Review: Zombie-flick sequel scores with social commentary

Directed by: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo

Starring: Robert Carlyle, Rose Byrne, Catherine McCormack, Jeremy Renner, Harold Perrineau, Imogen Poots, Mackintosh Muggleton

Rated: R

In a Hollywood rife with niche markets, the “post-apocalyptic zombie movie” has become a genre unto itself.

There are two prototypes of this kind of film.

“The Last Man on Earth,” released in 1964, was based on science-fiction master Richard Matheson’s short novel “I Am Legend.” The creep-out factor was 100 percent effective because of Matheson’s brilliant story, and the film is widely considered to be actor Vincent Price’s finest work.

The bigger-budgeted remake of the tale, 1971’s “The Omega Man,” was not nearly as satisfying.

For most scholars of the genre, however, it’s George Romero’s 1968, ultra-low budget “Night of the Living Dead” that sets the bar that may well never be topped.

That film – shot with a shocking lack of any sentimentality – broke a number of Hollywood taboos. Romero couldn’t have cared less about typical movie making. “Night of the Living Dead” was shot in Pittsburgh, featured a black protagonist, had scenes of not merely cannibalism but patricidal cannibalism, and had an ending completely out of the mainstream movie norm. Younger viewers today, raised on razzle-dazzle digital effects, may think the black-and-white film looks corny and old-fashioned. But people who understand great writing – and social commentary – will be lauding Romero’s masterpiece for as long as people continue to discuss movies.

Social commentary is what separates the run-of-the-mill films in this genre from the great ones.

“The Last Man on Earth” was fairly light on gore; it was the emotional devastation and the isolation of the film’s hero that made it so terrifying.

Romero’s critique of America was in 1968 could be the subject of graduate-level college courses.

Over the years there have been many pretenders to the throne and, while none will likely ever topple “Night of the Living Dead,” there are a few noteworthy pieces of work.

Danny Boyle’s “28 Days Later” came along in 2003, and zombie lovers took note. Boyle added a twist to the formula he had studied and worshipped. His bloodsuckers, full of the “rage” virus, didn’t mumble and amble about, they yelled and screamed and moved at near Olympic speed.

Nice touch, Mr. Boyle.

In the sequel, “28 Weeks Later,” Boyle serves as co-producer and provides general oversight. He’s turned over director duties to Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, who manages to keep the frenetic style of the first film intact. As far as the social commentary, Boyle and Fresnadillo have upped the ante a great deal.

The viral angle is obvious. This is the age of HIV, HCV, swine flu, bird flu, contaminated pet food, et al. But “28 Weeks Later” also addresses xenophobia, crass selfishness and the futility of trying to maintain an occupying presence in a foreign land.

In the film, Great Britain has been utterly devastated (seen in the first film and explained quickly and efficiently here) by a virus spread from simians – released from testing labs by altruistic animal rights activists. After the period of time suggested by the title, things seem to have quieted down. American troops are now “in control” and slowly but surely, the Emerald Isle is being “normalized.” There are many areas still uninhabitable, but in what amounts to a “Green Zone,” things appear to be safe.

In a series of flashbacks we see Don (Robert Carlyle) and the things that transpired during his fight for survival a few months earlier. It’s not a pretty sight, graphically or emotionally. But he is alive. Don’s kids were on holiday in Spain and were spared from the plague. They’re now re-entering England and being reunited with their dad.

While the official proclamation is “Things are under control,” behind the scenes, scientists, doctors, soldiers – everyone – understand this is really not the case.

Don and his two kids play a major role in the events – a possible cure? a possible new outbreak? – and it would be unfair to spoil too much of the plot to potential viewers.

I loved “28 Days Later” and consider it in nearly the same league as Romero’s “Night of the Living Dead.” “28 Weeks Later” is every bit as good as “28 Days” and leaves things open for another sequel, apparently to be set in the City of Lights.

It’s jarring, well-written and thought-provoking and definitely not for the younger set or the faint of heart.

And it really does satisfy the (cinematic) craving for human flesh.

Jim Wunderle owns Wunderle Sound Services and is a Springfield free-lance writer and musician. He can be reached at info@wunderlesound.com.[[In-content Ad]]