Saturday, March 14, 2009

Movies I've Watched: 28 Weeks Later

This just aired on my local movie channel. It's my second viewing, so I have a cooler head about it now. I thought I'd write a somewhat incoherent review, just for the hell of it

I wanted to love this movie. I really did. I thought 28 Days Later was a fantastic piece of filmmaking, particularly in a genre that's become so cliched and laughable. It was one hell of a scary movie; disturbing, shocking, but more than anything it was realistic. It's one of my favorite movies of all time, and the only horror film. Plus, it's the best zombie movie of all time, and I love zombie movies.

The sequel? Not so much. Sure, it's a visually stunning film, jarring and completely breathtaking in parts. And it's just so close to perfection that its failings seem bigger and more frustrating. It's so close.

But it's also full of massively stupid plot holes. Things that make you want to pull your hair out, because with just a tiny bit more thought they could've been avoided in favor of more logical plot twists. It wouldn't take much. The plot (the infection breaks out again, obviously) could've been kept much the same without some of the ridiculous coincidences that keep it moving forward. The tight pace and tension of the story is just broken up by characters doing something dumb or by glaring mistakes that make everyone in the movie look stupid. Who is running security in this place?. Oh yeah, the Americans. This is all their fault.

I guess my biggest problem with the movie is that it's painfully predictable. It goes from being a potentially smart horror film to one of those bad all-teen casts where, if someone says 'don't go there, it could be horribly bad!', you know someone's gonna go there, or if someone says 'don't touch that!', you know someone will touch it. It's annoying, and anyone with half a brain can see every plot twist coming a mile away. And it all could've been avoided by some very minor changes. Why make everyone so stupid? And why put children in it? Children ruin EVERYTHING.

And I hate that they make four of these dumbasses responsible for everything. The first movie was a lot bigger in scope, it had a few people dealing with horror. This one still has the big empty landscapes but makes the few people responsible for the horror. And they want us to feel sorry for them? Sorry, I can't sympathize with morons.

Anyway, it's not a terribly bad movie, specially taken on its own. It's perfectly serviceable as a late-night horror movie when you have nothing to do. The subway scene alone is gonna freak you the hell out. It's a pretty good zombie movie, too.

Just not worthy of following Danny Boyle's masterpiece.

And oh man, enough with the shaky cam.

2 comments:

Marra Alane said...

I concur entirely. A decent movie if you forget that it's based on the best zombie movie ever.

Oh yeah, the Americans. This is all their fault.

This is typical of most american films. We take a really good idea that some other country had and make it our own. Sometimes it works, like with the automobile and the office, and sometimes it doesn't, like with pretty much every movie ever. Seriously, if Japan had an army, they would have bombed the shit out of us by now.

Mr. Controversy said...

*spoilers, deal*

Great review, and yeah I guess there were a couple gaping plot holes. Mostly because of how Robert Carlyle naturally had to be the one with the all access pass...who gets infected 20 minutes in. Then the lockdown procedures are wildly inefficient and extremely effective in spreading the infection, and of course our only fail safe option...blow the fuckers half to Hell with high grade explosives. It's the Amercian Way! *wink and tooth glimmer*

Still, even with these faults, it's better than most of the shit out there, and I can't help but think it's a good followup. It's a pretty long and roundabout way of saying it, but I guess I'm saying yeah...I agree with you.