28 Weeks Later (2007) - 6/10

I was hoping this would be a quicker review considering I just finished the entry for 28 Day Later. But having watched the film, it's clear that this is distinct enough that I will have to put at least some effort in. Interestingly, I had assumed this follow up was another Boyle/Garland product, only to then find that this film actually has a new director and writing team behind it (plus an entirely new cast). The films obviously shares a naming convention and common setting, but it also shares a common visual language and unflinching horror DNA that builds upon its predecessor in natural ways. 

1. Acting 

Much like the first film, this movie has a mix of established actors and those getting their initial breakouts. The films is also interesting in that there isn't a clear singular lead - rather different characters help carry the film at different points with the two child actors serving as the longest running through-line. 

Amongst the cast there isn't a major standout, rather each is bringing solid performances to the table. Robert Carlyle is maybe the one exception, but he also gets some of the more interesting character moments to work with. In particular, he gives Don a real sense of pitifulness that walks a fine line between sympathetic character and despicable.  

2. Cinematography 

One of the reasons I thought this film was another Danny Boyle outing was due to similarities of visual language. The resolution has certainly taken a big leap in terms of quality for the sequel, but the kinetic and claustrophobic tendencies remain.  And yet again, while shaky cam is not my preferred viewer experience, the style is at least fitting for what is playing out on screen.

3. Production/Costume Design 

The film certainly benefits from an increased budget (about double its predecessor), but the extra cash doesn't necessarily bring anything superior to the table.

4. Writing 

I like the premise that the film chose in order to continue the story. The film is essentially asking the question of what does rebuilding after the first film look like? Is it possible? What risks are being taken? With that said, I think the plot suffers for some of the same reasons the first one did - namely that the characters make choices that the audience will find... well, dumb. 

The audience knows going into this film that another outbreak is going to happen. You don't need to even watch a trailer to know that. The tension or drama then, is how that is going to happen. The film starts from a pretty cool place. Don and his wife Alice have survived the initial outbreak and are hiding out on in a farmhouse. After infected storm the house, Don has to make the incredibly difficult decision of leaving his wife behind for certain death. This was a dark and interesting place to start from. 

Later, Don is reunited with his children and they kick things off by making the first really dumb decision: they leave the safe area of London that they are staying in and return to their former home to retrieve a picture of their presumed dead mother. Apart from that being an incredibly stupid thing to do, even for children, the end result is that they discover their mother is actually alive. The next decision is not as egregious, but the NATO forces overseeing the re-population efforts then choose to bring Alice back into the populated area of the city. Next, after testing Alice, the scientists determine that Alice is indeed infected. So the next slightly dumb decision is made when they decide not to immediately kill her, or at least move her somewhere else. But by far the worst confluence of events occurs when Don, using access granted to him by his new job, goes and sees Alice. Along the way he has to elude a whopping zero guards protecting the incredibly dangerous infected person and easily gains access by using his ID badge which apparently can just override anything. And even if we presume that no one has had a chance to tell Don about his wife being infected, he still has eyes and should have taken note of her physical appearance, behavior and/or restraints keeping her in place before engaging with her physically. Unsurprisingly, Don goes and gets himself infected and from there all hell breaks lose. 

After that, most of the character actions and events are at least more believable. The only exception is later in the film which continues the trend of '28 series' characters seeming to think wandering into dark places like abandoned subway tunnels is a good idea. The rest of the film plays out more like an action thriller than the subdued horror of the first film. It's not a bad choice, but is tonally different than the first. Nevertheless the writers, much like the first film, are willing to take the film into some dark territory. The opener with Don and Alice, the claustrophobic outbreak scene in the parking garage, and the deaths of most of the main characters are all bolder choices than other films would make. 

Lastly, as the film endeavors to be a 'bigger' version of the first film, it does lose a bit of heart. The first film, even if it didn't fully sell, at least tried to anchor the film with emotionality. This film seems a bit more concerned with the spectacle of events happening and the characters feel either hollow, or make decisions that the audience will dislike them for.  

5. Sound Design 

John Murphy returned to compose the soundtrack for the sequel. This time, he seems to favor all original compositions and largely recycles the themes from the first film with some minor alterations. The final product is fitting and executed competently; though I honestly couldn't recall anything specific about it after the fact. 

6. Editing 

Again, the edit recycles a lot of its style from the first film. It imbues the film with a sense of chaotic energy that is fitting for the plot. However, since this film favors a more thriller type of feel, it doesn't quite have the rhythm of rising and falling tension. Rather, once the outbreak starts, the film is mostly just go-go-go until the end. Luckily the movie doesn't overstay its welcome and the 99 minute runtime feels appropriate for what takes place in the narrative. 

7. Visual Effects 

The increased budget definitely gave the filmmakers a little more wiggle room for inserting some CGI. More specifically it allowed for some more ambitious sequences including a ridiculous scene where a pilot uses his helicopter as a zombie chopping lawnmower. The effects do show their age at this point, but seem well executed for the time frame. Other sequences hold up a little better such as the bombing runs that occur once the outbreak gets out of hand, or the composition edits made to the Wembley Stadium scene. 

8. Originality or Strength of Adaptation 

Like I mentioned, I enjoy the basic concept of continuing the story - even if how the outbreak occurs is a disappointment. However, I think it is the tonal changes and the preoccupation with spectacle vice character that ultimately makes this film a weaker entry compared to its predecessor.  

9. Stunt Coordination 

The more action based feel to the film does allow the stunt teams to get a bit more involved. Much like the first film, the movement of the infected is well done and some of the scenes like Renner's character getting lit on fire are an ambitious amplification from the first movie. 

10. Direction 

I think the film ends up feeling more like someone trying to do their best Danny Boyle impression instead of creating something uniquely their own. That is likely because the initial intention was to have Boyle return to direct but he ultimately backed out due to his commitment to filming Sunshine. In the end, the film is well executed and preserved the style and most of the tone from the first film. 

Legacy/Final Thoughts

I think 28 Weeks Later, while not as egregious as other films, was created more out of commercial imperative than a creative one. It's not a bad follow up, but it is one that doesn't feel like an organic continuation. Instead its existence is best summed up by Alex Garland who called it an "early lesson...in the difference in making something in a kind of enthusiastic, non-cynical way, in comparison to a project that is generated by a different sort of imperative, which is, 'There should be another one'."