CAST: Robert Carlyle, Catherine McCormack, Rose Byrne, Jeremy Renner, Harold Perrineau, Imogen Poots, Emily Beecham, Mackintosh Mulligan SCR: Rowan Joffe, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo DIR: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo STUDIO: Fox Atomic MPAA: R, for strong violence, gore, language and some sexuality/nudity RUNNING TIME: 98 min. OFFICIAL SITE: www.foxinternational.com/28weekslater Danny Boyle's 2002 film “28 Days Later” caught a lot of people off guard. Not only did the film seem to materialize out of nowhere it pretty much scared the bejeezus out of most everyone. Many thought the movie was part of the zombie genre but in truth (and to fully nerd out here) it's actually an “infection” film. No matter what the genre you argue for, the film was scary, gross and made some nice political statements about people who take power through fear rather than earn it through trust and honor. Plus, it was directed by Danny Boyle who struck filmmaking gold with “Trainspotting” and “Shallow Grave” but stumbled mightily with big budget bombs “A Life Less Ordinary” and “The Beach.” “28 Days Later” was a tidy little package and when word of a sequel began leaking, many people (myself included) wondered what the point was. Sure, the point is money when it comes to big screen movies but why mess with a good thing? Then again, it was Danny Boyle who had made the aforementioned winners plus the incredibly under seen “Millions” and really got back on course with “28 Days Later” so maybe it would be a good sequel after all. But alas as the film started to shoot, Boyle was merely a producer. There was no Cillian Murphy on board either so those who had gleaned some measure of good will quickly jumped back to the other side of the fence. Yet now that I've seen “28 Weeks Later,” I can tell you if you want a nice little follow-up to a great movie, you will be just fine seeing the sequel. For those who need to be brought up to speed from the original film; a “rage virus” is unleashed on the UK causing anyone who exchanges fluid with the infected to become rabid with rage. As soon as a person is infected, their jaw clenches, they slobber and gnash their teeth. Worse, and more terrifying, the infected persons eyes turn blood red as uncontrollable rage courses through their bodies and they seek out anyone they can in order to beat and bite before ripping them apart. It's great, gory stuff. What struck so many people about the original film was just how damned ruthless it was and “28 Weeks Later” is no different. Don't start getting onboard with a favorite character because what these films have no problem doing is wiping them out and usually in a most callous and unsavory way. “28 Weeks Later” opens with an intense scene in which we meet husband and wife Don and Alice (Carlyle and McCormack) as they hide out from the infected in a cottage in the woods. Right away we realize this film isn't going to pull any punches as an inevitable invasion settles onto the cottage and characters act honestly and not in the most popular of ways. As you may have guessed, I'm trying not to give anything away in terms of the plot. After a tense few minutes, we cut to a montage which takes place a few weeks later where we learn the UK is now safe from the virus. People are being brought back home including Don and Alice's kids Scarlet and Andy (Poots and Muggleton) who haven't seen their parents since the outbreak. Since this wouldn't be a terribly exciting movie if everything remained sunshine and rainbows, the virus again soon gets loose and away we go on another violent, blood filled romp with seriously mad people raging in Britain. Luckily for the Brits, there's a whole bunch of American soldiers hanging around, waiting to screw things up. I have to wonder if the stereotype of buffoonish American soldiers is earned or if filmmakers and screenwriters are just so sick of our military bullying people that they write up our servicemen that way. In any case, the Americans are there to protect against the virus breaking out again and they'll do whatever it takes to keep it contained. “28 Days Later” and “28 Weeks Later” share quite a bit, yet the difference in the latter is just enough to make both films their own successful, yet separate entities. Whereas the original had a field day with deserted and abandoned areas, this film plays on our newfound visual references of disaster with shots that reference New York City on 9/11 as well as cities decimated by the floods of hurricane Katrina. Plus the action scenes are so cutthroat and quick, it's almost an assault on your senses. Director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo gives the film a very arty, European feel while still infusing a modern sense of flash and pop through editing and shot selection. One minute there's a calm, languishing shot of a deserted carnival and then before you know it the pace shifts into overdrive with action so frenetic it takes a second to figure out what's going on. For as many great, entertaining moments there are in “28 Weeks Later,” the film often treads dangerously on the edge of camp or worse, coincidence. For me there's nothing worse than a lame plot contrivance that's there simply to lead to more action sequences. Yet as I said, the film teeters on that edge and I felt never fell all the way over. Overall “28 Weeks Later” is a fine follow-up to a terrific film. Yet it also stands on it's own with heavy doses of blood and gore, characters who don't always do what you think they'll do and some intense scenes that are downright scary. If you like your horror films “balls-to-the-wall,” you can scarcely do better than “28 Weeks Later.” --reviewed by DON LEWIS