Six months after the rage virus was inflicted on the population of Great Britain, the US Army helps to secure a small area of London for the survivors to repopulate and start again. But not everything goes to plan.
A shy student trying to reach his family in Ohio, a gun-toting tough guy trying to find the last Twinkie, and a pair of sisters trying to get to an amusement park join forces to travel across a zombie-filled America.
Animal activists invade a laboratory with the intention of releasing chimpanzees that are undergoing experimentation, infected by a virus -a virus that causes rage. The naive activists ignore the pleas of a scientist to keep the cages locked, with disastrous results. Twenty-eight days later, our protagonist, Jim, wakes up from a coma, alone, in an abandoned hospital. He begins to seek out anyone else to find London is deserted, apparently without a living soul. After finding a church, which had become inhabited by zombie like humans intent on his demise, he runs for his life. Selena and Mark rescue him from the horde and bring him up to date on the mass carnage and horror as all of London tore itself apart. This is a tale of survival and ultimately, heroics, with nice subtext about mankind's savage nature. Written by
Claudio Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Jim, Selena, Mark, Frank, and Hannah's surnames are never revealed during the film or in the end credits. Likewise, Jim's parents names are never revealed. See more »
The common trope of the zombies being undead with a craving for brains (or human flesh) is notably and deliberately averted in this film, pinning the reason for the devastation on the rage virus which turns people into violently aggressive killers - but this opens up a considerable plot hole: Why don't the rage victims kill each other? "Normal" zombies don't because the undead kill the living but the rage-infected seem to act more like a dog in the final stage of rabies, attacking anything that moves and/or makes noise - the infected have no reason not to attack each other. See more »
[the three animal activists arrive to the laboratory]
[when seeing all of the caged apes]
See more »
Other than the Fox Searchlight logo, there are no opening credits whatsoever. The title of the movie, 28 Days Later, only appears as a descriptive subtitle. See more »
As it so happens, 28 Days Later is the best zombie movie in the last few decades. Probably since Romero's classics, if I recall accurately. It stands up on its own in a genre which is frequently plagued by a sort of innate stupidity, a consequence of one too many dead people. Otherwise how could one explain the fact that the most acclaimed zombie films are parodies of the genre?
28 Days Later shares a striking resemblance with Resident Evil, in that it kind of starts where RE left off: after one of the most exciting intro sequences I have ever witnessed (!), a lonely average-Joe, (Jim in this particular case) wakes up in a deserted London and takes a jolly good walk through the intimidatingly empty streets. Man-kind seems to have been wiped out by a contagious virus which induces a sort of blind rage upon those who fall prey to it. As may have guessed by now, this will be a story of survival.
While most horror films will offer a relatively exciting ride with little more than sparse scares, Danny Boyle's movie sheds a new light on the survival instinct of human beings which can damned well spook the living hell out of you - even if not in the traditional sense. Looking at Children of Men might offer some insight into what it feels like to have no future and this itself may clear the way to appreciating 28 Days Later.
I guess it's one of those rare horror films which not only enlighten the viewer with nice, gory slaughters but also with a share of psychological goodies. 28 Days Later doesn't forget "the Master" either and offers an obvious and unobtrusive tribute to Dawn of the Dead. All around the movie keeps you going because it is an immersive experience and not just a "poke-your-finger" kind of experience.
92 of 123 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?