28 Weeks Later (UK - DVD R2)
Scott McKenzie tries his best not to use the z-word while reviewing this sequel...
Feature
28 Weeks Later begins with a small group of people hiding out in a cottage from the infected people outside. It’s not long before the infected attack and the survivors are quickly picked off one by one. Only Donald (Robert Carlyle) escapes unharmed, but his survival is at the cost of his wife, who he had to leave behind. This sequence is set some point during the time of 28 Days Later and during the credit sequence we fast-forward six months to a time when the virus appears to have been eradicated from the United Kingdom and the US army is beginning the repatriation process. Donald is reunited with his children, who were out of the country during the outbreak, but their arrival sets off a chain of events that can only lead to re-infection for everyone in London.

Set in the same world as 28 Days Later, this isn’t a direct sequel to its predecessor. Taking the Romero route, we get the story of a different set of characters that are thrown into a similar situation. The strong theme of this movie is family and we see how the infection affects the father, mother and children in different ways. In actual fact, the events of 28 Weeks Later are more of a sequel to the pre-credits opening sequence than to Danny Boyle’s original movie. The setup has more in common with Land of the Dead, whereby the oasis created by the powers-that-be becomes their prison when the bad guys arrive, but the motivations of the central characters are very different.
The writer-director team of 28 Days Later, Alex Garland and Danny Boyle, have returned as executive producers on this sequel and handed the reins over to Juan Carlos Fresnadillo. They haven’t exactly taken a step back though, with Boyle lending a helping hand as second unit director on some sequences. Composer John Murphy’s haunting music makes another appearance to ensure there is clear consistency in the composition of the two movies.

The opening sequence sets a standard that continues throughout the whole movie. For the first few minutes we’re introduced to the characters, their relationships and how they are struggling to deal with the situation they’ve found themselves in. Then, almost without warning, we’re thrown into a very fast-paced and brutal action sequence. This is a template for the main body of the movie, which switches from characterisation to action at the halfway point, and it is the action that sets 28 Weeks Later apart from its lower-budget predecessor. Once we have invested just enough emotion in these well-developed characters, they’re suddenly running for their lives from the infected and the people who are supposed to protect them.
Where 28 Days Later focused primarily on keeping the audience in suspense, the sequel is more of a straightforward survival action movie. The combination of handheld camera work, great special effects and that score make for some of the most exciting sequences I have watched in a long time. Two words: helicopter massacre. Watch 28 Weeks Later and you’ll know what I mean. As a Brit, it’s also good to see a proper action movie set in one of our cities. We’re all so used to seeing New York or LA get trashed, it’s refreshing to witness somewhere more familiar get firebombed.

The action isn’t at the expense of character development. The characters are all well fleshed-out in the relatively short running time, in particular Robert Carlyle’s character, who has to deal with the guilt of leaving his wife at the same time as welcoming his children into their new home. We also get to see how the virus affects members of the family, with one particular infected person being more than just a flesh-eating madman.
28 Weeks Later is better than its predecessor. There, I’ve said it. I love 28 Days Later, as do many of the writers on this site, but the larger budget has allowed the sequel to up the ante on the scope and what can be shown on the screen, but not at the expense of putting believable characters in believable situations. 28 Weeks Later does exactly what any good sequel should do— it reminds you what was good about the original but at the same time develops the themes and expands the world inside the movie to make it more interesting and exciting. Unfortunately for Danny Boyle, he’s got a lot to live up to if he decides to return for 28 Months Later.

Video
The feature has a 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer. 28 Weeks Later has a very similar visual style to 28 Days Later, with shaky camera work and high contrast during certain scenes. The picture is a little grainy at times, which may be intentional in an attempt to replicate the style of the original. I didn’t see this at the cinema so I can’t say for sure, although it does lack detail in long wide shots. That said, it doesn’t get in the way of an enjoyable visual experience.
Audio
Dolby Digital 5.1 is the only audio option (other than the Stereo audio descriptive track) and it is as clear as you would expect. The music is very important to the movie and sometimes drowns out the dialogue and effects, but this is intentional to increase tension. During key sequences the music builds as the infection spreads, which is neat and subtle trick. The effects and dialogue are all at the appropriate level in relation to the music so I’d say this is a pretty faithful transfer of the original soundtrack to disc.

Extras
A commentary track is supplied by the director and his co-writer/producer Enrique Lopez Lavigne. They go into a lot of detail about the making of the film but their conversations never drop into a blinding level of technicality. They state that they wanted to create a vision of London similar to the setting of Alfonso Cuaron’s Children Of Men and discuss their collaborations with Alex Garland on the screenplay and Danny Boyle on the filming of key sequences, most notably the opening scenes.
Two deleted scenes with optional commentary are included, but as is almost always the case their omission was necessary to keep the story moving along. The ‘Making of’ featurette includes a lot of talking head interviews, most interesting of all are the discussions from Danny Boyle about the alternative ideas they had for a sequel. They may not have chosen to produce it, but I’d love to read the screenplay for the Escape from New York-esque story of SAS troops trying to get the Prime Minister out of London during the first outbreak.
‘The Infected’ featurette is a spotlight for the extras and the choreographers who planned their intricate movements. ‘Getting into the Action’ shows the filmmakers talking about the fact that 28 Weeks Later is more action-focused than its predecessor, and their intention to use handheld cameras to give the impression of a ‘horror documentary’. In addition to the theatrical trailer, this decent set of extras is rounded off with two episodes of 28 Days Later: Aftermath, an animated comic book written by Danny Boyle and Alex Garland that goes into more detail about the genesis of the virus and the first outbreak.

Overall
28 Weeks Later is better than its predecessor. There, I’ve said it again. Whether you’re into action, horror, suspense or just want to see London get firebombed, this is the movie for you. The transfer is as good as you would expect and the extras provide interesting details about the making of the film and highlight the obvious passion everyone has involved for the project, which makes me even more excited about a possible sequel. And I didn’t even use the word ‘zombie’.
Review by Scott McKenzie
Advertisements
Chris Gould
Editor
Join Date: May 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,171



I thought it was better as well, by some way.
Report
Quote
| Reply
Fresnadillo and his cinematographer Enrique Chediak actually shot the sequel on 16mm film, while "28 Days Later" was shot entirely on digital video (which looked like s**t particularly when converted to film blowup). In some scenes it looks like DV, but most of the time it looks much more detailed and beautiful than the former. I saw this at the theater and can attest to this.
And I loved this movie, and agree that it's much better than the original. The original film was effective, but it fell apart with the "mad soldiers in the mansion" subplot. The sequel rectifies this by making it an action movie and it's unafraid to kill off possible hero characters in order to raise the stakes.
Shame this movie didn't do nearly as well as it should have at the box office. Boyle's premise for a third film set in Russia sounds promising, though if the second sequel is greenlighted I would like to see Roland Joffe return to write it (rather than Alex Garland).
And I loved this movie, and agree that it's much better than the original. The original film was effective, but it fell apart with the "mad soldiers in the mansion" subplot. The sequel rectifies this by making it an action movie and it's unafraid to kill off possible hero characters in order to raise the stakes.
Shame this movie didn't do nearly as well as it should have at the box office. Boyle's premise for a third film set in Russia sounds promising, though if the second sequel is greenlighted I would like to see Roland Joffe return to write it (rather than Alex Garland).
Great review.
I did think this was a great movie, but better than Days? Hard to tell. I liked Days' format of focusing on only the 4 people, until the soldier finale. There was a singular plot and it went with it. While with Weeks, you have the three groups of characters: family, doctors, soldiers. Three different plots. It felt like a typical action movie, but I know that it wasn't. But it was just like, we've seen this before in Resident Evil which is relatively recent, fresh in people's minds. It didn't have anything to stand out against. Whereas Days had the "I Am Legend" and Night/Dawn/Day of the [Living] Dead vibe (yes, zombies, I know, the Rage victims aren't zombies, but normal people and "people" who will kill anyone still "normal"). Both tales older and made it stand out from the rest of the horror genre at the time.
As you can see, I find it hard to describe. I would say that both Days and Weeks have their own weaknesses and strengths, and that they negate each other out. They are the same for me.
Quote: I would like to see Roland Joffe return to write it (rather than Alex Garland)
From what I've heard, Boyle and Garland had a falling out. Not sure though, take with a truck of salt.
I did think this was a great movie, but better than Days? Hard to tell. I liked Days' format of focusing on only the 4 people, until the soldier finale. There was a singular plot and it went with it. While with Weeks, you have the three groups of characters: family, doctors, soldiers. Three different plots. It felt like a typical action movie, but I know that it wasn't. But it was just like, we've seen this before in Resident Evil which is relatively recent, fresh in people's minds. It didn't have anything to stand out against. Whereas Days had the "I Am Legend" and Night/Dawn/Day of the [Living] Dead vibe (yes, zombies, I know, the Rage victims aren't zombies, but normal people and "people" who will kill anyone still "normal"). Both tales older and made it stand out from the rest of the horror genre at the time.
As you can see, I find it hard to describe. I would say that both Days and Weeks have their own weaknesses and strengths, and that they negate each other out. They are the same for me.
Quote: I would like to see Roland Joffe return to write it (rather than Alex Garland)
From what I've heard, Boyle and Garland had a falling out. Not sure though, take with a truck of salt.
I heard that Danny Boyle directed the opening scene -- the attack on the cottage (and possibly the scene where Robert Carlyle's now-infected character breaks into the underground garage and starts infecting more of the population). If he directed those two scenes, I can see why some people are claiming it to emulating "28 Days Later" in sections.
Good film but 28 Days is the better one (albeit not by much). Good ending on this one though.
I said this in another thread, but as this is a dedicated I will say it again.
How does Donald (Robert Carlyle) have rational thought once infected. He doggedly goes for his kids and bypasses live meat to get at them, he is also the only one to show up at the tube station, where every other infected runs in a pack. Its almost as if he knows where they are heading.
How does Donald (Robert Carlyle) have rational thought once infected. He doggedly goes for his kids and bypasses live meat to get at them, he is also the only one to show up at the tube station, where every other infected runs in a pack. Its almost as if he knows where they are heading.
He goes into this in one of the docs on the DVD - apparently it was always in the thoughts of the writers/producers/creative team that there was a twisted kind of logic and instinct to the infected. I suppose in the same way that in the first film, one of the neighbours attacks Cillian Murphy in his house. So instead of going off wandering about and eating anyone, he wanted to stay close to what he knew. I suppose that its a bit of a rip off from Dawn Of The Dead when all zombies go off to the "mall" for a spot of window shopping

mc_serenity wrote: Fresnadillo and his cinematographer Enrique Chediak actually shot the sequel on 16mm film, while "28 Days Later" was shot entirely on digital video.
I was lucky enough to go on a set visit on one of the days where they were filming the running away from the cottage sequence. It was actually shot on 35mm. Danny Boyle was on set as well but I wouldnt say he was 'Directing', more like 'Advising'. At least on the day I was there.....
mc_serenity wrote: Boyle's premise for a third film set in Russia sounds promising, though if the second sequel is greenlighted I would like to see Roland Joffe return to write it (rather than Alex Garland).
The writer was also Rowan Joffe. Roland Joffe directed the interminable 'Captivity'. Dont let him anywhere near this franchise!
I was lucky enough to go on a set visit on one of the days where they were filming the running away from the cottage sequence. It was actually shot on 35mm. Danny Boyle was on set as well but I wouldnt say he was 'Directing', more like 'Advising'. At least on the day I was there.....
mc_serenity wrote: Boyle's premise for a third film set in Russia sounds promising, though if the second sequel is greenlighted I would like to see Roland Joffe return to write it (rather than Alex Garland).
The writer was also Rowan Joffe. Roland Joffe directed the interminable 'Captivity'. Dont let him anywhere near this franchise!
The film started out pretty good, but then gets progressively worse. They replace plot and logic with running and screaming. And stalker-dad was a really, really dumb idea.
James Tully wrote:
The writer was also Rowan Joffe. Roland Joffe directed the interminable 'Captivity'. Dont let him anywhere near this franchise!
You got them confused; they're two different people. Rowan Joffe is a relatively new U.K. screenwriter, not Roland Joffe.
The writer was also Rowan Joffe. Roland Joffe directed the interminable 'Captivity'. Dont let him anywhere near this franchise!
You got them confused; they're two different people. Rowan Joffe is a relatively new U.K. screenwriter, not Roland Joffe.
"RAAAAARRR, I am Begbie, SUPER-ZOMBIE!! I can get into security areas that no one else can. I can also teleport and avoid massive firebombs. Being undead is a gas."
rebel-scum wrote: "RAAAAARRR, I am Begbie, SUPER-ZOMBIE!! I can get into security areas that no one else can. I can also teleport and avoid massive firebombs. Being undead is a gas."hmmm...11 posts untill Begbie gets a mention? We must be slowing down 
Classic Carlyle stuff!
Oh great review and great screen shots!

Classic Carlyle stuff!
Oh great review and great screen shots!
nice review, ive not seen this one yet, although I love 28 days and will probably add this to my collection soon.
Good review. I saw both in the theatre and I'm glad they dumped the DV cam gimmick for the second film. The graininess and poor resolution in the first film put me on edge (even more than the film itself).
I thought that Weeks did an excellent job of capturing the intensity of the first, but there were several plot problems that bugged me and kept me from liking it more.
I don't even mind so much the twisted logic idea for some of the infected. But if she was infected, why was she left in a room (unguarded) on the clean island? Didn't we go through a long screening process at the beginning with the kids to get in there? There was also an extended sequence in the beginning showing how much the city was covered by security cameras, but Carlyle's character is allowed to waltz into the (unguarded) holding room without a peep. Frustrating, because it felt like they weren't trying to keep a good story plausible at that point.
"Carnage must start now, throw logic out the window, go!"
I thought that Weeks did an excellent job of capturing the intensity of the first, but there were several plot problems that bugged me and kept me from liking it more.
I don't even mind so much the twisted logic idea for some of the infected. But if she was infected, why was she left in a room (unguarded) on the clean island? Didn't we go through a long screening process at the beginning with the kids to get in there? There was also an extended sequence in the beginning showing how much the city was covered by security cameras, but Carlyle's character is allowed to waltz into the (unguarded) holding room without a peep. Frustrating, because it felt like they weren't trying to keep a good story plausible at that point.
"Carnage must start now, throw logic out the window, go!"
I finally saw it. I had some problems with the 'road all ready travled', the logic, but it was so well made and so dark that I have to give it a very solid thumbs up. I'll say it's even with the original on my mind, though the story is better this time around. Boyle's film was made up as they went along and it showed.
I honestly do not see how anybody can think this is better than the first one. All this was was a giant chase scene, the only scary part of which being the opening. This was NOTHING compared to 28 Days Later!


Suitable only for persons of 18 years and over
Disc Details
Release Date:
10th September 2007
Discs:
1
Disc Type:
Single side, dual layer
RCE:
No
Video:
PAL
Aspect:
1.85:1
Anamorphic:
Yes
Colour:
Yes
Audio:
Dolby Digital 5.1 English
Subtitles:
English
Extras:
Feature Commentary, Deleted Scenes With Optional Commentary, Code Red: The Making Of 28 Weeks Later, The Infected Featurette, Getting Into The Action Featurette, 28 Days Later: Aftermath - 2 Animated Comic Books, Theatrical Trailer
Easter Egg:
No
Feature Details
Director:
Juan Carlos Fresnadillo
Cast:
Robert Carlyle, Rose Byrne, Jeremy Renner, Amanda Walker, Catherine McCormack
Genre:
Action, Horror and Thriller
Length:
101 minutes
Ratings
Amazon.com
FOLLOW DVDACTIVE
Follow our updates
OTHER INTERESTING STUFF
Latest Reviews





Hot Articles





New Easter Eggs





Most Talked About




