If you want to see a movie about how you're not supposed to make movies, then go see 28 Weeks Later.  

This movie was so incredibly cliche, unoriginal, poorly written, crap-housing-ly bad that I was chuckling the whole time through.

Okay, so, 6 months have passed.  Britain is supposedly clear of the virus and the U.S. Army is slowly letting people come back into the country.  After ONE DAY...ONE DAY, the virus comes back and everybody starts dying.  This is where the film turns horribly anti-American by having the U.S. soldiers starting to kill EVERYBODY.  Then one soldier starts to kill other soldiers and it's just ridiculous.  Oh, and then they blow up the city.  Again, ONE DAY after letting people back in and promising to take care of them.  Only under George Bush's eye.

Another horrible scene is where a group of about 5(including 2 soldiers) are in a field waiting to be picked up by a helicopter.  At this time, there's a bunch of infected people coming their way...like right over the hill.  When the helicopter comes, the pilot is like "no way, I'm just taking the soldier, the rest of you I don't care about."  So, one of the non-soldier guys jumps onto the helicopter and what does the pilot do?  Why, he spins around his chopper trying to get the guy off, drawing all the attention(and the infected) over to him.  Wow.  

Bunches of other stupid scenes in here including the two main kids leaving the base area and the army sees this but takes like 2 hours to frickin' bring them back.  And then people aren't thinking and they do stupid things and blah blah blah.  It was just so insanely stupid.

The only thing that really made me jump came in the first 3 minutes.  After that, there wasn't anything really jumpy.  The rest of the thrills were either cheap flashbacks and one came in a dream sequence.  Horrible.

In all fairness, though, after the first half hour, the movie was pretty entertaining and bloody and moved along nicely.  And the music was fantastic.

Overall....it was painfully amusing.  

I have to disagree with Greg on a massive scale. 28 Weeks Later is probably one of the best i have seen of its "kind" and is a great movie that deserves acclaim, just like the first. Danny Boyle is stamped all over it, and with him including Robert Carlyle, this is one of the reasons i saw the movie.

Yeah, there is a lot of political signs embedded in the plot but who cares? Aren't we in a democracy? I thought the movie was thoroughly entertaining.

BEWARE SPOILERS......................

I'll agree there was a few things that pissed me off, for example the whole immunity the boy from the rage virus, which was not properly explained but it was a fantastic movie. One of my only complaints is they killed off the most likeable character. Doyle, the American soldier guy that played Gamble in SWAT.

Robert

I too disagree with Greg. I thought the move was greatt. I've seen it three times already, twice opening night. IMO it's just as good if not better than the original. It's certinly a hell of a lot more bloody!

Looks like the "Disagree with Greg" bandwagon is going to get a little more crowded.

The original flick is one of my favorite horror films, so I was naturally worried that this newest incarnation would bastardize the source material. Surprisingly, unlike most sequels, this film delivered. It captured every positive aspect from the first film and built upon it.

Now the acting wasn't oscar-caliber, but the action and cinematography make up for any human flaws. Most importantly, the film has that creepy atmosphere from the first. Combine all these things with a harrowing story and you've got a great sequel.

Great movie, I’m looking forward to the next installment. Screaming, bloody-eyed lunatics in France!

This was a good movie. So what if there was more action than dialogue? You got to know the characters through their actions.

SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I feel that the way the Americans handled the situation was accurate. This is a pretty serious virus, deadly at that, and I feel that if things did get out of hand that quickly, they'd have to do what they did in the movie. The first thing they did wrong was put EVERYONE in the same place when they found out the virus began again. Once one person in that large crowd got infected, it started to spread. Then they do Plan B, which was kill any infected person. But soon it was hard to find out who was infected and who wasn't, so I feel that the plan of killing anyone they see is something they'd do in real life. And blowing up the city, that's something they'd probably do also. Anything to stop the virus.

I sort of saw the ending coming, and yet, even though it was a bit predictable, I still liked it. It leaves for a better sequel that involves more countries.

I feel this is better than 28 Days Later because I like seeing more of the chaos and the infection spreading and stuff. There were suspenseful moments (Esepcially the beginning, OH MY!) and it was just really good.

Here's another one to add to that "I DISAGREE WITH GREG" bandwagon. I loved this movie.

Sean

Quoted from Zombie Sean I feel that the way the Americans handled the situation was accurate. This is a pretty serious virus, deadly at that, and I feel that if things did get out of hand that quickly, they'd have to do what they did in the movie. The first thing they did wrong was put EVERYONE in the same place when they found out the virus began again. Once one person in that large crowd got infected, it started to spread. Then they do Plan B, which was kill any infected person. But soon it was hard to find out who was infected and who wasn't, so I feel that the plan of killing anyone they see is something they'd do in real life. And blowing up the city, that's something they'd probably do also. Anything to stop the virus.

I must respectfully disagree.

See, I just couldn't find justice with anything the Americans did in this film.  We start off the film with these army guys promising to protect everyone and make this experience great and supposedly Britain is peaceful again...and then BAM!  BOOM!  BLAH!  The snipers couldn't find the infected so they just start killing everyone...I mean, even when they could clearly see that these people weren't infected, they still shoot at them.  And then Doyle starts shooting his own!  I just couldn't buy into it.  Not to mention the whole helicopter episode.

Also, I forgot to mention this in the original review, but Rose Byrne was ridiculously good looking in this.  And when she was holding that handgun...whoa.  That helped ease the stupidity of the movie.

Quoted Text Here's another one to add to that "I DISAGREE WITH GREG" bandwagon. I loved this movie.

I looked on IMDB and one girl posted a similar review and everyone was like "nooo nooo nooo" haha.

My review still counts as 10 votes, though  

Disagree as well. I thought this was great. I think they stretched the reasoning of "kill all that moves", when obviously, if you're driving a car you still retain advanced motor-skills and can't possibly be infected. But this movie was so beautfully shot and scored and if anything I was let down that it wasn't longer. It should've been at least 2 hours.

Quoted Text The snipers couldn't find the infected so they just start killing everyone...I mean, even when they could clearly see that these people weren't infected, they still shoot at them.  And then Doyle starts shooting his own!  I just couldn't buy into it.

First of all the snipers are told to kill anyone, it's not something they decide arbitrarily. Secondly they clearly state that they can't see who's infected and who's not. And Doyle shooting his own was a mercy killing. He was already getting bitten.

I'm mean, sure, the plot had a few holes, but I think you're blowing it out of proportions. At least it wasn't enough to significantly damage my perception of the film.

SPOILER:

One thing I didn't like, however, was Scarlett's death. It was kinda 'blink and you'll miss it'. This also ties in with how they kept following Robert Carlyle after he changed. Big mistake. He magically popped up during all the film's highlights, and then suddenly he's there and kills Scarlett. We lost two great characters in 2 minutes.

And did they have to be so clumsy in showing the infection spread to France. "Oh I wonder where we are. Some guy's speaking French and they're running through Parisian streets. I mean, throw me a friggin' bone here!"

Cue wide shot of the Eiffel Tower.

But here's hoping for a another sequel.

Oh why did this crap come back up haha.

Quoted from Death Monkey First of all the snipers are told to kill anyone, it's not something they decide arbitrarily. Secondly they clearly state that they can't see who's infected and who's not. And Doyle shooting his own was a mercy killing. He was already getting bitten.

I know they didn't decide.  The U.S. army lets people back into Britain and 24 hours later they screw everything up, can't get it back under control, then when everyone is running around they decide, dude, we can't figure out who is who, so let's just kill everyone!

Sorry, I hated this movie.

Well, it does kinda make sense, don't you think? I don't understand what it is you can't wrap your head around? I mean, If they tried to only kill the infected ones, they'd get overun and the virus would spread.

the only part of it I thought was too much was when the chopper started to shoot the moving cars and burn Doyle.

Everything else sounds like pretty much standard procedure. More standard procedure than "let's see if we can just hit the infected ones. Never mind 10,000 people are running sreaming towards us like crazies."

But I don't want to take away your right to hate the movie. I just didn't.

It was a well produced movie but it was very poorly written and the whole story line crossed the line into the absurd on numerous occassions.

We have a military operation that is so tightly run that they are willing to exterminate what is effectively the remaining few of an entire country, yet they let a janitor (Robert Carlyle) have a pass even into the quarantine area?

They don't even have a guard watching someone in quarantine?

They allow two kids to run out and then be brought back into the compound with minimal fuss along with their clearly infected mother?

It always felt that they were straining and straining to find a way to let the virus out, it was so cliched that it was squeaking at times.

The worst bit was the way Robert Carlyle kept appearing in a "want to be scary, but really rather comedic", fashion. It got to the point where myself and my girlfriend were laughing out loud at his appearances.

It was very disappointing. The opening scene was excellent, but once they removed the only person you gave a damn about (Carlyle) it became as boring as hell. I just wanted the kids and that tosser soldier to die as nastily as possible, which was never going to happen.

It just felt rushed, like so many films these days. they have so much money but don't seem to spend the time to get the story right.

Thinking about this film has wound me up actually. It was so irritatingly bad.

The story was so badly designed. It starts off presenting Robert Carlyle as the main character. The natural structure for the film would have had it that it was a very human story about him learning the need for self-sacrifice.

Instead they made him the bad guy, except he wasn't scary because you kind of wanted him to win.

The really strange thing about it though was the fact that they killed everyone off. The entire tension of the film was based on the fact that something was at stake, ie the very future of Britain.

Once they were killed off, there was no story. The young boy at that point was really the bad guy, because his blood had become useless as a potential antidote, there was no one left to save! He was in effect a walking biological weapon, yet for some reason we had to follow his story.

They tried to present it as though it was a good thing the boy survived, but it had absolutely no meaning and no point. The whole second half of the film was redundant.
A desperate struggle to try and contaminate the rest of the world...why?

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films It was a well produced movie but it was very poorly written and the whole story line crossed the line into the absurd on numerous occassions. We have a military operation that is so tightly run that they are willing to exterminate what is effectively the remaining few of an entire country, yet they let a janitor (Robert Carlyle) have a pass even into the quarantine area? They don't even have a guard watching someone in quarantine? They allow two kids to run out and then be brought back into the compound with minimal fuss along with their clearly infected mother? It always felt that they were straining and straining to find a way to let the virus out, it was so cliched that it was squeaking at times. The worst bit was the way Robert Carlyle kept appearing in a "want to be scary, but really rather comedic", fashion. It got to the point where myself and my girlfriend were laughing out loud at his appearances. It was very disappointing. The opening scene was excellent, but once they removed the only person you gave a damn about (Carlyle) it became as boring as hell. I just wanted the kids and that tosser soldier to die as nastily as possible, which was never going to happen. It just felt rushed, like so many films these days. they have so much money but don't seem to spend the time to get the story right. Thinking about this film has wound me up actually. It was so irritatingly bad. The story was so badly designed. It starts off presenting Robert Carlyle as the main character. The natural structure for the film would have had it that it was a very human story about him learning the need for self-sacrifice. Instead they made him the bad guy, except he wasn't scary because you kind of wanted him to win. The really strange thing about it though was the fact that they killed everyone off. The entire tension of the film was based on the fact that something was at stake, ie the very future of Britain. Once they were killed off, there was no story. The young boy at that point was really the bad guy, because his blood had become useless as a potential antidote, there was no one left to save! He was in effect a walking biological weapon, yet for some reason we had to follow his story. They tried to present it as though it was a good thing the boy survived, but it had absolutely no meaning and no point. The whole second half of the film was redundant. A desperate struggle to try and contaminate the rest of the world...why?

You talk about clichés (I'm not sure it was that cliché-ridden?) and yet you complain that they didn't do the story you expect them to do with Robert Carlyle learning the act of sacrifice. I thought immediately "Oh God, I know where this is going. Carlyle is gonna redeem himself in the end yadada" but then he's infected in brilliant turn when the person he betrayed kills him through a kiss and then has her eyes gouched out by him. Cliché? It's quite the opposite in my book.

I don't understand how you wanted Carlyle to win either. Let's recap: He ran off to save himself and got his wife killed, he then lied to his kids about and started to cry about how scared he was when he confronted her. If there was anyone I wanted to die nastily it was him.

I agree with you about the manner in which the virus gets out; not having guards and letting Carlyle go see her without any fuss, that pissed me off as well.

And naturally the people repopulating Britan was just like a first wave; not the all that remained of the country. I think this is important, in your interpretation of Andy's significance. the people that got killed weren't the entire future of Britan. (they couldn't all fit in a parking garage).

Robert Carlyle was the only person who could act and the only person who actually had a character in the film.

If it was intended that we were to dislike Carlyle then they failed. There was no way he could have saved his wife. If he was supposed to be the villain then he should have had more of a hand in it and we shouldn't have been following the film for so long from his point of view.

He was the only character in the film that it was possible to relate to. We shared his grief and his difficult decision. His wife went the wrong way, c'est la vie. She chose a direction without an exit and got herself killed. Why should anyone else die for that?

The beginning was good, it was unexpected. Usually the hero saves the day, here he didn't. It still established him as the hero of the piece though, introducing us to his character and making us want him to escape.

There was no-one else to route for and nothing to desire. What difference did any of it make? There was no-one left to save. The boy could only have infected the continent, he couldn't have been used for anything else. If they wanted you to fear for the rest of the world then they needed to show that the contamination had spread elsewhere.

Instead it meant that the logic of the film was that the heroes were desperately trying to smuggle the virus onto the continent. It made no sense.

The film bears all the hallmarks of being tampered with by other writers and Producers. It has about three different voices trying to get out and together it made a complete mess.

It ended the moment they opened fire on the innocent civilians. There was nothing left to be interested in emotionally or intellectually after that point.

Robert carlyle made a difficult personal decision, whuch resulted in the death of one person (Though they didn't even die) Andy killed everyone in the compound by going out of the complex and was also responsible for spreading the disease to the continent.

Why would you sympathise with him? You simply can't. He needed shooting when he climbed out in the first place

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Robert Carlyle was the only person who could act and the only person who actually had a character in the film. If it was intended that we were to dislike Carlyle then they failed. There was no way he could have saved his wife. If he was supposed to be the villain then he should have had more of a hand in it and we shouldn't have been following the film for so long from his point of view. He was the only character in the film that it was possible to relate to. We shared his grief and his difficult decision. His wife went the wrong way, c'est la vie. She chose a direction without an exit and got herself killed. Why should anyone else die for that?

Strongly disagree. It's not an enarmoring trait to abandon your wife to be eaten by the infected EVEN if it might be understandable. He's still a coward and when he gets the chance to redeem himself somewhat to his kids he makes up a story to make himself seem heroic. We're supposed to like this guy? Really?

As for being the only one who could act, well I think that's just rubbish. Rose Byrne is a very fine actor (I even think Carlyle is kinda overrated), so is Catherine McCormack and Imogen Poots (Remeber the stare when Don breaks down and cries in front of them? Stone face with a single tear).

Quoted Text The beginning was good, it was unexpected. Usually the hero saves the day, here he didn't. It still established him as the hero of the piece though, introducing us to his character and making us want him to escape.

No, I think it establishes him as the protagonist or the main character. Not the hero. Nothing he does in the ENTIRE film is about anything other than himself. That's not heroic. We linger on because we expect him to do something that'll eventually make us like him but he doesn't. He just wallows in self-pity and regret, although not enough to actually be truthful about what happened.

This is what I thought the film did brilliantly. It gave this coward his comeuppances through an act of love. Infection. It turns him from passive to aggressive, but curses him while doing so.

Quoted Text There was no-one else to route for and nothing to desire. What difference did any of it make? There was no-one left to save. The boy could only have infected the continent, he couldn't have been used for anything else. If they wanted you to fear for the rest of the world then they needed to show that the contamination had spread elsewhere. Instead it meant that the logic of the film was that the heroes were desperately trying to smuggle the virus onto the continent. It made no sense.

Well at the junction when Scarlett wants to save Andy there are still plenty of people to save, plus I suppose since the virus broke out again, a cure would be pretty handy. There might be other carriers and it might break out again.

But I agree that my heart wasn't with Andy at all. I'm not sure if the film wants us to realize that Andy's life is more important than anyone else's but that's hard to pull off as a whiny kid.  Tam was a much better character, but she was older too.

Quoted Text The film bears all the hallmarks of being tampered with by other writers and Producers. It has about three different voices trying to get out and together it made a complete mess. It ended the moment they opened fire on the innocent civilians. There was nothing left to be interested in emotionally or intellectually after that point.

You were emotionally invested in the nameless, faceless mob of civilians? I wasn't. That was background white noise. The people you cared about was the people the movie tells us about. You care about characters, not bodies. Now you may argue that the characters the movie focuses on are shite, but come on, nobody cared about the civilians. Nobody went "I can't believe they killed Extra #3! I'm walking out!".

Quoted Text Robert carlyle made a difficult personal decision, whuch resulted in the death of one person (Though they didn't even die) Andy killed everyone in the compound by going out of the complex and was also responsible for spreading the disease to the continent. Why would you sympathise with him? You simply can't. He needed shooting when he climbed out in the first place

Now come on, that's just sneaky argumentation. How come when Robert Carlyle abandons his wife to die and lies about it it's a "difficult personal decision" but when the kid sneaks out to his old house there NO WAY you can sympathise with that?

Now, I'll be the first to admit I didn't like Andy. I thought he was a stupid whiny brat, but that doesn't even begin to compare with what Carlyle does. Just because something is a difficult decision doesn't mean it's a sympathetic one.

"It was a difficult personal decision, but in the end I decided to go on a killing spree at the day-care".

He didn't kill anyone though, until he was infected so your last point is hardly fair.

Quoted Text You were emotionally invested in the nameless, faceless mob of civilians? I wasn't. That was background white noise. The people you cared about was the people the movie tells us about.

Didn't care about them as individuals, but they were the "stakes". The tension of the film relied completely (100%) on what happened to those people. The best scene was when Carlyle broke into the pen. They represent the future and hope of mankind.

As you rightly say, it's about the people that the film shows us. We aren't shown the wider world so that small community is everything that they are trying to save. Bear in mind that the virus is successfully quarantined. They are not there trying to prevent the spread of the virus (Which would have made sense) they are there to rebuild Britain.

In any action thriller, the world has to be at stake, and then it survives. In this case it died, and not even at the end, just half way through. There was nothing to fight for, we just had to sit and watch a 40 minute resolution that was completely pointless. The last 40 minutes could have been summed up by showing the last clip set in France.

They managed to get the virus to France in the body of serial killer Andy. Whoppee Doo.

Quoted Text You care about characters, not bodies.

There were no characters in the film apart from Robert Carlyle. Just 2 dimensional plants.

It just didn't work structurally. There was no emotion in the second half of the film because everyone of interest was dead and even the abstract hope represented by the commune was dead.

The thing about Robert Carlyle's character was that he made human choices. He could not have saved the woman. She killed herself. My first thought watching that scene, was why has she gone in there? She can't possibly survive. It would have required something superhuman to save her. That is how the director played that scene.

If the scene was intended to demonise Carlyle, then it failed dismally. It just made him a real (the only) three-dimensional character. It wa a good start and could have been used to make some strong points about human nature. Is there anything greater than our need to survive? Instead it drifted off into absolutely nothing.

Were I to concede your point that we are supposed to dislike Carlyle (I don't see any directorial evidence of this BTW, it may have been the writer's intention I don't know) then I would have to say that the film is a complete disaster with perhaps the worst characterisation I have ever seen. It would be a film without a single charcater of any interest.


Ultimately it simply didn't know what it wanted to be. Was it a disaster movie like Outbreak? Was it an action thriller? A Horror? A human drama? The first was so successful because it told a simple human story of love and survival amidst a truly horrific backdrop. At the same time it asked important questions about human nature.

This one does none of the above.

At best it can be described as a trailer for the third film. It had none of the intelligence of Danny Boyles film, none of the humanism and none of the hope.

It just had a few explosions.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films He didn't kill anyone though, until he was infected so your last point is hardly fair.

Never said he did? I said what he did was as morally reprehensible, if not moreso, as what Andy did. Andy did it naively and unwittingly. Don did it to save his own skin. So I think it's pretty apt.

Quoted Text Didn't care about them as individuals, but they were the "stakes". The tension of the film relied completely (100%) on what happened to those people. The best scene was when Carlyle broke into the pen. They represent the future and hope of mankind.

Where do you see the film argue this point? You say the film relied 100% on what happened to these civilians, I say it relied 100% on what happened to the family. The characters were the real stake, the civilians were a sort of macguffin.

Quoted Text As you rightly say, it's about the people that the film shows us. We aren't shown the wider world so that small community is everything that they are trying to save. Bear in mind that the virus is successfully quarantined. They are not there trying to prevent the spread of the virus (Which would have made sense) they are there to rebuild Britain.

Well, are we even shown the civilian characters? The supposed stake? One guy gets a name, everyone else is a blur. Just like any war movie isn't about winning the war itself but about a select few soldiers dealing with it, so is this about a select band of survivors.

Quoted Text In any action thriller, the world has to be at stake, and then it survives. In this case it died, and not even at the end, just half way through. There was nothing to fight for, we just had to sit and watch a 40 minute resolution that was completely pointless. The last 40 minutes could have been summed up by showing the last clip set in France. They managed to get the virus to France in the body of serial killer Andy. Whoppee Doo.

I think your setting up strawmen now. Who says any action thriller has to have the world at stake, or that it has to survive? In Dawn of the Dead the world dies within the first few minutes. In Aliens in dies at the 30 minute mark. IN this it does at the 50 minute mark, and of the three only Aliens actually approximates making the "world" matter. It's the only one that gives us scenes were the inhabitants of the world go about with their lives.

I think it's inane to say there was nothing to fight for, because obviously they were fighting for survival. I don't understand why you need some greater cause or ideal. The original didn't have one and I don't think this one does.

Quoted Text There were no characters in the film apart from Robert Carlyle. Just 2 dimensional plants.

This is semantics and exactly why I wrote: "Now you may argue that the characters the movie focuses on are shite..." implied: but they're still characters by definition. And thus they are the ones the movie cares about.

Quoted Text It just didn't work structurally. There was no emotion in the second half of the film because everyone of interest was dead and even the abstract hope represented by the commune was dead.

I didn't think so. I liked most of the surviving characters. You didn't. This I can't change your mind about.

Quoted Text The thing about Robert Carlyle's character was that he made human choices. He could not have saved the woman. She killed herself. My first thought watching that scene, was why has she gone in there? She can't possibly survive. It would have required something superhuman to save her. That is how the director played that scene.

Human beings can inherently be cowardly, petty, selfish and pitiful, yes, but I think it's setting the bar too low, if he's meant to solicit sympathy just for qualifying as a human being.

Now, like I said, had he redeemed himself at any point, merely by telling his kids the truth then we might have a reason to root for him, but rooting for him simply because he's "human" is ridiculous, IMO.

Quoted Text If the scene was intended to demonise Carlyle, then it failed dismally. It just made him a real (the only) three-dimensional character. It wa a good start and could have been used to make some strong points about human nature. Is there anything greater than our need to survive? Instead it drifted off into absolutely nothing.

Exactly. If the scene was a set-up for something it might've worked, but then we learn that...oh this guy isn't gonna redeem himself at all 'cause he only cares about himself...and we're stuck with him as a main character? Then BAM! Carlyle gets owned, and we're cheering 'cause, honestly, he had it coming.

Quoted Text Were I to concede your point that we are supposed to dislike Carlyle (I don't see any directorial evidence of this BTW, it may have been the writer's intention I don't know) then I would have to say that the film is a complete disaster with perhaps the worst characterisation I have ever seen. It would be a film without a single charcater of any interest.

I never said we are MEANT to dislike him. I said we do. There's no way I can know what we're meant to do. However in only showing Carlyle in scenes we're he's given chances to to have some sort of redemption, and then letting him ignore them, we do dislike him. At least I do. I don't know anybody who went "Oh poor guy...it's sure tough that he has to think about how he abandoned his wife all the time...and it sure is difficult not to lie to his kids and say he tried to help her".

Quoted Text Ultimately it simply didn't know what it wanted to be. Was it a disaster movie like Outbreak? Was it an action thriller? A Horror? A human drama? The first was so successful because it told a simple human story of love and survival amidst a truly horrific backdrop. At the same time it asked important questions about human nature. This one does none of the above.

This is the danger of classification. If something doesn't fit, we assume the prodcut is at fault instead of our system. To say that a movie fails because it isn't a clear-cut action-film, thriller or horror is a strange notion indeed and this may prompt all genre-cross over to be regarded as utter failures henceforth. Is Silence of the Lambs horror? Human Drama? A Serial Killer flick? A Thriller? A cop movie?

Secondly, just like Aliens this one has completely different ambitions than its predecessor. It's more of a spectacle, more of a pop-corn flick that has a larger cast of characters and ovbiously spends less time on each. I don't see this as a problem, because they're two different beasts.

Quoted Text At best it can be described as a trailer for the third film. It had none of the intelligence of Danny Boyles film, none of the humanism and none of the hope. It just had a few explosions.

Again, is Aliens a failure because it wasn't the film Alien was? No. We must always look at what a films aspires to be in judging it, not what we aspire it to be. You can't pan Predator for not being Close Encounters.