Star of the 2000 hit 28 Days, Sandra Bullock doesn't even make an appearance in the sequel.
It is a generally accepted rule that a sequel to a blockbuster movie will have a hard time living up to the stature of the first movie. House Party II wasn't as good as House Party, Rockie V didn't live up to the original Rockie flick, and Batman and Robin (1997) didn't even come close to Batman (1989, or for that matter, the original Adam West movie).
At least those movies kept the same general theme as the first movie. The sequel to 28 Days doesn't even fit in the same genre.
In 28 Days, Sandra Bullock's character Gwen must come to terms with the fact that she is an alcoholic, and overcome that problem in order to better her life. Gwen is battling with an inner conflict, and must recognize her own faults and the problems that her alcoholic lifestyle have caused not only for herself, but for those nearest to her. The audience feels deeply for Gwen, as the development of her character is none short of excellent.
28 Days Later, on the other hand, presents us with Jim (Cillian Murphy), freshly woken from a coma and forced to battle against people infected with a virus that awakens a murderous rage within them. There is no inner struggle at all -- how can you take time to consider the impact that your alcoholism, or your quick temper, or even your persistent stubbornness has on those around you, when the only thing that those around you want to do is kill you?
As a horror movie, 28 Days Later is above par. Not always downright scary, but ever thrilling, this movie will likely not fare as well with the fans of the first movie, who will likely already have dismissed this one, for lack of Sandra Bullock. If you overlook the fact that this movie is in fact a sequel, and look at it as though it were an original film not subsequent to the original film, you will certainly be able to accept this film on its own merits.
Rating: *** out of ****(Even considering the alienation of 28 Days fans, this movie is worth seeing.)
