Film review

28 Weeks Later

2007 · Directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo · 1h 39m · MPA R

In a sentenceThe army has secured one corner of London and two children on a moped undo it before teatime

HorrorThrillerScience Fiction

A farmhouse outside London, during the rage virus outbreak. Donald Harris (Robert Carlyle) and his wife Alice (Catherine McCormack) are hiding with a handful of strangers, eating tinned food by candlelight, when a child knocks at the door and the infected follow him in. Don runs, and leaves Alice behind. Twenty-eight weeks on, the virus has burned itself out and a US-led force has fenced off a corner of London around the Canary Wharf towers to begin repopulation. Don is caretaker there, and his children Tammy (Imogen Poots) and Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton) arrive from Spain. Scarlet (Rose Byrne), an army medical officer, and Sergeant Doyle (Jeremy Renner), a rooftop sniper, watch the new arrivals. The children want something from the house they grew up in, somewhere in the empty city beyond the wire.

Fi1m review

Juan Carlos Fresnadillo’s sequel opens with the best ten minutes in either film and spends the rest of its time trying to live up to them. It comes closer than it has any right to, though the plot asks you to look away twice.

Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later ended with a jet overhead and the suggestion that rescue was on its way. Juan Carlos Fresnadillo’s sequel asks what rescue would look like, and answers with a fenced compound, a curfew and an American soldier on every roof. It is a good, hard, fast horror film with one of the best openings the genre has produced, and it stands or falls on whether you can forgive a plot that needs two stupid decisions. We could, mostly.

The first ten minutes are the film. A boarded-up farmhouse, tinned food by candlelight, a knock at the door nobody wants to answer. Then the infected come through the walls and Donald Harris (Robert Carlyle) makes a decision about his wife Alice (Catherine McCormack) that the rest of the film never mentions. Enrique Chediak shoots the escape hand-held and half-lit, Chris Gill cuts it so you see a face for a frame and no longer, and John Murphy’s guitar theme comes in low as Don rows away with the infected keeping pace along the bank. We were frightened in the ordinary way, and then, as the camera rose over the boat, we felt something rarer at a horror film: shame on a character’s behalf. Carlyle’s face does it. He is not looking back.

Twenty-eight weeks on, the army has taken a piece of the Isle of Dogs and called it District One. The production design, by Mark Tildesley, puts the returnees in tower-block flats with fresh paint and army-issue blankets under the Canary Wharf towers; the rest of London is exactly as it was left, cars where they stopped, grass through the pavements, nobody. Jane Petrie dresses the soldiers in desert camouflage that looks wrong against Docklands brick, which is the idea. Idris Elba’s General Stone runs it from a screen; Jeremy Renner’s Sergeant Doyle watches it through a rifle sight. Harold Perrineau flies the helicopter. Rose Byrne’s Scarlet, the medical officer, is the one person asking what happens when the wire is tested.

Then Tammy (Imogen Poots) and Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton), Don’s children, want something from the family house in the empty city, and they get out. The film has just spent ten minutes telling us the perimeter is watched by snipers with night scopes, and two children on a moped cross it in daylight. The screenplay, by Fresnadillo, Rowan Joffé, Enrique López Lavigne and Jesús Olmo, needs the children outside and does not care how they got there, and it does the same thing later when it needs two adults to change sides in one cut. Most critics have waved this through because the set pieces earn it. They do, just.

What the army does when the wire fails we will not describe, except that the second half is about being hunted by two sides, and that Fresnadillo stages it in sequences as good as anything in the first film: a room lit only by muzzle flash, a helicopter used for a purpose helicopters are not meant for, a stretch in a tube station seen only through the green of a night sight that we have not forgotten. Gill cuts these so fast that we sometimes lost who was standing where, and once who was still alive, and we are not sure the confusion was always deliberate.

In 2007, a film about an occupying army losing control of a city it promised to rebuild does not need a caption, and Fresnadillo does not add one. Where the film falls short of Boyle’s is in the people. 28 Days Later had four survivors you got to know; this one has eight characters and time for about two, and Byrne and Renner, both good, are playing jobs rather than people. Carlyle is the exception. He has perhaps twenty lines after the opening and works mostly with a face that has decided not to feel anything, and when the feeling arrives anyway it is the best acting in the film.

At 99 minutes it does not hang about. See it in the dark and forgive the moped. If you cannot forgive the moped, the first ten minutes are worth the evening.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

75
Positive
11
Mixed
1
Negative
1

Most critics like it, and the reviews agree on why: Fresnadillo keeps the grim tone and the frantic documentary-style camerawork of the original while working on a larger scale, and the deserted London locations do much of the frightening. The praise clusters on the set-pieces, the outbreak and chase sequences in particular, which several reviews call relentless and terrifying, and on the film’s willingness to read as an allegory of occupation, with the military presence making the crisis worse rather than better.

The spread is fairly wide for a film this well liked. A minority finds the plotting careless: Time Out thinks the script relies on too many fudges and neglects the moral complexity of its key characters, and The Guardian, the one outright dissent, calls a credibility-breaking glitch around thirty minutes in fatal and finds the whole thing frequently boring after a strong opening. Even admirers concede it is less fresh and less heartfelt than its predecessor.

The Hollywood Reporter
10 May 2007
90*

The critic calls it a ferociously entertaining thriller with sympathetic characters, stunning set pieces and pulsating excitement. It ups the ante on the rage virus story with explosive box-office potential.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
11 May 2007 · B+ · Scott Tobias
83

Fresnadillo directs with assured intensity that blurs genre entertainment and real catastrophe, maintaining the original's scrappy feel while escalating chaos and tension through relentless infected and societal breakdown.

Read the full review →
Empire
27 April 2007 · Kim Newman
80*

The sequel extends the story in intelligent, suspenseful ways with bigger action and more amazing deserted London sequences, though it is not quite as fresh or heartfelt as the original.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · Alan Jones
80

Fresnadillo's sequel retains the grim tone and sense of dread but on a more epic scale, with frantic documentary-style camerawork placing viewers at the heart of the horror. It expertly orchestrates galvanising gory action with clear parallels to Iraq in the spectacle of occupying forces exacerbating the crisis.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
9 May 2007
80*

Superior genre fare directed and performed with gusto, it is atmospheric and creepy with excellent use of London locations and bloodcurdling chase sequences that keep the tempo high. It is an exhilarating ride despite occasional shifts in tone and improbabilities.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
9 May 2007 · Jeremiah Kipp
80*

The film delivers unrelenting apocalyptic doom and nihilism, critiquing the War on Terror through self-destructive authority and decimated characters while adopting a larger epic scope than its predecessor.

Read the full review →

Cast

If you liked this, try…