28 weeks later; the infected have died out, and so has our interest

Rating: 4/10 (10 September 2007)

28 Days Later gave us a concept, opened it up and ran with it for about 2 hours, dodging and weaving its way through the country as the compelling characters struggle to understand what is happening and who to trust.
28 weeks later takes around half an hour to get into the thoroughly predictable plot and then attempts to tick every box in the "scary horror sequel" application form while the un-engaging children run from the menace of the infection. The fact that by the end, I'd rather the infected munched on all of them and everyone leave Britain for dead says a lot for the whole thing. It has not half of the intensity, suspense or atmosphere of the original. And the plot is so stupid at times you believe some characters should be turned into flesh-eating monsters for making such ridiculous choices.
The absence of Danny Boyle is what I attributed this shoddy sequel's high disappointment to, until I spied his name in the producer credits. And cried.
And the ridiculous ending undoes any work put in by this Movie and its predecessor.
You will probably laugh out loud.
But to highlight it's good points: The production design. Its nice to watch something set in a world we know and if it wasn't for the script this would be very believable. The camera work is cracking and the London I see is the London I know well (apart from the fact Wembley Stadium appears to be five minutes west of the Houses of Parliament).