Extermínio 2

'28 Weeks Later (2007)' expands on the first film in a surprisingly natural way, even if it answers a nicely ambiguous question which that superior picture purposely left hanging. It's a relatively consistent-feeling affair, even if it never captures the isolation or relentless fury of its predecessor. It does get a bit 'been there, done that' when the plot kicks in simply because of where it starts and where it ends up, though it does take a number of risks and isn't afraid to be pretty grisly, either. It's also a fairly distinct experience in its own right, one that's enjoyable throughout. 7/10.

Not as strong as 28 Days Later, that's for sure but a rating of 1,2, or 3 for certain is undeserved and no serious rating. Some logic issues, yes, but still better than 90% of the movies published under the banner of the zombie/walker genre. I watched tons, and I know what I am talking about - 28 Weeks Later, good, but could have been much better with a more plausible story and with less ueber-life dramatic action scenes (like that car chase and poisoning gas in the streets).

A sequel to 28 days later and you don't need to watch it to understand this one. The infection has died off and the UK population has been reduced to a few, being backed by US forces living on the Isle of dogs in London. We follow one family haunted by what they saw in the outbreak, some of these demons return. You rarely see the aftermath of an apocalypse with this interesting premise and conflicted characters it really starts well. But once the inevitable returns so does the usual clichés in this genre.

I just finished watching, one night after watching 28 Days Later. This movie is watchable, but it's not as good as the original

The movie uses the same sort of filming techniques that we see in the original, which I like. The low quality camera gives the film a gritty look and feel, and the effect is that the horrific events that occur seem more real and, thus, hard-hitting. The opening sequence involving the group in the cabin is well-done. Jeremy Renner gives a good performance

That said - the movie unfortunately fails to match up to the original for several reasons. The biggest flaw in this movie is that nobody outside of Jeremy Renner's character is likable. The plot is set in motion when 2 kids make a very dumb decision to go outside of the secured area to visit their former home. The 2 kids are, basically, responsible for the deaths of so many people. And that detail lingered with me throughout the whole movie, making the 2 kids unlikable and very hard to pull for. I wasn't interested in their survival in this movie

I also didn't like the inclusion of Americans in this film. I feel that the first movie got some charm for being entirely British.

Lastly , the final act in this movie is unsatisfying, particularly with a a found-footage-esque part.

6.5/10.

Was average at best.

I'm really tired of the stupid things people do in most horror films. This film is no different. The horror films that I consider as really good don't need to have idiot characters doing stupid things to keep the story moving. Death shouldn't need a dumb mistake or a poor decision as a catalyst.

The effects were really realistic, the story even plausible; not that it needs to be. The speed of the virus' transformation however, was inconsistent with the victims and a little faster that what one would expect to be believable.

Average at best.

Six and a Half out of Ten