 | ON: Content is age-appropriate for kids this age. |
 | PAUSE: Know your child; some content may not be right for some kids. |
 | OFF: Not age-appropriate for kids this age. |
 | NOT FOR KIDS: Not appropriate for kids any age. |
28 Weeks Later
- Review Date: October 8, 2007
- R
- Genre: Horror
- 2007
Common Sense Media says
Apocalyptic zombie sequel isn't for the squeamish.
Parents say
QUALITY
Kids say
QUALITY
What parents need to know
Parents need to know that this sequel to the zombie horror fest 28 Days Later is at least as scary and disturbing as the original. Extreme, graphic peril and violence are nonstop; sympathetic characters die, dysfunctional parents' love (or lack thereof) for each other and their children inspires ghastly death, and the ending removes any sense of optimism or hope that the right course has been taken. There are also sexual references and swearing -- if anyone's even paying attention to the dialogue in a movie like this.
What's the story?
In a major escalation of the first movie's theme, the American military has been brought in to clean up and re-settle Britain, where almost everyone died from a rabies-like contagion that turned people into maniacal (but mortal) zombie psychopaths. If you remember how Her Majesty's soldiers reacted to the "rage virus" plague in the first film -- they were fascistic survivalist types prone to rape -- you won't be surprised that this movie doesn't exactly support the troops either. In fact, it seems to be at least partially a Gulf War/Vietnam metaphor about overconfident U.S. occupiers committing atrocities when they can't tell the civilians from the hostile enemy. After showing husband and father Don (Robert Carlyle) treacherously abandoning his wife during a zombie attack to save himself in the worst days of the epidemic, the movie revisits the ghostly, abandoned London of the first film. The infected have all starved to death, and the U.S. Army is enforcing a high-tech quarantine, resettling the British capital with refugees who waited out the crisis safely across the English Channel. One of the Americans' key local people turns out to be Don, who reunites with his son and daughter -- and lies to them about what really happened to their mother. Don's duplicity sets in motion a chain of events that ends in another outbreak of the rage virus, this time in the heart of this quarantine stronghold.If there's any hope for a cure, it lies with Don's children -- whose blood may have an antidote. A few Americans disobey orders to try to keep the kids alive in the face of deadly American snipers, poison gas, and incendiaries.
Is it any good?
As in the first film, the message seems to be that while victims of the rage virus have no choice about turning into mindless zombies, the uninfected army commanders and soldiers should be more compassionate and human, since they still know right from wrong. Trouble is, it's becoming increasingly evident that in this world, no matter what you do, it only means one thing: more zombies, more murder, and more gore.
What families can talk about
Families can talk about the enduring appeal of apocalyptic horror stories. What's the fascination? Is it that they present moral choices in sharp relief? Families can also talk about how the different characters respond to the quarantine -- and why it goes so badly wrong. Is a zero-tolerance policy the only solution?
- Show:
- All members
- Parents
- Teens & kids
AGE
Not as good as the first, but still good
This movie is less of a powerhouse that the first movie was but it is still decent. The language is stronger than in the first and the obvious conversations about sex seemed to be designed just to get the warning "sexual conduct" and to draw more people in. Unlike the first movie this movie has a much stronger anti military message, that being said, of the two good role models one of them is the soldier that disobeys orders, leaving the meaning inclined viewers to question what later on happens in the film, when the children follow the orders of the soldier that didn't follow orders and have a much better outcome. Try figuring that one out.The violence in this movie is pushed forward as the main plot device considering that some of the main parts of the movie are scenes and montages of people getting shot, lit on fire, killed with thumbs in the eyes method, firebombs, etc. The zombie's this time were not put as the main enemy which may disappoint big fans of the first movie, but the movie portrays the military as a whole acting like zombies. Some few unoriginal and sometimes down right idiotic plot devices keep the story moving, not for squeamish or sensitive viewers.
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
Very scary and graphic violence. not for easily disturbed.
Extremely Gorey and Disturbing so not for under 12. I loved it though.
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
Not a bad sequel, with positive role models, kinda bloody...
With plot I thought it was one of the better sequels out there. With positive messages I think it had good two role models the main male and female military agents trying to save a kid even though it is against their orders, risking and losing their life to save the kids. Negative, it was a bit more bloody but then again it is a zombie movie so it's exactly what you expect.
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
Graphic says it all
I liked it, but not quite as good as 28 days later. Definetely NOT for anyone who is in the least bit squeamish. Expect graphic, gory violence and strong language. I would rate it R for strong graphic violence and gore, language, disturbing content and brief sexuality/nudity.
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
Pretty good
First off, I have to disagree with the man claiming movies like this are responsible for acts of violence. Movies/Games arent the cause, its dumb parents who dont teach their children right from wrong. Let me also add that there was violence WAY before technology.
As for the movie, its still the same concept we all know and love. I thought it was good, it just didnt induce the same type of fear/isolation that the first one achieved so greatly.
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
Bloody, sad, but a perfect Zombie film
I liked this movie a lot, a lot better than its prequel. But I do wish that they had gone a little deeper into the whole eye color thing, that would have been cool. If I had any kids, I would not let them see this until they were at least 16, it is that violent. There is a scene where the government decides just to kill everyone, and it is very.....err.......emotional?
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
SCARY OR WHAT?
hmm, i think this and the SAW sequell beats all horrors!
ermm, i wouldent say for people under my age, the most scariest movie i have ever seen! 17+
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
I loved it. You may not.
I'm a fifteen year old girl, and I loved this movie. It DEFINITELY isn't for the squeamish, and is chock-full of gore and violence (just how us teens like it :)), but if you can get past the first maybe ten or fifteen minutes, it is a totally awesome movie. If you are a parent, you should figure out your kid's likes and dislikes before passing judgement of this movie. Some kids (or teens, or adults) are very impressionable and not into fast-paced thrillers, but some of us live for this stuff.
Was this review useful?
|
|
| Studio: | Fox Atomic |
| Director: | Juan Carlos Fresnadillo |
| Cast: | Catherine McCormack, Jeremy Renner, Robert Carlyle |
| Genre: | Horror |
| Run time: | 103 minutes |
| Theatrical release date: | May 10, 2007 |
| DVD release date: | October 9, 2007 |
| MPAA rating: | R |
| MPAA explanation: | strong violence and gore, language and some sexuality/nudity. |
Review It
Video review
Great alternatives handpicked by our editors
Already seen it? What do you think?
More from Common Sense Media
Top advice and articles
