28 Weeks Later
 

So I found myself curious about how exactly a sequel was possible given that the upbeat (and, as it turned out, canon) ending of the first film demonstrated that Spoiler: the Infected starved to death after a month. So I read the entry on Wikipedia and apparently Spoiler: there is a character who was bitten during the initial outbreak but did not become Infected for seven months -- just long enough for the re-population of London to begin. When she does turn Infected, those Infected by her do not demonstrate this long incubation, but instead resume the immediate change that made the first film so fast-paced and brutal.

Does anyone else think this is a lazy way to generate a sequel? I would rather have just seen a prequel about the original infection.

Not buying it, but I am curious as to how exactly London was re-populated.

Can't be that many people left, even after seven months, unless a wave of immigrants went to settle there (though highly unlikely due to the extreme circumstances of the infected zombies and all; be wise to steer clear from there if that were to happen).

thats ok, I'm sure there is another Rambo bicycle courier who will save the day.

Personally, I would have done the prequel (28 Days), but anything with Rose Byrne isn't going to be a waste of time unless John Hartnet is in it.

I'll give it a chance.

When I heard about the sequel, I figured it would be about the infection spreading beyond Britain or something...yeah, I have to agree that this sounds like a lazy way to do the sequel. Sounds like a rental to me.

I've seen the preview and i'm not convinced. it seemed like a made-for-tv-movie.

Previews aint up to uch imo, although may be surprised

Too bad, the first one was pretty good.

The first was so good I'm willing to give this one a chance in theatres. My love of zombie movies pretty much forces my hand. Although, I too was hoping for a worldwide thing and not a redo in London.

I just saw it....

I certainly can't rave about it, but it wasn't a complete waste of time. I much preferred the original.

As far as how the infection reoccurs, they actually did it intelligently:

Spoiler: A women that was infected had a genetic deficiency that blocked the symptoms of the virus, although she was still a carrier. The movie follows her children - which may potentially carry the necessary defect to "cure" the disease as well

Unfortunately - and one of my biggest qualms with zombie movies, they made the zombies smart - not fully functional human beings, but certainly cabably of some thought other than "braaaaiiins." Additionally, in this particular movie we see that the "rage" virus was aptly named. Apparently it wasn't all about biting people, but the infected beat other people as well....

NoSoup

Yeah, I saw that I was wrong, but I didn't see a point in resurrecting the thread at the time. I definitely agree that the way they actually did it was not lazy, and in fact somewhat clever.

I just saw this movie last night and thought it was very well thought out. It certainly scared the hell out of me. I don't think the people were so much zombies, as they were people infected with a "rage" virus determined to spread it.

Good movie.

i certainly liked the movie. the first was definitely better, but in my opinion this one was also very solid. it disturbed, startled and entertained.

i liken the rage virus to something like super rabies. that'd explain how the infected aren't really zombies, just really eager to maim and kill.

I saw it last night, without benefit of previews. Ick! I thought it sounded like a virus/cure movie, not a zombie type movie. I went home with a headache from the noise and a sick stomach from the gore.

Hindsight, I should have left the movie and went into another one.