BRIEF SYNOPSIS: 24 weeks after the rage virus strikes, all of the infected have starved and the U.S. military begins rebuilding London. A month after that the first children are allowed back in…
PROS: Far more tense than even 28 Days Later.
CONS: Premise of setting up so soon after the virus is a little tenuous; camera too shaky
BOTTOM LINE: I was a big fan of 28 Days Later. As edge-of-your-seat as that film was, 28 Weeks Later was even more terrifying!
The first 10 minutes of 28 Weeks Later was so exciting as to be almost unbearable. Okay, if that makes me sound like a Sissy-Mary then so be it. I’m a fan of zombie films, and I thought I knew what I was in for with this one, but I seriously underestimated how far they could ratchet up the intensity.
The story opens on a group of survivors holed up in a house in the country. Among them a middle-aged man Don (Robert Carlyle from Trainspotting – another film by 28 Days Later director Danny Boyle) and his wife. Hordes of infected break into the house and Don is forced into the snap decision of taking an insane risk to save his wife or to save his own life and attempt to stay alive long enough to raise their kids (who are out of the country studying in Spain.)
Flash forward a half year later and Don is living in London, part of 15,000 others working with the U.S. military to rebuild District 1. Don’s is reunited with his children and has to confront them with the terrible guilt of leaving their mother to die.
A somewhat impractical string of events follows in which the rage virus infiltrates District 1 and some serious mayhem ensues.
The camerawork was very shaky, to the point of being distracting, but it did lend a great deal to the moods of chaos and rage.
The soundtrack borrowed tracks from the original film, which is a good thing – it’s one of the few movie soundtracks I actually purchased. The main song “In the House – In a Heartbeat” starts slow and ratchets up with the action onscreen to a frenetic crescendo.