Granted, I probably should have gotten this out of the way sooner, but it’s just a testament to how much interest I’ve probably lost in seeing this movie. Not that I think it will be bad, but it just doesn’t strike me as a “must-see” film. It’s certainly a brave film for coming out the week after Spider-Man 3, and before Shrek the Third. And, it’s probably only playing in about a third of the number of theaters, compared to those other two films.

To its credit, 28 Days Later was a pretty solid film. It was the perfect example of why I admire Danny Boyle as a filmmaker. Up until this film, I never thought of him as a director who would do a horror film, and a damn good one at that. The scariest moments in the film are actually the quiet ones. Who can forget Cillain Murphy’s character Jim wandering the deserted streets of London, screaming for anyone who would listen. The digital camcorder look to the film just accentuated the grittier moments, never knowing when one of “the infected” would pop out. It was very sparse, but that worked to its advantage. There was this almost claustrophobic feeling, despite the widespread desolation.

As the title states, it’s 28 weeks later, and it’s believed that the last of “the infected” have died off. The U.S. Military is brought in to aid in the reconstruction, but eventually, all hell breaks loose as the virus resurfaces. Immediately, the sequel looks to being aiming to be more of a mainstream film, which I think ultimately takes away from the creativity of the original. There seems to be a heavier focus on action in addition to horror, and the cast features somewhat recognizable actors (moreso than the original when it was released), including Robert Carlyle, The Wire’s Idris Elba, and Lost’s Harold Perrineau. It just looks very conventional in its appearance and narrative structure, to the point of me not being too exicted about it. Nothing about it particularly stands out that makes me want to see it.

As great as 28 Days Later was, I found it to be one of those films that didn’t need a sequel, and probably shouldn’t have one. I love movies where the world has fallen apart, and they end with the survivors accepting their new way of lives, and trying to rebuild. There’s a message of hope leaving something to the imagination, to the point that you don’t concern yourself with what happens after the credits roll. I enjoyed the ambiguity of it, in addition to the tight focus on a specific group of characters. Sometimes there’s no need to continue the story. This goes to my belief that there’s no such thing as a “necessary sequel”. Don’t get me wrong, a lot of my favorite movies are sequels. They can be great, sometimes even surpassing their predecessors, but I dare you to say any of them were necessary. Think about Terminator 2 and how that movie ended. It would actually negate everything that happened in the first film!