3 of 30

Write now Article Tools

The precursor to 28 Weeks Later, 28 Days Later, was frenzied, gripping, and chilling tale of an epidemic outbreak on the British Isle. Unfortunately, the sequel is unable to recapture the magic of the original. Both forced and predictable, the franchise made a wrong turn with this edition.

28 Weeks Later is set, well, 28 weeks after the initial outbreak of a plague which caused those infected to go mad with rage. The plague was highly contagious. In this new installment, the military has declared Britain safe for return. As the first refugees begin to return to London, surprise, surprise, the virus returns.

Director Juan Frisnadillo tries hard to recapture the frantic camera style of the Dan Boyle's direction in the first film. This time around though, it feels a bit forced. At times you almost beg the camera to sit still for a few moments. As well, if you thought 28 Days Later was gory, you haven't seen anything. This film pushes the boundaries of gore in dizzying, sickening new ways.

28 Weeks Later is not without it's redeeming qualities. There's an interesting twist that is very tough to seem coming and quite interesting. No spoilers here. If you want to know, see the film.

In the grand scheme of horror movies, this is a middle-of-the-road success. It has some great moments, as well as some lackluster ones. But this film will certainly do well enough to warrant another sequel. When we're up to 28 Months or Years Later, I'm guessing that people will look back and wish Fox would have left the first film alone.

Learn more about this author, Sean Curtis.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Movie reviews: 28 Weeks Later?
We want to hear your view. Write now!