heyflp

6/10

Carrying the weight of being the sequel to a cult classic, “28 Weeks Later” tries to reinvent itself rather than just repeat the original formula. The directing baton passes from Danny Boyle to Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, who brings a more brutal and hopeless approach, keeping the frantic visual style but ramping up the scale of the catastrophe. The idea of exploring what happens after the worst part of the outbreak is a smart move, since few zombie or infected films tackle this post-apocalyptic recovery phase. However, some questionable choices in execution weaken the overall impact, keeping the movie from reaching the intensity of the first one. The setup is intriguing: 28 weeks after the rage virus wiped out the UK, the country is in the process of being rebuilt with the help of the U.S. military, which has established a safe zone in London. People are starting to return, including siblings Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton) and Tammy (Imogen Poots), who reunite with their father, Don (Robert Carlyle), a man burdened by unbearable guilt for abandoning his wife to save himself. This emotional layer is a great touch, adding a human and tragic perspective to the story—but unfortunately, it gets pushed aside as soon as the chaos kicks off again. Fresnadillo does a solid job building atmosphere. The opening sequence, with Don and a group of survivors hiding out in a countryside house, is electrifying and proves that even after all this time, the infected are still a terrifying threat. The moment where Don faces an impossible decision—stay and die with his wife or run and save himself—carries genuine emotional weight. But when the script tries to turn this personal tragedy into the driving force behind a new outbreak, things start to fall apart. The virus returning through the kids’ mother, who carries a rare immunity and is a walking reservoir for the infection, sounds like a good idea on paper, but the execution forces too many coincidences, stretching believability. The action sequences are intense and, at times, brilliant. The stadium attack scene, where the safe zone collapses in a matter of minutes, perfectly captures the sheer helplessness of an uncontrollable outbreak. The chaos of the evacuation—military forces unable to distinguish between civilians and infected, resorting to extreme measures—creates a brutal, all-too-real tension. The moment when London is firebombed to contain the new wave of infection is a striking image, reinforcing that the only viable response is total annihilation. And that’s where “28 Weeks Later” sets itself apart from its predecessor: while the first film followed characters struggling to survive the end of the world, this one shows that the real horror isn’t just the virus—it’s how humanity deals with it. The problem is that, to get to this point, the script leans on lazy solutions and characters making absurd decisions. Turning Don into some kind of “super-infected” who obsessively hunts his kids across the city, as if he has selective memory, is a prime example. In the first movie, the infected were pure, mindless rage, with no strategy or goal beyond attacking. Here, the script forces an emotional connection between Don and his children even after he’s turned into a mindless monster, which doesn’t make sense based on the rules previously established. Another questionable choice is how much the movie leans on Andy and Tammy as the driving forces of the plot. They’re not only the only kids in post-apocalyptic England, but also the ones responsible for triggering the new outbreak, surviving every impossible scenario, and—on top of all that—potentially holding the key to a cure. This kind of “special child” trope rarely works in disaster narratives, and this is no exception. It weakens the impact of events because everything revolves around convenient coincidences, undermining the brutal realism the film tries so hard to establish. That said, “28 Weeks Later” still has its strengths. The soundtrack, once again using the iconic theme from the first movie, amplifies the sense of urgency and despair. The cinematography keeps that gritty, documentary-style feel, with a frantic camera that throws the audience right into the chaos. And the decision to take the infection beyond the UK, hinting at a global catastrophe, gives the ending an even darker tone, leaving the door open for a sequel that, to this day, has never materialized. Overall, “28 Weeks Later” is a movie that tries to expand on the first one’s universe but gets lost in easy shortcuts and over-the-top storytelling. It delivers impressive set pieces and a suffocating atmosphere, but weakens its own concept by breaking rules that had been so well established. It’s not a total disappointment—there’s tension, impact, and blood spraying everywhere—but there’s a lingering sense that, with a little more refinement in the script, it could have been something truly unforgettable.

Jlloyd2000

6/10

Loses a lot of what makes the first one so good – the weird stillness, the quiet, the British charm – and replaces it with the classic “Americans come to save the day” formula. I do like how it wastes no time laying out the obvious; it’s written as if we already know all the zombie tropes, which we do, and it allows everything to move at a smooth pace. It’s also very dark thematically – no breathers, no moments of levity, things just get worse and worse. The third act in particular is completely miserable, but not in a way it does all that well. Plot’s full of nonsense (why are there children allowed to wander a military quarantine zone like they’re on a school trip?) and some of the characters are straight-up dumb. And christ, the shaky cam. Such a typical mid-00s horror thing which absolutely never looked good. It’s overused here in a way that undermines some otherwise great sequences. And the editing is so strange. It feels like they shot a different movie and then in post-production added the shaky cam and the music from the first film to make it seem like a sequel to 28 Days Later. But in fact it could honestly be a sequel to any zombie film ever. There’s absolutely zero connection to the first one but part of me likes that – seeing a different perspective on the world – and I do think the idea of returning to civilisation after the zombie apocalypse is very unique and I liked how it was done. Not a bad movie at all. Plenty of great ideas, some executed well. Just not a patch on the first one

r96sk

0/10

<em>'28 Weeks Later'</em> is passable in its own right for the majority, though the way it all concludes did disappoint me. I didn't care for the end all that much, which does damage how I view this unfortunately. Overall it fails to match the original, though does still offer OK post-apocalypse fare. It is pretty strong in regards to the cast list, which is probably the only area that this can claim that it matches the predecessor (even if I prefer the 2002 cast, obvs). Rose Byrne, Jeremy Renner and Idris Elba were people I was happy to see appear, while Robert Carlyle & Co. are solid. The locations aren't as cool or convincing as last time out, though the effects for the infected are satisfactory. I can appreciate the idea that they had with this sequel, for the most part I was content with what I was watching. However, by the credits, it left me underwhelmed.

Gimly

0/10

The story is not quite up to snuff in comparison to _Days_, but the visual quality is **way** better. _Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

Andres Gomez

0/10

Much worse than the original. It loses quite of the continuous tension. Many of the FX are bad quality. The script is really predictable and some scenes and conversations are too much of a cliche.