uncut- 28 days later
Added 2025-05-29 15:00:03 +0000 UTC
Comments
I watched the film on BBC iplayer over here in the UK and didn't find any real problems with the picture or sound. I know it was one of the early films shot on digital, so the quality might not have been t as Hif Def as it might have been, but still....I would message wherever you bought your copy from and complain. Interestingly, one of the reasons they were able to shoot a deserted London is because they didn't have to set-up normal cameras and filming equipment. They could close a road, scene dress it and swoop in and shoot with minimal fuss and time.
Robin Roberts
2025-06-19 20:48:57 +0000 UTCAt the end of the day, the film had a relatively small budget, so it’s not surprising that it doesn’t have the most impressive video or audio quality. But it also makes for a unique feel that stands out, for better or worse. Personally I think the sequel was great, and definitely worth a watch.
Dylan Carpenter
2025-06-03 00:18:42 +0000 UTCYou remind me of myself when it comes to poor-quality filming; there are some movies that I can't watch. For example, Shaky Cam and found-footage films drive me up the wall; they make me dizzy. I guess to each their own. 28 Weeks Later is not as good, but it's worth a watch. Like most franchises, it gets worse as it goes on. With so many other great horror movies out there, I would move on to something else, but that's just me.
fastecp1
2025-05-31 13:25:27 +0000 UTCYes watch 28 weeks later. Great cast: Jeremy Renner, Rose Byrne, and Idris Elba.
Cody Price
2025-05-31 01:30:11 +0000 UTC
