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
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
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
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
7
ColbyS.May 12, 2007
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
RobertI.Jun 3, 2007
Really scary vision of a dystopia.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
FXTJun 5, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
BretG.May 14, 2007
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 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
ChadS.May 16, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
AriSTIdesZMay 17, 2007
Aside from a few plot holes and technical cop-outs; this was a pretty entertaining film with beautiful visual effects (i.e. day for night scenes with the survivors racing to the park.) Riddle me this: why wasn't the wife surveillenced Aside from a few plot holes and technical cop-outs; this was a pretty entertaining film with beautiful visual effects (i.e. day for night scenes with the survivors racing to the park.) Riddle me this: why wasn't the wife surveillenced by a football team of commandos? C'mon, this movie is better than that! She's left alone to be visited by a her repentful janitor man. Come now. Also, the handheld frantic camera technique. Get over it world. Don't get me wrong, it is effective but after a hour, it loses its aesthetic impact and the zombie seq comes across like a 'Cops' rerun. Gimme some widder shots, show the set and grasp me the physical choregraphy. Such as with the seq with detainees in the basement, it looked like some smeared spagehttii all over the screen. Pull back filmmakesrs, with a wider breath. The score, for being as repetitive as it was, drove the movie such as the first flick and does it very well. All in all, compared to most recent zombie/virsus plague flicks, this francishe is on track but no 3rd installment is necessary. Unless it called "28 yrs later" but that movie is already being made . . . um . . . 'Resident Evil: Extinction"… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
RichardH.May 20, 2007
A pretty entertaining but shallow affair. Some genuine frights, some cheap frights, a dodgy unrealistic plot but it is a Zombie film afterall... so it can probably be let off for that, kind of fell into the cliché of trying to get A pretty entertaining but shallow affair. Some genuine frights, some cheap frights, a dodgy unrealistic plot but it is a Zombie film afterall... so it can probably be let off for that, kind of fell into the cliché of trying to get every single London landmark it could into the film. Ultimately a bit too dumb to be as satisfying as the original.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
PaulMay 23, 2007
Pretty scary, but it's a horror movie so that's good. A better than I expected but some really dumb parts where you just want to ask the characters "hey, are you retarded or something???" like the underground part with the Pretty scary, but it's a horror movie so that's good. A better than I expected but some really dumb parts where you just want to ask the characters "hey, are you retarded or something???" like the underground part with the night-vision. Stop looking at the wall and look for some zombies!!! but overall a good horror movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
NikMay 26, 2007
28 Days Later was one of the most unique zombie movies ever made, focusing on how the survivors acted towards this crisis of the rage virus outbreak. 28 Weeks Later is a more generic zombie movie, focusing on the actual threat and the horror 28 Days Later was one of the most unique zombie movies ever made, focusing on how the survivors acted towards this crisis of the rage virus outbreak. 28 Weeks Later is a more generic zombie movie, focusing on the actual threat and the horror aspect of the story. But as the first one started out slow and gradually moved the plot along to greatness; this one starts out very strongly and begins to dragged the end. And when I say drag, I mean that as the upmost definition.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
SamSmithMay 8, 2007
I am not with the tremendous croud support for the first of these films. I found it to be annoying, silly and never very scary. However, this sequal was much better. It was the best horror sequel of the last 5 years at least. I enjoyed itI am not with the tremendous croud support for the first of these films. I found it to be annoying, silly and never very scary. However, this sequal was much better. It was the best horror sequel of the last 5 years at least. I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. 3.4 stars.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JonasH.Jun 14, 2007
I liked it relatively. Pretty scary. And yet again, good music.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
MarkD.Jun 9, 2007
In short, this is much the same as 28 Days but with a weaker plot, more action and less suspense. So, while the views of deserted London streets, arty camera work and super fast zombies/infected people are still impressive the originality In short, this is much the same as 28 Days but with a weaker plot, more action and less suspense. So, while the views of deserted London streets, arty camera work and super fast zombies/infected people are still impressive the originality and impact of 28 Days isn't there. It's action packed and entertaining but I preferred the suspense and tension of the first film. The biggest mistake this film makes, however, is zombifying the most interesting character half way through. After we lose Robert Carlyle's character I really couldn't care what happened the other protagonists as they had little depth or personality. I had no empathy or sympathy for the annoying kids, the preachy female doctor or the macho soldier. Having said all that it is still a good film and the beginning and conclusion are almost worth the admission price alone!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JayK.Jun 9, 2007
Better than I was expecting, though not really close to the first. Certainly does not have the layers or richness of the first film. The camera work was pretty good (from a layman's perspective), it was exciting. Pretty Hollywood Better than I was expecting, though not really close to the first. Certainly does not have the layers or richness of the first film. The camera work was pretty good (from a layman's perspective), it was exciting. Pretty Hollywood overall. Definitely a cash-in, but much better than most.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
SimonBOct 16, 2007
Read a lot of reviews about this movie and I'm appalled at how much people want to see reality nowadays. I mean, aren't you all tired of seeing reality shows on TV? Do you REALLY want that to translate into horror movies? Have Read a lot of reviews about this movie and I'm appalled at how much people want to see reality nowadays. I mean, aren't you all tired of seeing reality shows on TV? Do you REALLY want that to translate into horror movies? Have like, the cameraman really be in the movie, seeing the horror through his lens? A horror movie has to live with the horror factor. If you spend too much time going through the complexities, such as "The U.S. Army not being as dumb" as they are in the movie... Then you're gonna have a three (or more) hours long movie. A horror movie works when it's short, scary and makes you piss your pants. In my opinion, if people get turned off by the whole "Oh he gets through unnoticed" factor, then they just shouldn't watch horror movies. Even better, they shouldn't watch movies in order to be able to reflect on their eventless lives. It's a must-see for people that love movies just to watch movies, instead of being pseudo-intellectuals about it.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
KenH.Oct 23, 2007
Several really compelling scnenes make up for some of the logic gaps. This is a zombie movie after all so I'm not looking for a watertight plot. It seems some viewers didnt get the references to the USA occupation of Iraq with the Several really compelling scnenes make up for some of the logic gaps. This is a zombie movie after all so I'm not looking for a watertight plot. It seems some viewers didnt get the references to the USA occupation of Iraq with the military containment of London. That the containment fails from human ineptitude and lack of forethought is part of the point. Its interesting that so many say the first movie was better because that one had several plot problems too.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
TomO.May 16, 2007
Great cinematography! This sequel (with an entirely different creative team) was even better than the above-average original film. I got a little tired of the jumpy, hand-held panic scenes...but it's a zombie flick, after all. Best of Great cinematography! This sequel (with an entirely different creative team) was even better than the above-average original film. I got a little tired of the jumpy, hand-held panic scenes...but it's a zombie flick, after all. Best of all was the slow-building allegorical counterpoint to the frenetic action sequences. Great twisty ending.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
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
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
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
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
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
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
6
GDMay 27, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
AdrianG.Oct 14, 2007
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 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… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
AndrewGOct 23, 2007
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 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ConorB.Oct 30, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JasonP.May 16, 2007
This movie had soo much potential for being as great as the first, but no... they had to get lazy. Lazy in the sense where they didn't care about the movie making sense, they just wanted to make a quick thriller and feed off the profit This movie had soo much potential for being as great as the first, but no... they had to get lazy. Lazy in the sense where they didn't care about the movie making sense, they just wanted to make a quick thriller and feed off the profit that the first movie's fan base would garentee them. There were things about the movie that I really liked and then things I really hated. I liked the overall story line, and the atmosphere of the movie gave you chills just like the first. What I hated were all the holes in the movie and the god awful camera-shaking action scenes. I was loving the movie from the begining, but then the dumb directing and the scenes that made no sense started happening too frequently... then I just got to the point where I couldn't enjoy the movie anymore and could only notice the bad things that kept popping up. You'll love this movie if you can ignore all the bad things about it, or just can't notice them in the first place. I wanted this movie to be a 10 soooo badly!!!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
FrostNNov 16, 2007
Starts out ok, but quickly turns into a big mess. With the ratings this movie has gotten I was expecting so much more. This movie might be best for the people that really likes zombie movies or are fans of the first movie, but for the rest Starts out ok, but quickly turns into a big mess. With the ratings this movie has gotten I was expecting so much more. This movie might be best for the people that really likes zombie movies or are fans of the first movie, but for the rest of us, it's nothing special. Like the last Resident Evil movie, it's best to describe this movie as an action film, rather than a horror film, although you do have the violence and the blood, but that's basically it. The characters are totally uninteresting and you don't care about any of them, and certainly not the kids. This movie is ridden with lots of flaws, both in logic and in how things work in reality, but put all that aside, and it still isn't as entertaining as you would want it to be given the high rating. Conclusion: Not one for the big cozy movie nights, but ok to watch when you have plenty of time and just want to watch something.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DroogMay 17, 2007
28 Weeks later is not a bad movie in any way, but it suffers terribly when compared to the original. 28 Days Later was a masterpiece, a gripping and unexpected reinvention of the zombie genre. 28 Weeks Later had the chance to build on its 28 Weeks later is not a bad movie in any way, but it suffers terribly when compared to the original. 28 Days Later was a masterpiece, a gripping and unexpected reinvention of the zombie genre. 28 Weeks Later had the chance to build on its predecessor's mythology, but like other commentators on this post have mentioned, it falls into cliches and just plain bad directorial decisions. By following 8-9 various storylines, the film loses the tight narrative intensity of the original. It's really hard to care about the 20-odd characters in this movie. The movie also falls hards for the "Save the Children" boilerplate; that's when otherwise smart characters decide they must save the cute little children at all costs. Why would a Delta operator shoot other US soldiers to save a random kid? It's not realistic and it makes for bad movie-making. The unrelenting darkness of this film is also a bit much. Whereas 28 Days Later had that hopeful ending, 28 Weeks Later has no such breather. Everything goes to sh*t. Every decision is a bad one. The world as we know it is screwed. I hope Danny Boyle takes the reins back for the third installment, or at least hand it over to someone with better directing instincts than Fresnadillo.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ERG1008Sep 17, 2010
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 &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.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
GodotIsW8ing4UJan 12, 2013
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,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 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
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
6
Toasty87Jul 10, 2020
Was never going to beat 28 days later but it's a respectful attempt at a sequel.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
JacobBAug 7, 2008
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 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RobertT.May 13, 2007
The movie contained the elements of sacrifice, which were also present in the first one, where characters were having to turn and kill friends and family immediately, or leave them before they had even been infected. It has the element I The movie contained the elements of sacrifice, which were also present in the first one, where characters were having to turn and kill friends and family immediately, or leave them before they had even been infected. It has the element I love in horror movies of "rise above the fear that paralyses you, and do what you can with the circumstances you are given." The action and some of the settings like the "night vistion" scene in the this movie create for intense gripping action that can be appreciated by a thrill/ horror seeking audience. The difference I felt between the 1st and 2nd film, were that the characters were more developed in the first, and it had a simpler plot which made for less holes than the second more complex sequel. And the other huge thing was that at the end of the first one, characters that had not known each other, and were only willing to conditionally help each other if it were in the their own interest, became a family willing to look out for each other. At the end of the second one, the viewer is left with the depressing notion that the surviving characters, even though alive, are devoid of hope for the future and numb to the triump of survival. If you think this review is helpful, read "A Movie Critic" review below mine.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
TonyLMay 14, 2007
Disappointing! Any character that was remotely interesting was killed off. I was rooting for the zombies to kill the 2 brats. Plot holes that you could fly a C-5 through. I only give it a 5 because of the fire bombing sequence. CableDisappointing! Any character that was remotely interesting was killed off. I was rooting for the zombies to kill the 2 brats. Plot holes that you could fly a C-5 through. I only give it a 5 because of the fire bombing sequence. Cable or DVD only!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MaxL.May 11, 2007
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MarmaladeMay 12, 2007
28 Days Later is one of my favourite horror/ thrillers and I was hooked by the trailer for this. I mean, Robert Carlyle...the guy's a legend. He lifts any film he's in, even tripe like Ravenous. I wasn't even worried that 28 Days Later is one of my favourite horror/ thrillers and I was hooked by the trailer for this. I mean, Robert Carlyle...the guy's a legend. He lifts any film he's in, even tripe like Ravenous. I wasn't even worried that Danny Boyle and Alex Garland (original director & writer) were now "Executive Producers" (i.e. Danny wanted some cash while he directed the far superior Sunshine). The start of the film is awesome...without spoiling things there are some great ideas here. Then, about three-quarters the way through, it all turns to pap. Look for the bit with the helicopter...you'll know what I mean. There's some infected shoulder-mounted camera angles even the odious Uwe Boll would be embarrassed to use and an awful, awful homage to The Blair Witch Project of all bloody things. Juan Carlos Fresnadillo's ability to bend time should be commended - 28 Weeks Later seemed an hour longer than it was and by the end I just wanted everyone to get infected and/ or die. Is that the 'hidden meaning' I was meant to get?… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
AMovieCriticMay 12, 2007
Alright, I haven't seen 28 Days Later so I'm not comparing this to that. Keep that in mind. 28 Weeks Later was an extremely well-directed, very intense, very bleak, and very dreary horror movie with no hope in sight and nothing but Alright, I haven't seen 28 Days Later so I'm not comparing this to that. Keep that in mind. 28 Weeks Later was an extremely well-directed, very intense, very bleak, and very dreary horror movie with no hope in sight and nothing but endless darkness and despair. The director did a great job with this movie. The problem is....it is almost too effective for its own good. The movie's just completely depressing. I realize that was the point and the filmmakers did a great job with it, but I still go to movies to be entertained (even horror movies,) and this movie just didn't entertain. I honestly can't recommend it to people. Now...if you do go to movies to be depressed, then by all means, see this, because there's no hope in sight whatsoever for any of these characters and there are some really intense and scary moments in here. But it's a downer. It just isn't a movie I'd recommend to people. It's just so bleak and hopeless that it ended up not being enjoyable for me.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ChrisP.May 18, 2007
Pretty entertaining but is nothing compared to the original. The only part that came close was the beginning and then everything became a zombie movie cliche. 28 days reinvented the genre whereas this is just a follower.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DAMay 28, 2007
The opening scene is amazing but settles down after that. IN terms of horror and keeping you on the edge of your seat, the movie scores big time. However, the plot is somewhat contrived and most of it doesn't make sense or isn't The opening scene is amazing but settles down after that. IN terms of horror and keeping you on the edge of your seat, the movie scores big time. However, the plot is somewhat contrived and most of it doesn't make sense or isn't explained properly. The one-dimensional characters don't really help either. The ending was VERY random and most people in the theatre i was in were left saying "what the f***?"… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
PolybiusNov 5, 2010
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.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
grandpajoe6191Oct 19, 2011
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.
5 of 5 users found this helpful50
All this user's reviews
5
RegOzFeb 7, 2012
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 40Compared 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
3 of 3 users found this helpful30
All this user's reviews
5
kublay0880Dec 10, 2012
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..
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
5
mmyaingSep 28, 2014
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 tasteWell 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.… Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
5
MovieManiac83Apr 25, 2015
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 someAnother 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
JasonCDanielsNov 16, 2015
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If you want a surviving the zombie-apocalypse film, re-watch 28 Days Later. If you want a ho-hum preachy drama (at its core) with shoehorned in gore and violence, set in a recovering local apocalypse caused by zombies/infected, watch this film. It does an alright job in that regard. I wouldn't suggest paying more than $5 USD to own this, however.

Why? This was largely a dull uninspired drama with zombies and violence shoehorned in, merely passable writing, and decent acting. It has its moments, but they are few. The Romero-esque ending was a nice touch, but ultimately couldn't elevate this addition to the "28 Days Later" franchise from "so-so" to "good". This is a pity as there was a lot of very good source material to expand on from the first movie, much of which was left untouched in this one. While watching this movie, I felt as if it was a rehash of long debated topics, in ways that were none-too-original even for its time. It's not a bad movie to watch, however, it's just not great. It doesn't live up to the thrills and tension set in the first movie. And as many others have pointed out, among other things, the quarantine protocols were all but non-existent, making for a common-sense based break in immersion/suspension of disbelief, which ultimately proves a disservice to the moral/ethical questions this movie tried to raise.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
amheretojudgeJan 4, 2019
The Threat Has Been Wiped Out.

28 Weeks Later Fresnadillo's torch is unfortunately not illuminating as it was when Boyle passed it on. Although it ironically seems accurately titled, since each second spent in here seems like a big oldThe Threat Has Been Wiped Out.

28 Weeks Later

Fresnadillo's torch is unfortunately not illuminating as it was when Boyle passed it on. Although it ironically seems accurately titled, since each second spent in here seems like a big old drag. What it does get right is, the depiction of time driven by fluently that doesn't comes across too much news-y. But this sharp vision of the makers on the execution is barely the major factor in here, the narration that circles around the core material before hitting the point, is way too overridden to be affordable. Ironically, a film with a concept that thrives upon survival instinct and the thrills of the chase, is frankly too dull and slow to makes you sweat.

Let alone bedazzle you, it even fails to grasp your attention, the more the makers try to tighten the grip, the more the sand slips out. On its advantage, the structure is independent of any aspect of commercialism which gives it enough freedom to be fresh and raw. Neither the uncertainty of the antagonist and the threat nor the gore vision of the makers scares you and the primary reason to that is there is very little we care about them, the writers just aren't convincing enough to make us fall in their fairy tale.

And with a solution in his pockets in storyline, Fresnadillo never succeeds on bringing alive those words. Renner and Byrne feels the least of the protagonist themed character which is the ultimate trick that works. But on the other hand, Poots and Muggleton that ought to be the flip or turn of this magic too are left out to rot the viewers. The characters are so undercooked that even the innocence of the kid fails to fabricate the emotion with a bit of poignancy. 28 Weeks Later will definitely take more than weeks to pass by.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
JLauSep 23, 2020
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. American army thinks they've contained the virus so start bringing British refugees back into London from abroad but they can't even keep a couple of kids in the safe zone.… Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
5
HellHoleHorrorFeb 16, 2022
I didn't like how much it shook around. I thought that it was done just for the sake of doing it and heighten tension but really it made it look a bit poo and distractingly messy. The gore effects looked good. Really good sound. PerfectlyI didn't like how much it shook around. I thought that it was done just for the sake of doing it and heighten tension but really it made it look a bit poo and distractingly messy. The gore effects looked good. Really good sound. Perfectly matched the picture and had good direction. I wasn't too keen on the continuation of the first movie. It somehow didn't work that well. It relied too much on stupid character decisions and coincidence. Robert Carlyle pops up everywhere. Some good and bad points progress the series having changed it for the worse.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
PhillyDOct 19, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
NeilW.May 12, 2007
Corny, absurd, and predictable. Nowhere near the quality of the original.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MarcK.Jun 2, 2007
Didn't like the first one very much, but the critics said this one was even better! I'm not too sure about that. Lawrence Toppman's analysis from The Charlotte Observer pretty much encapsulates my thoughts on this film. I Didn't like the first one very much, but the critics said this one was even better! I'm not too sure about that. Lawrence Toppman's analysis from The Charlotte Observer pretty much encapsulates my thoughts on this film. I guess "28 Months" is going to be next, huh?… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JackNov 2, 2007
I actually expect very little plot coherence from horror flicks, still this film annoyed me. Not incredulous supernatural things, but just stupid things like a janitor having unsupervised, total access through a military quarantine facility I actually expect very little plot coherence from horror flicks, still this film annoyed me. Not incredulous supernatural things, but just stupid things like a janitor having unsupervised, total access through a military quarantine facility (under such times, no less) to get through the area with NO ONE noticing. And this scene is a fulcrum of the entire movie, if that gives you any sense of the weak writing. I can think of several more examples like that.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
BradC.May 25, 2007
Starts off good and heads down hill from there. Plot has holes you could drive a truck through. Very disappointing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
Delta_AssaultSep 28, 2011
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
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
4
EnsiMar 28, 2013
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,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 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
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
4
Tss5078Jun 26, 2013
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 wasIn 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
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
4
ScienceAdvisorMay 5, 2021
The script is 70% tropes and 30% convienence. Unlike the first movie, these are no longer people infected with rage. The virus now just makes them into super-zombies that are still alive without a functioning heart or any internal organs.The script is 70% tropes and 30% convienence. Unlike the first movie, these are no longer people infected with rage. The virus now just makes them into super-zombies that are still alive without a functioning heart or any internal organs. This is only made worse by the fact that if the main characters had just used a radio to communicate the fact that the children are VIPs, then the second half of the movie would have been completely different. The father's ability to magically track his kids is equally baffling in it's sheer convienence. Lastly, the nonsensical claim that a small group of infected are far more likely to spread to other countries, instead of that happening when 20 Million people were infected the first time around, is indicative of how much effort was put into this script.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
CoreGamer1408Aug 30, 2023
The movie should of been called 28 plot contrivances later? This movie does follow the same theme that the military are incompetent villains, but way overboard. The opening of this film was great and if the movie had of stopped after boatThe movie should of been called 28 plot contrivances later? This movie does follow the same theme that the military are incompetent villains, but way overboard. The opening of this film was great and if the movie had of stopped after boat scene? This would have been a classic short movie for sure.

The plot contrivance of the wife/mother escaping with "tell don't show" I so didn’t buy it. The second major plot contrivance to propel the whole movie was plain dumb. An infected patient was left unguarded and unmonitored so her husband could just stroll in a what should of been a high security military quarantine area. Oh yes how does the infected Father even track his kids all over the city? They was driving around in a car at one point. Dumb out of 10.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
MathewB.Jul 8, 2007
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.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
3
KeithJOct 20, 2007
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 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful
3
CH.May 28, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JulzJ.Jun 17, 2007
Half the movie was pitch black couldn't see jack sh!t.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JanJan 5, 2008
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. 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.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
EricS.May 12, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
GuyF.May 13, 2007
Pretty dire. Plot holes you could drive a tank through and inexplicable and unlikely character motivations. The blood and gore is wearily overdone and repetitive and moves from being initially shocking (great opening segment in the Pretty dire. Plot holes you could drive a tank through and inexplicable and unlikely character motivations. The blood and gore is wearily overdone and repetitive and moves from being initially shocking (great opening segment in the farmhouse) to predictable and ultimately collapses in to a bloody pool of nerd glee. Like so many recent horror films by the close you feel you've been watching the film segments that introduce a PS game. The cityscape shots were startling but, again, repetition dulled even these. Cool soundtrack though.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
KyleW.Jun 13, 2007
Not even close to as scary or fun as the first. "28 Days Later" was a fresh romp in the zombie movie category with characters I cared about, intense situations and the most frightening zombies in years. "28 Weeks Later" had lack luster Not even close to as scary or fun as the first. "28 Days Later" was a fresh romp in the zombie movie category with characters I cared about, intense situations and the most frightening zombies in years. "28 Weeks Later" had lack luster characters, a weak plot line and over the top use of shaky camera effects that almost caused vertigo. I can't remember the last time I checked my watch so often during a movie. This one is a rental at best.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
EldonOct 12, 2007
Um... it is NOT better than the original. In fact, I thought it sucked actually. At a point it just got so bad and stupid the whole illusion was lost. I'm stunned these guys are giving it 9's and 8's! Come on! You think this Um... it is NOT better than the original. In fact, I thought it sucked actually. At a point it just got so bad and stupid the whole illusion was lost. I'm stunned these guys are giving it 9's and 8's! Come on! You think this movie, compared with all the other really good ones out there through the decades, is almost a 10? NO, it absolutely is not.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
GregB.May 13, 2007
I seriously doubt a majority of people who liked this have seen the first one. I went to see 28 Weeks Later opening night and was appalled at the number of cliche's and predictable moments that abounded in the film. 28 Days Later was a I seriously doubt a majority of people who liked this have seen the first one. I went to see 28 Weeks Later opening night and was appalled at the number of cliche's and predictable moments that abounded in the film. 28 Days Later was a masterpiece in terms of suspense and really throwing out surprises. I was able to predict each chain of events in 28 Weeks Later and was praying that they would end the series, but they didn't. I think it was a disappointment, and would recommend that people maybe rent it, or borrow it, but definitely not buy it when it comes out. This is nowhere near the greatest scary movie ever and instead of a survival horror, they produced an action filled gore fest.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
KarlP.May 23, 2007
Starts off great, but when it gets to the meat of the movie is runs a little slow. The movie has huge plot holes! the first was way better. i wouldn't recommend to anyone. Big disappointment!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JohnB.May 24, 2007
This movie neither shocked me or kept me in suspense. It wasn't scary, it wasn't epic and its plot was shoddy. The jarring camera work did nothing for me. It gets bonus points for ultimately being a gore fest with plenty of action This movie neither shocked me or kept me in suspense. It wasn't scary, it wasn't epic and its plot was shoddy. The jarring camera work did nothing for me. It gets bonus points for ultimately being a gore fest with plenty of action but I felt it didn't pull off what it was meant to. Just know that going into this, you shouldn't expect any real substance unless you think that looking at London for an hour and a half is entertaining.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
MattMcLovinAug 22, 2007
Too high tech unlike the first. 28 Days Later blows this movie out of the water. 28 Weeks Later pushed trying to making better as the first with a lot more action and blood. Also, the guy who started it all, was everywhere the kids where in Too high tech unlike the first. 28 Days Later blows this movie out of the water. 28 Weeks Later pushed trying to making better as the first with a lot more action and blood. Also, the guy who started it all, was everywhere the kids where in the movie. Just poor.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
UnknownsockMay 1, 2011
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.
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
3
RoeylMay 19, 2012
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 thinkingSure, 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
8 of 9 users found this helpful81
All this user's reviews
3
LemonmanJan 2, 2014
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
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
2
LOLJun 9, 2007
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 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful
2
AaronK.May 10, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
ArjanD.Mar 29, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
mbluesMay 14, 2007
This film, is so preposterous, as to be totally ludicrous. Things happen, which are as likely as winning Lotto, five weeks in a row. The first film, was great, and made to seem totally possible and real. This film has a "plot", like a TV This film, is so preposterous, as to be totally ludicrous. Things happen, which are as likely as winning Lotto, five weeks in a row. The first film, was great, and made to seem totally possible and real. This film has a "plot", like a TV movie-of-the-week.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
WaltB.Jul 5, 2007
I liked 28 Days Later, and was hoping for an equally smart sequel, but instead got this contrived mess. Too many hand-held camera shots, gaping lapses in logic, a military failsafe strategy to stop a recurrance of the outbreak so flawed and I liked 28 Days Later, and was hoping for an equally smart sequel, but instead got this contrived mess. Too many hand-held camera shots, gaping lapses in logic, a military failsafe strategy to stop a recurrance of the outbreak so flawed and ill-conceived that it had to have the brainchild of Mr. Bush himself. I walked out after 70 minutes because I refused to have my intelligence insulted any longer.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
BryanN.May 14, 2007
Incoherrnt zombie attacks. When will they stop using the cliche fast cutting ramping shutter speed handheld shake-fest mess that poses for real filmmaking. makes me so mad. Let's bury this fad once ad for all!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JoeyG.May 24, 2007
Starts off mediocre, then gets bad, then gets mediocre again before completely coming apart at the seams. The camera work gets so distracting and irritating. It's as if the director realized he wasn't very good and so he tried to Starts off mediocre, then gets bad, then gets mediocre again before completely coming apart at the seams. The camera work gets so distracting and irritating. It's as if the director realized he wasn't very good and so he tried to hide it by shaking the camera violently for the entire film.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
CarsonB.Aug 22, 2007
horrible script filled with gaping holes and riddled with extremely illogical and implausible events. Had my hopes up but this movie was a total waste of time.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JudyNJan 19, 2008
Fairly awful. After watching this I didn't understand all the praise that this movie received about it being suspenseful and intriguing. The two points that this movie gained was due to the first few minutes of the movie in the Fairly awful. After watching this I didn't understand all the praise that this movie received about it being suspenseful and intriguing. The two points that this movie gained was due to the first few minutes of the movie in the farmhouse, but then becomes predictable and riddled with sentimentality and cheesiness. It felt like I was checking off a list of cheesy factors that needed to be fulfilled, what with idiotic rebellious children and somehow instead of being killed off, they must be protected. The ridiculous reason the infection began to spread, along with many skips in the plotline. Instead of the riveting story in the first movie that questions the basis of people's humanity in the face of a crisis, this one is basically a compilation of unrealistic human idiocy that's beyond hopeless.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
QvarNov 15, 2012
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
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
2
royphishoohJan 25, 2016
Extremely poor American follow-up to a classic British horror movie; proving that more is not necessarily better. Horrible performance by Robert Carlyle makes you reevaluate his acting in "Trainspotting"
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
1
JohnS.Nov 7, 2007
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 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful
1
DanS.May 26, 2007
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 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
RickA.May 18, 2007
Weak and please stop calling them zombies. They are not zombies!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
AlexG.Oct 31, 2009
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
BenM.May 13, 2007
[***SPOILERS***] This movie was terrible. i am fan of zombie movies, but in each there has to be stupid actions to drive the plot (ie someone acts like an idiot an screws up what would be a great plan); i can handle them in all the others.[***SPOILERS***] This movie was terrible. i am fan of zombie movies, but in each there has to be stupid actions to drive the plot (ie someone acts like an idiot an screws up what would be a great plan); i can handle them in all the others. this movie is totally driven on those stupid actions i mean c'mon! even the 28 weeks thing is incredibly stupid, to think that a section of a huge city could be totally cleaned of a virus in 28 weeks (especially one this terrifying); let alone one house, is just so unimaginable; and i'm sayin this for a ZOMBIE MOVIE! then it bashes the US Army, making them look like a bunch of retards, when the dad starts going thru the HQ the soldiers just lie down and let him eat them. The Delta Operator, for some unknown reason decides to cry and get emotional...and the "woman power" movement in movies is getting really old, i mean the only person in the movie with a headshot is a woman in the Medical Corps, the friggin Delta Operator didn't get one. and the wife/husband deal made me pull my hair out, the wife was dead meat, and i'm supposed to be angry at the husband? NO! and it for some reason the movie gets dramatic when they issue the "code red" (ohhhh God), i mean when there's friggin zombies on the loose it should be a no-brainer! this movie bashes the US Army, and Men in general. wow this movie is one of the worst i have ever seen.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
FallenStarJul 25, 2019
A poorly written zombie outbreak...again

This movie was pretty much horrendous to watch that I could barely pull myself through to finish it. The shakey cam is so annoying and awful, the characters themselves are boring without any bit ofA poorly written zombie outbreak...again

This movie was pretty much horrendous to watch that I could barely pull myself through to finish it.
The shakey cam is so annoying and awful, the characters themselves are boring without any bit of character development or personality. Generic through and through.
The scares are predictable, loud jump scare noises some of which are fake and drawn out.
The army...and the characters displayed in this world are so inept. Those infected have much more intelligence than the actual characters for sure.

That being said this movie had a lot of potential due to its setting. The fact that they tried to cover the situation after a zombie apocalypse can be really intriguing but it's so tough to follow and pay attention unless you stop thinking entirely about how this movie is gonna go.

The army having absolutely no one to guard an infected person while someone else is able to pass through pretty much everything is unfathomable. And afterwards that 1 infected person inside the heart of the army is able to pretty much summon an army of zombies for the movie to continue.

+ Nice setting, location

- Below average acting
- Horrible jump scares some of which are fake
- Forced plot through pretty much everything
- Chickens would survive better than these humans in this movie
- The army is absolutely inept at everything
- Unrelatable characters

There are many other zombie movies out there way better than this one. This is pretty much a waste of time.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
0
HarryG.Oct 26, 2007
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 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.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
0
PaulS.Nov 16, 2007
Take out the screaming and the bloody faces up against windows and what have you got, somebody drooling blood on to victim's face
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AudleyS.May 21, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
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