarantined area - were contrived, and not really believable given the scenario.
Posted by: Nick | May 22, 2007 at 09:25 AM
I had to agree that I got aware of the holes int the movie which made the it bad when everything else was too good or good at least. It didn't kept me from enjoying the movie but it tooks many points out of if and out of all the points he had for "Intacto". Then I wonder if i'll see it gain, maybe when I don't remenber what it is about.
Posted by: annette | May 28, 2007 at 07:31 PM