If you've been planning to stream the zombie film “28 Days Later” in advance of the theatrical release of “28 Years Later” next summer, it might be time to get your hands on it.

“28 Days Later” just returned to streaming, while the 2007 sequel “28 Weeks Later” leaves Hulu on December 31. Therefore, if you want to stream “28 Weeks Later” on Hulu, you will need to make time for this bleak zombie sequel directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, in addition to the regularly scheduled holiday streaming.

While it may be far from festive, “28 Weeks Later” is worth checking out if you're looking for an apocalyptic thriller right now. Let's dive in, shall we, with a rundown of “28 Weeks Later” and a brief review summary to convince you to stream the sequel before it's no longer available.

“28 Weeks Later” takes place, unsurprisingly, almost six months after the first outbreak of the “Rage” virus that struck mainland England.

As infected people starve to death, NATO forces have taken control of the country, and U.S. forces are trying to repopulate parts of London, including the heavily guarded colony “District One” on the Isle of Dogs. After an asymptomatic carrier of the virus is brought into the safe zone and infects one of the workers, things spiral out of control again, and the survivors scramble for a safe haven as the military attempts to regain control of the situation.

The cast of 28 Weeks Later includes Robert Carlyle, Idris Elba, Imogen Poots, Jeremy Renner, Rose Byrne, Harold Perrineau, and Katherine McCormack.

Of course. While I don't think this apocalyptic sequel is as good as Danny Boyle's previous film, 28 Weeks Later is worth streaming if you're looking for apocalyptic thrills. Choosing to up the level of gore and action, the film opens with a flourish with another great opening, as impressive as when Jim (Cillian Murphy) wakes up in the hospital in the previous film.

I am not alone in recommending this film. At the time of this writing, the film has a 72% critics score on the comprehensive review site Rotten Tomatoes, indicating that it is generally well received. The site's critical consensus is this: what 28 Weeks Later lacks in the humanism that made 28 Days Later a classic, it makes up for in fantastic atmosphere and punchy direction."

Critic Kim Newman, who reviewed the film for Empire magazine in 2007, gave 28 Weeks Later four stars and wrote: “The action is bigger, the bleak (and devastating) London sequences are better, and the film, while a little less heartfelt than the original, is sharply modern in its relevance.

Ben Walters of Time Out gave “28 Weeks Later” a 3/5 star rating and wrote: “The plot relies on too many fudges and neglects the moral complexity of Don's position. And even though much of the film's carnage is carried out by uninfected troops, its satirical potential is not embraced in the way that, for example, Romero's is,” he wrote, but acknowledged that many of its set pieces are mostly well staged.

Finally, Fangoria's Michael Gingold said that the sequel is “a rare film that returns to the well, as satisfying as the first journey and a worthy companion piece to its popular predecessor.”

Already seen “28 Weeks Later” and want to get back on a similar doomsday movie? Check out the best zombie movies you can watch right now. And if you're looking for something a little more festive to stream this time of year, we also have the best Christmas movies you can stream right now, which scored over 90% on Rotten Tomatoes.