28 Weeks Later review

I don't think this movie saw much time in the first-run theaters, as I barely remember seeing it advertised before it was at Brewvies, my favorite beer, pub food and movies place. I'm not sure why, except that it's a terrifying movie with some "Damn, but we're stupid" messages in the mix. 28 Days Later, its predecessor, is one of the scariest movies I've seen. This one was frightening and unsettling, too, but it didn't quite have the tension of the earlier movie.

The cast seemed to do a good job. It was interesting seeing Robert Carlyle of The Full Monte as one of the leads. Not quite the same character. I was a bit disappointed with the role Catherine McCormack got, but I've thought she was way hot since her Dangerous Beauty lead. There are a few other recognizable movie stars, but no A-listers, I don't believe.

[Spoiler alert]
The central schtick in the movie, that there are people immune to the effects of the rage virus, but that they are still carriers, is an interesting one. They reveal it quite early, though, and it seemed clear that it was going to play out badly in the ending. It did. Yeah, no real Sherlock Holmes stuff there, but it might have been more interesting if there were a less obvious twist.
[End spoiler]

As was true of its predecessor, 28 Weeks Later is a worthwhile zombie movie, throwing in the requisite phobias (there's a scene with a bunch of people in a very enclosed space... 'nuff said) and high body count. It doesn't really cover much ground that its predecessor didn't, though, and that's a bit sad. Recommended, but probably only with beer.