User Score
7.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 399 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 57 out of 399
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Oct 19, 2011
    5
    Newbie director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo sure knows how to give horror and fun using impeccably preposterous, over-the-top methods. However for "28 Weeks Later", that's how far the film is capable of bringing itself up to.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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..
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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!
  23. 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!
  24. MrSmith
    Nov 17, 2007
    8
    If you enjoyed the first you should enjoy this, I found the first to be more scary than this.
  25. GaryJ.
    Oct 11, 2007
    8
    Killing the Dead is Good.
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. 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
  30. 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.
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.