Metascore
78

Generally favorable reviews - based on 34 Critics What's this?

User Score
7.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 364 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • Summary: 28 Weeks Later, the follow up to 28 Days Later, picks up six months after the rage virus has annihilated the Mainland Britain. The U.S. Army declares that the war against infection has been won, and that the reconstruction of the country can begin. As the first wave of refugees return, a family is reunited, but one of them unwittingly carries a terrible secret. The virus is not yet dead, and this time, it is more dangerous than ever. (Fox Atomic) Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 31 out of 34
  2. Negative: 0 out of 34
  1. A ferociously entertaining thriller with sympathetic characters, stunning set pieces and pulsating excitement.
  2. There's no better fun for movie lovers than a small, unheralded film that turns out to be terrific -- unless it's a small, unheralded sequel that trumps the original.
  3. Reviewed by: Erin Meister
    88
    The script is biting and timely.
  4. Reviewed by: Grady Hendrix
    80
    The first hour of this lean, mean, 95-minute scream machine is so tasty that it redeems the predictable conclusion.
  5. Holds the audience captive and unusually vulnerable to psycho- and viscero-terror.
  6. Reviewed by: Glenn Kenny
    75
    A gruelingly tense, deftly plotted, and slyly intelligent piece of work. And also it's really really disgusting.
  7. Deals with emotional concerns for half an hour. Then it turns into a mindless bloodfest, where it's impossible to care which characters end on the zombie gore-gasbord.

See all 34 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Negative: 36 out of 177
  1. 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 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. Collapse
  2. ZachB.
    May 14, 2007
    10
    28 Weeks is superb in the way it moves from Zombie film to allegory. There is a coldness and something that haunts the mind when you see the military occupation of ravaged London--now a city of the dead. Expand
  3. 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 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
  4. 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 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
  5. 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. Expand
  6. MaxL.
    May 11, 2007
    5
    First half was pretty good. Second half was pretty mindless and stupid. Not nearly as good as the original. It's too bad because the premise held lots of potential to be great. Expand
  7. AudleyS.
    May 21, 2007
    0
    The opening is astounding, but this terrifying rush soon turns into a plodding and implausible plot in which the characters are little but tired emotional stereotypes and are frankly so negligent and stupid that they all deserved their brutal fates. The infra red scene in the underground station was an unintentional high comedy homage to "most Haunted" and what started off as grim horror ended up as pure farce. The basic premise is the biggest hole in the plot. Stupid, unintentionally funny and a damned shame. Expand

See all 177 User Reviews

Trailers

Related Articles

  1. Ranked: The Best Horror Films Since 2000

    Ranked: The Best Horror Films Since 2000 Image
    Published: October 28, 2010
    From Sam Raimi's "Drag Me to Hell" to more comedic efforts like "Shaun of the Dead," the past decade has seen a number of solid new entries in the horror canon. We run down the 15 best-reviewed horror movies from the past ten years.