the rage.

By hugmonster
Written May 11, 2007
Im a huge fan of horror movies. 28 weeks later def is a movie to go see. i don't jump in my seat easy, but did however in this one ;) it has great gore, and the action makes up for the minute slow scenes. i'm not sure if you call this a zombie flick. more like zombies on speed with crack, or the rage. still loved it, if your a fan of horror, gore, zombies(rage) movies, go see it. now.
37 out of 51 found this helpful. Did you?


By madmaximus1
Written May 07, 2007
The original 28 days later left you wondering what could happen next well here it is. 28 weeks later delivers a fan filled horror flick that would inpress many. In this sequal they try to repopulate after control of the infection is told to have accurd but it wasen't now with infected rage syrium , the people are attacked by what they thought was controlled and a safe place becomes a hell of barb wire and cold concrete you can almost feel that fear they have for themselves. I recommend seeing this movie for pure scare tatics it is a great movie !!
24 out of 33 found this helpful. Did you?

More bang but less zombie bite?

By hdelvalle
Written June 02, 2007
This sequel is much better than its prdecessor "28 days" overall but it may lack the intense gore horror fans have become accustomed to. Instead of the typical hurricane of blood, body parts and gore that accompany a zombie/horror film, we get more character development, drama and thrills -- all of which make for, in my opinion, a better movie. This movie still contains enough blood to fill a river for those blood-thirsty fans; you just don't get that chewing of the flesh, crunching of the bones, biting of the neck scenes we've been used to. You know it when 10 zombies converge on a helpless old man that he's a goner, so you got to like director's decision to not waste more than a second on the eventual carnage. The special effects are pretty good and, like I noted, you have a better sense of why this outta-control-virus is happening and what the US special forces are going to do about it. You also do not get the typical heroes, so you don't know who will survive. 90 min of thrill.
19 out of 28 found this helpful. Did you?


By infected
Written May 23, 2007
ok so 28 weeks later might not be what its predecesor was but it shouldnt realy have to be. thats why its called 28 weeks later not 28 days later 2.0! to many "die hard fans" it may be dissapointing to know that jim and company dont make a return visit however if people will accept that fact then it should please just about anybody with a hankering for a good scare. i must admit i myself found it a bit more frightening than the first wich is yet another reason to watch it. oh and another thing if your looking for a good zombie movie then this isnt it why? because the infected are not zombies theIr regular people that have been consumed by the rage virus which by description does not raise the dead it simply erases the memory and sends the host on a psycotic killing spree by. implimenting an overpowerd anger and by pumping never ending amounts of adrenilin into the body. it also creates the need to spread the infection. they dont eat people. and theIr not dead. THEIR NOT ZOMBIES!
17 out of 26 found this helpful. Did you?


By Beachmountain
Written May 12, 2007
This movie is the worst peice of garbage I have seen in quite a while. I LOVED the first movie, and this is quite possibly the worst sequal ever. There are so many "Oh give me a break" moments in this movie that I am still thinking of them 3 hours after leaving the theatre. Just a horrible and completely moronic storyline as to how the infection got spread again. Save your money.
14 out of 24 found this helpful. Did you?