Show More...


need 28 months later, but it doesn't look as it will happen; as Doyle is not interested in carrying this film any further as I've read online...
This is a B-movie delight. Forget the idea that's it a sequel to 28 Days - it isn't really. It happens to live in the same linear universe but it's a different film. It doesn't have the pretense of the Boyle film but it does have the always solid Jeremy Renner and the benefit of the strong 28 Days pretext as a starting point. If you're looking for good B-movie entertainment and can avoid comparing to 28 Days, you'll enjoy it.
3/10 boring it makes no sense, i don't recommend this movie.
Not a terrible movie but, not that good either. My biggest complaint was the excessive use of unsteady/shaky cams, too much strobe effects, and some weird camera angles. The story had cohesion even though it progressed rather slow at times and was somewhat disjointed in how it bounced from character to character.

lacks realism doesnt have a good story and im still trying to work out what happened at the end!

Four years ago, a post-apocalyptic/survival horror flick shot inexpensively on digital video, 28 Days Later, became a stateside critical and commercial hit. Directed by Danny Boyle (the forthcoming Sunshine, The Beach, Trainspotting, Shallow Grave) and written by Alex Garland (the forthcoming Sunshine), The Beach), 28 Days Later helped to reinvent the undead/zombie sub-genre to reflect post-millennial angst about out-of-control scientific experimentation, mutated viruses, and violence as pathology or socio-pathology. That Boyle and Garland made sure to spend a significant part of their budget on blood and gore effects made 28 Days Later all the more easy for horror fans and even casual moviegoers to appreciate viscerally.

28 Weeks Later begins during the initial outbreak of the "rage virus." The blood-borne rage virus turns the victims into violent, homicidal automatons single-mindedly dedicated to transmitting the virus to the non-infected. A group of survivors, including Sally (Amanda Walker), Jacob (Shahid Ahmed), Geoff (Garfield Morgan), Karen (Emily Beecham), and a married couple, Don (Robert Carlyle) and Alice (Catherine McCormack), are waiting out the outbreak in a boarded up farmhouse. Don and Alice take small comfort that their two children, Tammy (Imogen Poots) and Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton), were in Spain on vacation when the outbreak occurred. The Infected attack the farmhouse, leaving Don the only survivor. He escapes on a single-engine boat and flees upriver, guilt-ridden by his inability to save his wife from the Infected.

Twenty-eight weeks later, a U.S.-led NATO force leads the first efforts to repopulate the British Isles, beginning with London. The American general on the ground, Stone (Idris Elba), watches the arrival of a group of expatriates, including Tammy and Andy, from a command post equipped with surveillance cameras. A medical doctor, researcher, and Army officer, Scarlet (Rose Byrne), also watches the arrivals, but she's concerned that bringing back children to England might be premature. Tammy and Andy are soon reunited with Don, who, in the intervening months, has risen to a position of prominence within the protected zone.

Eager to bring back family mementoes from their quarantined home, Tammy and Andy slip out of the protected zone. Andy finds a lone survivor living in the attic. Tracked to their home by an army unit in biohazard suits, Tammy, Andy, and the survivor are brought back to the protected zone. They're put into quarantine. Scarlet discovers that the survivor has been, in fact, infected, but carries a natural immunity to the rage virus that makes him or her immune to the virus. The immunity also makes the survivor a host and incubator for the virus. Within hours, the rage virus escapes, infecting soldiers and civilians alike, Tammy, Andy, Scarlet, and an army sniper, Doyle (Jeremy Renner), join up to escape the newly infected zone before General Stone calls in an air strike.

Working from a significantly larger budget, director and co-writer Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (Intacto) ups the blood, the gore, and the action content, most, if not all, of it gratuitous. Scenes involving the Infected are bigger in scale, as are scenes showing a desolate or semi-populated London. Fresnadillo does particularly well in one scene featuring a helicopter piloted by one of Doyle's army buddies, Flynn (Harold Perrineau), taking out a large swath of the Infected in an open field (a scene shot more imaginatively by Robert Rodriguez in his contribution to Grindhouse, "Planet Horror"). That's a net positive, but Fresnadillo indulges one too many times in shaky cam, strobing light action scenes that have unfortunately become de rigueur for the sub-genre.

While 28 Weeks Later starts off strong, giving Don surprisingly complex motivations for his actions later on, it turns out to be a bait-and-switch. Don isn't the hero. He's not an anti-hero. Don's actually not the lead character, just a catalyst for setting events in motion. Don's secondary to Tammy and Andy who become the lead characters when they return from Spain. Problem there is that neither character does much to push the story forward besides finding the survivor/virus carrier. From then on, they're either in quarantine or, when the rage virus escapes the medical facility, on the run. Since Tammy and Andy are children, it's not surprising that they end up deferring to the adults around them. Without a strong lead and little character development for Scarlet and Doyle, Tammy and Andy's eventual caretakers, it's hard to care for their survival.

Worse than Fresnadillo's inability to create a straightforward throughline with well-defined, active characters is Fresnadillo's over-reliance on coincidence or, to borrow a gaming term, plot hammering, to get 28 Weeks Later to where he wanted the story to go, from the early stages of repopulation to a new outbreak of the virus. Don doesn't just survive guilt-ridden over the loss of his wife, but six months later, he's living in the uninfected zone with complete access to high-security areas. Tammy and Andy decide to break the rules and leave the protected zone. They find a survivor who just happens to be a virus carrier. The virus carrier has a connection to Tammy and Andy that's as unbelievable as Don's miraculous escape in the prologue and his contrived rise to prominence to a position of authority that happens offscreen. To add insult to contrivance, the virus escapes and spreads through the civilian population with ridiculous ease.

28 Weeks Later starts off strong too when it comes to social commentary, e.g., the U.S. essentially occupying the British Isles with all the contemporary relevance that implies, then unsurprisingly drops the commentary for frenetic, gore-filled action scenes that ultimately signify nothing. Combined with migraine-inducing action scenes, a muddled, sloppy storyline, a slew of missed opportunities, and a sequel-friendly ending telegraphed a half hour in, 28 Weeks Later has little else going for it. With the exception of one or two compelling ideas or striking image aside, that's exactly right.
I'm a big fan of 28 Days Later. It's one of those movies you walk out of and say, "WTF just happened?" It leaves a lasting impression and you can recall certain scenes years later - like in the church, tunnel, and the infected dude chained up near the hanging sheets puking up blood.

When I walked out of the theater today after watching 28 Weeks Later, I didn't get that same feeling. I overheard the guy in front of me talking to his friend on his cell as we left the theater, "Just saw 28 Weeks Later... no, it was retarded." Well, I wouldn't go that far - but it was certainly missing something. Then it dawned on me, Cillian! He was the clincher in Days, a phenomenal actor who makes us care about Jim. Unfortunately, Weeks was clincherless.
When I first watched "28 Days Later" oh-so-long-ago, I never dreamed that there would be a sequel. After all, the infected were on their way out and Cillian Murphy and his gang were safe and happy as could be on the demolished island of Britain. You can imagine my surpise therefore when a month ago I saw a preview for "28 Weeks Later," a title that could not have been more self explanatory. I tried not to get my hopes up, but by opening day, I was pumped.

The movie starts out with a bang, taking off right where "28 Days Later" left off - infected people running rampant on the country and people vainly trying to escape. Admittedly a very impressive opening, with blood and limbs flying everywhere.
28 weeks later...and we find the US Military taking control of England's situation, in the usual American fashion: killing first, asking questions later (if at all). Supposedly, all of the infected people have starved to death, the island is clear and is in the process of reconstruction. At this point, we meet a pair of children who are meant to be Cillian Murphy's (sub par, and much less intelligent) replacement. With this character introduction, the movie starts to go downhill.
Through a series of completely infuriatingly illogical events - mostly on behalf of the incompetant military - the infection returns to the island and chaos ensues. The soldiers blow people up left and right, people are being bitten all over the place, and London is almost completely burnt to the ground. Somehow, these two children, their AWOL combatant friends, and (of course) an absurd number of infected manage to escape the flames. Thus, the last half an hour of the movie is spent in a bloody chase, with tons of people dying in new and exciting ways.

I am all for gratuitous violence in films, and I can't deny that "28 Weeks Later" was full of this (although, did we really need to see any more eye gorging? Come on...). However, I had a real issue that every problem in the movie occured thanks to "someone's" studipidy. Leave an infected person alone with no security? Sure! Walk around in pitch black unground tunnel with no lights? Great idea! So while I was certainly entertained while watching this sequel, I found it too absurd to be "scary." You're better off watching "28 Days Later" again - at least then you get to gaze at Cillian Murphy for ninty minutes.
Inferior to Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later, though not horrible. The film begins fine with the rebuilding of London but the subsequent action didn't really engage me. The social / political commentary about the failure of US forces in re-establishing order and their method of containing the infected also felt heavy handed. As recent zombie revival movies go, I much prefer Land Of The Dead.
Report a problem