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. Jun 10, 2015
    8
    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.
  2. 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
  3. Mar 21, 2015
    10
    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.
  4. Nov 5, 2014
    8
    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'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, butThis 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
  5. 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.
  6. Sep 27, 2014
    10
    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.
  7. Jan 2, 2014
    3
    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
  8. Aug 31, 2013
    10
    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!!
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Jan 20, 2013
    9
    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 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 'inPossibly 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
  12. 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
  13. 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..
  14. Nov 15, 2012
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The only good scene of this film is the first one. Period. After that, everybody (and I mena EVERYBODY) in it becomes stupid to a stunning point. While in the first movie the soldiers, for once in the whole 'zombie' genre managed to actually mount an effective quarantine, now they have become bumbling idiots for the sake of the plot: They will leave the infectee with the most dangerous virus ever unguarded, so even a civilian may access it undetected, they will be unable to stop 2 kids breaking their perimeter (who was the genius who thought that brining thousands of civilians without even securing AT LEAST the whole city was a good idea, in the first place?), and generally they will be unable to even shoot an infectee who's coming towars them over a 100 meters corridor.

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

    This film was a pain to watch, from start (save for the mentioned first scene, which to be honest is sublime) to end, and I only beared it in hopes that at least the kids would get killed fast, or something would suddenly surprise me. Overall, one of the worst horror films I've ever seen.
    Expand
  15. Aug 13, 2012
    9
    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 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 toDanny 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
  16. Jul 3, 2012
    0
    This movie was amazing! I don't see how people can dislike it. Jeremy and Robert braught tears to my eyes and i never cry at movies. I say go watch it because this is the best zombie movie i have seen in a long time! I hope they make a sequal.
  17. May 19, 2012
    3
    Sure, zombie movies are not about realism, but does every single character have to be so **** stupid?!!!? They leave everything to chance! no wonder they end up dead, it's so full of mistakes: awful security; the soldiers must be thinking this is a joke, there is no other way. They let two STUPID kids go into the infected zone, those kids are also stupid enough to go near and even touchSure, zombie movies are not about realism, but does every single character have to be so **** stupid?!!!? They leave everything to chance! no wonder they end up dead, it's so full of mistakes: awful security; the soldiers must be thinking this is a joke, there is no other way. They let two STUPID kids go into the infected zone, those kids are also stupid enough to go near and even touch dead infected bodies! The soldiers don't keep each other informed, they don't secure the infected mother (no permanent surveillance, no cameras, no alarm), the husband just so happens to pass EVERY security guards like it was nothing and stupidly kisses her, which makes ONE infected and no **** soldier is smart enough to shoot him: they go alone, they're not careful, THEY D'ONT EVEN DRAW THEIR WEAPONS!!! They can't even secure the civilians in the SECURITY room because the infected can easily get there by just OPENING THE DOORS!! Then when they get ALL infected and the soldiers have to shoot everybody they use snipers! Not explosives or flamethrowers as they later do, but long-range snipers who take down ONE infected at the time! Then they decide to bomb the whole zone through airborne attack and release toxic gas (which makes the bombs pointless + it destroys all the buildings) actually both are pointless because some infected even managed to survive that! The remaining survivors try to escape the gas be locking themselves up in a car, which shouldn't work because cars are in no way gas-proof, they do cover their mouths with clothes though, and it shouldn't work either otherwise the army wouldn't be using this gas if it didn't penetrate very thin clothes! Afterwards, they get chased by a helicopter and drive into a metro station to escape the bullets (it is commonly known that trained US soldier can't shoot a car from a heli in more than 2 min), but instead of going back up and waiting for the heli to leave, they go deeper into the completely dark station with NO LIGHTS except for ONE night vision scope on the dead soldier's gun and guess what? they get separated in the complete darkness with an infected, but of course no one shoots until someone dies, no one screams "I'm here! HELP!!!" and they leave the gun behind... -_- It's only at this point of the movie that the two kids realize they're immune and that's why it's so important that they live because it did not cross ANYONE's mind to tell them before, which makes me think that the survivors are as brain damaged as the infected... THE END! This movie surely does not deserve a good rating, except for the good acting and makeup, otherwise SXF was sometimes **** music was nice too. In conclusion, if you want to survive a zombie apocalypse, don't watch this movie, and **** run when you see a zombie. To the writers: next time PLEASE don't do something COMPLETELY predictable or stick with the first 15 min of the film that actually looked like 28 days later! Expand
  18. 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
  19. Nov 21, 2011
    7
    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 director wanted him to. Other then that, it was an okay movie.
  20. 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.
  21. Oct 6, 2011
    7
    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
  22. Oct 3, 2011
    10
    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 I know there will be a sequel that will be called 28 months later and is scheduled to launch in 2013.
  23. Sep 28, 2011
    4
    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
  24. Jul 3, 2011
    8
    I'd say 28 weeks later takes what 28 days later did and does it a slight bit better. Again, like it's prequel it's an amazing horror/zombie flick, definitely worth a watch!
  25. Jun 1, 2011
    9
    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 must seee for fans of the first movie.
  26. May 1, 2011
    3
    The first 15 minutes that Danny Boyle directed was like the original, awesome. But the rest was just too predictable, leaving no room for any intensity or frightful moments.

    Yet another IP ruioned by idiots.
  27. Jan 16, 2011
    8
    A terrific movie dealing with the moral problem of utilitarianism: sacrifice a few to save many?
  28. Jan 9, 2011
    8
    When I first heard about this movie I was pumped. I can NEVER get enough quality zombie/infection type movies if they are well done, and this is WELL done. Acting is solid, the effects/costumes/blood/gore as all very believable, some parts will get you angry tho and thats what I love about movies, some parts you just want to reach through the screen, kept my involved and entertainedWhen I first heard about this movie I was pumped. I can NEVER get enough quality zombie/infection type movies if they are well done, and this is WELL done. Acting is solid, the effects/costumes/blood/gore as all very believable, some parts will get you angry tho and thats what I love about movies, some parts you just want to reach through the screen, kept my involved and entertained throughout, same as 28 weeks later, BOTH quality infection/plague flicks that are a must watch for anyone a fan of those things. I wish theyd make more like this...! Expand
  29. Dec 3, 2010
    7
    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. Not a must see, but its a good time.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. Aug 24, 2010
    8
    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 "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 didWhere 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
  33. LarryB
    Feb 2, 2010
    10
    No, Conor B., how misleading Metacritic users can be. Are you serious? You're suggesting that a zombie movie is...implausible? Are you kidding me? You're an idiot. Zombie movies aren't supposed to be about realism. They're supposed to be scary and intense, and that's exactly what 28 Weeks Later was. Stick to the more important George Clooney type movies with No, Conor B., how misleading Metacritic users can be. Are you serious? You're suggesting that a zombie movie is...implausible? Are you kidding me? You're an idiot. Zombie movies aren't supposed to be about realism. They're supposed to be scary and intense, and that's exactly what 28 Weeks Later was. Stick to the more important George Clooney type movies with realistic situations and realistic people. Or, you know, you could just go outside and experience realistic situations yourself, but those aren't that entertaining, are they? And, Harry G., what they hell are you talking about? There were only a few scenes that even used CG.... Most of the people underrating this excellent movie don't even know what the hell they are talking about: they're either enraged that this movie is a sequel (and all sequels MUST suck, it's a traditional POV to take on all sequels) or they're upset over the lack of realism...in a movie about zombies. I'll stick with the critics, thanks. Expand
  34. DanL
    Nov 27, 2009
    10
    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.
  35. AlexG.
    Oct 31, 2009
    1
    Do you like movies where you don't have to think? Do you enjoy movies with plot holes the size of an Airbus? Do you enjoy movies with magical zombies that can teleport? How about movies with the most stupid, idiotic unengaged characters? Well you will enjoy this film! Now, don't get me wrong, I love gore, suspense, great music score.. which you will find in this movie.. well the Do you like movies where you don't have to think? Do you enjoy movies with plot holes the size of an Airbus? Do you enjoy movies with magical zombies that can teleport? How about movies with the most stupid, idiotic unengaged characters? Well you will enjoy this film! Now, don't get me wrong, I love gore, suspense, great music score.. which you will find in this movie.. well the first 5 minutes, but after that, you got nothing. Illogical, how does a Janitor have clearance all through-out a military base? How do the kids in the film defy all logic throughout? If you want an engaging horror movie with characters you feel sorry for when they die, with an actual real soul. Avoid this film. Expand
  36. JoshuaH
    May 2, 2009
    9
    Great film, Shows enough gore to make a horror movie yet creates enough suspense for a compelling thriller that you can't take your eyes off.The director masterfully builds suspense and excitement. Everything was well done from the camera work to the music cues.Good dialogue and great special effects. loved it.
  37. RandyM
    Oct 11, 2008
    9
    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.
  38. 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.
  39. ArjanD.
    Mar 29, 2008
    2
    28 Days Later was, in my opinion, a breathtaking movie, so I expected 28 Weeks later to be of the same quality. I was very disappointed to see the movie fall apart soon after the (second) outbreak of the infection. Most of the actors were sacrificed so fast after each other you didn't have time to feel sorry for them. Besides, the atmospere and suspense of 28 Days later weren't 28 Days Later was, in my opinion, a breathtaking movie, so I expected 28 Weeks later to be of the same quality. I was very disappointed to see the movie fall apart soon after the (second) outbreak of the infection. Most of the actors were sacrificed so fast after each other you didn't have time to feel sorry for them. Besides, the atmospere and suspense of 28 Days later weren't matched by far. I think this is the case because a bid-budget sequel to a low-budget movie simply doesn't work. All in all, I think 28 Weeks later isn't worthy of being the sequel to 28 Days later. Expand
  40. NickM.
    Jan 20, 2008
    10
    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.
  41. JudyN
    Jan 19, 2008
    2
    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 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
  42. Jan
    Jan 5, 2008
    3
    I loved the first movie (28 days later), but this one just doesn't make sense. The plot holes are too big, the ambiance is good at the start, but later you will just be watching to events that follow to each other and make little sense. Maybe because of the big expectations I had, but when I finished watching this movie, I was was really unsatisfied.
  43. Mike
    Dec 25, 2007
    0
    Started out "ok" and then turned into a giant mess, to the point where I lost interest in the movie!
  44. MrSmith
    Nov 17, 2007
    8
    If you enjoyed the first you should enjoy this, I found the first to be more scary than this.
  45. 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
  46. PaulS.
    Nov 16, 2007
    0
    Take out the screaming and the bloody faces up against windows and what have you got, somebody drooling blood on to victim's face
  47. A.Nonymous
    Nov 15, 2007
    10
    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. 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
  48. JohnS.
    Nov 7, 2007
    1
    Entertaining and solid action, but a few gaping plot holes make it hard to believe. First you've got talk about the U.S. Army and tight security protocols. Then, the next moment, there is practically none. People are allowed to wander around quite freely. Two kids escape. Quarantine for a potentially infected person? There is no quarantine. In a real situation none of the plot Entertaining and solid action, but a few gaping plot holes make it hard to believe. First you've got talk about the U.S. Army and tight security protocols. Then, the next moment, there is practically none. People are allowed to wander around quite freely. Two kids escape. Quarantine for a potentially infected person? There is no quarantine. In a real situation none of the plot turning points could have happened. The script writer should have been told 'you can do better than this'. Expand
  49. JS
    Nov 4, 2007
    9
    It's ridiculous that some people and reviewers are complaining about the level of gore & violence in this movie. It's a ZOMBIE MOVIE!!! What did you expect?? In any case, it's one hell of a zombie movie, and one of the best I've ever seen. I couldn't take my eyes away for a moment. It's not perfect - they try to make the US military look like jerks, and one It's ridiculous that some people and reviewers are complaining about the level of gore & violence in this movie. It's a ZOMBIE MOVIE!!! What did you expect?? In any case, it's one hell of a zombie movie, and one of the best I've ever seen. I couldn't take my eyes away for a moment. It's not perfect - they try to make the US military look like jerks, and one zombie that finds his former family again and again is pretty implausible. But the sheer genius here - of how and why a virus that is wiped out suddenly returns is an amazing story. The central family in the story are interesting too - they are not heroes but ordinary people with ordinary flaws dealing with a situation totally out of their control. It's every bit as good as "28 days". Expand
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. AnthonyG.
    Oct 28, 2007
    10
    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.
  53. AntonioR.
    Oct 26, 2007
    9
    Amazing!
  54. HarryG.
    Oct 26, 2007
    0
    This movie was utter crap, the first 15 minutes feels like a meth induced hallucination - and really did we really need to have one of the main character gouge out his wife 's eyes for like 5 minutes. Terrible, felt like amateur video game graphics.
  55. NoxL.
    Oct 26, 2007
    8
    This movie surprised me. I enjoyed it more than it's predecessor. I love the reimagining of the zombie genre, as "scary" movies were never my thing. The violence in this movie was perfect, it impacted you in a way that really made you feel claustrophobic and it wasn't lacking in class, as someone said. It makes you wonder how voracious these infected are. Sure, there are some This movie surprised me. I enjoyed it more than it's predecessor. I love the reimagining of the zombie genre, as "scary" movies were never my thing. The violence in this movie was perfect, it impacted you in a way that really made you feel claustrophobic and it wasn't lacking in class, as someone said. It makes you wonder how voracious these infected are. Sure, there are some parts that are obviously nonsensical but if you think about this in a real world situation, it might make more sense... The acting was pretty nice too. Actors I've never even seen before that don't look like amazing supermodels, but like normal people who can do a decent job acting. I liked that. Expand
  56. MarieM
    Oct 25, 2007
    8
    It starts and never stops. The zombie/monsters are actually scary - something that's hard to do these days when we see zombies at the supermarket all the time. Robert Carlyle is living with his wife in the countryside - trying to stay away from the plague. Their children live in Spain, and are free of it. After a while, when things are "safe" again, the two children return to It starts and never stops. The zombie/monsters are actually scary - something that's hard to do these days when we see zombies at the supermarket all the time. Robert Carlyle is living with his wife in the countryside - trying to stay away from the plague. Their children live in Spain, and are free of it. After a while, when things are "safe" again, the two children return to England. Much excitement ensues. Jeremy Renner is excellent in his tiny part as a sharpshooter given orders he can't obey. The actor playing the little boy is extraordinary, too. The only bit of miscasting was with the older girl. She's a former model and - guess what? - was in WAY over her head next to Robert Carlyle and the rest. I think she was hired because she has huge eyes and they needed them to look scared all the time. The fact that her eyeliner never smudged despite days of running and crying and screaming really bugged me. Expand
  57. 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.
  58. KenH.
    Oct 23, 2007
    7
    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 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
  59. jeffc.
    Oct 23, 2007
    8
    I really dug it. Gritty, great music, well done!
  60. Patrick
    Oct 22, 2007
    9
    I've already seen this dvd multiple times since its release, and have loved it every time. Great zombie movie that is a complete departure from 28 Days Later (so stop comparing the two you imbeciles, they're hardly similar). The sheer terror and manner in which the virus effects all involved always draws me back.
  61. KeithJ
    Oct 20, 2007
    3
    28 Days Later was original, fresh and clever. 28 Weeks Later was an illogical mess. It features a 40-year-old general (psst, that doesn't happen) and a "Delta" soldier with a buzzcut and regulation uniform (psst, that also doesn't happen), and a genius plan that involves a) herding all civilians into a contained area and NOT guarding the doors, b) killing everything that moves 28 Days Later was original, fresh and clever. 28 Weeks Later was an illogical mess. It features a 40-year-old general (psst, that doesn't happen) and a "Delta" soldier with a buzzcut and regulation uniform (psst, that also doesn't happen), and a genius plan that involves a) herding all civilians into a contained area and NOT guarding the doors, b) killing everything that moves rather than, for instance, saying "drop to the ground so we can shoot the infected", c) killing even people they can tell 100% are NOT infected, such as one of their own soldiers pushing a car, d) firebombing the city but forgetting to seal the exits, so a big team of zombies escapes. It also features a magical zombie who appears wherever any zombie is called for. This movie is pretty dumb. It belongs on SpikeTV or TBS at 3 a.m. Expand
  62. 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
  63. chad
    Oct 18, 2007
    9
    This movie took everything good in the first movie and brought it to the next level ( the infected, blood) and got rid of everything that wasn't good about the first (slow pace) to make for one awesome fast paced movie that had me thinking about it all day.
  64. SimonB
    Oct 16, 2007
    7
    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 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
  65. JoshH.
    Oct 14, 2007
    9
    I'm not sure what was so fantastic about 28 Days Later. A developed plot? Yeah, RIGHT. It starts out with a monkey that bites someone. The rage virus is let loose, causing everyone to go nuts! Yawn. Sounds a lot like the Umbrella virus from the Resident Evil games
  66. 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
  67. Eldon
    Oct 12, 2007
    3
    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.
  68. BryanS.
    Oct 11, 2007
    10
    This was an amazing movie.. like i could just picture another one. i hope they make one cause if the virus hit europe all of asia and africa would fall to and i could see giant barriers.
  69. GaryJ.
    Oct 11, 2007
    8
    Killing the Dead is Good.
  70. Irritated
    Oct 11, 2007
    9
    Firstly! This is not a zombie movie! They are not zombies, they are infected with a virus! The victims do not die! And as for the person saying that the UK director was trying to say something political, does the name Juan Carlos Fresnadillo sound like an English name?! Secondly, this is a top notch movie!
  71. SeanP.
    Oct 10, 2007
    10
    Just to let everyone in on a secret. They are not zombies and that is why the father followed them. They are just real angry. Now actually watch the movie and don't go into it thinking this movie sucks because they didn't explain everything to me.
  72. ChristopherW.
    Oct 10, 2007
    9
    '28 Weeks Later' is visceral and gripping moviemaking of an uncommon order. It manages to reaffirm the terror of it's predecessor while also charting down an unrelenting path of mounting doom and gloom. It explodes at a fevered pitch from it's very first scene, and the pace never wavers for more than a couple seconds. This is simply one of the finest horror films of '28 Weeks Later' is visceral and gripping moviemaking of an uncommon order. It manages to reaffirm the terror of it's predecessor while also charting down an unrelenting path of mounting doom and gloom. It explodes at a fevered pitch from it's very first scene, and the pace never wavers for more than a couple seconds. This is simply one of the finest horror films of recent years. A must see! Expand
  73. HelloYou
    Oct 8, 2007
    10
    One of the best movies of the year (or was it last year...I don't remember). It's been a long time that I left the theater throughly satisfied with a movie in every aspect. On top of that, for it to be a sequel that I felt this way about is mindblowing. Perhaps the one and only time. I can safetly say in my own mind that I enjoyed it more than the original. It took me awhile to One of the best movies of the year (or was it last year...I don't remember). It's been a long time that I left the theater throughly satisfied with a movie in every aspect. On top of that, for it to be a sequel that I felt this way about is mindblowing. Perhaps the one and only time. I can safetly say in my own mind that I enjoyed it more than the original. It took me awhile to really appreciate the original, tho I liked it. However, 28 Weeks Later has everything that was great about the original and so much more. Better characters, a better story, better action, scarier, more shock value, and a non-happy ending that I luv. When I say "shock value" I don't mean in terms of gore (tho it has that), but I mean that some of the main characters die and I didn't expect it what-so-ever. A lot of the time you can see a person's death coming from a mile away, but my favorite character in the movie...whom shall remain nameless to not spoil it...dies so suddenly that I actually felt EMOTION for a fiction character. That rarely happens for me. The only other recent time I can remember feeling something like that was when Leo's character died in the Departed (ya, spoiler...you should of saw it by now). I also love how the Helicopter pilot comes off as kind of a jerkoff but I know I would do the exact same thing he did. I read a lot of people saying that what the characters did at times was illogical, but I believe the character's acted in a very realistic way and they acted like realistic people...not cut in dry...good and bad. I can't wait to buy it tomorrow. Expand
  74. FaisalH.
    Sep 18, 2007
    9
    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 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
  75. MaxC.
    Sep 7, 2007
    8
    An interesting movie that isn't quite as good as the original, it is stick worth watching for the zombie/disease fans. Admittedly, if the military in the movie was the LEAST BIT INTELLIGENT, none of the movie would have happened, but that would have been a very boring movie. Weird that the stupid military is the United States military. I think the UK director was trying to get An interesting movie that isn't quite as good as the original, it is stick worth watching for the zombie/disease fans. Admittedly, if the military in the movie was the LEAST BIT INTELLIGENT, none of the movie would have happened, but that would have been a very boring movie. Weird that the stupid military is the United States military. I think the UK director was trying to get something across politically. Expand
  76. MattMcLovin
    Aug 22, 2007
    3
    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.
  77. CarsonB.
    Aug 22, 2007
    2
    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.
  78. MathewB.
    Jul 8, 2007
    3
    Huge Plot holes, and too much camera ramping ruin what begins as a promising sequel. A few o.k. set pieces, but logic gaps, uninteresting characters, and a poorly exacuted sermon hurt this film.
  79. WaltB.
    Jul 5, 2007
    2
    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 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
  80. JohnL.
    Jun 24, 2007
    8
    Better than the original, 28 Weeks Later provides a new twist to the zombie genre by examining what happens after the initial insanity when society is trying to rebuild itself. The kids do a great job, and the ending is uncompromising to say the least.
  81. JulzJ.
    Jun 17, 2007
    3
    Half the movie was pitch black couldn't see jack sh!t.
  82. PaulK.
    Jun 15, 2007
    8
    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.
  83. JonasH.
    Jun 14, 2007
    7
    I liked it relatively. Pretty scary. And yet again, good music.
  84. KyleW.
    Jun 13, 2007
    3
    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 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
  85. AdamF.
    Jun 13, 2007
    10
    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.
  86. MelissaC.
    Jun 12, 2007
    10
    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.
  87. JayK.
    Jun 9, 2007
    7
    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.
  88. MarkD.
    Jun 9, 2007
    7
    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 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
  89. LOL
    Jun 9, 2007
    2
    Although I'm usually able to sit through movies like this and stand up at the end thinking my time wouldn't be spend in comatose, this movie was an exception. The characters didn't engage me at all, and above all there was absolutely nothing original about this movie. *SPOILER WARNING* As soon as we discovered the kid was immune, the entire plot was obvious, absolutely Although I'm usually able to sit through movies like this and stand up at the end thinking my time wouldn't be spend in comatose, this movie was an exception. The characters didn't engage me at all, and above all there was absolutely nothing original about this movie. *SPOILER WARNING* As soon as we discovered the kid was immune, the entire plot was obvious, absolutely linear bloodbath. [***END SPOILER***] Honestly its just fancy gore effects combined with lots of (annoying) flashing lights to scare the hell out of you, no meaning or worth behind this movie. Didn't expect much, got far less. Expand
  90. MichaelS.
    Jun 8, 2007
    8
    Solid, scary and completely absent of one second of humor, which is a good thing. Zombies are serious business and 28wl serves it up hot and exciting. Who will direct 28 Months Later??!!
  91. AnneW.
    Jun 8, 2007
    10
    Excellent. I saw it a week ago and I;m still thinking about it. Definitely recommend it for anyone who likes suspense!
  92. FXT
    Jun 5, 2007
    7
    It's a good movie to watch but it's a little mindless at the starting and it get GORY around the middle to the end, The thought of the Us helping UK repopulate is a weird way to show on how the whole gov. is trying to control so many other country's without theirs approval sometimes. As for the actual virus, it doesn't make all that much sense since the starting but is It's a good movie to watch but it's a little mindless at the starting and it get GORY around the middle to the end, The thought of the Us helping UK repopulate is a weird way to show on how the whole gov. is trying to control so many other country's without theirs approval sometimes. As for the actual virus, it doesn't make all that much sense since the starting but is still a good zombie movie... EXPLODING HEADS! Expand
  93. Isaac
    Jun 3, 2007
    9
    Excellent follow up to 28 Days Later. Very exciting, lots of gore, awesome. Left me completely satisfied.
  94. RobertI.
    Jun 3, 2007
    7
    Really scary vision of a dystopia.
  95. 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?
  96. JasonJ.
    Jun 1, 2007
    9
    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 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
  97. EmilyD.
    Jun 1, 2007
    10
    Awesome movie, everything I expected and more.
  98. RyanP.
    Jun 1, 2007
    9
    Great sequel, but some will say that the original is better. I like the action though, and the atmosphere is still tense throughout.
  99. TerryO.
    May 31, 2007
    9
    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"!
  100. NikM.
    May 31, 2007
    9
    Very...Very frightening. It reaches its goal of sccaring you and then some. After I saw movies like Land of the Dead, Resident Evil, Dawn of the Dead, and 28 Days Later ( all of which i liked) i classified zombie movies as action, not horror. After seeing this beast, it put zombie movies right back up in horror. Part of the movies horror though, comes not from the pictures, but from the Very...Very frightening. It reaches its goal of sccaring you and then some. After I saw movies like Land of the Dead, Resident Evil, Dawn of the Dead, and 28 Days Later ( all of which i liked) i classified zombie movies as action, not horror. After seeing this beast, it put zombie movies right back up in horror. Part of the movies horror though, comes not from the pictures, but from the loud, sharp and scary sound. Also, the movie seems to have absoulutley no sympathy for any character. A must see for horror movie lovers. 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.