What was that?

Rating: 4/10 (24 August 2007)

What happened in the break between 28 days and 28 weeks to bring about a sequel like that? After we had Jim and co. - a group of people we really cared about - how could they base the sequel on some children, the parents, the military, and general British society?
It's almost as though it was undone by a bigger budget. Too much thinking went into it. Nobody really cared about the details of the rage virus. The entire 'immunity concept' should have been kept as a little by-the-way storyline.
It starts off well, though. A tad too slow, but good. Then, after the beginning, it gets bad. We see too much of these children. You mean to say that with a virus threatening an entire country, they found time for the family drama? Come on... Resurrecting the mother later on, spoils the beginning, which had up to then, been the high point. And we keep seeing the father throughout... as though he's like a zombie stalker. Infected don't stalk... or at least, they shouldn't.
And then, what's worse, after bombarding you with the family drama for about 60% of the movie, mother and father die and they hit you with doctor girl and army man. (note - the annoying children are constant throughout).
In the end, I think what killed this sequel was poor characters. Just as Jim and co. made the Days enjoyable. Either poor characters, or poor character development. Or maybe I just hate it when 15 mins into a picture, every character just fits into a cozy little character description. eg. 'annoying/stupid children'; 'pretty doctor girl who can't hold a gun to save her life' ; ' goodish-looking army man who dies ten - twenty minutes before the end who leaves you wondering wheter or not he is a main character' ; 'worhtless/coward father who dies badly'... you get the drift. Nothing new in Weeks.