'28 Weeks Later': Now, with gore!

It's not very often that one feels like a sedative after a movie. Watching '28 Weeks Later' (trailer) was great, but not for the weak of heart. It was one of the most thrilling experiences I have had in a theater in a while, and I only kind of mean that as entertaining. The action sequences in this movie were terrifying at time and I began feeling that I, like the characters in the movie, were dreading the possible reappearance of the zombies. Wow, I think I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here.

This movie is one of those rare breeds of sequels that actually aren't crap. A follow-up to 2002's '28 Days Later' (review), the movie follows the results of an evacuation of the UK following an outbreak of the "rage" virus that turns humans into zombie-esque killing machines. By the time of the sequel, the "infected" have all supposedly died and the U.S. military has created a green zone in an effort to rebuild the city. If you're getting shades of Iraq and September 11, well, you're not stupid. The references are supposed to be there (and elsewhere throughout the movie), but the director does not beat you over the head with them. If anything, the similarities come across as being more intrinsic to the situation than simply a carbon copy of current events as, like Iraq, the situation in London gets out of hand and a foe that was thought to be defeated rears it's bloody head. It's more political underlying message differs from the original, which was a more personal story about survival. This movie also differs in its treatment of the zombies/infected: they are actually there. In rewatching the original, I was struck by how little they were in it. For the sequel, they went all out and made a movie that was bloodier and, at times, more terrifying. It was the type of movie that I think could actually give me nightmares.

I was glad to see that Danny Boyle, who directed the first movie, was around for the second, even if only as an executive producer. I imagine that his influence helped keep the movie a more creative flimmaking experience, instead of simply an exploitative followup aimed at capitalizing on the profitability of its predecessor. It was great that they also decided not to just remake the first movie or continue the story but, in a way, sought to reinvent the franchise it had created. A third movie is reportedly in the works and I'm sure it will have just as unoriginal of a title. I'll just have to see what new direction they take with the the third one.

Grade: B+

'28 Days Later': Hell is other people (as zombies)

I guess I kind of forgot '28 Days Later' (trailer). Having watched the sequel a little while ago, I figured I would rewatch the original and review each of them. I sure didn't remember how much the two differed and I really was accurate when I thought the second was more bloody. Although its sequel follows the zombie/horror conventions more, it is important to recall that the first movie "reinvented" the zombie movie by proving one point: it doesn't actually have to be about the zombies.

The movie, directed by Danny Boyle, follows Jim, who wakes up in the hospital from a coma to discover that London has been abandoned as a result of the "rage" virus, which turns people into zombie-like creatures. Along the way he meets a young woman, Selena, and then a father and his daughter. The four of them set off in search of survival and although the zombies are the danger lurking around every corner, the search for survival and meaning in an empty world presents the existential drama as more harrowing and significant to the characters -- although perhaps I can say that because I am more detached from the first time I saw it and was pretty spooked by Boyle's filming of the zombies, or infected as they call it. Aside from creating a different method of horror, there are a couple of other remarkable innovations. It was (for me at least) an introduction to Cillian Murphy, who as I wrote before, has turned in a number of solid performances and shows a lot of promise as an actor. I found myself chuckling, though, because it seems they told him to speak a bitter deeper than his natural timbre. Naomie Harris was also good, but I kept thinking of her as the creepy woman in 'Pirates'. What really stands out in the movie, though, are the fantastic shots of an empty London. It really sets the tone for the more serious analysis of it's themes and the innovative use of digital video creates a documentarianesque authenticity. The filming is grainy and jarring at time, but without feeling gimmicky. It's a shame how much that method has been copied in crappy horror movies as a cheap thrill and not to further any sort of storytelling.

In all I had forgotten how good of a film Boyle made. It's of the type that is more than just good filmmaking, but actually movies the medium forward. It tells a story in a different way and challenges the audience instead of merely entertaining. Best of all, it proves that genres are not set in stone, and one of the best ways of making a movie that isn't boring is by merging genres (like 'Shaun of the Dead' did) and tell a story no one has seen before.

Grade: A