28 WEEKS LATER: Can Americans Stop Saving the World?

Two films, same universe, partially the same crew behind both. The first thing that separates them is the five years between their creation. The second difference is that years later, one is still watchable—while the other is not. In 2025, it’s honestly hard to believe that 28 Weeks Later was ever considered good, but judging by its average ratings across various platforms, it must have met viewers’ expectations back in 2007. From the team that worked on the first film, 28 Days Later, the duo of Boyle and Garland remained—but no longer as director and screenwriter, only as producers.

The direction (with one small exception, which we’ll get to) and part of the script were taken on by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, who may be known to a wider audience from his later film The Healer (2017). Also returning for the sequel were composer John Murphy and the production design team. The opening scene of the film truly feels like a natural continuation of 28 Days Later, and if you watch the two films back to back, there’s virtually no difference.

But once the first few minutes are over and the story shifts into its main setting, it’s clear we’re in for something entirely different. We’re back in London, and supposedly all the infected have starved to death—but as the opening text and later a train announcer explain, only one zone in London has been decontaminated. We are now 28 weeks post-outbreak. So what are the American military forces doing here (technically NATO, but all the soldiers are American)? They’re setting up a few rooftop snipers and bringing people back into this one and only safe zone—because what could possibly go wrong, right? Everything looks fine at first. Positive vibes. The snipers are cracking jokes, watching people through their scopes, showing how life is getting back to normal and how chill and bro-like they are.

In these opening scenes, showcasing the organization of District 1, it’s hard not to have doubts—and even harder to ignore all the red flags about security, safety protocols, and general preparedness. For instance, the scientist Scarlet (Rose Byrne) is surprised that children were brought in—so clearly, the communication between staff is on the level of a low-tier discount company. And the fact that the main character Don (Robert Carlyle), after everything he’s been through, decides to bring his children to London instead of leaving to be with them, even if it meant living in a tent—well, in my opinion, he should immediately lose his parental rights. Unfortunately, it seems that family courts have not resumed operations in virus-ravaged England, so his daughter Tammy (Imogen Poots) and son Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton) end up in London.

The film’s young characters may have inherited their father’s survival instincts, because after all the trauma, loss of loved ones, and life in exile, they sneak out of District 1. Yes, two kids manage to sneak out of a supposedly ultra-secure zone and roam around the city unbothered. Since the world presented in this film is built on completely nonsensical premises—and the characters behave and are motivated in ways that make no sense—the viewer has every right to feel misled and cheated. As a result of all this, by the 39th minute of the movie, we already know what it’s all about.

So… is there anything left to look forward to? The answer is a loud YES. We meet soldier Doyle (Jeremy Renner), who, during a red alert—yes, the phrase “CODE RED” is actually used—suddenly decides he’s not going to follow orders and chooses instead to save a random group of people hiding in a garage. In USA Army we trust. So maybe there are some great action scenes? Or terrifying moments like from the scariest horror movies? Well, if mowing down infected with helicopter blades like grass with a lawnmower—or just spraying bullets into crowds—falls into those categories for you, then yes, the film has those. Plus, especially in the second half, the camera shakes so violently it’s hard to even focus on what’s happening. The likely goal was to replicate the chaos and intensity of 28 Days Later’s tight, claustrophobic scenes—but this technique is used to such excess that it becomes disorienting. The editing is just as messy. I was convinced Don had already died like 2,137 times, yet he kept popping back up.

In fact, that might be the only thing in 28 Weeks Later that genuinely surprises the viewer. I understand that 28 Weeks Later portrays a world that, under such conditions, doesn’t and never did exist. Sure, different rules and standards of behavior could apply—but there should still be some baseline logic and human dignity. And that’s sorely lacking here. Even physics is treated carelessly, like in the scene where soldiers need specialized gas masks because the air is supposedly so toxic it knocks people out instantly—yet our brave little group of heroes manages just fine with a T-shirt over the nose.

That’s not a creative shortcut or naive writing—it’s a film trying to pass as serious. If it didn’t take itself so seriously, showed some self-awareness, and poured on even more fake blood, it could’ve easily passed as a B-grade horror flick. Those first few scenes I mentioned—the only real highlight of the film—gave hope for a good, or at least decent, continuation. A bit of internet digging was enough to explain why the opening is so dramatically better and different in every way from the rest of the movie. It turns out that the beginning was directed by Danny Boyle himself, and the rest by Fresnadillo. So it started out great—and then the Americans showed up to save the world. And the result? A disaster.