Film review: 28 Weeks Later

28 Days Later was an outstanding example of the zombie genre, which, along with the clever spoof Shaun of the Dead, meant that of late Britannia has ruled the zombie waves. 28 Days Later was raw, original, chilling, with characters that you cared about and a twist that blurred the lines between the zombies and the humans in a disturbing way.
28 Weeks Later retains a lot of the first film's techniques. The shots of an empty London are still there. What is it that makes these shots so captivating? Perhaps it's the creepy attractiveness of a city without people, which is an uncomfortable but fascinating thought. It suggests that zombies are really just a horrible representation of humans as we really are. 28 Days Later was good at digging up these feelings, especially at the end when the army soldiers show that they are even worse than the zombies.
However, the way these deserted city images are used in 28 Weeks Later demonstrates the major difference between these films. Whereas the original encouraged troubling thought, the sequel just seems to say 'Cool, check out empty London'. It is pretty cool, but the film does it too much.
28 Weeks Later tries to have some intellectual content. The premise of the film is that the virus has wiped out the British population and the zombies have now starved to death. The US Army enters the de-populated country and some obvious comment on the Iraq war is made. The American army's complacency costs them and the virus resurfaces. There is reference to 'friendly fire' in the film, but that is about as far as the political nod goes.
Really, 28 Weeks Later is an action flick. It's about a group of humans trying to escape the zombies and the US Army intent on wiping everything out as part of its 'Code Red' better-safe-than-sorry policy. There's a lot of big explosions and action sets, including an excellent helicopter scene. The main characters are two children who had been on holiday when the virus broke out and return once the country is prematurely deemed safe. They find their father alive but not their mother. The father, played by Robert Carlyle, had abandoned his wife to the zombies in order to save himself.
This family dynamic structures the film. It isn't very well handled, with the potential for an interesting study of Carlyle's guilt foregone as the film becomes a simple chase.
Two American Army officers, a female medic and a male sniper, become the principal defenders of the children, who may hold the key to conquering the virus. However, none of these characters is sufficiently fleshed out to make the audience care much about them. The action is fast-paced; and the climactic episode is atmospheric, but the twist is quite predictable.
A final disappointment comes in an ending that blatantly sets up a sequel rather than concluding the film. On the whole, the film lacks the tension of the original mainly because the audience doesn't warm to the characters. This is a reasonable 'chase' film, with some good action set pieces and plenty of gore. However, if you're looking for the subtlety and surprising warmth amid tragedy of the first film, look elsewhere.

Film review: Spider-Man 3

I thought I'd try my hand at writing a film review. I certainly watch plenty of them, so here are my thoughts on the film I watched last weekend: Spider-Man 3.I will begin by saying that I am a big fan of the first two films, especially the second. Simple stories; snappy action; an appealing central couple of Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker and Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane; memorable and slightly tragic villains; and a believably awkward and ordinary hero all made the Spider-man franchise a success.Let's take those elements in turn. The story in Spider-man 3 is too complicated for its own good. One storyline sees Peter Parker's relationship with Mary Jane deteriorating, as Peter's growing ego and Mary Jane's Broadway flop put a strain on things. Another strand has Peter Parker develop a rivalry with a new photographer, Eddie Brock. An alien creature that attaches itself to those with negative energy becomes involved here too, with the emergence of a new villain, Venom. A third storyline involves another new villain called the Sandman, who is an escaped convict trying to gather the money to cure his daughter's disease by robbing banks and the like. A fourth storyline follows the friendship/rivalry of Peter Parker and Harry Osborn, son of Willem Defoe's villain from the first film. All these storylines compete with each other rather than blend into the overall plot. It's a familiar problem: in trying to do so much, the film ends up doing little of anything. It also swells the length of the film to an over-long 2 and a half hours.The action in this film is similarly uninspiring. An opening chase sequence at night is so frantic and poorly lit that it's tough to make out what's happening; and the climactic battle lacks momentum, mainly because it just feels like the customary battle stuck on at the end, rather than a natural conclusion to the film's tale.One aspect of the film that works quite well is the central relationship, in which Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst do some good work. Maguire is amusing and plausible as the geeky Parker whose head is a little swollen at the public adulation, meaning he isn't paying attention to Mary Jane's unhappy situation. Dunst does a good job of conveying the frustrations of a Mary Jane whose career ambitions come undone and who feels neglected by her boyfriend. The relationship receives a couple of big jolts along the way, with James Franco's Harry Osborn excellent as the third member of an emerging love triangle. He exhibits the greatest emotional range, with great affection, dark humour, determination and savagery in equal measure.
Unfortunately, the villains, who take up a lot of the screen time, are exceedingly weak in this film. The Sandman character is not at all engaging and is very uncharismatically played by Thomas Haden Church. The revelation of how he gained his superpowers is so bad that they ought not to have bothered. The Eddie Brock/alien creature storyline, though, is possibly the worst-handled aspect of the film. The Venom villain emerges late, and his motives are poorly explained.Peter Parker himself goes through a change, discovering his dark side through the alien creature, which amplifies his vengeful feelings about Uncle Ben's murder. Sadly, though, the dark side isn't very dark and so not really worth doing. If you want to see what happens in the Peter Parker-Mary Jane relationship, this film may, just about, be worth watching. However, the resolution will leave you feeling cheated. If you enjoyed the pace and lightness of the first two films, don't go to see this ponderous and clumsy effort.