28 Weeks Later (2007) User Reviews

Still Waiting for 28 Months Later

[Tweetienator · 7/10 · 18 July 2019]

Not as strong as 28 Days Later, that's for sure but a rating of 1,2, or 3 for certain is undeserved and no serious rating. Some logic issues, yes, but still better than 90% of the movies published under the banner of the zombie/walker genre. I watched tons, and I know what I am talking about - 28 Weeks Later, good, but could have been much better with a more plausible story and with less ueber-life dramatic action scenes (like that car chase and poisoning gas in the streets).

True Sequel

[timothyhilditch · 6/10 · 26 February 2022]

A sequel to 28 days later and you don't need to watch it to understand this one. The infection has died off and the UK population has been reduced to a few, being backed by US forces living on the Isle of dogs in London. We follow one family haunted by what they saw in the outbreak, some of these demons return. You rarely see the aftermath of an apocalypse with this interesting premise and conflicted characters it really starts well. But once the inevitable returns so does the usual clichés in this genre.

Later but still not wiser

[kosmasp · 6/10 · 10 October 2007]

As far as the action/suspense goes, a 7/10 would have been more appropriately. But as far as the common sense and the plot holes are to be taken into that account/rating, than a 6/10 is still a good rating in my eyes.

Let me explain. Apart from the obvious "let's shake the camera to create some tension/horror", which made me more often nauseous than really scared, quite frankly, the real let downs in this movie are the plot holes and the portrayal of the military. Now I'm not a military guy myself, but to portray them in a manner, that not only makes them look stupid -> SPOILERS: they let the kids get out of the military zone just like that ... oh and how convenient, that they find them exactly at the time when they themselves have found their mother! Not to mention the unguarded mother back at the military zone, where anybody can walk into, to get infected! It's open (mad) house ... enough already! Seriously, this does spoiler a lot of the fun, one can have with the movie ... or could have had, in that case. As for example the introduction in the movie. The guilt ridden father is a great theme, that runs throughout the movie. And the whole beginning is shot in a really great way. But as I said, it doesn't hold up to that unfortunately.

And yes the ending is quite clear ... although still some people try to make sense of it. It doesn't matter (SPOILER again, watch out, don't read if you haven't watched the movie, I'm going to talk about the ending), how the pilot got infected or how the helicopter crashed ... it's just a scheme to set-up a possible "28 months later" (or whatever it will be called)! So Paris, here we come!

misses Robert Carlyle in the second half

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 13 September 2014]

It's 28 weeks after the release of the virus and about 6 months after the first movie. The US Army is occupying London after the zombies have all supposedly died of starvation. Don (Robert Carlyle) narrowly escaped the zombies by abandoning his wife Alice (Catherine McCormack) and others. Doyle (Jeremy Renner) and Flynn (Harold Perrineau) are a couple of the military personnel under the command of General Stone (Idris Elba). Scarlet (Rose Byrne) is an Army doctor. Tammy (Imogen Poots) and Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton) are Don's kids who return from Spain after missing the initial outbreak. The kids escape the zone to find their semi-zombified mother at home. She's infected but isn't turning.

The first one has a simple powerful originality. The originality could never be repeated. I do like Don's duplicity and personal demons from his escape. I wish the movie stayed with him as he struggles with his inner demons and possibly finds redemption. The bigger ideas are lost when he turns. It becomes a simple zombie action movie. I just miss Robert Carlyle as the main character in the second half. When time is invested in him being the main survivor character, the movie needs to follow his story. The action is bigger and more confused. It loses the cleanliness of the original horror. The simplicity of the original lends itself to be a great horror. There is probably a political statement being made about American occupation but it doesn't really dig that deep.

A movie about zombies, made for zombies

[satanenterprises · 27 May 2007]

Horror movies are about scaring people. There are basically two ways to do this physically and psychologically.

Physically is extremely easy, you just lower music, make the character look around a dark corner, through a hole, behind a door and... Bang! Out comes the antagonist. Then the antagonist can start cutting strips off the character, digesting organs and squirting bodily fluids everywhere. Sure when done well it's scary, but my little brother could do this with a big enough budget.

Now the other side of a horror is the psychological scare. This is by far more superior and much harder to do. This is when you watch a horror and get swept into the movie. You start to think things like "I would of done that", "That could actually happen" or "They don't deserve to die". The movie makes you think about the problems the people faced, you can relate to them and may even feel sorry for the clever characters who die.

This movie is a classic example of a movie that has all the first and none of the second. Gaping plot holes aside basically every character can only be described as mentally retarded (Refer to all the other 1 star reviews for evidence). I'm sick of watching stupid people being used as plot devices in horror movies, it just shows that the creators of the movie aren't very clever.

This is to horror what slapstick is to comedy. Not very intelligent, good for a few thrills that are equivalent to getting a member of my house to jump out at me a couple of times during the day. Isn't it time that horror moved on, we've been at this level for the last 30 years with far too few exceptions. If mouth breathers would stop rating these films so well with comments like "It's got some good scares" and "It's just a horror movie" then we might see some changes.

I'm not scared Juan, I'm just really bored!

Andy! Andy! Andy! .... or listen to Idris

[stfual · 6/10 · 3 September 2013]

I was pleasantly surprised by 28 Days Later and was looking forward to the second movie 28 weeks later. I felt it isn't as good a the first one although it clearly had a much larger budget.

The good. It has a great cast and the first ten minutes which set up the rest of the movie are great. Idris Elba is excellent and it seems is now the voice of common sense in everything he appears in. The Americans are well cast and well written and acted as decent but disinterested observers. Jeremy Renner was understated and excellent.

The bad The key problem I have with this movie is some general plot weakness, the reliance on the standard horror "do scary things in dark rooms with flickering lights" and annoying kids.

The survivors should have been the tiny minority who through a combination of strength,bravery, cowardice, luckiness, sneakiness and meanness made it when everyone else didn't. This was pretty well represented by the core survivors in the first movie 28 Days later and by Robert Carlyle's behavior in this movie. The behavior of the rest of survivors in this movie made it seem like they all should be been wiped out in day 1 of the first one.

The whole code red thing seemed silly. We have two options , wait 50 days again and everyone bad dies or put everyone in the same room turn all the lights off and blow everything up.

The kids actually had the survivor spirit even though they weren't survivors however I wanted them shot early in the movie. Imogen Poots seems to be a decent actor but her only role here seemed to be scream "Andy Andy Andy" in a grating and unpleasant way as often as possible. They offered no empathy or apology for their role in what occurs. Offing or at least slapping one or both of them early on in the movie would have had the triple benefit of cheering me up, adding to the grittiness of the plot and perhaps made 28 months later a possibility.

Worth watching but if they do make a third movie get Danny Boyle back to direct or Alex Garland to write.

Exciting and apocalyptic follow-up with noisy action, and spectacular images

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 25 December 2008]

The deadly virus has decimated the city of London, exception a little zone where live people no-infected. The US army controls the city and is repopulating with good people. A family formed by a father named Don(Robert Carlyle) and sons, Tammy(Imagen Poots)and Andy(Mckintosh)are reunited .But one of them spreads the epidemic, the rage virus outbreaks and re-ignites the infection infiltrating in the secured zone , causing wreak havoc and death .Those exposed cruel biting suffer a complete transformation turning into meat-eating sickos. The sons escape and are helped by a soldier(Jeremy Renner) and a military doctor(Rose Byrne).The military take on zombies and the survivors are surrounded , facing the world destruction by deadly epidemic.

This moving film contains chills, thrills, horror and lots of blood and gore.The flesh-eating mutants appearance deliver the goods plenty of screams, shocks and tension.The horror moments are compactly made and fast moving .The make-up assistant create a truly frightening zombie cannibals. Terrifying and astonishing frames about apocalyptic events with deserted streets, and creepy mood at London without people totally uninhabited , similarly to classics movies, such as ¨Quatermas and pit, Omega man and Lifeforce¨. I think this movie is better than previous original, because packs more action and more breathtaking images. Casting is frankly well, along with distinguished players, Robert Carlyle, Catherine McCormack, Rose Byrne, Harold Perrineau, appear young promises,as Imagen Poots and Mckintosh.Nice cinematography , using steadycam and photographed in videotape by Enrique Chediak. Atmospheric and haunting musical score by John Murphy ,composed in the same style from '28 days later'by Danny Boyle(also producer along with Alex Garland) . The flick is surprisingly realized with startling visual style by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo(Intacto). Rating : Better than average, this horror story will leave you stunned.

Well-done: Gripping and scary

[Andy4444 · 8/10 · 19 May 2007]

Having seen 28 Days Later I thought I was prepared for this, but I was not. Somewhere near the beginning of the film is a scene that goes from zero to psycho in about 2 seconds flat. The beginning of 2004's Dawn of the Dead also had a wildly chaotic kick-off scene, but unlike that film, which was a great film to laugh through while chomping your popcorn, this film is no laughing matter.

When there's no violence, there's fear and tension.

When there is on-screen violence, there is absolute shock and horror. Scene after scene shows ordinary people placed in impossible situations from which they cannot escape. This time, of course, there now two implacable predators out there hunting them down: the rage virus from the first film, and the military which is attempting to maintain control of any outbreak, but is willing to visit unspeakable horrors upon innocent people if they cannot keep that control. The horror and scale of the virus is so severe, that the plans the military implements are completely plausible.

The actions scenes are masterfully done, effectively placing the viewer in the points of view of both the victims and the crazed, but still scarily human, zombies. The portrayal of the violence pulls no punches; people of all age groups and walks of life are destroyed without remorse. No attempt is made to soft-pedal it. The fragility of human life on Earth and its vulnerability to just the right nasty virus are thoughts that stay with you after you've left the theater, and add a nice "after taste" of fear. The soundtrack, as with the first film, is amazing in conveying the tension and dread and sadness of the scenes. The story is fairly tight, as well. My only complaints might be with the acting of some of the soldiers, which just didn't feel authentic to me for some reason.

Overall I'd say this is one of the best zombie films I've ever seen, in fact, one of the most effective thrillers I've seen, as well.

a good sequel of a decent horror movie

[symbolt · 7/10 · 13 September 2007]

European horror movies used to be theatrical, low-budget and suffering from it, and badly edited. Like its predecessor, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later is nothing like that. I must say this is one of the best horror movies I have seen (and I have seen hundreds), for a number of reasons. Although the movie does juggle many clichés, it does so kind of skillfully, so that you can really expect to be surprised. Most importantly, however, the sequel is as good as the original, which is the greatest surprise of all in the horror genre.

The main gimmick here, like in the original, is a mix of the zombie theme and the killer virus theme. The zombies here are extremely hyped-up, not doped, and instead of being bent on eating the flesh of the living, they behave like rage-driven human beings stripped completely of their superego and ego, and left with the instinct to fight (and yes, as it's the result of a scientific experiment gone bad, the movie can be considered sci-fi). Perhaps due to the fact that this is an European movie, we get something markedly different from the Resident Evil franchise - here, in placed of Resident Evil's focus on showcasing pretty actresses and made-up high-tech, we are treated to a foreboding feeling of isolation and powerlessness in face of helplessness and doom. We get to see normal, everyday people and faces struggling to survive, when practically everyone around them can quickly become the embodiment of evil and destruction. 28 Weeks Later focuses a little more on some action elements than, say, on the question of how long people can uphold their morality and respect for their fellow woman in such peril, but still, this movie stands proudly as a horror flick. And, like I said, it is different - with its crisp visuals (unlike the music-video lushness of a lot of Hollywood film scare), haunting and memorable music and unaffected performances. There are some loopholes in the plot, of course (e.g. really not enough few safety precautions on the part of the military for such a dangerous epidemic potential), but the movie runs smoothly throughout, and even the child actors deliver.

There are better movies with a similar feel (such as Children of Men), but as a sequel to a decent horror movie, 28 Weeks Later certainly stands out. By the way, I think that watching 28 Weeks Later will be an especially scary experience for Londoners, as most of it is set in London. Londoners, beware.

A Surprisingly Entertaining sequel

[Rassill · 8/10 · 12 May 2007]

When I first heard there was to be a sequel to Danny Boyle's excellent 28 Days Later and that Boyle himself would not be directing it, I was less than excited.

Then the reviews began flooding in and I was surprised, shocked even, that the majority of them were positive.

It was then after the well respected film critic Mark Kermode said it was "very good" and "better than we had any right to expect" that I began to raise my expectations.

Im happy to report that they were exceeded by a sequel that surpasses the original in terms of tension and spectacle.

Boyle remained on board with the project, albeit as a producer, but also directed some second unit footage and never allows it to veer away from the look or feel of his original.

Not that he had cause to worry as the new director,Juan Carlos Fresnadillo obviously understood Boyle's vision and expands on it without getting too carried away.

The result is a faster paced, less reflective film, containing a very intelligent political subtext and some fantastic action set pieces that (and this is the most important part) delivers a large number of quality scares.

It also dwarfs 28 days later in terms of gore, meaning true horror fans have much more in the way of visceral glee to sink their teeth into (pun intended).

Bring on 28 months later...

a fairly solid sequel

[movieman_kev · 7/10 · 16 November 2007]

28 weeks after the original outbreak of the Rage virus the military is still busy cleaning up and providing 'safe zones' for the survivors of the post-apocalyptic London. However two kids who want to see their old house could just be everyone's undoing in this sequel to the film "28 Days Later" Director Juan Fresnadilo might not be quite up at the level as Danny Boyle, but he still does an admirable job in his own right and the film crawls with tension (espiecally the opening sequence which is superb). It's also well-acted apart from a few bit parts. But make no bones about it, it's the great Robert Carlyle (Full Monty) who steals the show as the children's' dad who makes some extremely tough choices, he really sinks his teeth into the role and the film is all the more better for it.

If the franchise can keep up the same breakneck pace, tension, and scares as the first two films have then i'd have no qualms about seeing a "28 Months Later" or even a "28 Years Later"

My Grade: B+

Eye Candy: Catherine McCormack shows T&A (but due to the scenario it isn't arousing)

Nothing (read NOTHING) is held back...

[zor_prime · 9/10 · 11 May 2007]

...Not this time.

I believe 28 Weeks Later did appreciate as a sequel (with only a couple very minor depreciative concepts), and that was a surprise.

I'm admittedly a zombie film fan (especially the serious, non A-Team variety). And although the Rage virus in these two films does not produce an 'undead' zombie, the 'infected' nevertheless present a similarly formidable and threatening antagonist. If you haven't seen either film, Boyle's 'infected' are far less like the traditional lumbering Romero zombies, and closer to the Zack Snyder zombies of 2004's Dawn of the Dead. Note that if you were able to get away with seeing 28 Days Later as a date movie, you may not pull it off with 28 Weeks. There is very little breathing room, and some of it is more disturbing and far less bridled than you might be expecting, especially if you are used to the character-based 'safety' of most films.

Unlike 28 Days, a flashpan start to 28 Weeks Later sets the tone for the entire film... Which although short in running time (at just over 1:30) with quite a fast pace, still seemed very much long enough to be perfectly enjoyable, especially for any fan of the genre. Other than a brief, but informative back-story conversation near the beginning, there is almost no down time spent (wasted?) on emerging relationships or overly granular side-stories. Overall the most powerful element of the film isn't really character based, but rather the theme of a terrible pandemic that, besides a small twist, isn't much changed from the first movie.

There is one facet of the film that I did not really appreciate, but can't really detail without a spoiler warning. Let's just say that London is a fairly large playground for certain (coincidental?) events to happen (and not just once). However, there's a possibility I may be missing some concept that made these events intentional--I hope it's some twist of the virus and isn't just star power.

I'll be purchasing the DVD, but probably won't offer to watch it with any of my family and couldn't recommend it as a party movie :)

Post Script: If you had ever wondered why the rest of the world was not affected by this virus, consider the geographically isolating nature of the British Isles and the extremely short incubation period of this virus. A truly viable pandemic must have a longer incubation period and optimally be airborne or at least infect multiple disparate species. So the Rage virus, while perfectly suited in close quarters would likely not travel much farther than a pair of human legs could travel.

Good Sequel

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 23 November 2007]

In the country nearby London, Don (Robert Carlyle), his wife Alice (Catherine McCormack) and a few survivors live hidden in a farmhouse. When infected people break in the house, Dan panics and does not help his wife to escape, running away and leaving Alice trapped inside the room. Twenty eight weeks after the outbreak that annihilated the population of Great Britain, London is considered safe and the British survivors return under the coordination of the American Army, that keeps the city under permanent surveillance. The teenager Tammy (Imogen Poots) and her young son Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton) travel back from Spain to live with their father Don in London. They miss their mother and decide to escape to their old house to retrieve pictures and some other personal belongings. However, they find Alice surprisingly alive and the Army brings her to the base. After some blood test, the biologist Scarlet (Rose Byrne) discovers that Alice is a carrier of the lethal virus and somehow has immunity to it. Meanwhile, Don sneaks through the facility to say how sorry he is to Alice, who forgives him. When he kisses her, he is immediately contaminated, spreading a new epidemic.

I usually do not like sequels, but "28 Weeks Later" is a good complement of "28 Days Later". The story follows the tragic epidemic in Great Britain basically from where the original movie ended, and in spite of having some flaws, it works. The frantic edition of the action scenes is confused, too close, with many cuts, in a pace of video-clip and does not offer the necessary continuity of the action to give the big picture of what is happening; actually it is terrible. The story is predictable, but entertains. The conclusion indicates the possibility of another sequel in Paris, which I hope does not come true. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Extermínio 2" ("Extermination 2")

Could have been good but ruined by some poor choices

[klchu · 3/10 · 15 December 2007]

A great premise and setup are ruined by some very poor choices. The makers of this movie hate the audience and their own characters. Nothing that made 28 Days Later a really good movie is in this movie.

Let's start with plot. None of the "this could happen" realism from the first movie is here. I can forgive a few plot conveniences but they just started to stack up. I'm going to list them here so SPOILER WARNING:

• Mom is immune to Rage virus.

• Dad is lone survivor.

• Dad (UK civilian) gets job where his security badge gets him past the highest US military security points.

• There are zero guards between the entrance and the quarantine area.

• Not to be outdone, his two kids can sneak past military check points.

• One of those kids can also escape all zombies, snipers and find his sister, all in a few minutes.

• Dad becomes the super zombie who can take out squads of trained soldiers (trained to kill zombies, BTW) and who can evade all mass extermination attempts.

• Super zombie Dad can also find his kids, not once, but twice.

• Even though zombie blood if contagious, no one ever bothers to wash, or even wipe it off.

• On the other hand, no one ever gets infected this way either.

• After 28 days, 28 months, and another 28 days no one bothered to close the Chunnel?

Anyway, with the plot ruined, the next to go was the acting. It's a mixed bag here. Some was good but some was *really* bad. The screaming zombies acted better than some of the regulars when they were screaming.

That bring me to the deaths. You never expect many, if any, of the main characters to survive in a zombie/horror movie. You also expect those deaths to be somewhat spectacular. However, the cruel and callous manner in which some people died crossed many lines for me. If the rest of the movie were any good then perhaps these deaths would have worked. However, I don't think these deaths were given any more thought than "how can we f*ck with people the most?" The "night scope" death was also poorly directed. It's bad enough to kill off a likable character, but to do it poorly? You fail.

That brings us to the gore. If you want gore then you're in luck. This is probably the best part of the movie, but that's not saying much. Some of it is over the top, and some of it even funny (in a black humor way), but some of it was just cheap. The quick editing and fast panning shots seemed to be hiding flaws rather than being a creative choice.

Finally, the "ending." Once again, if the film makers had shown any sort of deep understanding of the movie then I might overlook this lack of a real ending. As it stands I can only assume that the writers just got tired and said "let's end it here." There was no message or anything deep unless you consider futility to be deep. The ending was just a cheesy, seen-it-before cliché.

To conclude: skip it. 3/10

Effective horror movie with pace and gore but, surprisingly, not enough in the way of desperation and fear (SPOILERS)

[bob the moo · 1 December 2007]

I'm not ashamed to admit that I avoided this in cinemas because I genuinely find zombie movies terrifying (and yes I appreciate that they are not zombies but infected people here), mostly due to the simple desire to kill and the way that everything we take for granted collapses in regards society, morals etc. It also doesn't help that I'm not a big gore fan either and that I had heard this film was pretty bad for that too. However, as much as it scared me I did "enjoy" 28 Days Later and did want to see this. So on a windless sunny Saturday morning I finally got round to watching it. The opening sequence is why I both love and hate this genre – it is the utter fear and relentlessness of the infected. I was gripped by the simplicity and desperation of the situation and it very much reminded me of the first half of the original film not only in this regards but also in the way that the basic elements of society are stripped away (in this case self-preservation taking precedence over everything else).

Unfortunately, not unlike the first film, a plot is required to move forward with and when this arrives in earnest, so do the problems. The first signs are good as we find ourselves in a scenario that is well constructed around Iraq – with the "safe" zones etc. Superficially this is very clever and does allow for veiled digs at the US approach out there but wisely it doesn't force this point too much. The film somehow has to get the infection into this safe zone and as many have already said, it does it by making massive leaps of coincidence and absences of logic. The hope would be that these are overlooked because we do quickly get to the outbreak after a comparatively quiet first 40 minutes. However by keeping Don in it, the film actually continually reminds us that, even within the internal logic of the film itself, it doesn't actually make a lot of sense.

Keeping him and his family as a thread no matter what is also a problem because the unlikely action takes away from the sense of hopelessness and survival that this genre thrives on. Instead, as we are with the main two characters, I felt a bit remote from this, almost safe – not something I thought I would feel with this film. I don't want to sound too negative though because there are plenty of individual moments are aspects that are very good. Those who have seen Fresnadillo's Intacto will already be aware that while effective story-structuring is clearly not his thing, he is able to direct stylish and slick action. He does it at the start and he does it throughout the majority of the film, even if it is not as good as I would have liked. In "28 Days" we hear about an infected in a crowd and it is a chilling description. "28 Weeks" attempts to show us this but sadly fudges it even if it does try. The outbreak and the loss of control is well done because again it does have that desperate air of fear about it but after this it becomes more variable again. At times we get "narrow escape" action with "red shirts" in the group being sacrificed – again keeping the fear a little remote. However at other times we do lose main characters in gripping moments. The design of some scenes is brilliant as well – the night vision journey underground for example.

Mostly the horror comes down to being about gore more than fear and I understand why some will appreciate this. For me it just made the film feel a little bit like hard work and gore doesn't draw an emotion from me other than revulsion. You can see the increased budget here because the bloody special effects are impressive throughout. More impressively (for me) are the scenes of a deserted London – which are challenging no matter how much money you have access to. The cast are good but suffer due to the material. You can see why Carlyle was attracted; he delivers the guilt well and it is not his fault that the script keeps him around long after he should have been written out. Renner and Byrne are given more heroic characters and thus take away from this aspect but do manage to carry the basic narrative with solid performances. The two child actors avoid being cute and are reasonably good. I was quite surprised to find Elba and Perrineau (from HBO's The Wire and Oz respectively) involved and, although they have minor characters, they are convincing and have presence. As before, Murphy's score is appropriate and well used.

Don't get me wrong by what I am saying – this is gory and quite exciting stuff that has potential in the Iraq parallels to be pretty smart. It is a success but it is a limited one partly due to the inability of the story to overcome some devices of convenience and some downright bad ideas. However for me the thing that was hardest to get away from that the absence of fear as a consistent emotion and, as much as I enjoyed the pace and the ideas, I wanted to be more involved and less of an observer.

Equal Parts Entertaining and Annoying

[TheSwordofValthrakian · 7/10 · 30 May 2007]

Despite some of its glaring flaws, I actually liked 28 Weeks Later better than 28 Days Later. The movie starts off with some survivors hiding out in a cottage in the English countryside who get attacked by the "Rage" infected zombies when they reluctantly let in a kid on the run. This act will prove to be something of a foreshadowing of things to come. Also, "rage" for the uninitiated,is the name of the man-made virus that turns people into red-eyed blood-crazed homicidal maniacs within seconds after exposure to infected blood or saliva entering the mouth, bloodstream, or the eyes. It's like rabiezilla if you will. Only one person survives and makes his way to safety via motorboat. The movie fast forwards ahead 28 Weeks Later (hence the title) and the English citizens under the watch of NATO deployed US troops are being brought back in to live in heavily guarded safety zones as the troops continue to eradicate any possible remaining infected since many of them have died off from starvation. Trouble erupts when Don's (the supposed sole survivor of the cottage attack) children Tammy a teen and her whiny bitchboy of a brother Andy sneak out to go pick up some items of sentimental value from their old home outside the safety zone and they happen across their mom! It turns out she also survived and their dad had failed to mention that he had left her to die to save his own ass. It turns out that his wife is infected but she's immune...she's a carrier and so when Don sneaks in to visit her and beg for her forgiveness for being a coward, he kisses her and the whole horrible thing begins all over again! He becomes infected with rage and gets the snowball rolling into a huge avalanche. So far, the movie is off to a nice start, but there were some things plot-wise and film wise that got on my nerves. For starters, as the numbers of infected continue to grow, the protocol for containment becomes simply kill everyone. Okay, that's understandable but Don's kids may have their mother's immunity to the virus which could be used for a cure and this information NEVER gets passed up the chain of command! NEVER! The kids are being protected by an army biologist and a sniper who are also being targeted y'know, just to play it safe, but the whole time I was watching these events unfold, I was thinking to myself "shouldn't one of these numb-skulls get on a walkie talkie and tell the army of their potentially precious cargo? Surely if there's a chance of a cure, the military would hold their fire and provide an airlift to safety for these kids!" That struck me as stupid and the result was a pointlessly bleak ending, in essence an exercise in nihilism that didn't have to be. Dumb decisions were made and nothing gets accomplished. This movie could have still applied good ol' common sense and still have been good. By the way , by the time the movie's over, you'll want to kill Tammy and Andy your damn self. Especially Andy! Another thing that worked my last nerve was the f--king camera work! There was so much jostle cam in the movie during zombie attacks, that it became a total distraction. Normally, I like zombie movies and this one didn't hold back on the gore like ...Days, but I was starting to dread the zombie scenes because oh god, no! Not another jostle-cam sequence! Some other titles they should have considered are "The Whiny Brit-Brats That Destroyed the F--king World" or "Attack of the Overcaffeinated Cameramen".

The first movie was brilliant, but this installment...

[robinders · 6/10 · 25 June 2008]

Was average at best.

I'm really tired of the stupid things people do in most horror films. This film is no different. The horror films that I consider as really good don't need to have idiot characters doing stupid things to keep the story moving. Death shouldn't need a dumb mistake or a poor decision as a catalyst.

The effects were really realistic, the story even plausible; not that it needs to be. The speed of the virus' transformation however, was inconsistent with the victims and a little faster that what one would expect to be believable.

Average at best.

Six and a Half out of Ten

This movie suffers from plot armor on a zombie syndrome

[jekdlol · 6/10 · 31 January 2022]

Don is always at very convenient spots to make sure the movie doesn't get boring. He also for some reason knows that the butt of a rifle is more destructive than his fists. Seems like he wants to assassinate the main characters and stay away from the horde whereas all the other zombies do typical zombie things. Also, despite being a civilian, he somehow has access to the place where Alice is. Speaking of Alice, it's impressive no infected found her and she didn't starve to death all that time. Regardless, Don is not a zombie, not a human, but a device that keeps pumping out content for the film whenever it needs cheap content.

It feels like this whole movie would've been a 15-minute movie if it was not for Don's special plot, and that makes the film underwhelming. You can take a guess on when Don is going to conveniently appear again, and it would likely be correct. I got really bored in the middle of the film, because it was simply bland and too predictable from that point on. Sending hordes of zombies to be slaughtered gets old. The main characters were pretty good though.

The end is once again extremely ****ing nigh

[arthurmauk · 9/10 · 27 August 2007]

I've never been a huge fan of the zombie horror genre, but I was very impressed by Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later… Somehow it managed to create characters worth caring about as well as throwing mindless zombies at them. So when I heard that a sequel was in the making, I was excited but understandably cautious since the Disappointing Sequel Syndrome is all too common nowadays. I also disapproved of the director switch, fearing that yet another low-budget gem will be Americanised by Hollywood, made far too slick for its own good.

So to say 28 Weeks Later was a pleasant surprise would be an understatement. Fresnadillo managed to maintain everything that was good in the original and add his own flair. The rage virus, the zombies and the gore are all still here. But most importantly, what keeps the series shockingly vivid is the willingness to flaunt the naked truth: we humans are the real monsters. Under such extreme circumstances, mankind's self-preservation instincts kicks in and it is an ugly sight to see. It might be the necessary thing to do, but that still doesn't make it feel right.

The film starts off at an odd pace but soon settles into a familiar terror-stricken rush. The cast was well selected, nothing out of the ordinary but no obvious weak links either. The Americanisation was not as severe as I had previously dreaded, and I actually quite welcomed Rose Byrne and Jeremy Renner leading the plot. The shots of post-apocalyptic London may have been done already but they're still as effective as ever, and John Murphy's score is brilliant as always.

All in all, a worthy sequel to Days and very few fans will be disappointed, I hope.

Unpunished crime

[kamaldin · 6/10 · 24 April 2021]

Everything happened because of children, especially of elder daughter. Her play was annoying me. But they are alive, and many good people are dead. Strange scenario. At the end they transfer the virus to France))

28 weeks later the best horror film ever made

[hinej-1 · 10/10 · 9 October 2007]

28 Weeks Later is the best horror film ever.

If you disagree,you are a thick clueless idiot, you have serious issues and you should consider killing your self and I hate you!!! When I saw 28 Days I thought it was good and when I heard there was going to be a sequel, I didn't think it was going to be any good compared to 28 Days, then on the 16th of September I rented it from Blockbusters and then I watched it half way though I made my mind up that this is the best horror film ever of about 50 that I have seen. For the simple reason of good acting, good story, plenty of zombie action and gore and some of my favourite scenes are when London gets fire bombed and of course that scene when that helicopter comes in and chops up all those zombies also it looked so real. I think by looking at the ending if there's going to be a sequel it will be set in France. And of course after I rented it from Blockbusters I quickly went out to bye it. Because of this film being so good I have rated 28 Weeks Later 10/10

Naturally expands on the first film, even if it never reaches its quality.

[Pjtaylor-96-138044 · 6/10 · 21 December 2018]

'28 Weeks Later (2007)' expands on the first film in a surprisingly natural way, even if it answers a nicely ambiguous question which that superior picture purposely left hanging. It's a relatively consistent-feeling affair, even if it never captures the isolation or relentless fury of its predecessor. It does get a bit 'been there, done that' when the plot kicks in simply because of where it starts and where it ends up, though it does take a number of risks and isn't afraid to be pretty grisly, either. It's also a fairly distinct experience in its own right, one that's fairly enjoyable throughout. 6/10

The best damn horror movie I've seen in a long time.

[Catastrophe666 · 10/10 · 11 May 2007]

This I can honestly say is not an overstatement. The movie contained everything it needed to be become a classic horror movie. It had gore, emotion,a few jumps,and action all the way through. The movie starts off well with the jumps and the pulse pounding action. Then all calms for a second, only to pick up again and faster.

First off the gore was not as bad as some movies, which are overly gory for no reason. Don't get me wrong there was gore and lots of it, but for some reason it seemed to fit within the movie so well that your not really bothered by it. I'm no gore hound but I honestly couldn't turn away from the screen.

The emotion is excellent for a horror film. Normally you get one dimensional characters, that do things that would never make sense whether panic stricken or not. In this film the emotions were well placed and not cheesy at all. There may have been one scene that went a little overboard but it didn't ruin a thing.

The jumps were slight, and if your not a jumpy person you may not jump at all. But with all the action you'll still be on the edge of your seat, and the jumps to tell you truth are an added incentive.

Finally the action was full on pulse pounding. It was incredible for a horror film. Think of the beginning scene of the Dawn of the Dead remake, but put it in the whole film, with a few chill spots with well placed acting. Honestly this movie deserves a 10 and has restored my faith in horror movies. I will be getting it on DVD and any directors cuts that may come out as well.

Mehhh...

[markovd111 · 7/10 · 24 March 2019]

There is a lot of questionable editing in this movie. Whenever there's action, screen is littered with a lot of random shots which job is to portray the carnage which is going on, but it looks out of place and is not necessary. Romero's zombie movies are a perfect example of that, though zombies in this movie are much more fast, so it can be explained that way, but it still feels hard to watch. Movie redeems itself with a few cool dreadful scenes and with a lot of tension throughout the movie, which replaces the scares of the first one. All in all, it's a decent movie, just don't expect something on an art level. It's just a movie to watch for fun ( because characters don't really succeed in making you care for them that much ) .

I can't be scared because I can't get past how preposterous it was.

[rowman2222 · 2/10 · 17 May 2007]

I really enjoyed the first film. The characters were real, they made understandable decisions in stressful situations. It was a fresh take on a very cliché genera; zombie films.

The second film, unfortunately, has none of that. Unrealistic characters making the same irrational, unintelligent choices that people in terrible slasher films make. Maybe taken on its own it would not have been that bad, but it has a much stronger film to live up to so it amplifies all of the weaknesses.

I am sorry if I am giving some things away so stop reading now if you have not seen the film and want to "try" and be surprised. I say try because there was nothing, absolutely nothing, unpredictable about this film.

The thing I found most absurd was that after only four months of failing to find an infected person, they already want to try to repopulate the island. Preposterous!!!! The greatest plague in the history of world and they are going back all cavalier? No. It would take years, maybe even decades before any re-population attempt would be made, and even then it would be a military only operation composed of troops and scientists. There would have to be global wide panels of experts and diplomats involved as the entire world would stand to be infected if something went wrong. Anthrax can live in moist soil for years so why not the rage virus? Maybe if the title was 28 months later, or more realistic, 28 years later.

And then again, who would want to come back? There would have to be fantastic incentives to get people to move back. Such as no taxes for life, free property, hereditary titles, etc. But the filmmakers make no effort to explain why the people who moved back were motivated to do so.

Then there is Robert Carlisle's character who is ultimately the person responsible for the re-emergence of the virus. He accomplished this because he has a magnetic pass key that gives him unfettered access to the entire complex, even top secret areas. He walks into a quarantine room of an individual, who turns out to be his wife, that is a carrier of the rage virus but is asymptomatic. He supposedly is some sort of civilian contractor or maintenance worker in the facility, but that wouldn't give him unrestricted access, he isn't even military. Come on!!! Then when the virus finally breaks back out (Too far into the movie to allow for much action in a 90 minute flick) the emergency protocols are so amateurish to be laughable. It is obvious right away that they have never given any or the re-patriots emergency drills because as they are being shuffled into quarantine chambers, they are all confused as to what is happening. You have to go through emergency drills your first day on a cruise ship and they are telling us that after repopulating Brittan after the most deadly plague of mankind, they are not even going to do some drills???? So when this inevitably fails (the zombies break into the quarantine zones, of course) in the ensuing panic, the soldiers cannot tell who is infected and who isn't. After not too much time, the general gives the order to shoot everyone just to be sure. Again, I was sitting in my seat fuming, all they would have had to broadcast on the PA was "Put up your right hand if you are not infected." Presumably zombies don't follow directions. But no, the soldiers start shooting everyone. I wonder if a Nuremburg defense would work in this instance? And of all the other soldiers shooting civilians, only one has moral qualms. Pathetic.

From here, the movie devolves into the typical horror film. The surviving characters of the initial carnage band together and are slowly picked off by circumstance and the results of terrible decision making (Should I go into the Tube where it is dark and has no lights, or should I stay above ground where I can see where I am going?) Oh, and while in the tube, they navigate with a lone night vision scope on an assault rifle that the character doesn't point at the way ahead, but instead at the surviving characters heads, did she forget that the scope is attached to a gun? Who points a gun at peoples heads they are not intending to shoot. BTW this is the same character who earlier in the film corrected the word usage of a person and then made the same mistake herself. (What kind of writer didn't pick that up???) Oh, and Robert Carlisle just happens to appear in nearly every scene even though he is only supposed to be a zombie. It got really irritating to keep seeing him pop up all the time. Was someone directing his location????? Again, no explanation of why this particular zombie was so adept at finding the few survivors.