Biggest Horror Flop of 2007

I'm a horror fan through the good and the bad. And, since there's so much bad out there, I pretty much have to sift through the mess and wait for the next savior of cinema macabre that comes along every few years.

It's the hope for a better film -- a tour de force -- that keeps the horror spirit alive. One of these days, one will come out that doesn't suck. One of these days.

During late 2003, that day came. 28 Days Later took the Sundance film festival by storm. It won awards and, gasp, took horror past the realm of redundant "slasher" fiascos. It also paved the way for Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins, Red Eye).

The film was wonderful when I saw it amidst a crowd of moviegoers expecting a darker version of "peek-a-boo." The crowd cursed and spit throughout the ordeal. Instead of buckets of blood, they received social commentary. Where a deranged psycho should be, there was a fresh take on an old genre and an eerie picture of a possible real-world scenario.

Oh, I loved it.

So, naturally, when I heard the sequel, 28 Weeks Later, was coming out, and under the direct supervision of the original filmmaker (D. Boyle), I was ecstatic.

It came and went through the theaters, picking up bandwagon fans along the way. I chose to sit out the experience. I didn't want an ignorant crowd to ruin the experience again.

So, I watched it one night on campus.

It was an abortion.

I felt like crying. An old Chinese proverb says, "If you truly want to hurt someone, do not steal their prized possession -- break it."

Danny Boyle, you broke it.

For clarification purposes, I must admit that 28 Weeks Later was hardly a box office flop. Oh no, it raked in $28.5 million at the box office. Yikes. See, a big Hollywood budget does a lot of things for 28 Weeks Later. For one, it completely ruins the entire freakin' premise. This isn't Saw. No, buckets of blood belong in crappy movies that aren't smart enough to create atmosphere on their own. Yes, Saw sucks.

I'm about to spoil the movie for you, so if you haven't seen this fecal stain, you might want to scroll down.

**SPOILER**

How exactly can one man, out of a population thousands (upon thousands) of people and infected, manage to track down his own family members and climax with a showdown in a dark subway?

It's hackneyed and clichéd. Boyle, you know better than this!

**SPOILER**

The acting is atrocious. I sometimes like child actors, but for the movie's sake, just shut the kids up and let the adults do the work.

And what about the soundtrack? In the initial film, the music seemed to play a key role in creating atmosphere. In this one, themes are overused and put in places that are downright stupid. Why are you using a suspenseful musical score when you're flying in a helicopter? Jeez.

All in all, this movie was a disaster and completely sullied the good name of Danny Flynn Boyle. At times, it seemed as though the movie was an action flick that was not out of the league of Sylvester Stallone's Rambo days (why isn't this guy dead yet?).

No worries, though. I'm used to it. From Hellraiser to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, horror movies most always disappoint after their first effort. I just thought this would be different instead of one lump short of a steaming pile.