28 Weeks Later (2007) torrent download

28 Weeks Later


Action / Drama / Horror / Sci-Fi



28 Weeks Later picks up six months after the Rage Virus has decimated the city of London. The US Army has restored order and is repopulating the quarantined city, when a carrier of the Rage Virus enters London and unknowingly re-ignites the spread of the deadly infection and the nightmare begins... again.


Juan Carlos Fresnadillo


Imogen Poots
as Tammy Harris
Rose Byrne
as Scarlet
Jeremy Renner
as Sergeant Doyle
Idris Elba
as General Stone

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by klchu 3 /10

Could have been good but ruined by some poor choices

A great premise and setup are ruined by some very poor choices. The makers of this movie hate the audience and their own characters. Nothing that made 28 Days Later a really good movie is in this movie.

Let's start with plot. None of the "this could happen" realism from the first movie is here. I can forgive a few plot conveniences but they just started to stack up. I'm going to list them here so SPOILER WARNING:

  • Mom is immune to Rage virus.

  • Dad is lone survivor.

  • Dad (UK civilian) gets job where his security badge gets him past the highest US military security points.

  • There are zero guards between the entrance and the quarantine area.

  • Not to be outdone, his two kids can sneak past military check points.

  • One of those kids can also escape all zombies, snipers and find his sister, all in a few minutes.

  • Dad becomes the super zombie who can take out squads of trained soldiers (trained to kill zombies, BTW) and who can evade all mass extermination attempts.

  • Super zombie Dad can also find his kids, not once, but twice.

  • Even though zombie blood if contagious, no one ever bothers to wash, or even wipe it off.

  • On the other hand, no one ever gets infected this way either.

  • After 28 days, 28 months, and another 28 days no one bothered to close the Chunnel?

Anyway, with the plot ruined, the next to go was the acting. It's a mixed bag here. Some was good but some was *really* bad. The screaming zombies acted better than some of the regulars when they were screaming.

That bring me to the deaths. You never expect many, if any, of the main characters to survive in a zombie/horror movie. You also expect those deaths to be somewhat spectacular. However, the cruel and callous manner in which some people died crossed many lines for me. If the rest of the movie were any good then perhaps these deaths would have worked. However, I don't think these deaths were given any more thought than "how can we f*ck with people the most?" The "night scope" death was also poorly directed. It's bad enough to kill off a likable character, but to do it poorly? You fail.

That brings us to the gore. If you want gore then you're in luck. This is probably the best part of the movie, but that's not saying much. Some of it is over the top, and some of it even funny (in a black humor way), but some of it was just cheap. The quick editing and fast panning shots seemed to be hiding flaws rather than being a creative choice.

Finally, the "ending." Once again, if the film makers had shown any sort of deep understanding of the movie then I might overlook this lack of a real ending. As it stands I can only assume that the writers just got tired and said "let's end it here." There was no message or anything deep unless you consider futility to be deep. The ending was just a cheesy, seen-it-before cliché.

To conclude: skip it. 3/10

Reviewed by rowman2222 2 /10

I can't be scared because I can't get past how preposterous it was.

I really enjoyed the first film. The characters were real, they made understandable decisions in stressful situations. It was a fresh take on a very cliché genera; zombie films.

The second film, unfortunately, has none of that. Unrealistic characters making the same irrational, unintelligent choices that people in terrible slasher films make. Maybe taken on its own it would not have been that bad, but it has a much stronger film to live up to so it amplifies all of the weaknesses.

I am sorry if I am giving some things away so stop reading now if you have not seen the film and want to "try" and be surprised. I say try because there was nothing, absolutely nothing, unpredictable about this film.

The thing I found most absurd was that after only four months of failing to find an infected person, they already want to try to repopulate the island. Preposterous!!!! The greatest plague in the history of world and they are going back all cavalier? No. It would take years, maybe even decades before any re-population attempt would be made, and even then it would be a military only operation composed of troops and scientists. There would have to be global wide panels of experts and diplomats involved as the entire world would stand to be infected if something went wrong. Anthrax can live in moist soil for years so why not the rage virus? Maybe if the title was 28 months later, or more realistic, 28 years later.

And then again, who would want to come back? There would have to be fantastic incentives to get people to move back. Such as no taxes for life, free property, hereditary titles, etc. But the filmmakers make no effort to explain why the people who moved back were motivated to do so.

Then there is Robert Carlisle's character who is ultimately the person responsible for the re-emergence of the virus. He accomplished this because he has a magnetic pass key that gives him unfettered access to the entire complex, even top secret areas. He walks into a quarantine room of an individual, who turns out to be his wife, that is a carrier of the rage virus but is asymptomatic. He supposedly is some sort of civilian contractor or maintenance worker in the facility, but that wouldn't give him unrestricted access, he isn't even military. Come on!!! Then when the virus finally breaks back out (Too far into the movie to allow for much action in a 90 minute flick) the emergency protocols are so amateurish to be laughable. It is obvious right away that they have never given any or the re-patriots emergency drills because as they are being shuffled into quarantine chambers, they are all confused as to what is happening. You have to go through emergency drills your first day on a cruise ship and they are telling us that after repopulating Brittan after the most deadly plague of mankind, they are not even going to do some drills???? So when this inevitably fails (the zombies break into the quarantine zones, of course) in the ensuing panic, the soldiers cannot tell who is infected and who isn't. After not too much time, the general gives the order to shoot everyone just to be sure. Again, I was sitting in my seat fuming, all they would have had to broadcast on the PA was "Put up your right hand if you are not infected." Presumably zombies don't follow directions. But no, the soldiers start shooting everyone. I wonder if a Nuremburg defense would work in this instance? And of all the other soldiers shooting civilians, only one has moral qualms. Pathetic.

From here, the movie devolves into the typical horror film. The surviving characters of the initial carnage band together and are slowly picked off by circumstance and the results of terrible decision making (Should I go into the Tube where it is dark and has no lights, or should I stay above ground where I can see where I am going?) Oh, and while in the tube, they navigate with a lone night vision scope on an assault rifle that the character doesn't point at the way ahead, but instead at the surviving characters heads, did she forget that the scope is attached to a gun? Who points a gun at peoples heads they are not intending to shoot. BTW this is the same character who earlier in the film corrected the word usage of a person and then made the same mistake herself. (What kind of writer didn't pick that up???) Oh, and Robert Carlisle just happens to appear in nearly every scene even though he is only supposed to be a zombie. It got really irritating to keep seeing him pop up all the time. Was someone directing his location????? Again, no explanation of why this particular zombie was so adept at finding the few survivors.

Reviewed by capcanuk 1 /10

This is a dreadful film, and the reasons why are...

28 Weeks Later has to be the most disappointing sequel I've ever seen. This review will contain spoilers, however, it's nothing that the filmmakers themselves haven't spoiled to start with. Let's start with the most fundamental element of film-making: camera work. 28 Weeks Later is one of those pretentious films with the epileptic, hand-held camera that seems so popular with filmmakers who have nothing to actually say or show in their films. There are precious few scenes where the camera isn't both hand-held and in constant frenetic motion. It brings nothing to the film, creates no tension, and brings nothing new to the art of film-making. There are lengthy scenes that compound the camera work problem by also being filmed in simulated night vision. For those of you with a propensity to headaches or vision problems, this alone makes 28 Weeks Later a film to avoid.

On to the story. This is, sadly, one of those films where stupid people do stupid things as the only means the filmmakers could think of to advance a pointless story. **spoilers start** These two kids have just arrived in the "secure zone" and yet are able to sneak out, past heavily armed guards, pas various security measures, and run off into an area they have been repeatedly told is not safe. Armed guards surround the city. Soldiers are everywhere. Everyone has a machine-gun, a pistol, night vision goggles… and yet, the discovery of an infected person, brought into the "secure zone", and absolutely NO precautions are taken? There are no extra guards; there are no extra security measures. To make matters even more "logical", it seems that all the soldiers in the area where this infected person is being kept are all either idiots, unarmed, or conscientious objectors. There is not one useful weapon to be found when it would be most useful. A soldier with a helicopter wants to rescue his buddy, yet the only thing he can think to do is have them crawl throughout the city to a distant spot to pick them up? Are there absolutely NO areas closer? This is just a completely useless gimmick to have the heroes of the story trek across town. I could go on listing plot holes large enough to float the entire U.K through, but I trust my warning will be enough to ward off those who are on the fence about seeing this film or not. Somehow, the kids' father has survived all the way through these events, despite all logic. Like the lone zombie in Day of the Dead who has learned to use a gun and appears to have regained some of his sentience, here we have an infected who defies all logic, including the internal logic of 28 Days Later, to follow his children and pop up at convenient moments for cheap scares and bad melodramatic moments. The filmmakers have created situations that defy logic and normalcy to advance a completely pointless story. Characters perform actions that defy logic. Events happen that defy logic. There is blood everywhere, yet no one seems worried about infection. And I can assure you, if blood is what you feel like seeing, this movie's carnage is on the heavy side. I'm not squeamish, and I actually enjoy a good gory film every once in a while. The problem with 28 Weeks Later is not the gore. It's the pointlessness of it all.

I've seen some really bad films in my day. I've actually enjoyed some of those bad films. The problem with 28 Weeks Later is that it WANTS to be a great film. It WANTS to be a big budget gore-fest. With completely unsympathetic characters, it fails to create any bond with the audience. Even if the epileptic camera work gave us an instant of respite to actually relate to those characters. We are kept at a distance by terrible plot devices, terrible character development, and completely silly events.

Read more IMDb reviews