User Score
7.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 400 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 57 out of 400
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 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Jun 26, 2013
    4
    In 2002, Director, Danny Boyle re-invented the zombie movie with his groundbreaking film 28 Days Later. Many credit Boyle with the current zombie craze we enjoy eleven years later. What made that film so enjoyable was that at the time it was a story we hadn't seen in a long time and it was shot in a way that made it look like a much older film than it was. Five years later the studioIn 2002, Director, Danny Boyle re-invented the zombie movie with his groundbreaking film 28 Days Later. Many credit Boyle with the current zombie craze we enjoy eleven years later. What made that film so enjoyable was that at the time it was a story we hadn't seen in a long time and it was shot in a way that made it look like a much older film than it was. Five years later the studio wanted a sequel and Boyle wanted no part of it, knowing that it would never live up to the original and indeed it does not. 28 Weeks Later is a continuation of the story, which claims that all the infected had starved to death and that England is free of infection once again. People start moving back in to areas of the country that have been fixed up for them and which are protected by the U.S. Government. We are then introduced to a family which has been reunited. The film starts out with a tremendous action scene that was the only part of the film I enjoyed and the only part that is reminiscent of the first film. The terrific opening is followed by a long, sappy, family reunion and then by a sick person being found. From that point, literally within ten minutes hundreds of people are infected and the army is shooting everything in sight. How could zombies have starved in the first place, but more importantly how can so many people change, just like that, within ten minutes? It didn't make any sense at all, to make things worse, all dialogue and storyline ends at that point and the movie turns into one big gory chase scene without any substance whatsoever. As for the cast of this film, they did nothing to help the story. In the first film, Cillian Murphy was amazing and carried us through the low points, but here it's a cast of newcomers and unsuccessful character actors, who quickly bring the story to a halt. I was looking forward to seeing this film, but not only doesn't it compare to the first film, but it doesn't even live up to the broad genre it is exposing us to. The cast was sloppy, the direction was confusing, and worst of all it just doesn't make any sense! 28 Days Later was groundbreaking, but it's sequel is nothing more than an over-hyped movie that never should have been made. Expand
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  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. 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
  10. 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..
  11. 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.
  12. Jan 16, 2011
    8
    A terrific movie dealing with the moral problem of utilitarianism: sacrifice a few to save many?
  13. 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!
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. ColbyS.
    May 12, 2007
    7
    Jarring and unpleasant, but still a good movie. The critics were wrong about it surpassing the first one, though, as this one lacks the sense of isolation that made 28 Days Later so effective.
  31. GD
    May 27, 2007
    6
    I guess I'm a believer in the axiom that "Less is More." Unfortunately, for "28 Weeks Later" more is less. The major problems with the movie-apart from the totally ridiculous quarantine standards the US-led NATO army has-is that there is no major character for the audience to follow. The female doctor and sniper are fine characters but their parts aren't big enough. The little I guess I'm a believer in the axiom that "Less is More." Unfortunately, for "28 Weeks Later" more is less. The major problems with the movie-apart from the totally ridiculous quarantine standards the US-led NATO army has-is that there is no major character for the audience to follow. The female doctor and sniper are fine characters but their parts aren't big enough. The little boy and older sister aren't strong either. This isn't to say that the movie is a complete loss. The first 15-20 minutes are incredible but that's essentially the first film, "28 Days Later." That being said, this film is still better than "Saw", "Hostel" or the latest Rob Zombie offering. Expand
  32. 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.
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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.
  37. Bruce
    May 12, 2007
    8
    Wow, i wasn't expecting much from this film, but it really delivered. I would say its just as enjoyable as the first film, but it definitely achieves this in different ways. Some things irritated a little bit, such as some fairly large plot holes, and a certain zombie popping up everywhere but you don't tend to notice them because of the pace at which the movie moves. A warningWow, i wasn't expecting much from this film, but it really delivered. I would say its just as enjoyable as the first film, but it definitely achieves this in different ways. Some things irritated a little bit, such as some fairly large plot holes, and a certain zombie popping up everywhere but you don't tend to notice them because of the pace at which the movie moves. A warning as well, this movie is incredibly violent. It makes the first film look g-rated in my opinion. I had one friend walk out 10 minutes in and another 3/4 of the way through. Expand
  38. ArthurC.
    May 24, 2007
    9
    Somehow manages to not only top the first one, but be a thoroughly original horror movie to boot. Something you don't see in sequels these days.
  39. ClareF.
    May 24, 2007
    9
    I thought this was fantastic, the effects are amazing and had me sitting on the edge of my sit, the use of children is smart as people will sympathize with them, the best movie I've watched in a long time.
  40. 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.
  41. RobertI.
    Jun 3, 2007
    7
    Really scary vision of a dystopia.
  42. 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
  43. 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!
  44. 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??!!
  45. 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
  46. 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.
  47. 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
  48. 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!
  49. MrSmith
    Nov 17, 2007
    8
    If you enjoyed the first you should enjoy this, I found the first to be more scary than this.
  50. GaryJ.
    Oct 11, 2007
    8
    Killing the Dead is Good.
  51. 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
  52. 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
  53. 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.
  54. jeffc.
    Oct 23, 2007
    8
    I really dug it. Gritty, great music, well done!
  55. 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
  56. 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.
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. Ryencoke
    May 11, 2007
    10
    This is how you make a sequel. One of the best most recent sequels to a movie I have ever seen. Aliens + Aliens = 28 Days Later + 28 Weeks Later. That's how I compare them. Such an awesome movie. Go see it.
  60. AugustusS.
    May 11, 2007
    8
    A lot better than I expected it to be. Very reminiscent of "Aliens" both in the kind of movie and in the levels of coolnes and quality. Scary, exciting, interesting.
  61. AnnaP.
    May 12, 2007
    9
    This was a thrilling, intense, and very good movie. I can't remember the last time I was quite as terrified in a movie theater. Several scenes, the kiss chief among them, were absolutely outstanding. I loved 28 Days Later too, but I think that overall this is a better movie. It is not quite as good as the first 1/3 of Days, but it is consistently better when taken as a whole. I This was a thrilling, intense, and very good movie. I can't remember the last time I was quite as terrified in a movie theater. Several scenes, the kiss chief among them, were absolutely outstanding. I loved 28 Days Later too, but I think that overall this is a better movie. It is not quite as good as the first 1/3 of Days, but it is consistently better when taken as a whole. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes the genre. If you don't like horror, don't bother. If you do, run - don't walk - to the theater. Don't get bitten. Expand
  62. BlancoAlegua
    May 13, 2007
    9
    Simply an outstanding film. By way of background, I'm a fan of the zombie genre. The pinnacle of the genre is the original "Dawn of the Dead," though I was pleasantly surprised by how good the remake was. On the other hand, I was hugely disappointed by "28 Days Later..." Seems tough be believe that a zombie flick could bore me, but I was bored to tears by pretty much the entire secondSimply an outstanding film. By way of background, I'm a fan of the zombie genre. The pinnacle of the genre is the original "Dawn of the Dead," though I was pleasantly surprised by how good the remake was. On the other hand, I was hugely disappointed by "28 Days Later..." Seems tough be believe that a zombie flick could bore me, but I was bored to tears by pretty much the entire second half of that film. 28 Weeks Later had me riveted from the opening sequence through the credits. The writing is vastly superior to the first film, and the acting talent is night and day compared to the "Days." Cillian Murphy was clearly out of his element and couldn't carry the original. Roberty Carlyle was a great choice for this one, but it's really Rose Bryne as Scarlett the clear-headed scientist/doctor (from "Wicker Park" et al), Jeremy Renner as Doyle the compassionate soldier, and Idris Elba ("The Wire")/Harold Perrineau ("Oz") in smaller roles that provide the glue for this movie. The pacing and excitement is just leagues ahead of the first film. And sure, it's gory as hell, but what else do you want?? This is the year of the helicopter, apparently. You've gotta love it. Expand
  63. SeanW.
    May 14, 2007
    9
    Simply stated, 28 Weeks delivers in a big way. I had two criticisms, though they don't prevent the film from being highly enjoyable. First, the principle characters in the film are little more than victims, and I was never attached to them the way I was in the original film. My favorite characters were the guardians and subcharacters that appeared throughout the film, and most of Simply stated, 28 Weeks delivers in a big way. I had two criticisms, though they don't prevent the film from being highly enjoyable. First, the principle characters in the film are little more than victims, and I was never attached to them the way I was in the original film. My favorite characters were the guardians and subcharacters that appeared throughout the film, and most of them are killed. Secondly, the director was compelled to recreate the horror of the infected that was discovered during the first movie, undoubtedly for those who never saw the original. However, I think he ventured slightly into the realm of overkill. There were too many visually disturbing images. I felt every scene in the original belonged there, while I'm not convinced the same case existed for the sequel. The rest of my comments are all positive. The same maoral dilemmas exist in the sequel that did in the first. The movie opens with a husband and wife being trapped by the infected in a bedroom. The wife ignores the husband's urges to come with him, running instead to a closet to save a child. When the infected break in, she yells for him to help them and he must either slam and lock the door or run to his wife's aid. Clearly, in this type of environment, the traditional rules of behavior don't apply. What should he do? I also enjoyed analyzing the military's approach to containment, which involves considering whether to shoot uninfected civilians who are being chased by the infected. They are likely dead anyway and are potential infected themselves. At times, I found myself questioning their decisions, but after thinking about it, one tends to agree with them. Again, I enjoy the moral dilemmas faced by such terrible circumstances. Finally, the film ends with a few second clip of a tantalizing lead-in to a potential third movie. It also provides an instant lens regarding whether or not the actions of all the characters in the movie were wise or not. Go see it. It doesn't disappoint. Expand
  64. BretG.
    May 14, 2007
    7
    Horrifying. Some scenes are ridiculously brutal, bloody and terrifying. The acting isn't bad but its not award winning. The scenario in which 28 Weeks creates seems believable with the US Army losing control and it is 100 times better then 28 Days. This movie isn't bad, but it's not the best film thus far.
  65. BM.
    May 15, 2007
    9
    Solid. If you liked the first, you like this one.
  66. AaronK.
    May 10, 2007
    2
    After rewatching 28 Days Later and remembering just how much I liked it, I was thoroughly thrilled at seeing its sequel. I had high hopes for the follow-up to the original's smart, subtle, and engagingly human story of people thrown together by horror, trying to manage something more than sheer survival. The trailer for the new film offered intriguing visuals - hazard-suited workers After rewatching 28 Days Later and remembering just how much I liked it, I was thoroughly thrilled at seeing its sequel. I had high hopes for the follow-up to the original's smart, subtle, and engagingly human story of people thrown together by horror, trying to manage something more than sheer survival. The trailer for the new film offered intriguing visuals - hazard-suited workers pressure-washing S.O.S. messages off of London rooftops, military camps dedicated entirely to incineration of infected bodies - and the very interesting prospect of a rigidly controlled, meticulously planned and executed repatriation effort. That that effort had to be doomed to fail to make the movie work didn't matter - the consideration of just how humankind (and specifically, the American government and military) would handle such a situation and task (and its failure) is terrifically full of promise as a story element. Even as the inevitable outbreak began, we would get to see the multiple layers of contingency plans going into effect, each posing increasingly difficult challenges to the humanity of characters crafted with all of the care of the orignal's Jim, Selena, Frank, and Hannah. Surely the film would follow its predecessor's style and include the intriguing and humanizing stretches of relatively safe down-time, where the lack of immediate threat allowed the characters to become almost bored and to start to wrap their heads around the new reality. We were in for another strangely, compellingly quiet zombie movie, right? Yeah, you know where this is going. This is not an appropriate successor to 28 Days Later. Gone are the first film's subtlety and humanity. Gone are the carefully crafted characters and deliberate pacing. Gone is the well-written, internally consistent story and universe. In their place, we're given uninteresting, unsympathetic characters whose tiny hints at backstory and deeper motivation serve only to remind what the film should have been. The larger budget and profile of the film allowed for more and larger shots of abandoned, desolate London, but this time out, but like so many other elements of the film, their inclusion seemed more about "Look what we got to do!" than about conveying... well, much of anything at all. The gore and splatter have been ratcheted up by several orders of magnitude, yet both the original's creeping dread and flat-out run-for-your-life terror are nowhere to be found. Zombie movies are all about things spiraling out of control quickly, but in 28 Weeks Later, there's never a sense of control to begin with. Things just keep happening, with only the loosest sense of logic or reason to string them together. I'm sure a case could be made for the overwhelming incompetence of the military handlers of the situation as commentary on the competency of the U.S. government that so hugely bungled the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the repsonse to Hurricane Katrina, but the same commentary could have been managed in a way that didn't feel so much like "The Three Stooges Meet the Zombies." Where the first film made the viewer care intensely for the protagonists and feel their anguish and fear, this film's characters seem like excuses to string together more pointless carnage. See characters. See characters run. Run, characters! Run! See characters get mutilated in increasingly gruesome and over-the-top ways. Rumors have been flying about the "28" films becoming a franchise. I won't say that I'm dead set against ever seeing another film in this series. In the right hands, the next could still be interesting. I will say, however, 28 Weeks Later took all of my fondness and excitement for the first film and knocked it into a cocked hat. I went in chomping at the bit for more and came out feeling like the free screening had cost too much. The film is an inelegant, thoughtless mess that leaves all of its interesting possibilites unexplored and all of its huge potential lying dead in the streets of London. Expand
  67. JustinC.
    May 16, 2007
    9
    I'm not one for thrillers or horror movies, but this movie was pretty amazing. The first action scene was incredible with the horrible choice that Don had to make. Only outstanding flaw was how the dad could appear everywhere, mostly by himself.
  68. ChadS.
    May 16, 2007
    7
    Not since Lou Diamond Phillips gave some helicopter pilot the order to leave Meg Ryan behind in "Courage Under Fire" have we seen a man fail his woman so badly. What Don(Robert Carlyle) does to his wife(Catherine McCormack) is more shocking than any blood-gushing zombie feeding frenzy. Oh, but revenge is sweet, for a moment, and then it turns sour, very sour. Are Alice's actions Not since Lou Diamond Phillips gave some helicopter pilot the order to leave Meg Ryan behind in "Courage Under Fire" have we seen a man fail his woman so badly. What Don(Robert Carlyle) does to his wife(Catherine McCormack) is more shocking than any blood-gushing zombie feeding frenzy. Oh, but revenge is sweet, for a moment, and then it turns sour, very sour. Are Alice's actions premeditated? Rare is the ultra-violent scene that is filled with so much pathos. It's grisly, and heart-wrenching. Like Danny Boyle's "28 Days Later", the guy who made "Intacto" captures the desolation of an empty city that's somehow both sad and enthralling. It sort of looks fun to have London all to yourself. What makes "28 Weeks Later" more exciting than your usual mainstream offerings in which lives are suddenly cut short by some homicidal menace is the lack of big stars makes every character a candidate to be the next guy to be killed off. No A-listers; no hierarchy; thus anybody can be potential zombie food. Expand
  69. StephenM
    May 17, 2007
    10
    I was honestly blown away. 28 Days Later owned me...and this just couldn't have exceeded my expectations more. There is not a single optimistic moment in this movie- and it's glorious to see in a world where movies almost always acheive some happy ending. I was intrigued the entire movie and felt that it ended perfectly too- the director didn't bother to add too much or, I was honestly blown away. 28 Days Later owned me...and this just couldn't have exceeded my expectations more. There is not a single optimistic moment in this movie- and it's glorious to see in a world where movies almost always acheive some happy ending. I was intrigued the entire movie and felt that it ended perfectly too- the director didn't bother to add too much or, conversely, leave out some necessary things. 28 Weeks Later is well worth your money...and all of your friends' money too. Expand
  70. DanS.
    May 26, 2007
    1
    I'm surprised that so many critics here gave this one generally favorable reviews. Yet, one reviewer from the Charlotte Observer had it right: "But how much joy can one take in a movie that's mostly about people getting their faces chewed?"....If you want to be in a better mood afterwards, avoid this stinker.
  71. KennethM.
    May 27, 2007
    9
    Like the first movie, it combines absolute terror and panic with moral / ethical dilemmas. I love it.
  72. JoeShmo
    May 27, 2007
    9
    In a word, "intense". Once in a great while a movie will grip me and not let go. This was one of those movies. Yeah, there are a few gaps and "yeah, right" moments, but they stayed around for about a second before I was enraptured again. I thought it captivating to the point that the end of the movie came much too quickly.
  73. CH.
    May 28, 2007
    3
    I was very disappointed with this film; a sadness only deepened by the positive reviews I read afterwards. What did the critics see that I missed? I thought everything that made the first film amazing was taken away. The empty urban sprawl of London, replaced by sprawling cityscapes teeming with people. I found the bone-jarring and extremely shaky camera work, which I'm sure was used I was very disappointed with this film; a sadness only deepened by the positive reviews I read afterwards. What did the critics see that I missed? I thought everything that made the first film amazing was taken away. The empty urban sprawl of London, replaced by sprawling cityscapes teeming with people. I found the bone-jarring and extremely shaky camera work, which I'm sure was used to create a sense of panic and tension, was mostly irritating and kind of gave me a headache. There were a number of scenes requiring sardonic remarks, like the ubiquitous Zombie Zero who seemed to have the ability to be anywhere he needed to be. Despite being a brainless zombie, he was an expert tracker. The sequence in the Tube raised my ire, not my stress. The whole thing tried to be suspenseful, but it was all just shrill shouting and more annoying camera work. In the end, I couldn't care who lived or died. Expand
  74. SkylerW.
    May 30, 2007
    8
    A very good sequel, but not beter than the original. While the plot doesn't really advance much in new ideas, the film's simplicity is overcome by good acting and exceptional directing. It also manages to sustain terror and suspense throughout, making it quite the exciting viewing experience.
  75. 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
  76. Adam
    May 8, 2007
    9
    Brutal... raw... frantic... an absolutely mindblowing sequel to a brilliant first movie. Puts nearly all the action/suspense movies of the past year to shame, only to be matched by Children of Men. A must see movie.
  77. EmilyD.
    Jun 1, 2007
    10
    Awesome movie, everything I expected and more.
  78. JulzJ.
    Jun 17, 2007
    3
    Half the movie was pitch black couldn't see jack sh!t.
  79. 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.
  80. Isaac
    Jun 3, 2007
    9
    Excellent follow up to 28 Days Later. Very exciting, lots of gore, awesome. Left me completely satisfied.
  81. 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
  82. 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.
  83. 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
  84. 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.
  85. 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.
  86. 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
  87. 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
  88. 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.
  89. 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
  90. 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
  91. AntonioR.
    Oct 26, 2007
    9
    Amazing!
  92. ChrisK.
    May 11, 2007
    8
    "We have the answer to infection" or maybe not. I thought 28 Days later was one of the best horror movies in recent history. It was scary, it was sentimental and heartwarming too, and the story went places I didn't expect. 28 Weeks later is more of the same - just less heartwarming and more action. I'm pretty immune to movie violence and horror but did find the hairs on my neck "We have the answer to infection" or maybe not. I thought 28 Days later was one of the best horror movies in recent history. It was scary, it was sentimental and heartwarming too, and the story went places I didn't expect. 28 Weeks later is more of the same - just less heartwarming and more action. I'm pretty immune to movie violence and horror but did find the hairs on my neck standing up in one scene - that means it's working. Not one for the kiddies but if you like horror zombie movies this movie kicks! Expand
  93. K.O.
    May 11, 2007
    9
    Solid solid sequal. Does not disappoint. The one zombie popping up over and over is a bit lame but over all quite excellent.
  94. JakeB.
    May 11, 2007
    8
    Great great stuff, lots of action and the movie feels like it's only 20 minutes long. Although the ending is somewhat predictable, the path that gets you there is not at all. This is one of the only movies I have ever seen in which the main characters are not sacred and are just as susceptible to death as the rest of the characters. Great movie over all and can't wait for the next one!
  95. SonofsabuS.
    May 11, 2007
    9
    The trailers weren't that exciting but I was really impressed with the film. First 5 minutes grabs you by the throat and the director does a good job keeping his foot on the gas throughout.
  96. EricS.
    May 12, 2007
    3
    I usually agree with critics, but this movie was a complete letdown when compared with the superb 28 Days Later. Character development and a great plot are substituted for amazing, albeit un-original special effects and "intense" action scenes involving the camera being shaken around with no apparent direction. I suppose the pretentious filmmaking and splattering of gore are enough for I usually agree with critics, but this movie was a complete letdown when compared with the superb 28 Days Later. Character development and a great plot are substituted for amazing, albeit un-original special effects and "intense" action scenes involving the camera being shaken around with no apparent direction. I suppose the pretentious filmmaking and splattering of gore are enough for many viewers just looking for entertainment, but a move universally hailed by critics as better than the original should have more than that. See this film if you are looking for a mindless action movie with rehashed ideas that may strike a preteen as original, but everyone who is discerning as stale. Expand
  97. Robbo
    May 12, 2007
    9
    This was an excellent horror/thriller movie. Does anyone know who/what the source of the score is?? -- that piece that plays over and over again, sounds familiar but not sure, would love to know what it is and get the music thereof.
  98. NeilW.
    May 12, 2007
    4
    Corny, absurd, and predictable. Nowhere near the quality of the original.
  99. AndrewG.
    May 13, 2007
    10
    Easily the best scary movie I've ever seen. Much much better than 28 Days Later.
  100. BillyS.
    May 13, 2007
    8
    I consider the opening 15 minutes of 28 Days Later to be the most desperately intense set piece in cinema horror ever filmed, that said, the opening 15 minutes of 28 Weeks Later set in a boarded-up country house where 6 people await the inevitable return of the infected is almost as gripping. The same building and building electric guitar that John Murphy used in Days creates the same I consider the opening 15 minutes of 28 Days Later to be the most desperately intense set piece in cinema horror ever filmed, that said, the opening 15 minutes of 28 Weeks Later set in a boarded-up country house where 6 people await the inevitable return of the infected is almost as gripping. The same building and building electric guitar that John Murphy used in Days creates the same claustrophic tension here and the sight of Robert Carlyle's wife in the upstairs window is as foreboding as you can get, but then the story moves back to London and the repopulation of a "Green Zone" protected by the U.S. military in hopes of starting a new civilization. Fat Chance! 28 Weeks Later soon becomes a free for all kill anything that moves carnage without any of the eerily silence and stillness that was such a key in the first one. There are a few really great scenes in Weeks but as a whole it pales in comparison. 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.