why was 28 weeks later so bad? [spoilers]

[clawfoot]

I was looking forward to this from the first moment I found out about it. But I should have prepared myself for dissapointment.

I'm afraid my venting requires it's own thread.

I should have known it would suffer from the dreaded sequelitis. A different writer, a different director, no returning cast. Alarm bells should have started ringing.
The first film was so good. It adapted the zombie theme into something fresh, and the transformation of Jim through the film is spectacular to behold.

But 28 weeks felt like a money making amateur hour and they've lined it up nicely for a third. Woes!
Just what was wrong with it. Too many moody close ups? The annoyingly bad acting of the blonde girl, Tammy? The stinky bad story?
Two things really did it for me. The beginning of the film was fantastic, where Don leaves his wife to be eaten. I was hoping to see some brilliant development of Don's character. Instead I got a terrible moral message; if you leave your wife/loved ones/friends to be eaten then you'll turn into a speed zombie and try to eat your kids. How rubbish?
Then the scene where the helicopter blades chop up all the chasing zombies. How convenient, and done when the pilot had lost control. I didn't think I would be watching James Bond in action.
From that point on I just wanted the film to end quickly and painlessly.

I know loads of people loved it but I hated it. Maybe my expectations were too high.

Anyway, let the flinging of rotten tomatoes commence :)

[Rayne]

I was really disappointed with it, too...In fact, I fastforwarded through parts, and didn't even finish it because apparently, it wasn't even good enough to keep me AWAKE (yes, I fell asleep)...I attempted to watch it months ago, and still haven't had the urge to finish it as of this time.

It was absolutely nothing like 28 Days Later (which I REALLY liked) and I think that has a lot to do with it...I was truly hoping for a continuation of the first one, or at least something along similar lines...That didn't happen...In fact, not much of ANYTHING really happened...I think another reason it was so disappointing was that I was REALLY looking forward to it, and I was seriously let down...

[wufongtan.]

. I heard hollywood had taken over so to speak and thought Great another good movie fucked up by hollywood. with their predictable hollywood shit. But it wasn't, it was still a good movie. I liked it and so should you.
Thats all that i have to say on this subject.

[urgeok2]

28 weeks later was a great movie.

never understood why people crapped on it and the 1st one (although most people liked either 1 or the other - i loved both of them)

you see most horror fans happy with the most mediochre pathetic shit - then someone puts a lot of effort into a couple of great films - and the fans jump all over it.

cant figure it out.

[clawfoot]

Rayne My thoughts exactly

wufongtan If it was a film in its own right I would probably have enjoyed it more.

It became predictable and boring. I love cheesy films but this took itself way too seriously, which is not a good combination with amateur acting and directing.

[Phalanx]

No problem with the second one at all here - I felt it managed to capture the frantic feeling and eerie atmosphere of the original quite well, and gave us not a sequel, but an alternative storyline.
I personally liked it, and disagree with anyone who does not.
I'm not about to argue their/my tastes though.

[clawfoot]

urgeok2 two different teams = two different films.

Phalanx very true, everybody has different tastes, and I'm not here to argue. I just had to tell somebody!

I think that my expectations were too high since my love for the first.

[_____V_____]

To each their own but, I LOVED 28 Weeks.

It was fast, it was gritty...and it had plenty of rapid atmosphere. There was a lot of healthy character and script-buildup, and I thought it had a great ending to compliment an already good movie.

Days gets 8, Weeks gets 7.5 from me. No complaints whatsoever.

[jenna26]

I loved 28 Days Later, and I really liked 28 Weeks Later. I wasn't expecting it to be better than the first film, and I WAS expecting it to be different (it just had to be). But really, I was surprised I liked it much as I did, sure there some weak plot points (maybe, just maybe, it was a little soon for them to be letting people back in, then the kids being able to sneak past so much security to get to a place they knew damn well was dangerous for them to be, etc), but I actually liked the character development when it came to Robert Carlyle's character, there was some good gore, and a few very well done scenes. I was definitely entertained, so I wasn't disappointed.

[clawfoot]

jenna26: Those kids sneaking past all that security ... ugh

_V_: It was definitely fast, it was definitely gritty and I'm glad you enjoyed it
p.s. I've gotta steal your sig pic ... awesome

My mates took me to see 28 days without me knowing the first thing about it, which is probably why I enjoyed it so much. I didn't even know it would be a horror. I tried the same approach with 28 weeks but there would always be that first great film in the back of my mind with which I'd be making comparisons. And I am, of course, hard to please. All I ask for is a bit of originality. Jim (Robert Carlyle) could've killed his wife in an equally gruesome way without resorting to the trademark thumbs in the eyes from the first film.

I've only watched 28 weeks once, so maybe it will grow on me.

But 28 days will always be my number 1 film.