Funny how people expect so much from so little

Rating: 8/10 (23 September 2007)

I came to 28 days later with low expectations, seeing as it was a low-budget horror movie. I was pleasantly surprised and even shocked that so much movie could come from so little money.
That said; knowing that this movie was given a bit more funding and that a change of director was in order, I was surprised yet again at the quality of horror presented in 28 weeks.
A lot of users here lament the "plot holes", such as the stupidity of the boy and his sister, but they fail to explain why panicking in a panic-ridden situation or being cunning and using their exclusivity as children are out of place. The soldiers weren't paying attention because they had become jaded and wanted to leave due to lack of action. I, having served in the armed forces myself, understand this complacency and its ramifications. They didn't have an armed guard outside the woman's door because she was deep inside a facility where you need a badge to go EVERYWEHRE and everyone has a firearm. Not to mention she was strapped down in a locked room inside all that. Is that so hard to believe? On the military's willingness to kill innocent bystanders: they were being decimated by the infected (and none were going to survive) so it doesn't really seem out of question to me.
The themes and plot bases used in this movie can be a stretch, but the fact is, when a virus eats London, reality changes just a *tiny* bit. I just hope France falls the same way, or harder, in the next movie :) I give it an 8 out of 10 for fantastic gore, visceral camera-work, and that element of reality that is enough to make your stomach knot.