Fox Atomic | Release Date: May 11, 2007
7.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 447 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
301
Mixed:
83
Negative:
63
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characteres (5000 max)
3
MathewB.Jul 8, 2007
Huge 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.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
1
JohnS.Nov 7, 2007
Entertaining and solid action, but a few gaping plot holes make it hard to believe. First you've got talk about the U.S. Army and tight security protocols. Then, the next moment, there is practically none. People are allowed to wander Entertaining and solid action, but a few gaping plot holes make it hard to believe. First you've got talk about the U.S. Army and tight security protocols. Then, the next moment, there is practically none. People are allowed to wander around quite freely. Two kids escape. Quarantine for a potentially infected person? There is no quarantine. In a real situation none of the plot turning points could have happened. The script writer should have been told 'you can do better than this'. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
2
LOLJun 9, 2007
Although I'm usually able to sit through movies like this and stand up at the end thinking my time wouldn't be spend in comatose, this movie was an exception. The characters didn't engage me at all, and above all there was Although I'm usually able to sit through movies like this and stand up at the end thinking my time wouldn't be spend in comatose, this movie was an exception. The characters didn't engage me at all, and above all there was absolutely nothing original about this movie. *SPOILER WARNING* As soon as we discovered the kid was immune, the entire plot was obvious, absolutely linear bloodbath. [***END SPOILER***] Honestly its just fancy gore effects combined with lots of (annoying) flashing lights to scare the hell out of you, no meaning or worth behind this movie. Didn't expect much, got far less. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
3
KeithJOct 20, 2007
28 Days Later was original, fresh and clever. 28 Weeks Later was an illogical mess. It features a 40-year-old general (psst, that doesn't happen) and a "Delta" soldier with a buzzcut and regulation uniform (psst, that also doesn't 28 Days Later was original, fresh and clever. 28 Weeks Later was an illogical mess. It features a 40-year-old general (psst, that doesn't happen) and a "Delta" soldier with a buzzcut and regulation uniform (psst, that also doesn't happen), and a genius plan that involves a) herding all civilians into a contained area and NOT guarding the doors, b) killing everything that moves rather than, for instance, saying "drop to the ground so we can shoot the infected", c) killing even people they can tell 100% are NOT infected, such as one of their own soldiers pushing a car, d) firebombing the city but forgetting to seal the exits, so a big team of zombies escapes. It also features a magical zombie who appears wherever any zombie is called for. This movie is pretty dumb. It belongs on SpikeTV or TBS at 3 a.m. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
2
QvarNov 15, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The only good scene of this film is the first one. Period. After that, everybody (and I mena EVERYBODY) in it becomes stupid to a stunning point. While in the first movie the soldiers, for once in the whole 'zombie' genre managed to actually mount an effective quarantine, now they have become bumbling idiots for the sake of the plot: They will leave the infectee with the most dangerous virus ever unguarded, so even a civilian may access it undetected, they will be unable to stop 2 kids breaking their perimeter (who was the genius who thought that brining thousands of civilians without even securing AT LEAST the whole city was a good idea, in the first place?), and generally they will be unable to even shoot an infectee who's coming towars them over a 100 meters corridor.

And don't get me started with the kids. It infuriates me that I will have to wait until the 3rd movie to know that they finally are dead for real. Because that's all they deserve after being the ones (who would have expected, uh?) to discover an infectee, generally being a pain in the ass, and eventually get lost in the dark because aparently they suddenly became unable to hear or just say 'I'm here'.

This film was a pain to watch, from start (save for the mentioned first scene, which to be honest is sublime) to end, and I only beared it in hopes that at least the kids would get killed fast, or something would suddenly surprise me. Overall, one of the worst horror films I've ever seen.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
3
RoeylMay 19, 2012
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 thinkingSure, 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! Expand
7 of 8 users found this helpful71
All this user's reviews
0
HarryG.Oct 26, 2007
This 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 This 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. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
3
UnknownsockMay 1, 2011
The 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.
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
3
JanJan 5, 2008
I 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. I 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
AlexG.Oct 31, 2009
Do you like movies where you don't have to think? Do you enjoy movies with plot holes the size of an Airbus? Do you enjoy movies with magical zombies that can teleport? How about movies with the most stupid, idiotic unengaged Do you like movies where you don't have to think? Do you enjoy movies with plot holes the size of an Airbus? Do you enjoy movies with magical zombies that can teleport? How about movies with the most stupid, idiotic unengaged characters? Well you will enjoy this film! Now, don't get me wrong, I love gore, suspense, great music score.. which you will find in this movie.. well the first 5 minutes, but after that, you got nothing. Illogical, how does a Janitor have clearance all through-out a military base? How do the kids in the film defy all logic throughout? If you want an engaging horror movie with characters you feel sorry for when they die, with an actual real soul. Avoid this film. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
RennersArmyJul 3, 2012
This 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.
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
2
AaronK.May 10, 2007
After rewatching 28 Days Later and remembering just how much I liked it, I was thoroughly thrilled at seeing its sequel. I had high hopes for the follow-up to the original's smart, subtle, and engagingly human story of people thrown After rewatching 28 Days Later and remembering just how much I liked it, I was thoroughly thrilled at seeing its sequel. I had high hopes for the follow-up to the original's smart, subtle, and engagingly human story of people thrown together by horror, trying to manage something more than sheer survival. The trailer for the new film offered intriguing visuals - hazard-suited workers pressure-washing S.O.S. messages off of London rooftops, military camps dedicated entirely to incineration of infected bodies - and the very interesting prospect of a rigidly controlled, meticulously planned and executed repatriation effort. That that effort had to be doomed to fail to make the movie work didn't matter - the consideration of just how humankind (and specifically, the American government and military) would handle such a situation and task (and its failure) is terrifically full of promise as a story element. Even as the inevitable outbreak began, we would get to see the multiple layers of contingency plans going into effect, each posing increasingly difficult challenges to the humanity of characters crafted with all of the care of the orignal's Jim, Selena, Frank, and Hannah. Surely the film would follow its predecessor's style and include the intriguing and humanizing stretches of relatively safe down-time, where the lack of immediate threat allowed the characters to become almost bored and to start to wrap their heads around the new reality. We were in for another strangely, compellingly quiet zombie movie, right? Yeah, you know where this is going. This is not an appropriate successor to 28 Days Later. Gone are the first film's subtlety and humanity. Gone are the carefully crafted characters and deliberate pacing. Gone is the well-written, internally consistent story and universe. In their place, we're given uninteresting, unsympathetic characters whose tiny hints at backstory and deeper motivation serve only to remind what the film should have been. The larger budget and profile of the film allowed for more and larger shots of abandoned, desolate London, but this time out, but like so many other elements of the film, their inclusion seemed more about "Look what we got to do!" than about conveying... well, much of anything at all. The gore and splatter have been ratcheted up by several orders of magnitude, yet both the original's creeping dread and flat-out run-for-your-life terror are nowhere to be found. Zombie movies are all about things spiraling out of control quickly, but in 28 Weeks Later, there's never a sense of control to begin with. Things just keep happening, with only the loosest sense of logic or reason to string them together. I'm sure a case could be made for the overwhelming incompetence of the military handlers of the situation as commentary on the competency of the U.S. government that so hugely bungled the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the repsonse to Hurricane Katrina, but the same commentary could have been managed in a way that didn't feel so much like "The Three Stooges Meet the Zombies." Where the first film made the viewer care intensely for the protagonists and feel their anguish and fear, this film's characters seem like excuses to string together more pointless carnage. See characters. See characters run. Run, characters! Run! See characters get mutilated in increasingly gruesome and over-the-top ways. Rumors have been flying about the "28" films becoming a franchise. I won't say that I'm dead set against ever seeing another film in this series. In the right hands, the next could still be interesting. I will say, however, 28 Weeks Later took all of my fondness and excitement for the first film and knocked it into a cocked hat. I went in chomping at the bit for more and came out feeling like the free screening had cost too much. The film is an inelegant, thoughtless mess that leaves all of its interesting possibilites unexplored and all of its huge potential lying dead in the streets of London. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
DanS.May 26, 2007
I'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 I'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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
CH.May 28, 2007
I was very disappointed with this film; a sadness only deepened by the positive reviews I read afterwards. What did the critics see that I missed? I thought everything that made the first film amazing was taken away. The empty urban sprawl I was very disappointed with this film; a sadness only deepened by the positive reviews I read afterwards. What did the critics see that I missed? I thought everything that made the first film amazing was taken away. The empty urban sprawl of London, replaced by sprawling cityscapes teeming with people. I found the bone-jarring and extremely shaky camera work, which I'm sure was used to create a sense of panic and tension, was mostly irritating and kind of gave me a headache. There were a number of scenes requiring sardonic remarks, like the ubiquitous Zombie Zero who seemed to have the ability to be anywhere he needed to be. Despite being a brainless zombie, he was an expert tracker. The sequence in the Tube raised my ire, not my stress. The whole thing tried to be suspenseful, but it was all just shrill shouting and more annoying camera work. In the end, I couldn't care who lived or died. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JulzJ.Jun 17, 2007
Half the movie was pitch black couldn't see jack sh!t.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
ArjanD.Mar 29, 2008
28 Days Later was, in my opinion, a breathtaking movie, so I expected 28 Weeks later to be of the same quality. I was very disappointed to see the movie fall apart soon after the (second) outbreak of the infection. Most of the actors were 28 Days Later was, in my opinion, a breathtaking movie, so I expected 28 Weeks later to be of the same quality. I was very disappointed to see the movie fall apart soon after the (second) outbreak of the infection. Most of the actors were sacrificed so fast after each other you didn't have time to feel sorry for them. Besides, the atmospere and suspense of 28 Days later weren't matched by far. I think this is the case because a bid-budget sequel to a low-budget movie simply doesn't work. All in all, I think 28 Weeks later isn't worthy of being the sequel to 28 Days later. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
PaulS.Nov 16, 2007
Take out the screaming and the bloody faces up against windows and what have you got, somebody drooling blood on to victim's face
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
EricS.May 12, 2007
I usually agree with critics, but this movie was a complete letdown when compared with the superb 28 Days Later. Character development and a great plot are substituted for amazing, albeit un-original special effects and "intense" action I usually agree with critics, but this movie was a complete letdown when compared with the superb 28 Days Later. Character development and a great plot are substituted for amazing, albeit un-original special effects and "intense" action scenes involving the camera being shaken around with no apparent direction. I suppose the pretentious filmmaking and splattering of gore are enough for many viewers just looking for entertainment, but a move universally hailed by critics as better than the original should have more than that. See this film if you are looking for a mindless action movie with rehashed ideas that may strike a preteen as original, but everyone who is discerning as stale. Collapse
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
GuyF.May 13, 2007
Pretty dire. Plot holes you could drive a tank through and inexplicable and unlikely character motivations. The blood and gore is wearily overdone and repetitive and moves from being initially shocking (great opening segment in the Pretty dire. Plot holes you could drive a tank through and inexplicable and unlikely character motivations. The blood and gore is wearily overdone and repetitive and moves from being initially shocking (great opening segment in the farmhouse) to predictable and ultimately collapses in to a bloody pool of nerd glee. Like so many recent horror films by the close you feel you've been watching the film segments that introduce a PS game. The cityscape shots were startling but, again, repetition dulled even these. Cool soundtrack though. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
mbluesMay 14, 2007
This 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 This 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
RickA.May 18, 2007
Weak and please stop calling them zombies. They are not zombies!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
KyleW.Jun 13, 2007
Not even close to as scary or fun as the first. "28 Days Later" was a fresh romp in the zombie movie category with characters I cared about, intense situations and the most frightening zombies in years. "28 Weeks Later" had lack luster Not even close to as scary or fun as the first. "28 Days Later" was a fresh romp in the zombie movie category with characters I cared about, intense situations and the most frightening zombies in years. "28 Weeks Later" had lack luster characters, a weak plot line and over the top use of shaky camera effects that almost caused vertigo. I can't remember the last time I checked my watch so often during a movie. This one is a rental at best. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
WaltB.Jul 5, 2007
I liked 28 Days Later, and was hoping for an equally smart sequel, but instead got this contrived mess. Too many hand-held camera shots, gaping lapses in logic, a military failsafe strategy to stop a recurrance of the outbreak so flawed and I liked 28 Days Later, and was hoping for an equally smart sequel, but instead got this contrived mess. Too many hand-held camera shots, gaping lapses in logic, a military failsafe strategy to stop a recurrance of the outbreak so flawed and ill-conceived that it had to have the brainchild of Mr. Bush himself. I walked out after 70 minutes because I refused to have my intelligence insulted any longer. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
EldonOct 12, 2007
Um... 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 Um... 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
BenM.May 13, 2007
[***SPOILERS***] This movie was terrible. i am fan of zombie movies, but in each there has to be stupid actions to drive the plot (ie someone acts like an idiot an screws up what would be a great plan); i can handle them in all the others.[***SPOILERS***] This movie was terrible. i am fan of zombie movies, but in each there has to be stupid actions to drive the plot (ie someone acts like an idiot an screws up what would be a great plan); i can handle them in all the others. this movie is totally driven on those stupid actions i mean c'mon! even the 28 weeks thing is incredibly stupid, to think that a section of a huge city could be totally cleaned of a virus in 28 weeks (especially one this terrifying); let alone one house, is just so unimaginable; and i'm sayin this for a ZOMBIE MOVIE! then it bashes the US Army, making them look like a bunch of retards, when the dad starts going thru the HQ the soldiers just lie down and let him eat them. The Delta Operator, for some unknown reason decides to cry and get emotional...and the "woman power" movement in movies is getting really old, i mean the only person in the movie with a headshot is a woman in the Medical Corps, the friggin Delta Operator didn't get one. and the wife/husband deal made me pull my hair out, the wife was dead meat, and i'm supposed to be angry at the husband? NO! and it for some reason the movie gets dramatic when they issue the "code red" (ohhhh God), i mean when there's friggin zombies on the loose it should be a no-brainer! this movie bashes the US Army, and Men in general. wow this movie is one of the worst i have ever seen. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
GregB.May 13, 2007
I seriously doubt a majority of people who liked this have seen the first one. I went to see 28 Weeks Later opening night and was appalled at the number of cliche's and predictable moments that abounded in the film. 28 Days Later was a I seriously doubt a majority of people who liked this have seen the first one. I went to see 28 Weeks Later opening night and was appalled at the number of cliche's and predictable moments that abounded in the film. 28 Days Later was a masterpiece in terms of suspense and really throwing out surprises. I was able to predict each chain of events in 28 Weeks Later and was praying that they would end the series, but they didn't. I think it was a disappointment, and would recommend that people maybe rent it, or borrow it, but definitely not buy it when it comes out. This is nowhere near the greatest scary movie ever and instead of a survival horror, they produced an action filled gore fest. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
BryanN.May 14, 2007
Incoherrnt 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!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AudleyS.May 21, 2007
The opening is astounding, but this terrifying rush soon turns into a plodding and implausible plot in which the characters are little but tired emotional stereotypes and are frankly so negligent and stupid that they all deserved their The opening is astounding, but this terrifying rush soon turns into a plodding and implausible plot in which the characters are little but tired emotional stereotypes and are frankly so negligent and stupid that they all deserved their brutal fates. The infra red scene in the underground station was an unintentional high comedy homage to "most Haunted" and what started off as grim horror ended up as pure farce. The basic premise is the biggest hole in the plot. Stupid, unintentionally funny and a damned shame. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
KarlP.May 23, 2007
Starts 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!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JohnB.May 24, 2007
This movie neither shocked me or kept me in suspense. It wasn't scary, it wasn't epic and its plot was shoddy. The jarring camera work did nothing for me. It gets bonus points for ultimately being a gore fest with plenty of action This movie neither shocked me or kept me in suspense. It wasn't scary, it wasn't epic and its plot was shoddy. The jarring camera work did nothing for me. It gets bonus points for ultimately being a gore fest with plenty of action but I felt it didn't pull off what it was meant to. Just know that going into this, you shouldn't expect any real substance unless you think that looking at London for an hour and a half is entertaining. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JoeyG.May 24, 2007
Starts 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 Starts 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
CarsonB.Aug 22, 2007
horrible 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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
MattMcLovinAug 22, 2007
Too 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 Too 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JudyNJan 19, 2008
Fairly awful. After watching this I didn't understand all the praise that this movie received about it being suspenseful and intriguing. The two points that this movie gained was due to the first few minutes of the movie in the Fairly awful. After watching this I didn't understand all the praise that this movie received about it being suspenseful and intriguing. The two points that this movie gained was due to the first few minutes of the movie in the farmhouse, but then becomes predictable and riddled with sentimentality and cheesiness. It felt like I was checking off a list of cheesy factors that needed to be fulfilled, what with idiotic rebellious children and somehow instead of being killed off, they must be protected. The ridiculous reason the infection began to spread, along with many skips in the plotline. Instead of the riveting story in the first movie that questions the basis of people's humanity in the face of a crisis, this one is basically a compilation of unrealistic human idiocy that's beyond hopeless. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MikeDec 25, 2007
Started out "ok" and then turned into a giant mess, to the point where I lost interest in the movie!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
LemonmanJan 2, 2014
This review contains spoilers, click expand 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
royphishoohJan 25, 2016
Extremely poor American follow-up to a classic British horror movie; proving that more is not necessarily better. Horrible performance by Robert Carlyle makes you reevaluate his acting in "Trainspotting"
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
Vault111Nov 3, 2015
One of the worst zombie films I've ever seen. 28 days was incomparably far better than this although it also doesn't make much sense itself. Whoever wrote the script should rethink about going further on their career. Not only there are wayOne of the worst zombie films I've ever seen. 28 days was incomparably far better than this although it also doesn't make much sense itself. Whoever wrote the script should rethink about going further on their career. Not only there are way too many plot holes, but also shows laziness.

For the plot holes, considering the story, the area clearly should've had highest security protocol with well-developed emergency plans in case of a breakout. However, two kids who obviously do not have any military training could sneak out of the area easily. Furthermore, there is no personnel guarding the room where Alice was held although there was a bite mark on her arm and she was still in the middle of health check process to confirm whether she is infected. In addition to that, Donald could swipe his card and enter Alice's room which is a quarantine zone and probably in the medical section where only medical and security personnel should have clearance (yeah, so much of a high security place). Even if all of these flaws could happen by any means, it just seems impossible for a single zombie to kill/infect several "armed soldiers" in a "bright" building where light is everywhere. With the against-all-odds method, the breakout did occur and the emergency procedures are deployed. Civilians were evacuated to a lock down area just to be broken in by a "single" zombie (yes, the door in a lock down area specified to be used for breakout scenario can be broken by just one zombie.)

For the laziness, the writer wanted Alice to survive all these months without sparing details on how it was possible as well as doesn't want to show the logic behind the fact that main characters can't be extracted when there are countless places in London where a helicopter can land.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews