PLAUSIBILITY is key, at least for me

Rating: 2/10 (4 November 2007)

Plausibility: having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable: a plausible excuse; a plausible plot.
I'll first preface my statements by saying two things:
1. I'm NOT a horror film fan, at least not of the slasher/gore genre. I'm pretty squeamish about zombie/monster movies. I don't want to be grossed, disgusted, or repulsed.
2. The monsters/antagonists are NOT ZOMBIES. They're infected with a virus, and can be killed. STOP CALLING THEM ZOMBIES. Yes, they're similar to zombies, but there is a BIG difference.
3. I enjoyed 28 Days immensely. It was, to me, more of a thriller horror film than a gore horror film, and it was infinitely more intelligent than most horror films--and engrossing for that reason. Something more in the vein of things like Silence of the Lambs and The Andromeda Strain than Friday the 13th.
With all that in my, I say this: it's hard for me to understand how anyone with half a brain can say this film lives up to the first in any way whatsoever.
For those that disagree or don't understand what I'm saying, let me explain: horror films such as 28 Days and 28 Weeks surely require a suspension disbelief at SOME level. The question is, where does one draw the line? To what level must you be willing to suspend that disbelief? It is my opinion that, for those who expect a reasonable level of intelligence in their entertainment, 28 Days does of great job of NOT asking us to cross that line, while 28 Weeks not only asks us to cross the line, it asks us to forget that it even exists.
Here are examples of things that require us to suspend disbelief in the original 28 Days:

that the original research facility would not be secured enough to prevent activists from breaking in and freeing the infected chimp, and thus initiating the outbreak. To me this is plausible; unlikely, but plausible.

that such a virus could even exist. Again, unlikely, but plausible. It could have just been a biohazard like Ebola or the avian flu, but those only make people sick and die, and that isn't likely to work for a horror flick. Therefore, not such a stretch that asking us to believe that it could exist.

that infected only attack the uninfected. This is something more of a stretch, but mostly this was a non-issue for me personally, since most of the population had already been decimated by the start of the first film.

that infection happens so quickly. Real hemorrhagic fever diseases, such as Ebola, have an incubation period of about a week. So, 20-30 seconds is quite a stretch. Still, this is a plot device that I was able to overlook, personally. Judging from the amount of brain-dead responses I've read here, this is easy for others, as well.

that the infected are so agile and energetic in attacking others. You'd think that they'd mostly be pretty limited since they don't seem to know anything about feeding themselves. On top of that, you'd think that the infection would have other detrimental effects on their physiology, eventually making them sick and weak--especially if they aren't eating well. Again, something I was willing to overlook.

You can read from the other reviewers that panned this flick about the awful plot holes that make this film unbearable. If you like standard horror fare, you'll probably like this sequel. I just can't buy characters making ridiculous decisions that are so idiotic that even someone with mental retardation would not make, just to have that character killed off, because a writer was too frigging lazy to come up with a story line that made sense.
If you don't care so much for such films but, like I, enjoyed the original because it was so different, then you'll likely be greatly disappointed and annoyed with 28 Weeks.
And sadly, this doesn't bode well for the next installment of the franchise, which will likely be even worse (as hard as that is to imagine).