Heartbreakingly bad.

Rating: 2/10 (21 October 2007)

After having loved 28 Days Later, I was pretty excited when I heard there was going to be a sequel. And then I saw this movie. At first I found the genetics aspect interesting, but then the one intelligent part turned out to be weak, when the entire plot line is made blatantly obvious about 20 minutes in. The camera techniques are really bad, with the exception of the scene at the beginning when Robert Carlyle's character is being chased through the field.
The plot holes start almost right away. Would Donald not be attack every time he passed a city in that little boat? What kind of military force allows civilians back into a place like that so soon after infection? Especially when they're still cleaning up biohazardous materials. So now the infected aren't just mindless rabid killing machines, as they were in the first movie, they can think and plan well enough to follow a tiny band of survivors across a city like London, after surviving an annihilation like that one. And of course, the main infected is completely unharmed by the wall fire shooting past his face for several moments.
This movie wouldn't have been as disappointing if it had had some decent scares or even tension. My sister didn't scream once, and to put that into perspective, she screamed during Pirates of the Caribbean.
Overall, the only decent thing that carried over from 28 Days Later was the music.