- Studio: Fox Atomic
- Release Date: May 11, 2007
User Score
7.0
out of 10
Generally favorable reviews- based on 314 Ratings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 239 out of 314
-
Mixed: 26 out of 314
-
Negative: 49 out of 314
Review this movie
-
-
Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.
-
-
Submit
-
Check Spelling
- User score
- Most active
- By date
- Most helpful
- Most Clicked
-
May 19, 20123
-
MathewB.Jul 8, 20073Huge Plot holes, and too much camera ramping ruin what begins as a promising sequel. A few o.k. set pieces, but logic gaps, uninteresting characters, and a poorly exacuted sermon hurt this film.
-
-
JohnS.Nov 7, 20071
-
-
LOLJun 9, 20072
-
-
KeithJOct 20, 20073
-
-
HarryG.Oct 26, 20070This movie was utter crap, the first 15 minutes feels like a meth induced hallucination - and really did we really need to have one of the main character gouge out his wife 's eyes for like 5 minutes. Terrible, felt like amateur video game graphics.
-
-
PhillyDOct 19, 20074
-
-
AaronK.May 10, 20072
-
-
DanS.May 26, 20071I'm surprised that so many critics here gave this one generally favorable reviews. Yet, one reviewer from the Charlotte Observer had it right: "But how much joy can one take in a movie that's mostly about people getting their faces chewed?"....If you want to be in a better mood afterwards, avoid this stinker.
-
-
CH.May 28, 20073
-
-
JulzJ.Jun 17, 20073Half the movie was pitch black couldn't see jack sh!t.
-
-
JanJan 5, 20083I loved the first movie (28 days later), but this one just doesn't make sense. The plot holes are too big, the ambiance is good at the start, but later you will just be watching to events that follow to each other and make little sense. Maybe because of the big expectations I had, but when I finished watching this movie, I was was really unsatisfied.
-
-
ArjanD.Mar 29, 20082
-
-
PaulS.Nov 16, 20070Take out the screaming and the bloody faces up against windows and what have you got, somebody drooling blood on to victim's face
-
-
EricS.May 12, 20073
-
-
NeilW.May 12, 20074Corny, absurd, and predictable. Nowhere near the quality of the original.
-
-
GuyF.May 13, 20073
-
-
mbluesMay 14, 20072This film, is so preposterous, as to be totally ludicrous. Things happen, which are as likely as winning Lotto, five weeks in a row. The first film, was great, and made to seem totally possible and real. This film has a "plot", like a TV movie-of-the-week.
-
-
RickA.May 18, 20071Weak and please stop calling them zombies. They are not zombies!
-
-
KyleW.Jun 13, 20073
-
-
MarcK.Jun 2, 20074Didn't like the first one very much, but the critics said this one was even better! I'm not too sure about that. Lawrence Toppman's analysis from The Charlotte Observer pretty much encapsulates my thoughts on this film. I guess "28 Months" is going to be next, huh?
-
-
WaltB.Jul 5, 20072
-
-
AlexG.Oct 31, 20091
-
-
EldonOct 12, 20073Um... it is NOT better than the original. In fact, I thought it sucked actually. At a point it just got so bad and stupid the whole illusion was lost. I'm stunned these guys are giving it 9's and 8's! Come on! You think this movie, compared with all the other really good ones out there through the decades, is almost a 10? NO, it absolutely is not.
-
-
JackNov 2, 20074
-
-
BenM.May 13, 20071
-
-
GregB.May 13, 20073
-
-
BryanN.May 14, 20072Incoherrnt zombie attacks. When will they stop using the cliche fast cutting ramping shutter speed handheld shake-fest mess that poses for real filmmaking. makes me so mad. Let's bury this fad once ad for all!
-
-
AudleyS.May 21, 20070
-
-
KarlP.May 23, 20073Starts off great, but when it gets to the meat of the movie is runs a little slow. The movie has huge plot holes! the first was way better. i wouldn't recommend to anyone. Big disappointment!
-
-
JohnB.May 24, 20073
-
-
JoeyG.May 24, 20072Starts off mediocre, then gets bad, then gets mediocre again before completely coming apart at the seams. The camera work gets so distracting and irritating. It's as if the director realized he wasn't very good and so he tried to hide it by shaking the camera violently for the entire film.
-
-
BradC.May 25, 20074Starts off good and heads down hill from there. Plot has holes you could drive a truck through. Very disappointing.
-
-
CarsonB.Aug 22, 20072horrible script filled with gaping holes and riddled with extremely illogical and implausible events. Had my hopes up but this movie was a total waste of time.
-
-
MattMcLovinAug 22, 20073Too high tech unlike the first. 28 Days Later blows this movie out of the water. 28 Weeks Later pushed trying to making better as the first with a lot more action and blood. Also, the guy who started it all, was everywhere the kids where in the movie. Just poor.
-
-
JudyNJan 19, 20082
-
-
MikeDec 25, 20070Started out "ok" and then turned into a giant mess, to the point where I lost interest in the movie!
-
-
May 1, 20113The first 15 minutes that Danny Boyle directed was like the original, awesome. But the rest was just too predictable, leaving no room for any intensity or frightful moments.
Yet another IP ruioned by idiots. -
Sep 28, 20114This review contains spoilers, click expand to view.
-
Mar 28, 20134
-
Jul 3, 20120This movie was amazing! I don't see how people can dislike it. Jeremy and Robert braught tears to my eyes and i never cry at movies. I say go watch it because this is the best zombie movie i have seen in a long time! I hope they make a sequal.
-
Nov 15, 20122This review contains spoilers, click expand to view.
-
80Blistering and nihilistic--a vision to reduce you to a puddle of despair.
-
80Bigger action, more amazing deserted (and devastated) London sequences and biting contemporary relevance, if a touch less heart than the original.
-
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.