Technically any good? The acting was about the only thing I liked--not that they got to do much more than play believable people running from zombies. The script was littered with contrivances, including one that made the whole movie go. Without it, the film has no story. And, like I said, similar contrivances were everywhere. The script was also very ham-fisted and manipulative. The fell back on every trick in the book to get the audience to feel sympathy ASIDE from actually creating interesting and dynamic characters. They cast good looking people in all of the lead roles (unlike 28 Days Later), they cast kids that are no more interesting than Anakin Skywalker in The Phantom Menace and the camera/sound techniques that worked were stolen from the the film's prequel. Then there were the stupid characters doing stupid things. I could go on, really, I could. The zombie FX and gore were reasonable enough but without a decent story,! who cares?
How did it leave me feeling? UNsatisfied, for sure. Just more of the same from the first film, without the cool social commentary and BASIC LOGIC that made 28 Days Later as good as it was. Seriously, as the premise of the film slowly became clear, I found myself wondering "why the hell do they want to do that??" As in: "Why do these people want to move back to London just 28 weeks after a virus drove everyone mad??" Seriously, it made no sense. If that happened to Los Angeles, I'd never go back.
Final Rating? DNS - Do Not See
Orignal From: 28 WEEKS LATER (2007)
No comments:
Post a Comment