Reviews

The acting is fair enough. There are moments when overacting and underacting bring scenes down, but nothing is ruined. I liked the editing, for the most part. There are times when it makes the story hard to follow, but overall it's well done. The cinematography is beautiful.

My only real gripe with the movie is that the plot is a bit thin. A lot of things happen that feel ultimately irrelevant, and other things happen without much explanation. The conflict gets lost in all the random happenings, which adds to the difficulty of following the story.

I'm not sure where all the hatred for this movie comes from. It wasn't a great film, but it certainly wasn't horrible. The story felt stretched and a bit convoluted, and the title is misleading since the movie has virtually nothing to do with Cthulhu, but I feel like I have to give props to the director for making the film he made. He easily could have made a weightless horror movie with cheap scares, but he attempted something a little meatier.

Nothing that made Casino Royale so memorable is present in Quantum of Solace. QoS's plot is ludicrously thin compared to Casino Royale's. What could have been a deeply intriguing story is hardy touched upon and left unexploited. The major events in QoS are merely excuses for Bond to kick some more ass.

Quantum's action sequences are stimulating, but far less interesting than its predecessor's. Whereas Casino Royale's action scenes were dynamic and carefully detailed, QoS's are frantic and standard. While it's obvious a lot of time and energy went into them, there's not much to show for it. The cuts are quick and the shots are hard to catch.

I, like many, fell in love with Casino Royale's James Bond. He was young and authentic, capable of failing and getting hurt (both physically and emotionally). Seeing as how Casino Royale ended at what felt like the beginning of Bond's real character development, I expected Quantum of Solace to continue that development. QoS's Bond, however, is the same emotionless James Bond audiences have been watching for almost half a century. He has no believable motivation, so nothing he does feels purposeful.

Finally, the antagonist never poses a real threat to Bond. Mathieu Amalric has a creepy look that could have been put to good use, but Dominic Greene is a painfully boring and clichéd bad guy. Le Chiffre's very presence was intimidating; I wouldn't even cross the street to avoid Greene.

Casino Royale was a powerful reboot for the Bond franchise. It abandoned the old 007 formula and established a new one, gaining a lot of fans in the process (myself included). For whatever reason, Quantum of Solace dropped the ball. While it certainly serves as fun escapism, it disappoints as a continuation of the story Casino Royale began.

The key to enjoying this movie is in your expectations. After seeing cars with guns and a wide array of other BAMF weaponry attached to them in the trailers, I didn't expect Death Race to have much depth. I went in hoping to see the lovechild of the Fast and the Furious and Mad Max, and I saw just that--and I loved it! There are plenty of things in this movie that normally would have annoyed the crap out of me, but giving it a lot of leeway made it a hundred times more enjoyable.

The acting is, dare I say, somewhat decent for a Paul W.S. Anderson film. The actors give the performances they need to give, while still having fun with their roles. The cold, awkward acting that plagued Resident Evil and AVP is kept to a minimum here, if at all present. Jason Statham is the typical tough guy protagonist, while Joan Allen is the usual one-dimensional villain. They play their parts well, as does the rest of the cast.

Death Race is pure escapism. And, oh, is it fun escapism! This is the first Anderson film I've seen that I've been absolutely satisfied with. It never tries to be anything more than what it is and it shows the audience everything they want and expect to see. If you're not into ADD action and gore glorification, this one ain't for you! Otherwise, catch this one in the theater while you still can!

Nolan made a wise decision in separating The Dark Knight from Batman Begins in that he never tries to mimic it. While the dark and gritty feel of Begins is certainly prevalent in the sequel, Knight is its own film with its own story. It rarely, if ever, feels like Batman Begins 2.

It goes without saying that the performances are stellar, but I can't not praise the actors. Christian Bale is as he needs to be, as is Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine and Gary Oldman. Even though Maggie Gyllenhaal was cast due to Katie Holmes's inability to return, I think she was a necessary change in order to show Rachel's growth. Aaron Eckhart is always a joy to watch, and he certainly doesn't disappoint here. Heath Ledger deserves an Oscar; I'll leave it at that.

The story is fresh and full of conflict. It's almost as if Gotham is worse since Batman took on its corruption and saved it from annihilation. The absence of any threatening criminals gives the Joker room to stretch out and set the world on fire. He manages to plunge Gotham into anarchy like Ra's Al Gaul before him, but does it without a grand scheme. He is a lethal dose of impulsiveness and malevolence, a dog chasing cars with a bomb strapped to its back.

The music in this movie is haunting. There's the familiar (but not the same) theme from Begins, and the rest is new and frightening. I'm very pleased that Zimmer and Howard combined their musical talents and developed a new score instead of relying on the previous one.

My only complaint with The Dark Knight is that there's too much happening. Wayne's relationship with Rachel is muddied by Dent's presence, the remaining Gotham gangsters are trying to get back on top, the Joker is causing mayhem, the Joker is ousting the gangsters by their own means, Dent becomes Two-Face and goes on a murderous revenge tear... It's all done very well, which is why it pains me to complain, but it's just too damn much for one movie. It's easy to get lost.

Complaint aside, The Dark Knight is everything it should be. If you're one of the 10 people who haven't seen it, see it.

I really can't say enough good things about this film. Generally, I like Danny Boyle, but I'm always a bit weary going into his films since they tend to go against my expectations. I like all of his films I've seen (with the exception of A Life Less Ordinary) but they had to grow on me over time. Sunshine is the first Boyle film that I liked the first time I saw it. In fact, I loved it!

The writing is brilliant. Garland has a gift for expressing huge ideas through his characters' words and actions. One of the many things that separates Sunshine from all other disaster movies is its humanity. The characters here are all important, each playing a specific role within the group. None of them are "victims." The cast is dynamite. It's a good mixture of familiar faces and new blood. Everybody puts 110% into their performances. It's difficult to pick out favorites since they're all so good. (That being said, Chris Evans's performance impressed the hell out me.) The special effects are stunningly beautiful. Every color on the spectrum gets screen time, making the film very pleasing to the eye. The sun's beauty is indescribable. The yellows and oranges are very deep and rich. Also, the FX are frequent but used effectively. Nothing looks fake or unrealistic.

John Murphy and Underworld work together to deliver a great soundtrack. It's unlike a typical science fiction score. They, like Garland, tap into human emotion to give weight to the scenes with music.

Another thing this movie does effectively is express the vastness of space, which is something that is overlooked by most other science fiction films. It really adds to the feeling of isolation and tightens the screw on the tension. Some of the science is inaccurate, but nothing comes across as absolute bunk.

I can't get enough of this movie. Everything is so damn good it never gets old. This is one I strongly recommend to everybody. It's definitely a must-see for sci-fi fans, but I think it's got enough human drama to appeal to non sci-fiers. In conclusion, Sunshine is a triumph for Mr. Boyle, who proves he can direct any genre he sets his eyes on.

I love Quentin Tarantino's movies. Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are among my favorites, Jackie Brown was a great movie, and Kill Bill Vol. 1 was pure fun. Up til now, Kill Bill Vol. 2 was my only Tarantino disappointment.

Death Proof had a lot of potential. Besides being paired with Robert Rodriguez's crazy fun Planet Terror, it had an intriguing story with a seductively creepy antagonist (brilliantly executed by Kurt Russell). It fell short, however, more than it succeeded.

I'll start with the good stuff. Kurt Russell is without a doubt the highlight of the movie. Tarantino's unique characterization really allows Russell to perform in ways I've never seen before. The end product is, in my opinion, Oscar-worthy. You can't help but root for the guy, even when he is being a total bastard.

The story is very interesting. It's very grindhouse and quite original. The action sequences kick ass, too. The car chase near the end of the movie is extremely suspenseful and honestly unpredictable (up to a certain point, that is).

That's about it for me. Now the bad.

The plot is good, but it unfolds very unevenly. It starts off really slow, picks up a bit, then slows down even more, then picks up again and leaves you hanging in the middle of an adrenaline rush. Maybe some folks like that, but it didn't sit well with me. I like closure.

My biggest qualm with the film is the dialogue. Normally, I love Tarantino's quirky dialogue, but there's way too much of it here. And worse, it's all girl-talk. "I'm doing this guy," "She's such a whore," "I really like him, but I'm not sure." No guy is going to sit though forty minutes of that. And the stretches between action sequences (all two of them) are so long that it's easy to forget what movie you're watching.

Death Proof is worth seeing once or twice for Kurt Russell, but certainly not worth owning. Don't expect much and you'll be entertained.

There are plenty of things I could fault Len Wiseman with, but I'll single out the one that annoys me the most. His movies are melodramatic to the point of being unenjoyable. Nobody laughs in this movie, and what very little comic relief exists is horribly stilted and out of place. Since when does a serious movie have to be so watertight that watching it is the equivalent of holding your breath for two hours? Aliens and Terminator 2 were sober action flicks, but they found time to let the audience laugh.

I loathe the dialogue. It's a hideous bastardization of Shakespearean form that makes me want to scream. The complete lack of emotion in the majority of the film makes the few emotional scenes feel alien. We're in the twenty-first century, for crying out loud. People don't talk like this. They never did, for that matter. Stop trying to make classy movies out of train wrecks! There's a lot more CGI in this movie, and it looks terrible by modern standards. I felt that the first movie utilized CGI rather well, mixing it with prosthetics and other techniques to hide its presence. Evolution, on the other hand, unleashes a barrage of CGI that looks rushed and underdeveloped.

There are a few great actors here, but none of them are used to their full potential. Bill Nighy and Derek Jacobi are the only ones to even come close to showing off their abilities, but neither of them get enough screen time to make lasting impressions.

I feel like what happened with Underworld is like what happened with the Matrix. The makers thought they could only make one movie and had too much story, so they shaved off what they felt they could do without. Then, when they got their chance to make another movie, they had more money but less story than before. Naively, they must have believed the two would balance each other out, which may prove true at the box office, but not for the test of time.

The acting is OK. Anthony Hopkins is brilliant (which goes without saying), Aidan Quinn is good, and Brad Pitt is Brad Pitt. The supporting actors are good enough to keep the illusion of reality up.

The music is what you would expect from a movie like this: loud and gushy. James Horner has never been one of my favorite composers. With a few exceptions, his scores don't differ much from each other.

The cinematography is pretty nice. Bright colors, nice contrasts, very pleasing to the eye. Good costumes, props, all that jazz.

My biggest qualm with this movie is the story, which is colossally convoluted. It jumps from event to event without much purpose other than to make the audience cry. Plus, I don't have much patience for movies centered around love triangles. They should add tension to the plot, not BE it.

I gave this movie six stars because of how it looks. A lot of time and money obviously went into it and that I can appreciate. But every other aspect of the film is shamelessly narcissistic, trying as hard as it can to be a classic.

If I didn't know any better, I would have thought Resurrection was made in the late 80's/early 90's, when crap sold as film in Hollywood.

I don't understand why people like Christopher Lambert. He speaks like he's reading off of cue cards and turns into a fountain whenever he has to emote. He was easily the movie's weakest aspect. The other actors were OK, nothing horrible.

It's easy to see where the majority of the budget went: the special effects. The killings look pretty professional, but hardly make up for the film's dullness.

I wouldn't go as far as to say Resurrection is a carbon copy of Se7en, but it certainly bears a certain resemblance to it. Centering on a religious-minded murderer on a modern crusade, the detectives investigating his work have to rely on Bible passages and Christian history to piece together the killer's puzzle. Resurrection, however, is bereft of Se7en's clever storytelling, cinematography, acting...well, everything that makes it good. Instead, Resurrection lies to the audience and uses the Scooby Doo method of mystery to surprise it.

In conclusion, Resurrection was about as bad as I expected it to be. I almost feel bad for criticizing this movie since I knew it would be bad going in, but...sue me.

I have mixed feelings about this film. There are aspects that I really enjoy and others that I despise.

Hugo Weaving's performance is my favorite part of the film. The fact that he had to do it all behind a mask makes it doubly impressive. He has a great, expressive voice, and he makes full use of it here. He is able to be engagingly delightful one minute, then become terrifyingly intimidating the next. Natalie Portman is a good actress and a beautiful woman, but she's too petite for a movie like this. I feel like a stronger actress would have been better (both physically and emotionally).

The story is not very original, which ties into my biggest complaint with the movie. Instead of being a new take on an old idea, V For Vendetta's story feels more like a political statement than entertainment. I understand and even admire the writers for taking such a strong stance on their politics, but I feel like the story is riding on top of the political statement.

When it comes down to it, I like this movie. The acting and the execution is impressive. However, the imbalance between the story and the politics leaves a bitter aftertaste in my mouth.

The action is fun to watch and the poppy, electronic music behind it keeps the pace fast and exciting. The fight sequences are mind-blowing, combining Matrix flexibility and Transporter hand-to-hand combat. There's a good balance between guns and martial arts.

The story is simple and familiar, but still manages to pull some fast ones on the audience. There is a socio-political message there, but it's not the focal point of the film, so it doesn't distract from the overall enjoyment of watching it.

The cast is great. Every actor gives his (or her, in one case) performance what it needs, so they all stand out.

For the kind of movie it is, District B13 is a triumph in film-making. It's perfectly paced, well-executed, and very entertaining. Definitely worth checking out.

Everything that needed to be said and done was done so in Terminator 2. (Quite nicely, I might add.) There was absolutely no need to make enough another Terminator movie, proving that T3 was simply nostalgic masturbation on the studio's part.

Terminator 3 is basically one big homage to Terminator 2. There's nothing in T3 that wasn't done (and done better) in T2. Cameron clearly had a better handle on the story than Mostow, who spent the whole movie trying to convince the audience that he can throw down with the big boys. Reality, however, is against him, since T3 is nowhere near as entertaining as T2.

With the exception of Arnold, T3 has just about everything going against it. Claire Daines looks very out of place in this movie, Nick Stahl is a horrible John Conner, and the two have little to no chemistry together. The special effects are rather sloppy and the music is pretty mediocre. Even the action scenes aren't as good as T2. It's a twenty-first century Terminator film, but we can only have one expensive sequence (the fire truck)?! The one thing I do like about T3 is the notion that Judgment Day is inevitable. Fate is a time-honored and effective plot device, especially in stories involving time travel. While it doesn't even begin to fill in for the rest of what is lacking T3's plot, at least it provides a somewhat stable backbone.

On its own, Terminator 3 is an OK movie. It's flawed, but entertaining. In relation to its predecessors, however, it falls flat on its face. It's obvious that it was simply an effort to restart the franchise and keep the money-hose going.

The action is pure adrenaline. Guns, explosions, crashes, shouting... Everything an action junkie could ask for and more! Cameron's realism is frighteningly effective. Despite the fact that his story takes place in the distant future, his treatment of it makes the real world seem a bit less safe.

The cast is dynamite! Weaver, Biehn, Reiser, Henriksen, Pullman... Everybody gives 110% performances, so the audience cares about their fates. I really like the crush between Ripley and Hicks. There is an obvious attraction between them, but it's very hushed, almost childlike, making it much easier to relate to and, therefore, enjoyable. It adds nice bits of levity to the conflict without interfering with the story in any way.

The film is spectacular on its own, but James Horner's score makes it outstanding! He, like Cameron, masterfully infuses horror and action elements together to make the audience's adrenaline pump double time.

Aliens is, in my opinion, a perfect film. It utilizes every good story telling technique to make an absolutely compelling tale that you can't look away from. Bravo, Mr. Cameron!

DotD is not nearly as scary as it is haunting. It masterfully paints a small world from the start, so it shrinks at an alarming rate once the excrement hits the oscillator. The zombies become an overwhelming antagonist, closing in on the survivors fast enough to make you realize they simply postponed their deaths.

The acting is what you would expect. Nothing horrendous, but nothing great. There are some lines here and there that will make you roll your eyes, but nothing that makes you grind your teeth. I like the absence of recognizable actors (with the exception of Ving Rhames and Mehki Phifer, of course) because it adds to the illusion that this kind of nightmare could come true.

My one real gripe with the film is that it is unabashedly violent. It takes any and every opportunity to splatter some gore, and it gets tiresome toward the end. I'm not complaining that it desensitizes the audience (even though it does), just that it looses its coolness after a while.

Dawn of the Dead isn't perfect. It suffers from a lot of nasty Hollywoodisms and abuses just about every horror movie tactic in the book. Spooky sound effects, inhuman screeches, close-ups of bullet casings hitting the floor... (And, of course, everybody become expert marksmen when it comes to head shots.) Still, it succeeds in what it sets out to do: scare the hell out of the audience.

The death of Ripley in Alien 3 should have put a cap on the Alien series. But 20th Century Fox, in its infinite wisdom, wasn't quite ready to plug a money hose like the Alien franchise. So, it was resurrected (pardon the pun).

I like the idea of cloning Ripley. It makes sense to me, given the Company's background, that they would go to such great lengths to obtain the alien. I also like that the clone Ripley is a little "off" (for lack of a better term); it makes her a little unpredictable. But the ragtag team of mercenaries facing off against the aliens doesn't work. They're too nihilistic to care about getting scared, so there's no tension. The real trouble starts about halfway through the film, though. The aliens take the backseat, so the characters are left to push the plot. They squabble, exchange colorful language, and push each other around. Then things get rather surreal. Ripley finds the Queen, which gives birth (like a human) to a alien-human hybrid. The alien-human hybrid kills some people, then dies, serving no purpose other than to repulse the audience.

The special effects is a coin toss. Some of them are utilized pretty well, while others are poor enough to laugh at. The amount of slime is ridiculous, as well. Yes, the aliens drool, but there's way too much here. It gets rather grotesque, actually.

Sigourney Weaver is good, as usual. Her performance is a little odd, but that's due to the character change. Ron Perlman is good no matter what he's in, so I have no complaint with his performance. Winona Ryder is my biggest bone to pick with the acting. It's not necessarily that she's bad, just that she doesn't fit with the rest of the cast. She doesn't make a good tough chick. The other performances are OK, a little overdone at times, but nothing Razzie-worthy.

Jean-Pierre Jeunet really screwed up on Alien: Resurrection. But, in his defense, 20th Century Fox screwed up even more by attempting to keep the Alien franchise alive. After Alien 3, there was nowhere to go. Honestly, there was nowhere to go after Aliens, but I (unlike most people) liked Alien 3, so I forgive it.

The fighting between the Predator and the Aliens in AVPR is a significant improvement from AVP, though it still lacks imagination. There's only one Predator facing off against a handful of Aliens, which severely limits the amount of butt-kicking going on in any given scene. Said butt-kicking is, however, much cooler and more frequent this time around.

The story is where AVPR falls flat on its back. Why the writer felt the need to limit a brutal struggle between two mammoths of sci-fi action to a small town in middle America is far beyond my understanding. The Dawson's Creek subplot involving a kid and the girl he's interested in feels irrelevant next to the overall conflict and ultimately adds nothing to the movie.

Brian Tyler's explosively epic score adds a lot of weight to the movie, giving it a much sharper edge than AVP. It's a wonderful blend of Alan Silvestri's Predator music and the various Alien themes while establishing its own sound. It's definitely the part of AVPR that works the most.

20th Century Fox's second cinematic translation of the Aliens Vs. Predator concept was a shot in the dark after their first attempt failed. Unfortunately, nobody knows where that shot went. I can just imagine the studio execs at Fox looking at AVPR disappointedly and saying, "Well, at least we made SOME profit." It's a shame if that is indeed the case since they don't seem to realize the awesome potential of a good AVP movie. AVP could have been the movie of the decade, but they blew it by giving it to Paul W.S. Anderson. AVPR should have been their post-wake up call reboot, but it came out as the expensive idle pleasure of a couple of Hollywood newcomers.

The goods: 1) Bruce Willis: McClaine is getting older, but he's still the McClaine we all know and love. He wise cracks and kicks butt.

2) The action: Len Wisemen was committed to making all of the collisions and explosions real. For the most part, he succeeded. The pace is good, never lagging or tiring.

The bads: 1) The music: Marco Beltrami is a fine composer and his score is top notch. The problem is that it's not a Die Hard score. It sounds too much like leftovers from Underworld: Evolution.

2) The antagonist: Thomas Gabriel was a potentially great bad guy, but Timothy Olyphant plays him too stoically. He hardly ever shows any real interest in what he does.

3) Mary Elizabeth Winstead: Quite frankly, she's too young. McClaine easily looks fifty, so why does his daughter look eighteen? She does an OK job (not great, mind you), but you have to stretch your imagination a bit to accept that she is a McClaine.

All in all, Live Free or Die Hard is a good thrill ride. It's nice to see cars running into helicopters and such ridiculous stunts. Of course, it's flawed, but--realistically--what movie isn't?

I watched Shadow of the Vampire twice before I saw Nosferatu. Though I liked it both times, I didn't think it was anything special. Having watched it a third time after watching the 1922 classic, however, I find it a much more rewarding film.

The concept is brilliant. Rather than remake the classic, Merhige remakes the making of the classic. The locations and the characters are recognizable (some of the scenes are breathtakingly recreated), so it feels familiar without being redundant.

Shadow of the Vampire isn't a vampire movie. It's a historical piece with vampire moments. Dafoe is brilliant at making Max Schreck/Count Orlock his own while remaining true to the archetype.

I strongly urge viewers to watch Nosferatu before they watch Shadow of the Vampire. You will get so much more out of it. Still, a good film on its own.

I had reservations about watching Nosferatu. Since I love movies that make good use of sound, the idea of silent film didn't interest me. I had similar prejudices toward the special effects, cinematography, acting, etc. I figured Nosferatu was a classic for purely nostalgic reasons. I mean, how could anybody actually enjoy a movie that could have been shot by a seventeen-year-old with a crappy camera? How naive I was...

Nosferatu is an exercise in brilliant film-making. Murnau's heavy investment on the look of the film pays off. The film is fun to watch. The acting is over the top, which is necessary to avoid constant cuts to dialog cards. The music is great, too. Chilling and expressive without being overbearing.

As Roger Ebert put it, this film is not as scary as it is haunting. There are no moments that make you jump, but there are parts that stick in your head. Nosferatu is a classic for a reason. Find out for yourself.

Dirty Harry is every cop thriller you've ever seen. The bad guys play dirty, so the cops have to play dirty. Gee, that's never been done before.

I love Clint Eastwood as a stoic antihero, but he's a horrible cop. A cop that doesn't care is worse than a cop that cares too much. Eastwood's cop is boring and has hardly any character. What small bits of personal information we're fed have no place in the rest of the plot, thus feel out of place and excess.

The writing is awful. It's unimaginative, unoriginal, and aimless. The story feels cooked up just to get Eastwood behind a gun again. It's barely held together by the search for the Scorpio killer, who is a boring antagonist and is in no way a match for Eastwood. Everything he does is predictable, which completely disarms him as a real threat.

This movie is popular because everybody likes to see Clint Eastwood with a gun and an attitude. This is not to say he isn't good at what he does, but it isn't enough to save a bad movie, which Dirty Harry undoubtedly is.

When Rob Zombie was offered the chance to remake Halloween, he went to John Carpenter to gain his blessing. Carpenter's response was, "Make it your own." Zombie has achieved something few filmmakers do in remaking a classic. He has taken the original version and added more meat to it.

Meyers's character development is very interesting. We first see him as a subdued boy who (allegedly) kills small animals to feel superior, then follow him as he progresses into a repressed, zombie-like murderer who kills everybody he comes across. When comparing the 1978 Meyers with the 2007 Meyers, the latter version is much more frightening (though, Tyler Mane deserves much credit for that). Carpenter's Meyers is a robot; Zombie's Meyers is a monster.

Zombie's ensemble of supporting actors is one of the film's strongest aspects. Most of the Devil's Rejects cast returns, all portraying much different characters. Danny Trejo and William Forsythe give particularly memorable performances.

In light of today's Hostel/Saw horror violence, Halloween is rather tame. While it certainly surpasses Carpenter's version in both content and intensity, Zombie practices some restraint in how much violence is shown, leaving much of the horror to sound effects and imagination.

I honestly don't understand why people are so hard on this movie. The ending drags on for a bit, but otherwise it's a pretty solid film. Remakes have become regular ventures. You can either resist them and be unhappy with half of the movies released, or welcome them and hope for a good ride every now and then. Halloween is a great popcorn flick! Just sit back and enjoy yourself.

Cloverfield is a different kind of movie. Like The Blair Witch Project, it presents itself as a first-hand account of a fictional event, attempting to make it more realistic. Instead of progressing like a conventional story, it unfolds as a series of events in a several-hour-long span of time.

Unlike the Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield succeeds in putting the viewer in the middle of the chaos. At times, I was so invested in the characters and their conflict that I found myself panicking with them.

This movie is brilliantly executed. The camera work was filmed in an amateur fashion, but never lingers on a shot or idles at the storyteller's feet for too long. The pace is good, too, giving the audience time to breathe after major events.

Cloverfield isn't for everybody. The guy I saw it with hated it for the reasons I loved it. I think it has a lot to do with expectations. If you expect a conventional movie when seeing this movie, you will be disappointed. Just know going into it that it will surprise you.

This movie is way over-hyped. I tried to get into it twice before I finally forced myself to watch it all the way through. I understand why it was noticed in America, though. It's presented like a typical Hollywood sandwich: one side slathered with sloppy special effects, the other with fast-paced action sequences. Drop The Matrix, Saw, and Underworld in a blender and this is what you get.

The story feels contrived and is too convoluted for its own good. Many of the scenes are loosely connected to one another, making the story hard to follow. Using existing mythological archetypes (vampires, witches, etc.) is a fine attempt at helping the audience accept the other world presented by the story, but cracks at freshness are mostly failures. Nothing in this movie feels original.

I don't hate this movie, but I don't think it's worth watching either. I've seen it done before and I've seen it done better.

28 Weeks Later does everything a sequel should do. It continues the story of 28 Days Later while not depending on it, introduces new characters and new conflicts, and, most importantly, it ups the antee. Fresnadillo revisits the skeletal aspects of 28 Days Later (the photography and the music most notably) while telling his own story, giving the skeleton new meat, so to speak.

I like the diversity of the actors this movie offers. The story allows room for American influence while keeping the focus of the conflict on the United Kingdom. After watching a completely British cast in 28 Days Later, I felt a bit of the strangeness the characters in 28 Weeks Later felt at the presence of the Americans.

28 Weeks Later is a story. Whether or not the filmmakers intended it to be a socio-political statement is irrelevant to me. Applying reality to it subtracts from its entertainment value. So, drink a soda and eat some popcorn. You're in for a wild ride.