28 Weeks Later
Fox Atomic | Release Date: May 11, 2007
6.9
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 548 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
362
Mixed:
111
Negative:
75
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
9
TerryO.May 31, 2007
Great portrayal of a worst-case infectious disease outbreak. Although some of the science/public health was a little off, for the most part it was outstanding. Outstanding cross between "Outbreak" and "Dawn of the Dead"!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
PaulK.Jun 15, 2007
I thought this was going to be rehash, but after seeing the reviews, I took a chance. In some ways this is predictable, but the plot device that fuels the story and the potential for sequels is plausible and a great direction to go with this I thought this was going to be rehash, but after seeing the reviews, I took a chance. In some ways this is predictable, but the plot device that fuels the story and the potential for sequels is plausible and a great direction to go with this franchise. The very last scene should have been edited out, since the subtle and more effective cliffhanger had already been established.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
RandyMOct 11, 2008
28 Weeks Later is dark. Beyond dark. It's a movie lover's masochistic nightmare. But it's shocking, intelligent, and will leave you utterly exhausted by the time your finished watching it. The movie gives you almost no time to 28 Weeks Later is dark. Beyond dark. It's a movie lover's masochistic nightmare. But it's shocking, intelligent, and will leave you utterly exhausted by the time your finished watching it. The movie gives you almost no time to relax and cleverly instills a sense of panic throughout. Brilliantly concieved and more than worthy to sit among the few top-tier horror films.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DanLNov 27, 2009
Absolutely phenomenal. I enjoy this movie considerably more than the first one. The acting was believable, and the special effects definitely worked to convey the gritty, horrific reality of the subject matter.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
A.NonymousNov 15, 2007
Grim, brutal, fast-paced but, most importantly, believable. This is what makes a zombie movie great. More harrowing than it's predecessor, but definetely addresses some of the issues that plagued 28 Days Later. The only negative is that Grim, brutal, fast-paced but, most importantly, believable. This is what makes a zombie movie great. More harrowing than it's predecessor, but definetely addresses some of the issues that plagued 28 Days Later. The only negative is that it's extremely depressing; even Days had a happy ending. An excellent movie, the only things critics can moan about it are technicalities. Honestly people, if you can't give a well-balanced review don't review at all.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
NF123Aug 24, 2010
Where 28 days later had subtly 28 weeks later has explosions, however it's a decent turn for the franchise. it's not as suspensful as the original but that doesn't mean it's not as good. OK the militaristic themes basically boil down to "USWhere 28 days later had subtly 28 weeks later has explosions, however it's a decent turn for the franchise. it's not as suspensful as the original but that doesn't mean it's not as good. OK the militaristic themes basically boil down to "US army=bad :(" and it had been done much better by Danny Boyle himself, however that doesn't mean Characterisation is sacrificed and at the end I did care about what happaned. It also helps that all performances are excellent and while its a bit cliched to cast the attractive young women (Rose Byrne) as a doctor her performance is so convincing it works! My personal rule to this is while 28 days later is creepy after the first time you've seen it you won't really jump, 28 weeks later is a lot more rewatchable and feels a bit more like a Zombie film as opposed to 28 days later which felt like a drama that happaned to feature zombies.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
MetalMan95Dec 3, 2010
Effective sequel. The action, gore, and story is quite good. Jeremy Renner definitely shines as the best actor in this. And it does set itself up very nicely for a sequel. With a good film, with a good sequel, i would watch the next one. NotEffective sequel. The action, gore, and story is quite good. Jeremy Renner definitely shines as the best actor in this. And it does set itself up very nicely for a sequel. With a good film, with a good sequel, i would watch the next one. Not a must see, but its a good time.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
NeelyryMar 21, 2015
One of the greatest zombie movies ever made. I feel like 28 days later may have been slightly better, but the opening scene of this movie is easily the greatest moment in the two combined. If you like zombies you owe it to yourself to see this movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
TheQuietGamerJun 1, 2011
A fantastic sequel, it has a lot of tense moments, a lot of enjoyable new characters, my only complaints are that it starts of slow, and that the ending is a little confusing, but the atmosphere, and the jaw dropping moments make this a mustA fantastic sequel, it has a lot of tense moments, a lot of enjoyable new characters, my only complaints are that it starts of slow, and that the ending is a little confusing, but the atmosphere, and the jaw dropping moments make this a must seee for fans of the first movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
buzerOct 6, 2011
First scene was amazing, best i've sen in long time in all horror movie. Too bad rest didn't keep up with it, it could have been on of the greatest movies of all time. Still solid 7 from me
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
JoseRochaPTOct 3, 2011
Another fantastic sequel. Everything is new, there are new "scares", and ways of doing so. The environment is completely amazing, the story itself captive as I said in criticism of the earlier film is a film that deserves a sequel. For all IAnother fantastic sequel. Everything is new, there are new "scares", and ways of doing so. The environment is completely amazing, the story itself captive as I said in criticism of the earlier film is a film that deserves a sequel. For all I know there will be a sequel that will be called 28 months later and is scheduled to launch in 2013.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
DerekKentNov 21, 2011
It was a decent film. It definitely wasn't as powerful as "28 Days Later". I didn't really care for the main character being a little kid. To me, he wasn't even really a character, he seemed to have been put in just because the directorIt was a decent film. It definitely wasn't as powerful as "28 Days Later". I didn't really care for the main character being a little kid. To me, he wasn't even really a character, he seemed to have been put in just because the director wanted him to. Other then that, it was an okay movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
potatoes351Aug 13, 2012
Danny Boyle made the great 28 Days Later in 2002. Now 5 years later Juan Carlos Fresnadillo takes the reigns of this very human focused franchise. Though the film is now more action focused and lacks the amazing suspense and emptiness of theDanny Boyle made the great 28 Days Later in 2002. Now 5 years later Juan Carlos Fresnadillo takes the reigns of this very human focused franchise. Though the film is now more action focused and lacks the amazing suspense and emptiness of the original it makes its own place in the franchise. After a heart pounding opening with an infected attack on a farmhouse the setting swiftly moves to London which is now being repopulated with British citizens by the US army. However things quickly go down the **** and the infection breaks out again. Two young siblings and their US army guardians must now make their way across the infected regions of London in hope of rescue. Bloodier, gorier and better then its predecessor in nearly every way.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
survivorfan989Jan 20, 2013
Possibly one of the best zombie films out there and better than the first film. The Brits do it a little different to anyone else but in a way that really works. Lead by a great cast with likable characters also. It was very interestingPossibly one of the best zombie films out there and better than the first film. The Brits do it a little different to anyone else but in a way that really works. Lead by a great cast with likable characters also. It was very interesting watching Don's transition from human to infected and following his story as well as the kids. Quite a few jumpy bits also I might say and it's very 'in your face' as far as Horror films go. Overall impressive film and up there as one of the best zombie flicks!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
JohnnyStephensAug 31, 2013
Excellent!! Scary and shocking as the first one. I really like zombie films, and this one is one of my favourites!! Bravo!!!! Do not miss it!!! Brilliant!!
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
talisencrwJul 21, 2016
This was a very good sequel to a fine zombie work (my favourite zombie film is STILL Jean Rollin's remarkable and extremely aesthetically-pleasing 'The Grapes of Death'), and I was very pleasantly surprised. Pardon the pun, but you wouldThis was a very good sequel to a fine zombie work (my favourite zombie film is STILL Jean Rollin's remarkable and extremely aesthetically-pleasing 'The Grapes of Death'), and I was very pleasantly surprised. Pardon the pun, but you would think that by this time, everything in the land of zombie movies would have been done to death, but I remain consistently admiring of just where the best and most thought-out renditions of the template can go. In THIS case, the most intriguing dynamic is a cowardly husband choosing his life rather than helping his wife out of a horrible crisis, then infanticide (or worse) of his own children, rather than face their wrath over the poor decision he had made.

It's interestingly hilarious that when you think about it, humanity is doomed because a 12-year-old had to go back and get a picture of his mother, because he was afraid that without it, he would forget what she looked like...A surprisingly satisfying work, that for horror fans, is worth a purchase and rewatching. I'm admittedly more for classic films, from the 20's to 60's, but for contemporary horror cinema, I liked this a lot, especially Jeremy Renner and Imogen Poots. It's no surprise to me that they soon became superstars.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Meth-dudeJun 10, 2015
This sequel of 28 days later is better in every way.More gore,better acting and better action scenes.The story was kind of basic and predictable and some of the characters decisions were stupid but,overall,the movie is good.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
SliminSep 27, 2014
Perfect correlation of horror and drama. Sound by J. Murphy, play by C. Murphy and own by Boyle on high quality level. I have my top movie list and this movie of course is in that top-list.
One of best horrors of all times.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
SiAScORCHNov 5, 2014
This movie isn't as good as the first one, but it has a great story line as the infection battle has claimed to be nearly won. Then you get some amazing twists and you get to see how different characters adapt to different situations. It'sThis movie isn't as good as the first one, but it has a great story line as the infection battle has claimed to be nearly won. Then you get some amazing twists and you get to see how different characters adapt to different situations. It's definitely worth watching, but you must watch the first one in order to enjoy the second one as much as I did. It's also kind of sad at some parts, but I won't spoil it for you.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
TheFilmDoctorMar 22, 2016
28 Days Later was a traditional British science-fiction/horror movie with added smarts and innovative style. This sequel extends the story in intelligent, suspenseful ways. Simply because it’s a ‘part two’, it isn’t as fresh, but enough28 Days Later was a traditional British science-fiction/horror movie with added smarts and innovative style. This sequel extends the story in intelligent, suspenseful ways. Simply because it’s a ‘part two’, it isn’t as fresh, but enough changes are rung to stop it feeling like a remake. Like Aliens, it ups the action scale by bringing in Yanks with big guns, which — as George Romero has often shown — means even more peril for ordinary folks caught between plague and the authorities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“28 Weeks Later” is not for the faint of heart or the weak of stomach. It is brutal and almost exhaustingly terrifying, as any respectable zombie movie should be. It is also bracingly smart, both in its ideas and in its techniques. The last shot brought a burst of laughter at the screening I attended, a reaction that seemed to me both an acknowledgment of Mr. Fresnadillo’s wit and a defense against his merciless rigor.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
alejandro970Apr 23, 2017
Preserves the overwhelming and vertiginous atmosphere of previous directed by Danny Boyle, with a higher dose of gore and adding claustrophobia. John Murphy score does enough of acelerate the pulse, and the epilogue is schivering. (28 months later?)
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
LoletinAlexisNov 1, 2020
28 Weeks Later, different from the original, but enhancing its disastrous message.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
DeepKamateApr 1, 2018
I know this is not the most popular opinion among the public, but I believe that "28 Weeks Later" is even better than the first film. It's more intense, it has more interesting plot, it has a more great setting and it's just much moreI know this is not the most popular opinion among the public, but I believe that "28 Weeks Later" is even better than the first film. It's more intense, it has more interesting plot, it has a more great setting and it's just much more terrifying. Is it has more stupidity in it too? Yeah. But the atmosphere and the ending is much stronger than in the original. I know that "28 Days Later" was a breakthrough for the genre of zombie movies, to some extent, but "28 Weeks Later", in my opinion, did everything the same, but did it better.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
geewahJan 12, 2021
A worthwhile sequel.
An opening sequence that is as powerful as that of the original.
A tight and well made horror/thriller.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
next
Page:
More From This Movie

78 Critic Reviews

6.9 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 77 Project Hail Mary
2 75 Send Help
3 73 Hoppers
4 72 The Sheep Detectives
5 68 Crime 101
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL