Minimal spoilers follow...
This was a hard act to follow. Although the original "Survivors" went downhill after the first series, the early episodes were memorable. The first episode of the remake doesn't match the standards of the original but it isn't a bad effort. Some random comments:
1. The overall dramatic effect is a little too "Casualty" for my liking. Some of the acting on the hammy side, uncertain dialogue, heavy-handed music. Didn't quite have the creeping sense of menace I was hoping for/expecting.
2. Some silly touches. Abbey leaving a note for Peter on a bit of paper stuck on the door with a bit of blue tac, which wouldn't last five minutes. The bloke who blows up the petrol station for no discernible reason. The writers sensibly avoided too much science (which they would undoubtedly have got wrong). But they couldn't resist some references to "auto-immune" and such-like, which didn't add anything and made no sense.
3. I'm not at all sure about the actress who plays Abbey. She doesn't have the pertness of the original. The chemistry between Greg and Abbey was important. It's hard to see anything like that developing here.
4. On the other hand, KillerRapist Bloke is an interesting addition to the cast (will he turn out to be a Goody?) Some excellent cinematography of empty roads and the like. The scene where the boy wakes up is haunting. The last two minutes introduce a new sub-plot (things seen from the other side, as it were) which looks lively.
Perhaps the greatest problem the series faces is that the idea of the apocalyptic killer virus has been taken to another level by 28 Days/Weeks Later. Of course Survivors is not really about that; it is about what comes after. But still, comparisons are unavoidable and Survivors inevitably seems rather milky compared to 28 Days.
Still, enjoyable enough and I shall continue to watch.
This was a hard act to follow. Although the original "Survivors" went downhill after the first series, the early episodes were memorable. The first episode of the remake doesn't match the standards of the original but it isn't a bad effort. Some random comments:
1. The overall dramatic effect is a little too "Casualty" for my liking. Some of the acting on the hammy side, uncertain dialogue, heavy-handed music. Didn't quite have the creeping sense of menace I was hoping for/expecting.
2. Some silly touches. Abbey leaving a note for Peter on a bit of paper stuck on the door with a bit of blue tac, which wouldn't last five minutes. The bloke who blows up the petrol station for no discernible reason. The writers sensibly avoided too much science (which they would undoubtedly have got wrong). But they couldn't resist some references to "auto-immune" and such-like, which didn't add anything and made no sense.
3. I'm not at all sure about the actress who plays Abbey. She doesn't have the pertness of the original. The chemistry between Greg and Abbey was important. It's hard to see anything like that developing here.
4. On the other hand, KillerRapist Bloke is an interesting addition to the cast (will he turn out to be a Goody?) Some excellent cinematography of empty roads and the like. The scene where the boy wakes up is haunting. The last two minutes introduce a new sub-plot (things seen from the other side, as it were) which looks lively.
Perhaps the greatest problem the series faces is that the idea of the apocalyptic killer virus has been taken to another level by 28 Days/Weeks Later. Of course Survivors is not really about that; it is about what comes after. But still, comparisons are unavoidable and Survivors inevitably seems rather milky compared to 28 Days.
Still, enjoyable enough and I shall continue to watch.
