28 Weeks Later (Widescreen Edition)

Location: Home » video » General » 28 Weeks Later (Widescreen Edition)

More from Fox

Stills from 28 Weeks Later

Product Description
28 WEEKS LATER is sequel to the successful 28 Days Later.The film pick up six months after the Rage virus has spread throughout the city of London. The United States Army has restored order and is repopulating the quarantined city when a carrier of the Rage virus enters London and unknowingly re-ignites the spread of the deadly infection wreaking havoc on the entire population. The virus is not yet dead and this time it's more dangerous than ever!!System Requirements:Running Time: 113 Mins.Format: DVD MOVIE Genre: HORROR/ZOMBIES Rating: R UPC: 024543469902 Manufacturer No: 2246990

Customer Reviews: Read 222 more reviews...

5 out of 5 stars

The perfect horror sequel July 20, 2007
91 out of 108 found this review helpful

When I heard that this was coming out, I was not expecting much. The original is arguably THE zombie classic (discounting the hysterical "Shaun of the Dead") of the last decade, but the sequel involved almost none of the original minds that brought us the stark terror of "28 Days Later", which combined the threats of cataclysmic disease and it's deadly effects on the mind which caused those infected by what became known as the "Rage Virus" to viciously and relentlessly attack the uninfected, either killing the victim or spreading the disease. A sequel had potential of course, but it seemed like it would be a by-the-books popcorn affair. Boy, was I wrong.

People complained that the first film started too slowly and was boring for the first twenty minutes; I disagree, but that issue has been addressed nonetheless. The opening sequence flashes back to another group of survivors during the original outbreak. Their fate is one you won't forget; it is startling, chaotic, terrifying, dramatic, hopeless, and heartbreaking, all within one fairly short chain of events. That's when I knew this one was going to be everything I wished it would be and it never let me down. This film is epic and personal, gruesome yet tearful, and manages to give you everything you want, even when you had no clue that you wanted it.

The evolution of the Rage Virus is a fascinating one in that it manages to outlive the death of all of the infected (from starvation) by exploiting a rare gene that allows some people to be carriers of the virus without succumbing to it's effects. The result: even kissing your wife hello could be the catalyst for a new, deadly outbreak. The story kicks in 28 weeks after the infection dies and the US military is overseeing the repopulation of London; or a district of London to be precise. Every possible step is taken to ensure that the horror that was the infection that wiped Great Britain's population clean off the earth is not repeated. Naturally, the virus finds a way. As the crushing mass of humanity flees from the compromised quarantine and the murderous zombies, there is an amazing scene where the rooftop snipers are frantically trying to distinguish the civilians from the infected as they run down a bottlenecked street. The chaos and hopelessness of the situation are palpable as the camera shows us through a soldier's scope just what he is up against in dramatic fashion. The way that these situations of large-scale human terror are turned into personal struggles is what makes this movie a stone cold classic in my mind where it otherwise would have been just another great horror film.

The cinematography impresses as well. There are plenty more of those iconic shots of deserted London that bring back memories of the first film and make me wish I lived there so I could appreciate them more. Another nice touch. And the final shot of the film, while not unexpected, is one that will chill you to the bone and thrill you at the same time.

I've spent significant time trying to think of a horror sequel that surpassed the original so superbly and I honestly can't think of one. The closest would be the original "Dawn of the Dead", but I still prefer "Night of the Living Dead" to "Dawn" so "28 Weeks Later" takes it. This is an absolute take-no-prisoners, hard "R", work of terror that must be viewed by all professing to be horror fans.

5 out of 5 stars

Fresnadillo's 28 Weeks Later achieves a rare thing for a sequel...its equal or better than the original May 11, 2007
32 out of 49 found this review helpful

Danny Boyle and Alex Garland's film was done in such a way that a sequel was almost bound to fail. Their film was a horror movie alright, but it was really an exercise in experimental filmmaking. Any film that was to follow it up will have to contend with the cool factor of not just a twist on the zombie theme (even they are not zombies) but the choice in music and look of the film. All I can say is that 28 Weeks Later doesn't disappoint and even surpasses the original film in certain aspects.

Spanish director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo does a great job of trying to stick to the premise begun by Boyle and Garland in 28 Days Later and adding his own signature to the sequel. The film begins with a scene which encapsulates what someone who never saw the original film needs to know about what to expect with this one. We're introduced to Don (played by a gaunt and quite haunted Robert Carlyle) and Alice (Catherine McCormack) trying to survive with several others at their English countryside cottage just outside London during the first couple weeks of the Rage-virus outbreak. This prologue shows just how tenuous any form of safe haven can be once sentimentality overrides the primal instinct for self-preservation. Don is given a choice of choosing sentimentality to try and save someone he cares about and maybe die in the process or follow the basic need for self-preservation in time of extreme danger and distress. Don picks the latter and we're shown how horrible his choice was but at the same time how plausible a decision it was when put into context. If we were put in a similar situation could we honestly say that we wouldn't had made the same choice which Don took. The scene with Don running across the open field with dozens upon dozens of Rage-infected people chasing after him was quite chilling.

The movie goes through an introductory credit sequence explaining the timeline since Don's escape from the cottage. We're told that the British Isles was quickly quarantined once authorities saw how futile it was to try and save it from the ravages of Rage in the first couple weeks. Following-up on the final scenes in the original film, we know now that those infected by Rage would soon die out due to starvation and that 28 weeks after the first sign of outbreak the world outside of the British Isles have decided that it was now time to clean out the last vestiges of Rage-infected victims who haven't starved to death and begin reconstruction and repopulation of the country. The U.S.-led NATO force in charge of this monumental project is led by U.S. Army general Stone (The Wire's excellent Idris Elba) and have cordoned off a safe sanctuary in London's Isle of Dogs where British citizens who escaped the initial outbreak or were outside the Islands when it began would be housed in while London was slowly sanitized.

This is where Don has been sent and given a job as a manager helping with getting London back on its feet. We're shown the arrival of Don's two children who were safely abroad in Spain when the outbreak first hit England. Their reunion is heartfelt though bittersweet as Don must answer his children's questions about what happened to their mother. Let's just say that Don's explanation is not exactly accurate. The Tammy and Andy (played by newcomers Imogen Poot and Mackintosh Muggleton) take his answers at face value but still end up sneaking out of the protected Green Zone to get to their old cottage to pick-up some items of sentimental value. This is the only part of the movie which seemed implausible and made me realize that once again a horror movie ended up with some characters doing dumb things that would lead to nothing but death and destruction. What the two kids find once they get to the cottage marks the beginning of re-infection and the extreme policies enacted by the military to contain the problem. But containment doesn't hold and soon enough a Code Red order is given to all military personnel.

It is once the Code Red is given that most filmgoers will see the allegorical similarities of U.S. policies and tactics in their War against Terror, especially in Iraq. While I do not prescribe to this notion, Frescadillo handled the situation well. I say I do not prescribe to the notion that the second-half of the movie is a direct condemnation of U.S. war against terror and occupation of Iraq, because it's a theme in apocalyptic movies that's been used before there was a war on terror. It is in this second-half where 28 Weeks Later reminded me a lot of George A. Romero's underappreciated horror film, The Crazies. Just like in that film, the military in 28 Weeks Later don't seem to be heartless about their reaction to the new outbreak and break of containment. Instead their overreaction to the whole deteriorating situation looks to be born more out of desperation and an inability to comprehend the best and most humane way to combat the crisis. As it's always mentioned in other forms of fiction, the military is a blunt instrument and never a subtle one. The Rage infection and those infected seem to only be stopped when using the most blunt procedures and tactics, but such ways also have a tendency to cause much collateral damage to the innocent.

28 Weeks Later is much more epic in scope that 28 Days Later and it is in that which it surpasses the original film. While the first film is more the lives of two disparating groups of survivors and how both groups attempts to survive shows how quickly one could fall from civilized behavior while another continues to hold on to it, the sequel shows that in the end even people with the best of intentions will succumb to the basic instinct of survival with any means necessary. The established shots of London overhead and down on the ground empty and lifeless really brings the apocalyptic nature of the movie with the force of a sledgehammer. These scenes followed up with the firebombing of Canary Wharf really highlights just how much more grimmer and nihilistic in tone and scope Fresnadillo's sequel over Boyle's more hopeful one. It is quite a surprise that its the actions of the youngest and most innocent (as children are usually protrayed in horror movies) which causes a new cycle of outbreak and ultimately the fall of the attempt to bring normalcy back to the British Isles.

I would say that --- even though the movie doesn't really involve zombies but zombie-like people --- 28 Weeks Later actually resembles George A. Romero's Living Dead films more than Boyle's 28 Days Later. While Boyle's film took some of its basic themes from Romero's work, he still didn't go far enough. Fresnadillo took the theme of humanity being more dangerous than the Rage-infected ones during the original film's third act and expands on it with 28 Weeks Later. There's a deep sense of pessimism and cutthroat survival instincts inherent in the film's themes. The only form of humanity to be seen actually comes from the same Americans whose attempts of reconstruction ends up an exercise in total annihilation of the problem even if it includes the innocent being destroyed in the process.

As a sequel to 28 Days Later, Fresnadillo's film shared some stylistic and thematic qualities with the original film, but ends up becoming a wholly independent work (one could watch this sequel without having seen the original and still understand what was going on). Where the original film only touches the surface of the Rage virus doomsday effect on the British Isles and its population, 28 Weeks Later ceases that basic notion and gives the viewer a first-hand look at its aftermath and, later on, how it looks when an outbreak occurs in an area packed with survivors. For a fan of Romero's classic zombie epics I do prefer Fresnadillo's work and the look of his film over the original one, but he does sacrifice some level of characterization to keep the film's tone and frenetic pacing in the latter-half from being bogged down. The film ends on a really downbeat note even as survivors make it to safety. This film really becomes an exercise in nihilism more than what Danny Boyle and Alex Garland were willing to do with the original film.

In the end, 28 Weeks Later brings over enough of what made the first film such a cult, and later on, a mainstream horror success to be considered a sequel that matches the first one in quality, and at times even surpasses the original in certain aspects. The acting is actually very good despite some characters not being fleshed-out more thoroughly, but I find this understandable to keep the frantic pace of the film from start to finish from being slowed down. For fans of the first film I don't think this sequel will be a disappointment. It may not reach the same creative heights for some fans but it surely won't ruin the experience of having seen the original. The film also introduces a new face to the genre world with the excellent work turned in by Spanish director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo. In addition to Alexandre Aja from France and now Fresnadillo, the world of horror is getting a nice infusion of young talent.

4 out of 5 stars

A worthy successor to the original. May 11, 2007
23 out of 24 found this review helpful

28 Weeks Later... (Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, 2007)

So Alex Garland didn't write the 28 Days Later... sequel, nor did Danny Boyle direct it. I felt a bit better about this after hearing that the reason for both was time issues/contractual obligations (both were involved in the much-anticipated Sunshine when this got off the ground). So they brought in Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (Intacto) to both co-write and direct. I was still a touch leery walking into the theater, but the end result is that the movie was not as good as I'd hoped-- but a great deal better than I expected.

We start off with a group of survivors holed up in a cottage at the beginning of the outbreak (if you saw the original, the opening scene happens, presumably, while Cillian Murphy's character is still in a coma). Two of the people stuck there are Alice (Catherine McCormack) and Don (Robert Carlyle). During dinner one night, there's a pounding on the door, and they admit a young boy (Gary Robert Kelly's favorite actor, Beans El-Balawi). Unfortunately, the infected are hot on his tail, and you can guess the rest. Don escapes. 28 weeks later, the repatriation of Britain begins, and Don's kids Andy (the similarly wonderfully-named Mackintosh Muggleton in his first screen role) and Tammy (V for Vendetta's Imogen Poots) are reunited with him. But, as you know if you've seen thirty seconds of any trailer to the film, maybe they were a bit hasty in bringing people back to the island...

The good news is that Boyle did, in fact, act as second unit director, and directed a few scenes. The bad news, which isn't really so bad, is that it's pretty obvious which scenes they are. While the behind-the-scenes stuff they've been showing on TV singles out Boyle's direction of the opening scene, there are a few others scattered throughout as well. Boyle's adrenaline-rush jump cuts show up now and again, and there's an almost eerie similarity to the first film in those scenes. This is helped along by the fact that the producers used, for all intents and purposes, the same soundtrack John Murphy came up with for the first film, but without the silly happy synthesizer stuff that popped up now and again in that one. (And no uncredited Godspeed You Black Emperor! tracks this time round, either.) That said, Fresnadillo is a strong director in his own right, and he holds his own here. The story is less epic than the first one, with the focus squarely on Don and his kids, along with two army officers who try to help them escape the new outbreak of contagion. This could have easily become a weakness, with such a simple storyline, but Fresnadillo turns it into a strength. There are a lot of places where he could have branched out, and frankly I'd have liked to see some of them, but he kept focus throughout. He also didn't make the usual sequel mistake of showing the monsters too much, sticking to Boyle's original jump-cut plan when the infected get screen time (which is surprisingly little, actually); you get flashes, but with one ugly exception towards the end of the movie, we never get the whole "let's unveil the monster in all its glory" wankery so common in horror films with big effects budgets. (And even in the exception, he keeps it to a minimum and still uses the close-ups that make the infected so scary in the first place.) There were a few times I wished Garland had written the script, but Fresnadillo and his compatriots (who include the BAFTA-nominated Rowan Joffe) did well, for the most part.

The one truly weak point in the movie is that it's all set up very conveniently. You have a basic idea of what's coming from the first big plot twist (or, if you're more observant than I am, about ten minutes into the movie). That said, Fresnadillo still has a trick or two up his sleeve for the big payoff at the end of the movie, and oh, the payoff is so very, very worth it. Everything's set up nicely, and then Fresnadillo and co. sweep everything we think we know off the table.

Now, I know there are a few people who aren't going to like the sequel no matter what because it's a sequel, but in general, if you liked the first one, I think you'll get a kick out of this one, as well. Certainly worth paying matinee price for, even if your matinee pricing just skyrocketed like ours did. ****

5 out of 5 stars

Rants from a usual critic of horror and gore July 28, 2007
18 out of 22 found this review helpful

For some reason, the way the infected chase after their "prey" in this movie is eerily realistic. They run upright, "eagerly," and with all their might. They turn the corner to reveal their numbers, a massive crowd of bloodthirsty, demonic-looking infected beings, with no intention other than to rip open their victims. This movie, somehow, captures suspenseful horror in a way that I've never seen. The creepy, gothic sounds from the band Muse add to the darkness of this film. It's just so odd the morbidity... I can't pinpoint exactly what makes this movie so morbid (although, that's the plan of the director). The military portrayals are top-notch realistic, comparable to the movie "Children of Men." I hate movies with loads of gore and blood, but the mere artistic value of it makes it one of my favorite movies. I mean, if something like this were to really happen in reality, watching this movie shows us exactly what it would be like, truthfully. It has a sort of "Resident Evil" vibe to it, while also adding a lesson in why we shouldn't tamper with biogenetics too much.

4 out of 5 stars

28 Weeks Later: Delivers What It Promises May 13, 2007
17 out of 19 found this review helpful

Those who come to 28 WEEKS LATER from its original 28 DAYS know the general plot and themes. England has been overrun with crazed zombies who have been infected with the Rage Virus. The original was a smash hit partly because of its suspenseful direction and partly because of some pretty effective scenes of gore. In this sequel, director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo has added some troubling subtexts of political allegory, with an occupying U. S. Army clearly representing the current force in Iraq. Some reviewers have noted what they think is a plotless gorefest. Gore there is in plenty but it is not for that which gives the movie its unforgettable tang. Fresnadillo has succeeded in the rarest of all horror director goals--to place the audience right there in harm's way. The film opens with a married couple (Robert Carlyle and Catherine McCormack) seeking refuge from the zombies in a farmhouse. When the zombies break in, he panics and runs, leaving his wife to fall into their clutches. At this point, comparisons to other walking dead films become inevitable. George Romero in the original NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD chose to portray his zombies as stiff-legged reanimated ghouls who lumber slowly after their victims. Here the zombies are mercurial insane killers, not dead but akin to the true criminally insane who are human in all areas except in their brain dead desire to bite the living to infect them.

As the husband escapes to find his children alive (Imogen Poots and McKintosh Muggles) in a rebuilding London, he discovers to his shame that his wife has survived only to unintentionally infect him. What follows is a nightmarish set of fragmented holocausts in which he spreads the infection to thousands of others in just a few hours. His infection is particularly graphic. We can see how in less than a minute the light of humanity vanishes from his eyes to be replaced by a blackness of mindless rage that gives the virus its name. Though he is patient zero in the re-infection of London, he does not merge into the tsunami of the similarly infected. Like Coleridge's Albatross he continues to reappear at inopportune moments to torment his disbelieving children that their father has vanished to be replaced by a relentless doppleganger whose very ferocity to infect them becomes the driving symbol of the film.

I did have a problem with the point of view that Fresnadillo chose to take whenever the zombies appear on stage. At that point, he accelerated the frenetic pace of the film so that all the zombies began to run at top speed to the point that their faces began to merge into each other in a blur. This proved to a be predictable distraction. Fortunately however, Fresnadillo had the sense to slow down his camera whenever the father made his frequent appearances. Whenever I see a zombie film, I always wonder how the zombies act when they are not munching on victims. Why do they not attack each other? Do they rely on sight and smell to distinguish themselves from humanity? When Fresnadillo chooses to accelerate the pacing of the film, perhaps he tries to circumvent this potential philosophical distraction by forcing the audience to focus on the humans as the zombies see them rather than on how the zombies see each other.

The film has a number of individual moments of power, not all of which deal with zombie violence on humans. By midfilm, the focus shifts to human violence on uninfected humans as soldiers are given a morally troubling order to shoot everyone running out of a building when only a much smaller number of them are Ragers. By the time we get to the closing reel, we can see that the Ragers have no choice to kill. A virus drives them on. But uninfected humans are ragers in their own fashion as well. They kill out of fear, hatred, or in response to sanctioned orders. It is this non stop series of moral subtexts that renders 28 WEEKS LATER as a film that one will want to revisit, perhaps even after less than 28 weeks.

Powered by Associate-O-Matic

T-shirts, Posters

Pentagram T-shirts, bags, etc...

Gothic Posters