Having only seen a few minutes of the original 28 Days Later, I have no significant complaints about its sequel, 28 Weeks Later. In fact, I loved the latter horror flick. With a heavy splattering of blood, 28 Weeks gives us some of the best political commentary in recent horror history. In the context of the Iraq war and the indefatigable rhetoric of the U.S. military "surge," director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo asks the question, Where does insurgency end? Apparently, it doesn't. The quarantined area of central London a full 28 weeks after the first "rage" attacks (where infected humans transform into animalistic blood-suckers within seconds) is, as it turns out, unsafe: one human is discovered to have an immunity, but subsequently transmits the virus to the genetically weaker others and hell breaks loose. As the film ends (spoiler alert) silhouettes of the escaped infected tear across the screen, the Eiffel Tower stands firm in the background. In other words, the insurgency, like the "rage" virus, is not contained and is likely to keep on spreading. It's a comment that predicts doom for modern politics and civilization, and therefore provides a moment of pause to consider the consequences of our current actions.I also enjoyed the London scenery, a space and skyline of which I am indeed ignorant. (One flight into Heathrow is hardly a sightseeing tour.) This is the first movie that leaves me with a map of London and the greater area in my mind, much like the movies of New York and Los Angeles that leave viewers with architectural points of reference. It probably sounds silly, but the repeated aerial shots of London make me feel like I know the city better.
No comments:
Post a Comment