User Score
7.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 408 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 57 out of 408
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. 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.
  2. Mar 28, 2013
    4
    This is a big step down from 28 Days Later. The storyline is pretty bad and there are A LOT of moments that will make you yell at the screen. Almost every character in the movie seems to be as intelligent as a stack of Pringles. It really, really pisses me off when characters are that dumb; the movie loses all credibility with me. Sure there are some tense moments, but this is mostlyThis is a big step down from 28 Days Later. The storyline is pretty bad and there are A LOT of moments that will make you yell at the screen. Almost every character in the movie seems to be as intelligent as a stack of Pringles. It really, really pisses me off when characters are that dumb; the movie loses all credibility with me. Sure there are some tense moments, but this is mostly shovelfilm. I just can't take the movie seriously when the characters are so so stupid. And an EOTech optic does NOT have your standard hunting reticle. Expand
  3. Jun 26, 2013
    4
    In 2002, Director, Danny Boyle re-invented the zombie movie with his groundbreaking film 28 Days Later. Many credit Boyle with the current zombie craze we enjoy eleven years later. What made that film so enjoyable was that at the time it was a story we hadn't seen in a long time and it was shot in a way that made it look like a much older film than it was. Five years later the studioIn 2002, Director, Danny Boyle re-invented the zombie movie with his groundbreaking film 28 Days Later. Many credit Boyle with the current zombie craze we enjoy eleven years later. What made that film so enjoyable was that at the time it was a story we hadn't seen in a long time and it was shot in a way that made it look like a much older film than it was. Five years later the studio wanted a sequel and Boyle wanted no part of it, knowing that it would never live up to the original and indeed it does not. 28 Weeks Later is a continuation of the story, which claims that all the infected had starved to death and that England is free of infection once again. People start moving back in to areas of the country that have been fixed up for them and which are protected by the U.S. Government. We are then introduced to a family which has been reunited. The film starts out with a tremendous action scene that was the only part of the film I enjoyed and the only part that is reminiscent of the first film. The terrific opening is followed by a long, sappy, family reunion and then by a sick person being found. From that point, literally within ten minutes hundreds of people are infected and the army is shooting everything in sight. How could zombies have starved in the first place, but more importantly how can so many people change, just like that, within ten minutes? It didn't make any sense at all, to make things worse, all dialogue and storyline ends at that point and the movie turns into one big gory chase scene without any substance whatsoever. As for the cast of this film, they did nothing to help the story. In the first film, Cillian Murphy was amazing and carried us through the low points, but here it's a cast of newcomers and unsuccessful character actors, who quickly bring the story to a halt. I was looking forward to seeing this film, but not only doesn't it compare to the first film, but it doesn't even live up to the broad genre it is exposing us to. The cast was sloppy, the direction was confusing, and worst of all it just doesn't make any sense! 28 Days Later was groundbreaking, but it's sequel is nothing more than an over-hyped movie that never should have been made. Expand
  4. Feb 7, 2012
    5
    Compared to the 28 days later, this movie is quite mediocre, and lacks substance. The idea of a re-emergence of the virus was exciting and quite alluring. I couldn't wait to watch it but the movie didn't deliver what it offered. The first 40 minutes of this movie are promising, critical, intense, and gripping; however, soon after the movie loses lustre . The argument could have been betterCompared to the 28 days later, this movie is quite mediocre, and lacks substance. The idea of a re-emergence of the virus was exciting and quite alluring. I couldn't wait to watch it but the movie didn't deliver what it offered. The first 40 minutes of this movie are promising, critical, intense, and gripping; however, soon after the movie loses lustre . The argument could have been better elaborated, because there were good ideas; instead, it becomes redundant and futile. Sadly, the characters were not well developed but shallow. Their reasoning and behaviour were mostly, obtuse, one-sided, and irresponsible. Precisely because of it we never really care about them or feel any connection with them. Personally, I truly disliked 'Scarlett'and Tammy's characters. The ending was quite predictable, and the performances unimpressive.To me, watching this movie once was a 'must' and it was okey but I wouldn't watch it again. Overall: a movie with good intentions, pretentious, but ultimately disappointing. Expand
  5. Jan 12, 2013
    6
    To the movie's credit, it's built almost entirely on scenes that are wonderfully composed individually, and the opening sequence is a thing of beauty that arguably tops any sequence from the original. The catch is that, when strung together, the scenes don't work nearly as well as they should, because this movie has at least as many gigantic plot holes as it has good scenes. The result isTo the movie's credit, it's built almost entirely on scenes that are wonderfully composed individually, and the opening sequence is a thing of beauty that arguably tops any sequence from the original. The catch is that, when strung together, the scenes don't work nearly as well as they should, because this movie has at least as many gigantic plot holes as it has good scenes. The result is a still-good mess of wasted potential, something like a delicious cake that was dropped two feet onto your plate instead of being gently placed there; while you can still very much enjoy the pieces, you're left with the sense that you're missing out on the glory of what could have been. Expand
  6. Dec 10, 2012
    5
    This was another disappointment, should have take under consideration the mistakes of the first movie, very poor direction again, the actors shouldn't have to carry the whole movie on their own. Good job for the actors..
  7. Sep 28, 2014
    5
    Well produced movie with so many logical flaws in the plot that it was hard to watch, and it was as equally bad as 28 days later for the same reasons. The characters that should know better show so much stupidity that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It could have been so much better. What a shame.
  8. GD
    May 27, 2007
    6
    I guess I'm a believer in the axiom that "Less is More." Unfortunately, for "28 Weeks Later" more is less. The major problems with the movie-apart from the totally ridiculous quarantine standards the US-led NATO army has-is that there is no major character for the audience to follow. The female doctor and sniper are fine characters but their parts aren't big enough. The little I guess I'm a believer in the axiom that "Less is More." Unfortunately, for "28 Weeks Later" more is less. The major problems with the movie-apart from the totally ridiculous quarantine standards the US-led NATO army has-is that there is no major character for the audience to follow. The female doctor and sniper are fine characters but their parts aren't big enough. The little boy and older sister aren't strong either. This isn't to say that the movie is a complete loss. The first 15-20 minutes are incredible but that's essentially the first film, "28 Days Later." That being said, this film is still better than "Saw", "Hostel" or the latest Rob Zombie offering. Expand
  9. AdrianG.
    Oct 14, 2007
    6
    I was very upset over this movie, 28 days later was great, it portrait realism and and superb acting. 28 weeks later however was pretty good but nowhere near as good as the first. it seems like they took more of a resident evil approach to it, which i did not like
  10. JacobB
    Aug 7, 2008
    5
    Well if you were to ask me I would say that this movie was no where near as good as the first one there were a couple things I did not like in this movie for say how stupid the military was and how stupid most characters were I think the sniper was the only one there who even had a brain but it did have some awesome action scenes that's the only reason I would watch this movie.
  11. PhillyD
    Oct 19, 2007
    4
    I saw this movie a while ago but I feel compelled to tell someone that I hated it and thought it was an absolute mess. Tedious, unexplained musical montages, idiotic plotline and extremely unpleasant. Now, I've seen a lot of violent movies, but watching a man shove his thumbs into his wifes eye-sockets for an extended period of time just somehow lacks class. Call me old fashioned. I saw this movie a while ago but I feel compelled to tell someone that I hated it and thought it was an absolute mess. Tedious, unexplained musical montages, idiotic plotline and extremely unpleasant. Now, I've seen a lot of violent movies, but watching a man shove his thumbs into his wifes eye-sockets for an extended period of time just somehow lacks class. Call me old fashioned. What a bore this movie was. I seriously could not have cared less what happened to the arbitrary band of survivors who happen to survive the first half of the film. Seriously, it's incredible how much you don't care. You really don't. Live, die, eaten alive, faced smashed in, burned alive, chopped up by helicopter blades. Whatever man. Whatever. The helicopter massacre was pretty hilarious though. That killed me. I love zombies but this movie stinks. Expand
  12. AndrewG
    Oct 23, 2007
    6
    Like the first film 28 days later, it starts off well premise and suspense wise but later turns into a mess of action with little dialogue or sense. That isn't to say their aren't some good moments amist the action but both these films should have done better with what they established.
  13. ConorB.
    Oct 30, 2007
    6
    How misleading critics can be. Washington Post: 100, The New York Times: 90, Chicago Tribune: 88. You've got to be joking. You'd swear this movie was up there with the God Father. Yes it is somewhat entertaining, yes there is some good camera angles etc., but the bottom line is that once again this is a sequel that is just cashing in on it's predecessor. "Imaginative" ? I How misleading critics can be. Washington Post: 100, The New York Times: 90, Chicago Tribune: 88. You've got to be joking. You'd swear this movie was up there with the God Father. Yes it is somewhat entertaining, yes there is some good camera angles etc., but the bottom line is that once again this is a sequel that is just cashing in on it's predecessor. "Imaginative" ? I don't think so. How about: predictable, implausible in parts (didn't think "zombies" can teleport) and unimaginative. The ending also is somewhat weak. The acting is good, the action, make-up etc. good but that doesn't make a great movie. If it comes out on TV check it out but don't bother otherwise. Expand
  14. NeilW.
    May 12, 2007
    4
    Corny, absurd, and predictable. Nowhere near the quality of the original.
  15. RobertT.
    May 13, 2007
    5
    The movie contained the elements of sacrifice, which were also present in the first one, where characters were having to turn and kill friends and family immediately, or leave them before they had even been infected. It has the element I love in horror movies of "rise above the fear that paralyses you, and do what you can with the circumstances you are given." The action and some of the The movie contained the elements of sacrifice, which were also present in the first one, where characters were having to turn and kill friends and family immediately, or leave them before they had even been infected. It has the element I love in horror movies of "rise above the fear that paralyses you, and do what you can with the circumstances you are given." The action and some of the settings like the "night vistion" scene in the this movie create for intense gripping action that can be appreciated by a thrill/ horror seeking audience. The difference I felt between the 1st and 2nd film, were that the characters were more developed in the first, and it had a simpler plot which made for less holes than the second more complex sequel. And the other huge thing was that at the end of the first one, characters that had not known each other, and were only willing to conditionally help each other if it were in the their own interest, became a family willing to look out for each other. At the end of the second one, the viewer is left with the depressing notion that the surviving characters, even though alive, are devoid of hope for the future and numb to the triump of survival. If you think this review is helpful, read "A Movie Critic" review below mine. Expand
  16. TonyL
    May 14, 2007
    5
    Disappointing! Any character that was remotely interesting was killed off. I was rooting for the zombies to kill the 2 brats. Plot holes that you could fly a C-5 through. I only give it a 5 because of the fire bombing sequence. Cable or DVD only!
  17. JasonP.
    May 16, 2007
    6
    This movie had soo much potential for being as great as the first, but no... they had to get lazy. Lazy in the sense where they didn't care about the movie making sense, they just wanted to make a quick thriller and feed off the profit that the first movie's fan base would garentee them. There were things about the movie that I really liked and then things I really hated. I This movie had soo much potential for being as great as the first, but no... they had to get lazy. Lazy in the sense where they didn't care about the movie making sense, they just wanted to make a quick thriller and feed off the profit that the first movie's fan base would garentee them. There were things about the movie that I really liked and then things I really hated. I liked the overall story line, and the atmosphere of the movie gave you chills just like the first. What I hated were all the holes in the movie and the god awful camera-shaking action scenes. I was loving the movie from the begining, but then the dumb directing and the scenes that made no sense started happening too frequently... then I just got to the point where I couldn't enjoy the movie anymore and could only notice the bad things that kept popping up. You'll love this movie if you can ignore all the bad things about it, or just can't notice them in the first place. I wanted this movie to be a 10 soooo badly!!! Expand
  18. MarcK.
    Jun 2, 2007
    4
    Didn'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?
  19. FrostN
    Nov 16, 2007
    6
    Starts out ok, but quickly turns into a big mess. With the ratings this movie has gotten I was expecting so much more. This movie might be best for the people that really likes zombie movies or are fans of the first movie, but for the rest of us, it's nothing special. Like the last Resident Evil movie, it's best to describe this movie as an action film, rather than a horror Starts out ok, but quickly turns into a big mess. With the ratings this movie has gotten I was expecting so much more. This movie might be best for the people that really likes zombie movies or are fans of the first movie, but for the rest of us, it's nothing special. Like the last Resident Evil movie, it's best to describe this movie as an action film, rather than a horror film, although you do have the violence and the blood, but that's basically it. The characters are totally uninteresting and you don't care about any of them, and certainly not the kids. This movie is ridden with lots of flaws, both in logic and in how things work in reality, but put all that aside, and it still isn't as entertaining as you would want it to be given the high rating. Conclusion: Not one for the big cozy movie nights, but ok to watch when you have plenty of time and just want to watch something. Expand
  20. Jack
    Nov 2, 2007
    4
    I actually expect very little plot coherence from horror flicks, still this film annoyed me. Not incredulous supernatural things, but just stupid things like a janitor having unsupervised, total access through a military quarantine facility (under such times, no less) to get through the area with NO ONE noticing. And this scene is a fulcrum of the entire movie, if that gives you any sense I actually expect very little plot coherence from horror flicks, still this film annoyed me. Not incredulous supernatural things, but just stupid things like a janitor having unsupervised, total access through a military quarantine facility (under such times, no less) to get through the area with NO ONE noticing. And this scene is a fulcrum of the entire movie, if that gives you any sense of the weak writing. I can think of several more examples like that. Expand
  21. MaxL.
    May 11, 2007
    5
    First half was pretty good. Second half was pretty mindless and stupid. Not nearly as good as the original. It's too bad because the premise held lots of potential to be great.
  22. Marmalade
    May 12, 2007
    5
    28 Days Later is one of my favourite horror/ thrillers and I was hooked by the trailer for this. I mean, Robert Carlyle...the guy's a legend. He lifts any film he's in, even tripe like Ravenous. I wasn't even worried that Danny Boyle and Alex Garland (original director & writer) were now "Executive Producers" (i.e. Danny wanted some cash while he directed the far superior 28 Days Later is one of my favourite horror/ thrillers and I was hooked by the trailer for this. I mean, Robert Carlyle...the guy's a legend. He lifts any film he's in, even tripe like Ravenous. I wasn't even worried that Danny Boyle and Alex Garland (original director & writer) were now "Executive Producers" (i.e. Danny wanted some cash while he directed the far superior Sunshine). The start of the film is awesome...without spoiling things there are some great ideas here. Then, about three-quarters the way through, it all turns to pap. Look for the bit with the helicopter...you'll know what I mean. There's some infected shoulder-mounted camera angles even the odious Uwe Boll would be embarrassed to use and an awful, awful homage to The Blair Witch Project of all bloody things. Juan Carlos Fresnadillo's ability to bend time should be commended - 28 Weeks Later seemed an hour longer than it was and by the end I just wanted everyone to get infected and/ or die. Is that the 'hidden meaning' I was meant to get? Expand
  23. AMovieCritic
    May 12, 2007
    5
    Alright, I haven't seen 28 Days Later so I'm not comparing this to that. Keep that in mind. 28 Weeks Later was an extremely well-directed, very intense, very bleak, and very dreary horror movie with no hope in sight and nothing but endless darkness and despair. The director did a great job with this movie. The problem is....it is almost too effective for its own good. The Alright, I haven't seen 28 Days Later so I'm not comparing this to that. Keep that in mind. 28 Weeks Later was an extremely well-directed, very intense, very bleak, and very dreary horror movie with no hope in sight and nothing but endless darkness and despair. The director did a great job with this movie. The problem is....it is almost too effective for its own good. The movie's just completely depressing. I realize that was the point and the filmmakers did a great job with it, but I still go to movies to be entertained (even horror movies,) and this movie just didn't entertain. I honestly can't recommend it to people. Now...if you do go to movies to be depressed, then by all means, see this, because there's no hope in sight whatsoever for any of these characters and there are some really intense and scary moments in here. But it's a downer. It just isn't a movie I'd recommend to people. It's just so bleak and hopeless that it ended up not being enjoyable for me. Expand
  24. Droog
    May 17, 2007
    6
    28 Weeks later is not a bad movie in any way, but it suffers terribly when compared to the original. 28 Days Later was a masterpiece, a gripping and unexpected reinvention of the zombie genre. 28 Weeks Later had the chance to build on its predecessor's mythology, but like other commentators on this post have mentioned, it falls into cliches and just plain bad directorial decisions. 28 Weeks later is not a bad movie in any way, but it suffers terribly when compared to the original. 28 Days Later was a masterpiece, a gripping and unexpected reinvention of the zombie genre. 28 Weeks Later had the chance to build on its predecessor's mythology, but like other commentators on this post have mentioned, it falls into cliches and just plain bad directorial decisions. By following 8-9 various storylines, the film loses the tight narrative intensity of the original. It's really hard to care about the 20-odd characters in this movie. The movie also falls hards for the "Save the Children" boilerplate; that's when otherwise smart characters decide they must save the cute little children at all costs. Why would a Delta operator shoot other US soldiers to save a random kid? It's not realistic and it makes for bad movie-making. The unrelenting darkness of this film is also a bit much. Whereas 28 Days Later had that hopeful ending, 28 Weeks Later has no such breather. Everything goes to sh*t. Every decision is a bad one. The world as we know it is screwed. I hope Danny Boyle takes the reins back for the third installment, or at least hand it over to someone with better directing instincts than Fresnadillo. Expand
  25. ChrisP.
    May 18, 2007
    5
    Pretty entertaining but is nothing compared to the original. The only part that came close was the beginning and then everything became a zombie movie cliche. 28 days reinvented the genre whereas this is just a follower.
  26. BradC.
    May 25, 2007
    4
    Starts off good and heads down hill from there. Plot has holes you could drive a truck through. Very disappointing.
  27. DA
    May 28, 2007
    5
    The opening scene is amazing but settles down after that. IN terms of horror and keeping you on the edge of your seat, the movie scores big time. However, the plot is somewhat contrived and most of it doesn't make sense or isn't explained properly. The one-dimensional characters don't really help either. The ending was VERY random and most people in the theatre i was in The opening scene is amazing but settles down after that. IN terms of horror and keeping you on the edge of your seat, the movie scores big time. However, the plot is somewhat contrived and most of it doesn't make sense or isn't explained properly. The one-dimensional characters don't really help either. The ending was VERY random and most people in the theatre i was in were left saying "what the f***?" Expand
  28. Sep 17, 2010
    6
    Sequel to the hot & cold 28 Days later.
    Britain has been cleared of the Rage infection/virus so the intention is to re-populate. Americans get involved, probably looking for oil under Canary Wharf.
    It plods along at an ok pace, few twists & turns here & there but nothing really special.
    Top marks for the scene in the subway with the sniper night scope sight though.
  29. Nov 5, 2010
    5
    It's definitely a good piece of cinematographic work, and a really promising sequel. But the acting and the chemistry between the characters is so artificial and (sometimes) forced, you can't actually feel sympathy for them.
  30. Sep 28, 2011
    4
    This review contains spoilers. I just watched this for the first time because Left 4 Dead put me in a zombie movie mood.

    And goddamn, what a **** disappointment. This movie seriously pissed me off. I'm still angry sitting here thinking about it. It had a pretty cool premise, the US army reestablishing a colony on Britain after the infection died off. Unfortunately, the movie is really short, cause we're already at about the halfway mark by the time the infection comes back. That's just not enough, especially since this is a sequel, meaning we're expecting things to be bigger and better. For the most part, this didn't happen. And they had all the ingredients to make a great sequel.

    First off, we're supposed to buy that these two dumb kids can sneak out of the safe zone. The level of military incompetence in this movie is truly a wonder to behold, it's **** everywhere. And seriously, if these kids were real, they wouldn't **** risk their lives going out to their old house, the area's got damn zombies. I'd be happy to stay in my cozy penthouse or whatever the **** their dad had going. The girl apparently went back to pack her lame ass shoes or something, dumb.

    Then, when they find the infected mom and bring her in, we're supposed to buy that the dad, Mr. Carlyle, has the handy dandy all access keycard and can sneak around like **** Sam Fisher to get in undetected and see his wife. Again, absolute military idiocy. What kind of military gives a civilian caretaker access to a medical bio hazard quarantine?

    So he goes and kisses her all sloppily and gets her saliva, which is icky. Then he gets infected and attacks her. This is odd, because this is the only known case of one infected attacking another infected. In every other instance in the movie, the infected are all running together merrily as one big horde, never attacking each other. How strange.

    Later, the military stupidly sticks the civilians all together in one big warehouse for their own safety. And locks it, with one cheap ass padlock. Ok, whatever. However, their brilliant containment plan is somewhat flawed, because this warehouse apparently has a back door which is not locked, and unluckily gets accessed by the infected Mr. Carlyle. Great, all the innocent civilians are locked in a room where they can all get infected together. What the **** movie? Why do you make yourself so damn stupid and nonsensical?

    So everything goes to **** and Doyle the Delta sniper comes to rescue them. Cool, this is getting interesting. But then they run into another army sniper who begins sniping at them. Now, this is where they again lost me. Instead of getting on his radio and saying "Whoa whoa, stop shooting at us, we're not infected!" Doyle shoots the sniper. Wait, what? Would a US army sniper really shoot another US army sniper in cold blood? This didn't make any sense.

    Now, there were a few things I liked. One was the helicopter chopping up a bunch of infected with the rotor, that was pretty awesome.

    Later on, they get stuck in a car to escape a gas attack. Now, I'm not really sure that getting in a car, closing all the vents and breathing through your T-shirt would really protect you from a gas attack, but we'll let that slide. They see that there are gas mask soldiers coming to torch **** with flamethrowers, and the car won't start. So Doyle decides to get out and push. This leads to him getting burned alive. This was really dumb. Nonsensical. Why didn't he just get out and show the guys with flamethrowers that he wasn't infected? Then he wouldn't have been toasted. Or hell, he could've gotten out and shot them all with his rifle, which he happily did before to the sniper. No logic at all. Just a cheap death to shock the audience, after making us like the guy.

    Now we come to the worst part of the movie for me, the nightvision trek through the subway. This was **** excruciating to watch. Some ppl actually said this was "artistic" but I don't see anything artistic about seeing everything in green night vision while being whirled around like in the Blair Witch Project. I go to the movies to be entertained and this was not entertaining in the least.

    This scene also ended a very problematic element of the movie for me, the dad character as some sort of main villain. Sorry, but this whole thing didn't seem like a good idea. I prefer my zombie hordes to be, well, zombie hordes. Just faceless masses of death. The introduction of a boss zombie like the dad was lame and really took away from the sort of realism that the first film achieved, IMO.

    So yea, this film was a huge disappointment, since I really liked the first film. While that was dark, this just seemed pointlessly retarded, especially the cheap deaths of some main characters. Left me feeling full of rage, you could say.
    Collapse
  31. Apr 25, 2015
    5
    Another week, another disappointing summer sequel. So it goes…

    In actuality, the screenplay for 28 Weeks Later isn't all that bad. Sure, it's repetitious and much of it has been regurgitated from 2003's 28 Days Later, but it contains some interesting elements and offers enough gore that horror fans might have been able to enjoy it… if, that is, it wasn't for the stylistic approach
    Another week, another disappointing summer sequel. So it goes…

    In actuality, the screenplay for 28 Weeks Later isn't all that bad. Sure, it's repetitious and much of it has been regurgitated from 2003's 28 Days Later, but it contains some interesting elements and offers enough gore that horror fans might have been able to enjoy it… if, that is, it wasn't for the stylistic approach employed by director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo. Apparently, Fresnadillo believes that the proper way to film any action scene is to shake the camera violently and pan it wildly back and forth, thereby making it virtually impossible to figure out what's going on (and pushing viewers with motion sickness to the brink of voiding their stomachs). As if that wasn't bad enough, in the editing room, Fresnadillo ensured that no single shot lasted longer than about a second. Also, the climactic struggle takes place in darkness, making it that much more difficult to decode the action. I didn't realize a character had died until, a little later, it was apparent that person was no longer around.

    I wish this problem was restricted to 28 Weeks Later. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly more common. It's a good way to cover mistakes and encourages laziness. What does it matter if a fight is well choreographed if the audience can't get a clear picture? (My complaint for the recently released The Condemned was similar.) In 28 Weeks Later, it's a source of frustration because I was interested in what was happening but the filmmaker's approach robbed me of the ability to appreciate any scene where there was a fight, chase, or other form of action.

    The first and better half of the movie is primarily devoted to setup and character development. This is where we are given a chance to get to know the new protagonists and given insight into the plan to return London to a living, breathing city from the ghost town it has been for the past half-year. As the movie approaches the one-hour mark, however, it turns into an extended chase, with people shooting, screaming, and being torn apart by the infected as they run around in dark corridors and tunnels and the viewer desperately tries to piece together what's going on. Admittedly, there are limitations to what can be done in a zombie movie, but a whiff of originality or coherence would have been appreciated. (I have a sense that the movie might play better on a television than a big screen.)

    Action scenes aside, the look of the film is faithful to that of its predecessor. London appears grimy and washed-out: a dead, decaying city that at times would seem to be a comfortable fit into the world developed by Alfonso Cuaron in The Children of Men. The overhead and long-distance shots of empty streets and abandoned buildings are creepy, but no more so here than in 28 Days Later. This film will not be used by British travel agencies to promote vacations to London.

    28 Days Later, while not terribly original, was suspenseful and involving. 28 Weeks Later is neither. The characters aren't as sympathetic or interesting. The kids are generic and the script doesn't care much about the adults. Robert Carlyle, Catherine McCormack, and Rose Byrne are criminally underused. Compare them to Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, and Brendan Gleeson from the first film, all of whom inhabited better developed and more sympathetic personalities. Tension in horror movies results from viewers caring about what happens to characters. The audience's connection to the protagonists of 28 Days Later made it a compelling experience. The lack of such a connection in 28 Weeks Later reduces this to a number of sequences characterized by shock moments, frenetic (and often chaotic) action, and stylized gore - all without suspense.

    It's too bad, because the fundamental idea of extending the storyline introduced in 28 Days Later is an intriguing one. The problem is that the people entrusted with the responsibility of bringing this to the screen made decisions that resulted in a deeply flawed product. My advice to Fresnadillo: next time you make a movie, allow viewers to see what's happening in real time rather than have to interpolate based on the results. Technique and style are more at fault than any other issue in undermining the effectiveness of this zombie thriller.
    Expand
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. Blistering and nihilistic--a vision to reduce you to a puddle of despair.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.