Monday, May 14, 2007

28 Weeks Later 5/5 reviewed by Corey

The bad taste Spidey left in my mouth is gone.

I'll start off saying that whatever metaphor you find here about the war in Iraq is ludicrous. I swear, if the critics wanted to find a war metaphor/allegory in freakin' Bambi, they could. It's simply not there, and if you believe it to be, you've either read too much of your own politics into the film, or you don't know what a metaphor is.

If you are a member of the second group, which probably constitutes a rough 3.3 (repeating, of course) percent of our readers, here's an example of a metaphor: 28 Weeks Later is money in the bank.

I've been excited to see this since I found out it was being made. I hold 28 Days Later to be one of the best indie success stories of the last decade, not to mention one of the finest thriller/horror films created. It is brilliant in every way, shape and form. It had brilliant acting. It had a perfect soundtrack. The zombies made me soil my armor I was so scared. In fact, the only real thing that held it back (I gave it a 5/5, mind you) at all was the one thing that couldn't be avoided: lack of a big budget.

28 Weeks Later has a much bigger budget (after a ton of looking around, I still can't find the exact number) and, luckily, is just as good...no, better than the first. And it's up there with The Descent and The Abandoned in scare-factor.

I'm not gonna talk much about the plot. See the first movie before this one. There are a couple of silly coincidences in both movies. You'll find yourself saying "Don't do that" or "That's a bad idea" to the screen, but these things have to happen in a movie built on virus-infected monsters murdering people. Suspend your belief for a minute, and remember that it's not Black Hawk Down and it's not meant to be.

Weeks kicks off with a opener not unlike the first: it's fast, it's brutal, and it'll leave you wide-eyed. Immediately, two things are noticeable: there is a significant increase in the amount of gore in the film, and it is simply much, much scarier. These two differences hold true throughout the rest of the film. The acting is exceptionally good, especially given the genre.
The score (some of which you'll recognize from the awesome ending to Days) is brilliant again, and is so noteworthy because of the company it has in the horror genre. Too often, zombie flicks are ruined by the choice made to play Slipknot or Rob Zombie in the background. It's beautiful rock that adds to the experience rather than detracts from it. Jeremy Renner (North Country, SWAT) doesn't bring a huge amount of character to the table, but the focus of the film is not on his relationship anyways, so it's understandable. He's not half as charming as Cillian Murphy is, but there are also very few breaks in the action here, which was not the case in the first film.

Now the special effects are in a whole different ballpark here. The helicopter scene (which would have been pervasive had things like it occurred throughout the rest of the movie) is awesome, if not particularly innovative. The firebombing scenes have to be seen on the big screen. In this aspect more than any other, it seems like Fresnadillo had the chance to make the movie Danny Boyle wanted to. Limbs fly off zombies, blood spatters everywhere. It's like that Dawn of the Dead remake. Except with better acting and story and zombies and special effects and music and...

Ok, so it's not like that Dawn of the Dead remake.
Anyways, do yourself a favor and go see this with a couple buddies. It's not a date movie (I'm not kidding about the gore, it's significantly more shocking than the first), but its got some very memorable scenes, some truly beautiful directing (beautiful in the ugly way, very much like Children of Men) and is better than the first in every way. 5/5? You're a fool not to see it if you at all enjoy thrillers, horror movies, or films like Children of Men that appeal both to the aesthetic and basic aspects of humanity. It will likely be one of my favorites this year. Oh, and since you asked, yes...

There is a freakin' mass chaos zombie-killing sniper sequence that might make you join the military. Oh, and it's not really a zombie movie. It's all a big metaphor for the war in Iraq. Or so I'm told...

4 Comments:

Blogger Hankinstien said...

Just remember... that Dawn remake was done by the same guy that made 300.

I must say I've been extremely hesitant about this since I saw the trailer... I don't think 28 Days is a movie that needs a sequel, but your glorious review has convinced me to give it a deserving shot. Hopefully I'll catch it this week, but I also want to catch some upcoming midnight movies--next week is "Evil Dead 2."

Nice review as usual.

3:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i was really hoping you would use a screenshot from the flamethrower in one of your pictures...but alas.

5:41 PM  
Blogger Joe Punchface said...

I agree with Hanks on this one...I was beyond heistant to see this...in fact, I had decided that I was just going to skip it. I was too afraid that it couldn't live up to the first movie, considering it is a totally new director, cast, crew, etc. BUT, knowing how much you like the first movie, COMBINED with your shining review here, I guess I WILL have to check it out. Maybe I'll go with Hanky and we can cuddle.

9:18 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

ryan, i wanted to, but for some reason there was a serious lack of decent pictures to be found on the net. it was really disappointing.

mike/chris, give it a shot. if you don't like, i'll completely understand why (i can see how fans of the first may not take to it as kindly as i did), but i will be surprised nonetheless.

8:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home