Skip to main content

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later

(SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

Fresnadillo (Intacto) brought in pals Enrique Lopez-Lavigne and Jesus Olmo to rewrite Rowan Joffe’s “underdeveloped” script; given Joffe’s other work, I can quite believe it needed attention. Unfortunately, their expansions, revisions and additions are sorely lacking, especially if they were intent on bolstering the human element. At the outset, 28 Weeks Later has the makings of something superior to 28 Days Later (not that difficult, as however innovative it was in some respects, it was also fairly formulaic in others).

The arrival of a boy at a country cottage, pursued by infected, leads to the death or infection of most of those within. By the rules of the original, Alice (Catherine McCormack) makes entirely the wrong choice, and Don (Robert Carlyle), because he loves her and indulges her, shares the blame for the devastation of their safe haven. Only hard, utilitarian choices make sense here. As her husband, Don is in the wrong and cowardly to leave her. As a dedicated survivor, who knows he will be left infected or dead due to her sentimentality towards the child (while, as it turns out, Alice will remain alive), he is entirely correct, however conflicting the decision.

And then Don must live with himself, fabricating a story to tell his children Tammy (Imogen Poots) and Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton), one he doubtless wants to believe (he informs them he saw them bite her: “Was there nothing you could do?”) Because of the way this unfolds – the husband and wife in conflict, then reconciled, then divorced through violence – and because of the lingering impression left by Carlyle’s most iconic role, Don’s transformation into one of the infected plays out as a case of Empire magazine’s favourite buzz phrase: toxic masculinity.

He kills his wife with extreme prejudice, and then tries to do the same to everyone else. There are a number of ways this is lazy. While his infection could be construed as justice for his cowardice, it translates as an easy way out rather than a deft plot turn. Additionally, personifying the infected in one uber-villain, Jason or Michael Myers style, is the least inspired choice, one that becomes increasingly irksome as the picture’s plotting becomes ever more tenuously manipulative.

There’s also Alice herself. Are we supposed to believe she’s in a dazed state due to being infected/not (Andy seems lucid after he has been)? What other excuse does she have for failing to acknowledge she should be infected? She’s in denial? She isn’t very bright? Essentially, the character is utilised incredibly poorly once the (overused) magic device of an immune individual is overlaid on her. She’s barely able to communicate (but knows who her kids are), she forgives her husband, and then she has her head beaten in. The Borg Queen Alice is not. It’s another example of the writers falling back on the horror genre’s least admiral tropes, requiring everyone to be stupid, to a greater or lesser extent.

Which is a shame, as the initial terror of Don’s rural pursuit, infected giving chase from all angles, ranks as one of the most palpable horror scenes put to film. Almost immediately after, however, you realise 28 Weeks Later isn’t going to throw any further curve balls, as we’re informed repopulation is underway before the country has been entirely cleared up, and that children are being allowed in too (that the movie becomes all about saving the children, after the opening gambit, is also all too predictable).

The crudity of the manoevuring increases exponentially once Don has become infected, whereby the only reason anything is happening is to create a “tense” sequence, rather than plausibility in terms of plotting. I mean, why not just go the whole hog and make an outright slasher? Which this isn’t that far from in terms of wallowing in bloody entrails. The moment I mentally check out of the movie occurs as Fresnadillo sends his surviving characters into the underground, a step beyond any rational motivation.

There are some notable if sketchy predictive programming ideas in the mix here. Doyle (Jeremy Renner) is assigned the task of shooting both infected and uninfected when all hell breaks loose (sacrificing innocents for the greater good); his failure to carry this out, contrasting with Selena’s steeliness in the original, represents the wrong choice, per the ending’s spread of infected to the mainland. It stands as validation of those with the mettle to make hard decisions – Idris Elba’s Elite stand-in Stone – and that those recognising the need to depopulate entire regions have the bigger picture in mind (and would surely be thanked, if only we knew).

There’s also the idea of calculated population displacement making the English (or European) nationals (minors at that) the refugees; doubtless, such recalibration would be part and parcel of any Great Reset, so we’ll (or they’ll) see how that pans out. In this regard, 28 Weeks Later presents the “ideal” apocalypse – if a Rage virus could be released and wipe out a population, ultimately through starvation, in a few weeks, they surely would do it (instead, they’re stuck it seems, with pressuring the people to consent to their plans and so “euthanise” themselves over a protracted period).

I was rather left wondering about the infected’s modus operandi. Obviously, they don’t eat their victims, but do they aim to kill them (as Don does Alice, rather “cutely” imitating Jim’s murderous retribution at the end of the original)? Or do they, very restrainedly, quit with the biting and general dismemberment once their victim shows infected status (which seems to be very swift)? And if they’re bleeding so profusely all the time, how can they possibly survive up to four weeks, even within the heightened reality of the horror movie?

Everyone here does what they can with little real meat on the bones. Carlyle is very good, until he’s rage-ified and he becomes a standard boogeyman. Harold Perrineau doesn’t shout “Walt!”, and gets the showstopper moment of hacking up infected with helicopter blades. Rose Byrne is very much in “roles Emily Blunt turned down” mode. Renner was on the cusp of greater fame. Which is a salient point, as some actors – Renner, Isaac, Elba – show out much better before they have transitioned to the bigger parts. Renner does a lot with a little here, but put him in a big studio picture and he’s frequently less than scintillating.

The movie’s conclusion, where 28 Days Later led the pack and rejuvenated the cycle, is now following others with its foreboding (Dawn of the Dead). Whether we see a third movie is anyone’s guess at this point (although Boyle et al have intimidated as much even quite recently). At this rate, rather than Months, it will be 28 Years Later.

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…