Fox Atomic | Release Date: May 11, 2007
7.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 457 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
310
Mixed:
84
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 characters (5000 max)
9
MattN.May 21, 2007
Very suspenseful and kept me on the edge of my seat the entire time.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
RichardH.May 20, 2007
A pretty entertaining but shallow affair. Some genuine frights, some cheap frights, a dodgy unrealistic plot but it is a Zombie film afterall... so it can probably be let off for that, kind of fell into the cliché of trying to get A pretty entertaining but shallow affair. Some genuine frights, some cheap frights, a dodgy unrealistic plot but it is a Zombie film afterall... so it can probably be let off for that, kind of fell into the cliché of trying to get every single London landmark it could into the film. Ultimately a bit too dumb to be as satisfying as the original. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
PaulMay 23, 2007
Pretty scary, but it's a horror movie so that's good. A better than I expected but some really dumb parts where you just want to ask the characters "hey, are you retarded or something???" like the underground part with the Pretty scary, but it's a horror movie so that's good. A better than I expected but some really dumb parts where you just want to ask the characters "hey, are you retarded or something???" like the underground part with the night-vision. Stop looking at the wall and look for some zombies!!! but overall a good horror movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AntonioR.May 25, 2007
Amazing!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
NikMay 26, 2007
28 Days Later was one of the most unique zombie movies ever made, focusing on how the survivors acted towards this crisis of the rage virus outbreak. 28 Weeks Later is a more generic zombie movie, focusing on the actual threat and the horror 28 Days Later was one of the most unique zombie movies ever made, focusing on how the survivors acted towards this crisis of the rage virus outbreak. 28 Weeks Later is a more generic zombie movie, focusing on the actual threat and the horror aspect of the story. But as the first one started out slow and gradually moved the plot along to greatness; this one starts out very strongly and begins to dragged the end. And when I say drag, I mean that as the upmost definition. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
StevenDMay 27, 2007
28 Weeks Later is one hell of a ride. This film not only manages to top the first movie but propels it into one of the best horror/drama sequels yet to come out. The sets are amazing and alive, the characters kept me at the edge of my seat 28 Weeks Later is one hell of a ride. This film not only manages to top the first movie but propels it into one of the best horror/drama sequels yet to come out. The sets are amazing and alive, the characters kept me at the edge of my seat wondering what would happen to them next, and the plot is excellent. Much more depth then the first. You think its going to be another over the top action/horror flick when the military shows up but all that changes. You may ask why I gave it a ten? I like to dissect movies and try to get a sense of some real life to them and 28 weeks later has just that.. It makes you feel sympathetic to the characters and you feel as if your a survivor following them through London's desolate streets. When you go to see this keep it mind its in a league of its own. If your expecting a zombie flick and review it off other zombies movies you've seen, then this isn't for you. As for the cast each actor/actress does an excellent job and Robert Carlyle's character is just plain engrossing to watch. I see why now he was cast in 28 weeks later since in the movie Ravenous he played a crazy cannibal..perfect fit for this role. The end also sets it up for a sequel for an already great series. Definitely looking forward to this trilogy conclusion. If your a fan of drama, horror, post-disaster movies or just a fan of the first, I highly recommend seeing 28 Weeks Later. Worth the admission price. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
MattAMay 28, 2007
I loved this movie. It had emotional depth in characters driven on love and passion. The music fit the movie very well, and helped drive emotion. The movie was kinda depressing...and left an vague ending...but overall an adrenaline rush I loved this movie. It had emotional depth in characters driven on love and passion. The music fit the movie very well, and helped drive emotion. The movie was kinda depressing...and left an vague ending...but overall an adrenaline rush post-apocolyptic treat! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
SamSmithMay 8, 2007
I am not with the tremendous croud support for the first of these films. I found it to be annoying, silly and never very scary. However, this sequal was much better. It was the best horror sequel of the last 5 years at least. I enjoyed itI am not with the tremendous croud support for the first of these films. I found it to be annoying, silly and never very scary. However, this sequal was much better. It was the best horror sequel of the last 5 years at least. I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. 3.4 stars. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MelissaC.Jun 12, 2007
I think this would be my favorite movie of all times. I ended without nails and with the desire of bite everyone. I just wanted to run every where and yield. I just loved it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JasonJ.Jun 1, 2007
Thank God someone out there still knows how to make a movie. We are losing that art, you know. As I was sitting there at the theatre, I was relieved that I can still pay 9-10 USD and get something worth it. This movie is intelligent and Thank God someone out there still knows how to make a movie. We are losing that art, you know. As I was sitting there at the theatre, I was relieved that I can still pay 9-10 USD and get something worth it. This movie is intelligent and not-so-far from reality. A real life virus probably won't cause these type of symptoms, but it's a small jump for the imagination. It has a very well-explained, tight progression. The horror scenes can hold up to any of the best in the genre. Do not take your children, however. The director is a true, and nowadays, rare talent. I will see the sequel if he directs it. Expand
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
10
AdamF.Jun 13, 2007
Absolutely loved it. The movie was not only one of the most terrifying films out in recent history, but it also posed really twisted and sick moral dilemmas. Loved it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JonasH.Jun 14, 2007
I liked it relatively. Pretty scary. And yet again, good music.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MarcK.Jun 2, 2007
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 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? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
MarkD.Jun 9, 2007
In short, this is much the same as 28 Days but with a weaker plot, more action and less suspense. So, while the views of deserted London streets, arty camera work and super fast zombies/infected people are still impressive the originality In short, this is much the same as 28 Days but with a weaker plot, more action and less suspense. So, while the views of deserted London streets, arty camera work and super fast zombies/infected people are still impressive the originality and impact of 28 Days isn't there. It's action packed and entertaining but I preferred the suspense and tension of the first film. The biggest mistake this film makes, however, is zombifying the most interesting character half way through. After we lose Robert Carlyle's character I really couldn't care what happened the other protagonists as they had little depth or personality. I had no empathy or sympathy for the annoying kids, the preachy female doctor or the macho soldier. Having said all that it is still a good film and the beginning and conclusion are almost worth the admission price alone! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JayK.Jun 9, 2007
Better than I was expecting, though not really close to the first. Certainly does not have the layers or richness of the first film. The camera work was pretty good (from a layman's perspective), it was exciting. Pretty Hollywood Better than I was expecting, though not really close to the first. Certainly does not have the layers or richness of the first film. The camera work was pretty good (from a layman's perspective), it was exciting. Pretty Hollywood overall. Definitely a cash-in, but much better than most. 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
9
FaisalH.Sep 18, 2007
One of the few movies which are even better than the original, which was excellent too. 28 Weeks Later will suck you in right from the chilling first sequence and take you on a journey about the aftermath of the virus, right till the One of the few movies which are even better than the original, which was excellent too. 28 Weeks Later will suck you in right from the chilling first sequence and take you on a journey about the aftermath of the virus, right till the wonderful ending of the movie. A well-written script, an intelligent way to bring something new to the series, this movie is a must-watch for anyone who saw 28 Days Later, or even have a passing interest in watching high-quality horror movies. My recommendation - catch it on DVD, the extras (especially the comics) are more than worth it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
NickM.Jan 20, 2008
This movie will probably go down as a classic horror film. It is one of the scariest movies to date, and it had a classic moment a minute. It's biggest praise is its opening scene, one of the best in any movie ever.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
FrostNNov 16, 2007
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 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
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
4
JackNov 2, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
SimonBOct 16, 2007
Read a lot of reviews about this movie and I'm appalled at how much people want to see reality nowadays. I mean, aren't you all tired of seeing reality shows on TV? Do you REALLY want that to translate into horror movies? Have Read a lot of reviews about this movie and I'm appalled at how much people want to see reality nowadays. I mean, aren't you all tired of seeing reality shows on TV? Do you REALLY want that to translate into horror movies? Have like, the cameraman really be in the movie, seeing the horror through his lens? A horror movie has to live with the horror factor. If you spend too much time going through the complexities, such as "The U.S. Army not being as dumb" as they are in the movie... Then you're gonna have a three (or more) hours long movie. A horror movie works when it's short, scary and makes you piss your pants. In my opinion, if people get turned off by the whole "Oh he gets through unnoticed" factor, then they just shouldn't watch horror movies. Even better, they shouldn't watch movies in order to be able to reflect on their eventless lives. It's a must-see for people that love movies just to watch movies, instead of being pseudo-intellectuals about it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
KenH.Oct 23, 2007
Several really compelling scnenes make up for some of the logic gaps. This is a zombie movie after all so I'm not looking for a watertight plot. It seems some viewers didnt get the references to the USA occupation of Iraq with the Several really compelling scnenes make up for some of the logic gaps. This is a zombie movie after all so I'm not looking for a watertight plot. It seems some viewers didnt get the references to the USA occupation of Iraq with the military containment of London. That the containment fails from human ineptitude and lack of forethought is part of the point. Its interesting that so many say the first movie was better because that one had several plot problems too. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AnthonyG.Oct 28, 2007
28 weeks later was way better then days. i was shakeing during the whole movie. Its was amazing. if u haven't seen it, then go see it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
AlecB.May 11, 2007
This iz by far the best horror movie in years.. very interesting, good plot, intense action, scary, danny boyle has surprised m3 with 28 days but i got more surprises by 28 weeks later.. great sequel.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MaxL.May 11, 2007
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
NikyB.May 11, 2007
I was a HUGE fan of the first and I had high expectations of this one....IT DELIVERED!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
AramisG.May 11, 2007
[***SPOILER***] Wow! I wasn't expecting much because sequels are usually cash ins. I have to say I was proven wrong. Maybe not as good as the original in character development and plot, but definitely surpasses in violence and tension.[***SPOILER***] Wow! I wasn't expecting much because sequels are usually cash ins. I have to say I was proven wrong. Maybe not as good as the original in character development and plot, but definitely surpasses in violence and tension. The reappearing "dad" zombie gets a little annoying and there are some major plot inconsistencies (civilian is able to walk right into a heavly guarded military medical center?). However, these little issues get washed away in the carnage that follows. Can't wait for 28 Months later. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DexterM.May 12, 2007
Incredible cinematography, great performances, and tons of eye candy (all simultaneously combined with scares). A must-see for "zombie movie" fans and horror fans alike.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MarmaladeMay 12, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
TonyS.May 12, 2007
Much Better then what I was expecting. True, there is a lot more gore in this film then the last. However, to my surprise it stayed real and never got cheesy. A Worthy Sequel!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
AMovieCriticMay 12, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
MatthewM.May 13, 2007
I am not a zombie movie fan, but this director that Danny Boyle picked is quite a talent, and Jeremy Renner who is normally one of the most hateable actors around is somehow extremely likeable. Most zombie movies are one note and a very I am not a zombie movie fan, but this director that Danny Boyle picked is quite a talent, and Jeremy Renner who is normally one of the most hateable actors around is somehow extremely likeable. Most zombie movies are one note and a very simple story. I really think this and the previous actually have a story and force the characters into very difficult choices. Not to mention this film takes the basic horror conventions and invents a couple one of kind scenes .(helicopter and quarantine outbreak). Overall second best horror film in last four years besides The Descent. 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
10
JohnE.May 14, 2007
Loved it. Bleak, brutal and grim - just how a good horror film should be.
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
8
LucyS.May 14, 2007
Heart poundingly good 28 Weeks Later's slick combination of horror and reality that leaves you aware of how real horror is a combination of bad judgement and worse timing. With an even handed balance of hand held camera work and Heart poundingly good 28 Weeks Later's slick combination of horror and reality that leaves you aware of how real horror is a combination of bad judgement and worse timing. With an even handed balance of hand held camera work and sophisticated special effects - the horror of humanity is never left. Resonates with you in a way that the slasher films of the last two years never do. Outstanding. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
RyanT.May 15, 2007
Great sequel. I thought the edits and camera works was a bit too fast for my taste, but that's just being picky.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DanaS.May 16, 2007
First off, I absolutely hate zombie movies. Second, I walked into 28 weeks later expecting to want that hour and a half of my life back. The reason I appreciate 28 weeks later, though, is that it doesn't follow suite with most of other First off, I absolutely hate zombie movies. Second, I walked into 28 weeks later expecting to want that hour and a half of my life back. The reason I appreciate 28 weeks later, though, is that it doesn't follow suite with most of other movies. More often than none, the outcome of virtuous, yet reckless acts are always positive. Not so in 28 weeks later. Instead, it is the difficult, "heartless" decisions (that went neglected, by the way) that would have been the salvation of human kind. Because certain characters "waited longer than a heart beat," the infection raged out of control. 28 Weeks Later also has some uncommon dichotomies--- the Rage was not unleashed upon humankind once more by molevolent forces or bad intention, but by a passionate kiss and a galant, compassionate rescue. A few elements of the movie discouraged me from assigning a 10, however, and really got my gal. I think most of the gore had a meaningful place in the movie--- nothing is more horrifying than seeing passionate lovers brutalize each other--- but watching legions of infected get chopped to bits by the impossible maneuver of a military chopper pilot verged on insulting: pure hollywood. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
TomO.May 16, 2007
Great cinematography! This sequel (with an entirely different creative team) was even better than the above-average original film. I got a little tired of the jumpy, hand-held panic scenes...but it's a zombie flick, after all. Best of Great cinematography! This sequel (with an entirely different creative team) was even better than the above-average original film. I got a little tired of the jumpy, hand-held panic scenes...but it's a zombie flick, after all. Best of all was the slow-building allegorical counterpoint to the frenetic action sequences. Great twisty ending. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DroogMay 17, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
WarmongerMay 17, 2007
Fantastic film! Can't wait for 28 months later! The movie is a suprisingly horrific look at how a virius completely decemates a whole city, a whole country, in fact, and how some people try to survive, and rebuild from that devastation, Fantastic film! Can't wait for 28 months later! The movie is a suprisingly horrific look at how a virius completely decemates a whole city, a whole country, in fact, and how some people try to survive, and rebuild from that devastation, only to be faced with it again. It's a bit far fetched but more credible than any zombie flick and that's it's allure. It makes people ponder for a second, being a virus, what if something like this really happened?! It kept me on the edge of my seat from begining to end! These films are the best zombie type movies that I've ever seen....... simply HORRIFYING! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ChrisP.May 18, 2007
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
TylerG.May 18, 2007
One of the best movies of the year, one of the best suspense/horror movies I've ever seen, they're not zombies so Im not gonna say that, but it's just excellent it's great GO SEE IT NOW
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
equality7-2521May 19, 2007
This was exhilarating. Amid the gore and the frenetic pace, there is some serious cinematic poetry. I loved this film. Ranks among the best films of the past year and a half. Not as good as Pan's Labyrinth, The Departed and V For This was exhilarating. Amid the gore and the frenetic pace, there is some serious cinematic poetry. I loved this film. Ranks among the best films of the past year and a half. Not as good as Pan's Labyrinth, The Departed and V For Vendetta, but this filmmaker's future is bright. Expand
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
4
BradC.May 25, 2007
Starts off good and heads down hill from there. Plot has holes you could drive a truck through. Very disappointing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AndreaD.May 25, 2007
It was completely awesome and totally original and was better than the prequel. the effects were amazing. my hope is that there will be a third installment. It had every thing that a good zombie movie should have
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
MattLMay 28, 2007
Very much different than the first movie, but just as good. The opening is extremely intense, leaving you sitting on the tip of your chair waiting nervously for London to fall apart once again. Some pretty cool cinematography as well. The Very much different than the first movie, but just as good. The opening is extremely intense, leaving you sitting on the tip of your chair waiting nervously for London to fall apart once again. Some pretty cool cinematography as well. The creepy, stalkerish zombie-dad was kinda stupid, but it didn't take away that much from the movie. Definitely worth seeing, especially in theaters. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DAMay 28, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
AaronF.May 28, 2007
Very good, best horror sequel I can ever recall seeing. There are issues: overuse of shaky camera, one too many appearances by father character, and lack of proper ending; but this is by far the most genuinely thrilling and scary movie Very good, best horror sequel I can ever recall seeing. There are issues: overuse of shaky camera, one too many appearances by father character, and lack of proper ending; but this is by far the most genuinely thrilling and scary movie I've seen in years. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
TerryO.May 31, 2007
Great portrayal of a worst-case infectious disease outbreak. Although some of the science/public health was a little off, for the most part it was outstanding. Outstanding cross between "Outbreak" and "Dawn of the Dead"!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
PaulK.Jun 15, 2007
I thought this was going to be rehash, but after seeing the reviews, I took a chance. In some ways this is predictable, but the plot device that fuels the story and the potential for sequels is plausible and a great direction to go with this I thought this was going to be rehash, but after seeing the reviews, I took a chance. In some ways this is predictable, but the plot device that fuels the story and the potential for sequels is plausible and a great direction to go with this franchise. The very last scene should have been edited out, since the subtle and more effective cliffhanger had already been established. 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
9
RandyMOct 11, 2008
28 Weeks Later is dark. Beyond dark. It's a movie lover's masochistic nightmare. But it's shocking, intelligent, and will leave you utterly exhausted by the time your finished watching it. The movie gives you almost no time to 28 Weeks Later is dark. Beyond dark. It's a movie lover's masochistic nightmare. But it's shocking, intelligent, and will leave you utterly exhausted by the time your finished watching it. The movie gives you almost no time to relax and cleverly instills a sense of panic throughout. Brilliantly concieved and more than worthy to sit among the few top-tier horror films. 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
10
DanLNov 27, 2009
Absolutely phenomenal. I enjoy this movie considerably more than the first one. The acting was believable, and the special effects definitely worked to convey the gritty, horrific reality of the subject matter.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
A.NonymousNov 15, 2007
Grim, brutal, fast-paced but, most importantly, believable. This is what makes a zombie movie great. More harrowing than it's predecessor, but definetely addresses some of the issues that plagued 28 Days Later. The only negative is that Grim, brutal, fast-paced but, most importantly, believable. This is what makes a zombie movie great. More harrowing than it's predecessor, but definetely addresses some of the issues that plagued 28 Days Later. The only negative is that it's extremely depressing; even Days had a happy ending. An excellent movie, the only things critics can moan about it are technicalities. Honestly people, if you can't give a well-balanced review don't review at all. 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
8
NF123Aug 24, 2010
Where 28 days later had subtly 28 weeks later has explosions, however it's a decent turn for the franchise. it's not as suspensful as the original but that doesn't mean it's not as good. OK the militaristic themes basically boil down to "USWhere 28 days later had subtly 28 weeks later has explosions, however it's a decent turn for the franchise. it's not as suspensful as the original but that doesn't mean it's not as good. OK the militaristic themes basically boil down to "US army=bad :(" and it had been done much better by Danny Boyle himself, however that doesn't mean Characterisation is sacrificed and at the end I did care about what happaned. It also helps that all performances are excellent and while its a bit cliched to cast the attractive young women (Rose Byrne) as a doctor her performance is so convincing it works! My personal rule to this is while 28 days later is creepy after the first time you've seen it you won't really jump, 28 weeks later is a lot more rewatchable and feels a bit more like a Zombie film as opposed to 28 days later which felt like a drama that happaned to feature zombies. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
ERG1008Sep 17, 2010
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 &
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.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
MetalMan95Dec 3, 2010
Effective sequel. The action, gore, and story is quite good. Jeremy Renner definitely shines as the best actor in this. And it does set itself up very nicely for a sequel. With a good film, with a good sequel, i would watch the next one. NotEffective sequel. The action, gore, and story is quite good. Jeremy Renner definitely shines as the best actor in this. And it does set itself up very nicely for a sequel. With a good film, with a good sequel, i would watch the next one. Not a must see, but its a good time. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
NeelyryMar 21, 2015
One of the greatest zombie movies ever made. I feel like 28 days later may have been slightly better, but the opening scene of this movie is easily the greatest moment in the two combined. If you like zombies you owe it to yourself to see this movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
PolybiusNov 5, 2010
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
TheQuietGamerJun 1, 2011
A fantastic sequel, it has a lot of tense moments, a lot of enjoyable new characters, my only complaints are that it starts of slow, and that the ending is a little confusing, but the atmosphere, and the jaw dropping moments make this a mustA fantastic sequel, it has a lot of tense moments, a lot of enjoyable new characters, my only complaints are that it starts of slow, and that the ending is a little confusing, but the atmosphere, and the jaw dropping moments make this a must seee for fans of the first movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
buzerOct 6, 2011
First scene was amazing, best i've sen in long time in all horror movie. Too bad rest didn't keep up with it, it could have been on of the greatest movies of all time. Still solid 7 from me
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
JoseRochaPTOct 3, 2011
Another fantastic sequel. Everything is new, there are new "scares", and ways of doing so. The environment is completely amazing, the story itself captive as I said in criticism of the earlier film is a film that deserves a sequel. For all IAnother fantastic sequel. Everything is new, there are new "scares", and ways of doing so. The environment is completely amazing, the story itself captive as I said in criticism of the earlier film is a film that deserves a sequel. For all I know there will be a sequel that will be called 28 months later and is scheduled to launch in 2013. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
Delta_AssaultSep 28, 2011
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 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.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
DerekKentNov 21, 2011
It was a decent film. It definitely wasn't as powerful as "28 Days Later". I didn't really care for the main character being a little kid. To me, he wasn't even really a character, he seemed to have been put in just because the directorIt was a decent film. It definitely wasn't as powerful as "28 Days Later". I didn't really care for the main character being a little kid. To me, he wasn't even really a character, he seemed to have been put in just because the director wanted him to. Other then that, it was an okay movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
potatoes351Aug 13, 2012
Danny Boyle made the great 28 Days Later in 2002. Now 5 years later Juan Carlos Fresnadillo takes the reigns of this very human focused franchise. Though the film is now more action focused and lacks the amazing suspense and emptiness of theDanny Boyle made the great 28 Days Later in 2002. Now 5 years later Juan Carlos Fresnadillo takes the reigns of this very human focused franchise. Though the film is now more action focused and lacks the amazing suspense and emptiness of the original it makes its own place in the franchise. After a heart pounding opening with an infected attack on a farmhouse the setting swiftly moves to London which is now being repopulated with British citizens by the US army. However things quickly go down the **** and the infection breaks out again. Two young siblings and their US army guardians must now make their way across the infected regions of London in hope of rescue. Bloodier, gorier and better then its predecessor in nearly every way. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
survivorfan989Jan 20, 2013
Possibly one of the best zombie films out there and better than the first film. The Brits do it a little different to anyone else but in a way that really works. Lead by a great cast with likable characters also. It was very interestingPossibly one of the best zombie films out there and better than the first film. The Brits do it a little different to anyone else but in a way that really works. Lead by a great cast with likable characters also. It was very interesting watching Don's transition from human to infected and following his story as well as the kids. Quite a few jumpy bits also I might say and it's very 'in your face' as far as Horror films go. Overall impressive film and up there as one of the best zombie flicks! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
JohnnyStephensAug 31, 2013
Excellent!! Scary and shocking as the first one. I really like zombie films, and this one is one of my favourites!! Bravo!!!! Do not miss it!!! Brilliant!!
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
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
8
talisencrwJul 21, 2016
This was a very good sequel to a fine zombie work (my favourite zombie film is STILL Jean Rollin's remarkable and extremely aesthetically-pleasing 'The Grapes of Death'), and I was very pleasantly surprised. Pardon the pun, but you wouldThis was a very good sequel to a fine zombie work (my favourite zombie film is STILL Jean Rollin's remarkable and extremely aesthetically-pleasing 'The Grapes of Death'), and I was very pleasantly surprised. Pardon the pun, but you would think that by this time, everything in the land of zombie movies would have been done to death, but I remain consistently admiring of just where the best and most thought-out renditions of the template can go. In THIS case, the most intriguing dynamic is a cowardly husband choosing his life rather than helping his wife out of a horrible crisis, then infanticide (or worse) of his own children, rather than face their wrath over the poor decision he had made.

It's interestingly hilarious that when you think about it, humanity is doomed because a 12-year-old had to go back and get a picture of his mother, because he was afraid that without it, he would forget what she looked like...A surprisingly satisfying work, that for horror fans, is worth a purchase and rewatching. I'm admittedly more for classic films, from the 20's to 60's, but for contemporary horror cinema, I liked this a lot, especially Jeremy Renner and Imogen Poots. It's no surprise to me that they soon became superstars.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Meth-dudeJun 10, 2015
This sequel of 28 days later is better in every way.More gore,better acting and better action scenes.The story was kind of basic and predictable and some of the characters decisions were stupid but,overall,the movie is good.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
SliminSep 27, 2014
Perfect correlation of horror and drama. Sound by J. Murphy, play by C. Murphy and own by Boyle on high quality level. I have my top movie list and this movie of course is in that top-list.
One of best horrors of all times.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
SiAScORCHNov 5, 2014
This movie isn't as good as the first one, but it has a great story line as the infection battle has claimed to be nearly won. Then you get some amazing twists and you get to see how different characters adapt to different situations. It'sThis movie isn't as good as the first one, but it has a great story line as the infection battle has claimed to be nearly won. Then you get some amazing twists and you get to see how different characters adapt to different situations. It's definitely worth watching, but you must watch the first one in order to enjoy the second one as much as I did. It's also kind of sad at some parts, but I won't spoil it for you. 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
5
MovieManiac83Apr 25, 2015
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
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
BritishWolfSep 21, 2015
Brilliant film, but does not fill the boots left by its revolutionary predecessor. I wish the film focused more on human drama and futility, as the first film did, as opposed to action. The human drama of the first film was partly what set itBrilliant film, but does not fill the boots left by its revolutionary predecessor. I wish the film focused more on human drama and futility, as the first film did, as opposed to action. The human drama of the first film was partly what set it apart from the crowd. Despite this, the film is expertly shot and once again integrates a brilliant, eerie soundtrack. Expand
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
5
JasonCDanielsNov 16, 2015
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If you want a surviving the zombie-apocalypse film, re-watch 28 Days Later. If you want a ho-hum preachy drama (at its core) with shoehorned in gore and violence, set in a recovering local apocalypse caused by zombies/infected, watch this film. It does an alright job in that regard. I wouldn't suggest paying more than $5 USD to own this, however.

Why? This was largely a dull uninspired drama with zombies and violence shoehorned in, merely passable writing, and decent acting. It has its moments, but they are few. The Romero-esque ending was a nice touch, but ultimately couldn't elevate this addition to the "28 Days Later" franchise from "so-so" to "good". This is a pity as there was a lot of very good source material to expand on from the first movie, much of which was left untouched in this one. While watching this movie, I felt as if it was a rehash of long debated topics, in ways that were none-too-original even for its time. It's not a bad movie to watch, however, it's just not great. It doesn't live up to the thrills and tension set in the first movie. And as many others have pointed out, among other things, the quarantine protocols were all but non-existent, making for a common-sense based break in immersion/suspension of disbelief, which ultimately proves a disservice to the moral/ethical questions this movie tried to raise.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
TheFilmDoctorMar 22, 2016
28 Days Later was a traditional British science-fiction/horror movie with added smarts and innovative style. This sequel extends the story in intelligent, suspenseful ways. Simply because it’s a ‘part two’, it isn’t as fresh, but enough28 Days Later was a traditional British science-fiction/horror movie with added smarts and innovative style. This sequel extends the story in intelligent, suspenseful ways. Simply because it’s a ‘part two’, it isn’t as fresh, but enough changes are rung to stop it feeling like a remake. Like Aliens, it ups the action scale by bringing in Yanks with big guns, which — as George Romero has often shown — means even more peril for ordinary folks caught between plague and the authorities.

With Danny Boyle and Alex Garland otherwise occupied by Sunshine, a new creative team takes over. Spanish director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, of the outstanding and unusual Intacto, evokes what Boyle did on the first film without slavishly copying him. The prologue, which takes place early in the crisis, offers an old-fashioned zombie attack as hands crash through the boarded-up windows of a besieged house. It also serves to introduce an unusual protagonist, the weasely Don (Robert Carlyle) — who puts his survival ahead of all else.

After its first burst, the film hops ahead to the aftermath and takes a few creepy reels before the action starts again — but once the Raging and blood-spitting begins it’s relentless, as panic spreads and inept attempts to eradicate the plague give a whittled-down band of survivors as many problems as the screaming infected.

The fractured British family are an interesting focus for the film: child actors Imogen Poots and Mackintosh Muggleton are terrific, while Carlyle and McCormack get the maximum impact from shifty looks, malign glares and freak-outs. The American contingent — scientist Rose Byrne, grunts Jeremy Renner and Harold Perrineau — offers thinner material, especially once everyone has to start running.

The set-pieces, however, escalate with mostly excellent results: watching it all go wrong for the military — and their desperate response — is harrowing, but the tonal shift in a scene involving a helicopter and the infected on a heath which strays into Peter Jackson/Sam Raimi comic-horror territory is less effective. Momentum is regained, though, for a strong, dark finish.

Bigger action, more amazing deserted (and devastated) London sequences and biting contemporary relevance, if a touch less heart than the original.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
sjultiDec 7, 2016
This is a good sequel but it's not as good as the original, their is a lot more characters that the plot has to focus on so it feels more chaotic and not as fleshed out as the original but it's still a good zombie flick.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
MovieMasterEddyApr 3, 2016
Nothing satisfies the appetite for allegory quite like a movie about flesh-eating zombies. Somehow the genre, at least as practiced by its masters, has the capacity to illuminate some brute facts about the human condition and its contemporaryNothing satisfies the appetite for allegory quite like a movie about flesh-eating zombies. Somehow the genre, at least as practiced by its masters, has the capacity to illuminate some brute facts about the human condition and its contemporary dysfunctions. There are not many recent movies that match, for example, the social criticism undertaken by George Romero in his “Living Dead” cycle.

Danny Boyle’s “28 Days Later” and its new sequel, “28 Weeks Later,” directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, may not quite be in Mr. Romero’s league, but at their best they come close to his signature blend of grisly horror, emotional impact and biting satire. There is, of course, plenty of literal biting as well, since the virus-crazed creatures known as infecteds crave the flesh and blood of their erstwhile fellow citizens.

And also their metaphorical flesh and blood. The first movie, set in the early days of a pandemic that nearly wiped out the population of Britain, followed a small band of strangers who came together to form a makeshift tribe. This time, after the first wave of the virus seems to have run its course, the focus is on families and comrades split apart and set against one another by paranoia, moral confusion and the endless conflict between the survival instinct and the call of duty. If “28 Days Later” was, in part, about the emergence of solidarity in the midst of crisis, “28 Weeks Later” is about the breakdown that occurs in what seems to be the aftermath.

The DVD of Mr. Boyle’s film has two alternate endings, one slightly more comforting than the other. The hopeful conclusion (the one originally released in American theaters) turns out to be a slender thread leading to Mr. Fresnadillo’s more hectic and somewhat grimmer sequel.

The story (written by Rowan Joffe, Mr. Fresnadillo, E. L. Lavigne and Jesus Olmo, with Mr. Boyle and his frequent collaborator, Alex Garland, on hand as executive producers) begins with a terrible failure of nerve. Fleeing a zombie attack, Don (a gaunt, appropriately anxious Robert Carlyle) abandons his wife, Alice (Catherine McCormack), to a gruesome and apparently inevitable fate.

A few months later, he is safe in the Green Zone, an island of security in London overseen by occupying American troops led by General Stone (Idris Elba). There, he is reunited with his children, Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton) and Tammy (Imogen Poots), who had been on a school trip to Spain during the initial outbreak. He lies to them about their mother’s fate, and his dishonesty is punished in due course.

That bit about American soldiers patrolling the Green Zone — see what I mean about allegory? — may make “28 Weeks Later” sound heavy-handedly topical. But as in any good science fiction fable, the analogies it offers to contemporary reality are speculative rather than obvious. The initial benevolence of the occupation is clear enough: a shattered country needs to be put back together, its remaining population protected and reassured.

It is only when things spin out of control that the inherent brutality of the situation becomes clear, but here again the movie poses intractable conundrums rather than scoring easy points. To the soldiers and the survivors alike, there are only bad choices, and doing what seems like the right thing — firebombing an open city or rescuing children from the bombs — can turn out to have horrendous consequences.

Mr. Fresnadillo’s first movie, the Spanish-language thriller “Intacto,” showed him to be a filmmaker with technical agility and a decidedly philosophical bent. Here the thinking is done on the run, as the collapse of order unfolds through scenes of panic and chaos. These are often too frenetically edited and murkily lighted to be truly scary, and the higher dose of gore — infecteds chopped up by helicopter blades; bodies exploding in blood as bullets fly into them — is not enough to increase the horror.

The real terror comes at quieter moments, when aerial shots survey the echoing emptiness of London, or when Tammy and Andy sneak out of the Green Zone into the surrounding desolation.

“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. The last shot brought a burst of laughter at the screening I attended, a reaction that seemed to me both an acknowledgment of Mr. Fresnadillo’s wit and a defense against his merciless rigor.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews