Click HERE for the rest of the heyallright movie review archives.

28 Weeks Later
Reviewed by Theo Michelfeld
Posted: May 13, 2007

A director’s job, first and foremost, is to tell a story. To do that, it’s essential to compose and edit shots in such a way that the audience knows what’s going on—not necessarily in the plot, or in the hearts and minds of the characters, but on the screen itself. “What the hell am I looking at?” is rarely, if ever, a desirable response from the viewer, even when the plot calls for speed, confusion, or mayhem.

Thus, action film directors are most especially challenged by their craft. How do you convey speed without moving things faster than the eye can see? How do you convey confusion without actually confusing the viewer? How do you convey mayhem without creating mere disorder? Well, we might ask Steven Spielberg, whose spellbinding opening to Saving Private Ryan does all three of those things like no film before or since. Or we might ask James Cameron, whose Terminator and True Lies action sequences are exquisitely paced and crafted. We might also ask Paul Greengrass, director of the zippy Bourne Supremacy. But don’t ask Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, director of the new film 28 Weeks Later. I’m afraid his action scenes are a dark, blurry mess.

Actually I have a mostly positive opinion of 28 Weeks Later. This is the sequel to the horror film 28 Days Later, which was dynamite. The first film followed the survivors of a plague that turned England’s population into a swarm of rage-infected carnivores. It was a beautiful film, artfully composed, damn scary, and, like most good “un-dead” movies, a vicious parable about human nature.

The new film gets all of those qualities right again. The countless overhead shots of an abandoned London are spooky and wondrous. A couple of scenes, although they could have been better rendered by a better director, are terrifying by conception, and are pretty much the most and second-most nightmarish scenarios I can imagine. And the poetic take on our current situation in the Middle East is effectively cynical, if that’s your cup of tea. In this film, the American military occupies England in a hubristic attempt to quarantine the “rage” virus. Inevitably, they lose their grip on the situation, and when they resort to damage control, the measures are shocking and awful. Wherever you stand on the Iraq War, this film is certainly the product of distrustful times.

If you want suspense and gore, 28 Weeks Later won’t disappoint you. As a bonus the acting is good, and the trappings are smart. But action fans will not ever consider this movie a classic. I believe the problem is an unwillingness by the director to stage scenes of violence, fostered by a belief that it can all be spliced together in the editing room. I’ve seen this problem in bad films like The Island, good films like Batman Begins, and even great films like The Fellowship of the Ring. The combat is too close and the edits are too quick, and as a result you get visual clutter, a brief estrangement from the plot, a subtle sense of in-authenticity, and maybe a headache. For an antidote see Children of Men, which features lengthy action scenes in which all the mayhem is staged, and the edits are few and far between. The results are astounding. Or watch The French Connection, for which the filmmakers simply got into a car and barreled down the streets of New York with the camera rolling. With the guts comes the glory.

28 Weeks Later is good, but hobbled by its prevalent flaw. It’s also got some questionable plot points, and a few too many Janet Leigh-esque early exits by temporary heroes. If you’re a fan of the first film, check out this sequel; it’s worth your time. If you never saw the first one, and you feel like getting the wits scared indelibly out of you, see that instead. It’s called 28 Days Later, and it’s got the magic this sequel doesn’t quite manage to scare up.

Copyright © 2007 Theo Michelfeld