28 Weeks Later - Review

Discuss this movie on our message board!

Rated: R

Distributor: Fox Atomic

Release Date: 2007-05-11

Starring: Robert Carlyle, Rose Byrne, Catherine McCormack, Harold Perrineau, Imogen Poots, Idris Elba, Mackintosh Muggleton, Jeremy Renner

Directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo

Produced by Danny Boyle, Alex Garland, Andrew Macdonald

Written by Rowan Joffe, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, Jesús Olmo, Enrique López Lavigne

Visit the movie's Official Site!

Reviewed by Josh Tyler : 2007-05-11 11:24:16

In 2004 28 Days Later arrived as a pleasant surprise. British director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland had delivered a real modern rarity: A horror film with substance. Set in the early days of a pseudo-zombie apocalypse, the film followed a small group of people trying to survive in a world gone completely mad. What’s great about that original film is that it’s so much more than just another post-apocalyptic horror movie. 28 Days Later had something to say, as it explored the breakdown of society and questioned the very heart of human nature.

Flash forward three years and Fox Atomic is releasing 28 Weeks Later, a sequel made with a screenplay written by group of different writers, new actors, and helmed by a replacement director. The result is a film that feels like it only exists to set up another movie. It’s as if Fox executives counted the first movie’s box office receipts and then locked a committee of writers in a room and asked them to come up with a way to stretch this idea out into three movies. 28 Weeks Later is means to an end and, unlike the original movie, it has absolutely nothing to say except stay tuned and give us your money.

28 Weeks Later picks up, as the title suggests, 28 weeks later after the release of the Rage virus which started everything in Days. Rage is transmitted by body fluids and anyone coming into contact with the liquid innards of one of the infected is instantly turned into a crazed, flesh-eating, mindless killer. After the first movie the island of Britain was left ravaged and devastated, but apparently the outbreak was confined to those shores. 28 weeks later all of the infected, having eaten all the flesh they could find, have died of starvation and a US led military force has moved in to rescue the handful of survivors still left and repatriate those British citizens who were abroad at the time of the disaster.

Anyone who has seen a movie before will instantly realize this is a mistake. Should the world ever find itself in a similar situation, let’s hope the United Nations has the good sense to sterilize the place with a few nuclear bombs before letting people back in. Sadly, that would leave us with a pretty short movie and so we follow the well-intentioned but doomed military and civilian population as things go awry and they lose control. The film starts out following Don (Robert Carlyle), a father who was there during the initial outbreak and survived to be re-united with his kids by the military’s rescue force. His story is an interesting one, and might have provided the philosophical punch 28 Weeks Later so desperately needs to justify its existence but, after only a cursory brush up against his tortured past, the movie abandons him in order to devolve into a big, predictable, pseudo-zombie mess. It might as well be the latest Resident Evil sequel.

Except at least Resident Evil has the scantily clad hotness of Milla Jovovich kicking ass to help sell it. 28 Weeks Later winds up following a couple of kids as they run from the infected, leaving a trail of poorly acted and extremely dead adult characters behind them. The movie seems more interested in lingering over wide, aerial shots of a deserted London than in actually telling a story. When something important does happen, it’s buried under so many camera gimmicks that it’s hard to figure out what’s going on anyway. By the way, 28 Weeks Later’s idea of cinematography is to shake the camera around like it’s being ripped apart by zombies during action sequences, thus obscuring your view and, presumably, saving a lot of money on bothering with things like special effects.

This is a really thin, poorly developed script directed by a stand-in who struggles and fails to mimic Boyle’s movie without adding in anything of his own. Ok, that’s not fair. He does do a night-vision sequence. That’s new. It’s just not very good. If I wanted to watch the movie through a night vision scope I’d bring one with me.

There are a few solidly entertaining moments in the film involving the military’s attempt to exterminate the spreading virus and the civilian attempt to escape from it. A car pushing sequence which evokes the one from the first movie is well executed and there’s the aforementioned abandoned sub plot involving Robert Carlyle’s father character. It’s not enough though. By the time 28 Weeks Later shakes out and figures out where its going it becomes pretty evident that the movie only exists as a setup for whatever globe-spanning, big-budget zombie movie they’re planning to turn the franchise into next. This one is more of a paper-thin transition between Boyle’s gritty, gutty, unique approach to zombies and an almost certainly impending third movie in which they stick the number 28 in front of another standard, glossy, epic zombie apocalypse clone directed by Paul W.S. Anderson.

Latest Movie Reviews:

Australia

Twilight (Katey's Take)

The Boy In The Striped Pajamas

Pray The Devil Back To Hell

Slumdog Millionaire

Image Gallery for 28 Weeks Later

Comment on “28 Weeks Later”

Note: This website is not meant for use by minors. The views expressed in the comments section below are not our own. This section is intended for discussion of the topic in the post above. Disagreement is encouraged, however comments which attack, insult, or threaten the author in a personal manner won't be published. Similarly, comments that we deem to be poorly worded, or wildly off topic will also not be approved and may be mocked. For free, uncensored, unfettered, and possibly dangerous discussion visit our forum.

freeza924 Says:
May 12th, 2007 at 15:30
this review has many holes in it.
* The scene with the gas and pushing the car with a rag over the face was horrible. You can't stop military grade chemical weapons with a torn up shirt. So it's hard believe thats your favorite scene.

* The commentary i got from the movie based around the selfishiness of todays society. the kids doomed the Europe for the sake of a picture of mommie. Dad doomed Europe for a kiss. The soldier failed to do his duty even after seeing what the rage virus could do to a country if released.The U.N. doomed Europe by trying to recreate a destroyed nation out nostilga rather then logic. The way Isreal was reformed and New Orleans is being rebuilt . " No i don't hate isreal." The doctor doomed Europe to find a cure when the decision was made to destroy all infected. The pilot doomed Europe by not doing his duty and taking blood stained children to main land Europe. It should that mans selfishiness is more a threat to his existence then nature. We made it, freed it, sent it hosts, then freed it again

Christopher Says:
May 13th, 2007 at 00:22
And your comment on the review has many holes in it.

Zombies can be used as commentary for just about anything. There was Night of the Living Dead (Vietnam), '78 Dawn of the Dead (consumerism), Land of the Dead (a society of classes), amongst others. Just because you somehow gave 28 Weeks Later some deeper meaning in your little mind doesn't mean there is one or that it's even relevant. What ties all the good zombie films together is their grim depiction of humanity and the underlying commentary that we're our own biggest threat. This film, and all the films with "fast zombies" lose this, since the zombies become the biggest threat as they can tear into your home and there's little to no way to escape.

Take a note that all the examples I used were George Romero films. ALL zombie films are merely a rehash of his films. It's quite pathetic that some 40 years later with Murdoch-sized budgets that the major movie studios can't make a better zombie film than him. Hell, even riding into the sunset in a helicopter (to another sequel at that!) was ripped directly from Dawn of the Dead!

Steve Says:
May 19th, 2007 at 01:23
The main thing that got me about this film in comparison was the lack of hope given in the ending. At the end of the first film you got to feel that the possibility of safety and redemption for the human race, but in this one all you feel is contempt for the children. In any good story your main characters need to grow in some way shape or form. In this tale, that was the missing ingredient, we needed at least the older of the two learned something. Instead they stayed the same co-dependant duo who would rather let the world burn and hide in the corner than face the harsh realities of life. Everyone else in the movie sacrifices for these two, even the chopper pilot who delivers them to another group of uninfected civilians to be slaughtered. If your main characters can't learn and grow, then you have no hope for them in the future and all you get is a distracting feeling that all was for naught, and you wasted a few hours of your life.

Chris Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 07:17
Christopher, I'm getting the feeling you're a hardcore zombie movie fan, and then you're going to shoot down 28 Weeks Later without giving it a real chance merely because their version of 'zombies' can run. I don't think that's really fair.

But also, I thought this movie had a lot to say. Did anyone else spot the parallels to the war in Iraq? The American soldiers come in, hoping to help 'liberate' the people of England, and declare one zone safe, a green zone. Soon enough, though, there's an attack by the Rage virus, and we the snipers are ordered to take out the infected. But who is infected and who isn't? "I can't tell who is a target!" the snipers say. Sound like anything you've heard in Iraq? And soon enough the American general gives the order to kill everyone. So the movie had that to say.

Scott Says:
June 5th, 2007 at 15:17
I find lots of these reviews hilarious. Anyone going to see "28 weeks later" expecting to learn something is retarded. Its a zombie movie meant to entertain the masses. Its not supposed to be a metaphor for whats going on in todays society. Its about trying to scare the audience and create a compelling story. Not every zombie movie created has or should have a deeper meaning on current events or the human dilemma. Did you really expect to come out of this movie and proclaim "Wow. This just goes to show how destructive we are as human beings. We really need to change our ways!" It seems as though Mr. Tyler saw this movie and expected to come out with a plan for world peace. Sorry buddy, not this time. Not this movie.
FYI
I love running zombies. Great movie.

Another Chris Says:
September 1st, 2007 at 00:27
I've been excited about this movie since seeing a preview for it in March... waiting for it to come out on video.

IMO, a movie is good if it keeps me entertained for a couple of hours. It's great if it shows me a lesson I could learn.

A lot of times, for me at least, it isn't too deep. I just like the idea of building big fences, posting guards, and bunkering up, maybe with some dvd box sets or something. Zombie movies give me an outlet for my paranoia. I honestly hope this one does the same.

Thanks for all your opinions.

Chris White Says:
October 16th, 2007 at 23:19
Josh Tyler,

I was beginning to think I was the only one who felt this way about the movie, but you articulated the case perfectly. After seeing Sunshine over the summer I ran out and rented 28 Days Later and loved it. This weekend I watched 28 Weeks Later and was astounded that such a bad film could be directed by Danny Boyle, sure enough, it was directed by someone else. I'm afraid I'm already beginning to forget this movie, while many specific shots from the original are still razor sharp in my mind. 28 Weeks Later lacks almost all of the intelligence that made 28 Days Later such a good film that defies the Zombie and greater genre in general. Where was the strong character drama, the character growth and arcs? Where the subtle and well crafted philosophical and political implications? Apparently both are still back with Boyle.

28 Weeks Later was somewhat entertaining, but by no means the masterpiece I was expecting.

Kath Says:
October 30th, 2007 at 16:13
Along with all of these commentaries, the reason I feel that I don't connect to this film as much as the first one is that the main characters are divided. In the first film, we got some sort of dimension to the characters with the relationships they built. It was part road-trip movie and we saw Jim and the lot care and protect each other. I don't think we get that sense with the children and the military. There is no connection, and no real break in the action for them to develop a connection. The break that they could have used was their rest in the abandoned carnival. Even at that point when they could have used personal stories to bond, they separated - the kids talking about mum and dad, and the military talking about strategy. Our attention is divided and no sense of concern develops for either group.

By the end when the doctor was killed, I barely noticed. It was followed too closely with the boy being bitten by his father. Finally in the stadium, they took off and I was almost laughing. The helicopter pilot looked angry and confused, the girl was pouting, and the boy was hidden. Is that really the 'everlasting' look we want to see?

Technically though, I must agree with the shaky camera comment. I do find it a useful trick, however, and can't completely blame them for that. On a similar note, the sound effects were jarring. I found that the volume of the sound effects were more startling than the action on screen. If I jumped, it was because my ear drums were being blasted, not by fear.

Back to 28 Weeks Later

28 Weeks Later - Review

Comment on “28 Weeks Later”

Leave a Reply