6 months later
A couple of weeks ago, I was given the opportunity to check out new zombie flick 28 Weeks Later, the follow up to hit film 28 Days Later. Now, there were two slight drawbacks with this, the first being that I don't particularly like horror as a film genre, and the second being that I hadn't seen 28 Days Later. Still, a free trip to the cinema wasn't to be sniffed at, so off I duly trotted.

I don't want to spoil too much of the film, in case you happen to be keen to see it - I'm prepared to wager that fans of horror films will be moderately entertained, but if you're not certain of whether you want to see it or not, I'd suggest not.

The start is excellent, with the writers assuming an audience with at least a passing knowledge of the first film, and the opening scene is the best part of the whole movie.

From there on, it's down hill all the way - with at least one glaring error in the plot which can't simply be glossed over. If you don't want to know what that is, stop reading this paragraph and move to the next. Basically, Robert Carlisle is a civilian caretaker with a security badge who has clearance to access high security US Army stuff. That's right, I said caretaker. Unsurprisingly, he messes something up, and from there the carnage starts again. Whilst I'm questioning the plot, I also wondered how the woman survived without seemingly having anything to eat for 6 months?

Right, plot spoiler over with. The last hour of the film is fairly standard chase stuff, with the occasional set piece, which is OK, but to be honest I just didn't care enough about the characters to be bothered as to whether they lived or died.
- posted by Paul @ 1:57 pm |