Metascore
78

Generally favorable reviews - based on 34 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 31 out of 34
  2. Negative: 0 out of 34
  1. A ferociously entertaining thriller with sympathetic characters, stunning set pieces and pulsating excitement.
  2. 100
    As viscerally compelling as smash-mouth filmmaking gets.
  3. 90
    28 Weeks Later is not for the faint of heart or the weak of stomach. It is brutal and almost exhaustingly terrifying, as any respectable zombie movie should be. It is also bracingly smart, both in its ideas and in its techniques.
  4. Reviewed by: Derek Elley
    90
    A full-bore zombie romp that more than delivers the genre goods.
  5. There's no better fun for movie lovers than a small, unheralded film that turns out to be terrific -- unless it's a small, unheralded sequel that trumps the original.
  6. Swift, vicious and grimly imaginative, the zombie film 28 Weeks Later exceeds its predecessor, "28 Days Later," in every way.
  7. 88
    Those rigorously moral and humanistic underpinnings give 28 Weeks Later a kind of power that 100 Saws and Texas Chainsaw Massacre remakes could never achieve.
  8. 28 Weeks Later has a stronger story line, equally fine performances, greater tension, enough gore to satisfy the most hard-core zombie fan, and a narrative pace that flings us from the opening scenes to the very last image.
  9. Reviewed by: Erin Meister
    88
    The script is biting and timely.
  10. Excels at creating a keen, creepy sense of a civilization stopped dead in its tracks -- vaporized, almost, except for those disemboweled bodies left still undisposed.
  11. 83
    I give the slight edge to the first movie because I prefer Boyle's craft to Fresnadillo's, but the action is more intense here, and I greeted the thought of a third film -- virtually assured in the closing shots -- with a little yip of "Yes!" Likely you will, too.
  12. 83
    Under Fresnadillo's assured direction, 28 Weeks Later blurs the line between genre entertainment and a photojournalist's shots of the next urban catastrophe.
  13. The ending is a set-up for yet another sequel: Can "28 Months Later" be very far away?
  14. Reviewed by: Kim Newman
    80
    Bigger action, more amazing deserted (and devastated) London sequences and biting contemporary relevance, if a touch less heart than the original.
  15. Blistering and nihilistic--a vision to reduce you to a puddle of despair.
  16. Reviewed by: Nathan Lee
    80
    The sequel trumps its predecessor for sustained doomsday gloom and suggests this might be the man to adapt Cormac McCarthy's post-apocalyptic novel The Road.
  17. 28 Weeks Later lacks the streamlined thrust of its predecessor but makes for compelling, adrenaline-fueled viewing just the same.
  18. Reviewed by: Grady Hendrix
    80
    The first hour of this lean, mean, 95-minute scream machine is so tasty that it redeems the predictable conclusion.
  19. 80
    This sequel to the apocalyptic splatter flick "28 Days Later" . . . (2002) is still well equipped to rip your face off.
  20. 75
    Hold on for a hell of a ride.
  21. 75
    t's an exciting, well-directed thriller that, while providing more than enough action and gore to satisfy genre fans, also offers the political commentary that has characterized zombie movies going back at least as far as "Night of the Living Dead."
  22. Holds the audience captive and unusually vulnerable to psycho- and viscero-terror.
  23. The biggest sin of 28 Weeks Later is that it's not in the same league as the near-perfect movie that came before it.
  24. 75
    28 Weeks Later is flawed -- the constant reappearance of one key character verges on the absurd -- but it knows where it's going, and it gets there in a chilling blaze of fire, blood and poisonous fog.
  25. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    75
    Relentlessly grim and grisly, 28 Weeks Later is not for the faint of heart. But its provocative post-apocalyptic theme makes for a smart and deeply unsettling film.
  26. Reviewed by: Glenn Kenny
    75
    A gruelingly tense, deftly plotted, and slyly intelligent piece of work. And also it's really really disgusting.
  27. 70
    Director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, who was essentially handpicked by now-executive producer Danny Boyle, gives us a more depressing look at humanity while retaining several of his predecessor’s moves. This isn’t always a good thing, since Fresnadillo can’t seem to get his fill of low-light hyper-edited fight scenes or frenetic hand-held shots of people running, but when used right it adds to the sense of claustrophobia and impending doom.
  28. Reviewed by: David Ansen
    70
    Where the original gave you something to chew on, the sequel is more interested in chewing on you.
  29. 67
    While 28 Weeks Later ultimately falls shy of classic status (it's no Panic in Year Zero!), there are several hard-to-shake scenes -- nightmare visions, really -- that reveal the infected populace to be far less dangerous to the fabric of a civilized society than, perhaps, the very notion of civilization itself.
  30. The mayhem is presented sparingly enough to be suspenseful, some of the sequences are genuinely terrifying and, compared with Hollywood's last zombie movie, the Robert Rodriguez half of "Grindhouse," it's a masterpiece.
  31. Only occasionally does Fresnadillo rise above the mundane, but, to his credit, the exceptions are worth savouring.
  32. Doesn't match the impact of its predecessor, which both revived and reimagined the zombie-film genre.
  33. 50
    "28 Days Later," while not terribly original, was suspenseful and involving. 28 Weeks Later is neither. The characters aren't as sympathetic or interesting.
  34. Deals with emotional concerns for half an hour. Then it turns into a mindless bloodfest, where it's impossible to care which characters end on the zombie gore-gasbord.
User Score
7.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 362 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 36 out of 177
  1. May 19, 2012
    3
    Sure, zombie movies are not about realism, but does every single character have to be so **** stupid?!!!? They leave everything to chance! no wonder they end up dead, it's so full of mistakes: awful security; the soldiers must be thinking this is a joke, there is no other way. They let two STUPID kids go into the infected zone, those kids are also stupid enough to go near and even touch dead infected bodies! The soldiers don't keep each other informed, they don't secure the infected mother (no permanent surveillance, no cameras, no alarm), the husband just so happens to pass EVERY security guards like it was nothing and stupidly kisses her, which makes ONE infected and no **** soldier is smart enough to shoot him: they go alone, they're not careful, THEY D'ONT EVEN DRAW THEIR WEAPONS!!! They can't even secure the civilians in the SECURITY room because the infected can easily get there by just OPENING THE DOORS!! Then when they get ALL infected and the soldiers have to shoot everybody they use snipers! Not explosives or flamethrowers as they later do, but long-range snipers who take down ONE infected at the time! Then they decide to bomb the whole zone through airborne attack and release toxic gas (which makes the bombs pointless + it destroys all the buildings) actually both are pointless because some infected even managed to survive that! The remaining survivors try to escape the gas be locking themselves up in a car, which shouldn't work because cars are in no way gas-proof, they do cover their mouths with clothes though, and it shouldn't work either otherwise the army wouldn't be using this gas if it didn't penetrate very thin clothes! Afterwards, they get chased by a helicopter and drive into a metro station to escape the bullets (it is commonly known that trained US soldier can't shoot a car from a heli in more than 2 min), but instead of going back up and waiting for the heli to leave, they go deeper into the completely dark station with NO LIGHTS except for ONE night vision scope on the dead soldier's gun and guess what? they get separated in the complete darkness with an infected, but of course no one shoots until someone dies, no one screams "I'm here! HELP!!!" and they leave the gun behind... -_- It's only at this point of the movie that the two kids realize they're immune and that's why it's so important that they live because it did not cross ANYONE's mind to tell them before, which makes me think that the survivors are as brain damaged as the infected... THE END! This movie surely does not deserve a good rating, except for the good acting and makeup, otherwise SXF was sometimes **** music was nice too. In conclusion, if you want to survive a zombie apocalypse, don't watch this movie, and **** run when you see a zombie. To the writers: next time PLEASE don't do something COMPLETELY predictable or stick with the first 15 min of the film that actually looked like 28 days later! Full Review »
  2. Oct 19, 2011
    5
    Newbie director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo sure knows how to give horror and fun using impeccably preposterous, over-the-top methods. However for "28 Weeks Later", that's how far the film is capable of bringing itself up to. Full Review »
  3. Jan 2, 2014
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click full review link to view. I would like to start off this review with a joke. The 28 Weeks Later soundtrack!!! Why is this a joke? Because they decided to use the same song that ended 28 Days Later four different times throughout the movie (possibly more, I lost track). That aside, this movie was fairly enjoyable.The action scenes and story line were entertaining, but the moral dilemmas were fairly predictable, some of the acting sub-par, and a lot of the script cheesy. Also, I was expecting a happy, fulfilling ending to this movie after the first one. This ending left me depressed and mad. This movie, while mildly entertaining, will not be remembered. Full Review »