28 Days Later... (2002) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,434 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A modern classic.
desh7919 October 2003
Perhaps I'm a little biased. After all, this is set in the city I live and work in, and seeing Oxford Street and Piccadilly Circus, which I pass by every morning and which are usually teeming with crowds of people, completely empty was enough to send shivers down my spine. Usually when you watch a movie like this it's located in some nondescript Midwestern village, which makes it easy to detach yourself from the events unfolding on screen. But seeing them occur in the place you call home is something that gives it an entirely new sense of reality, and one I was previously unaccustomed to.

Still, judging 28 Days Later entirely on its merit as a film, it's easy to arrive at the conclusion that it's a fantastic achievement, as well as a coming-of-age of sorts for director Danny Boyle; I can't say the MTV-inspired vanity of The Beach, or the self-consciously trendy posturing of Trainspotting appealed to me, and to my shame I initially expected 28 Days Later to be given a similar treatment. Thankfully, my fears proved unfounded, discarded straight after a opening sequence which is at once effortless and fearsome. The rest of the movie was a joy. A terrifying joy, but a joy nonetheless.

It's true that sometimes minimalism can be more effective than overblown bravado, and it's definitely true for this movie. It's the scenes of complete silence which get to you the most; an entire metropolis empty. The grainy picture serves to add a documentary-style quality to the film, which makes the whole situation seem almost too real to bear. Definitely a wise choice to film this on digital video.

You will occasionally meet people who thought 28 Days Later wasn't 'scary' or 'gory' enough. These are the same people who will tell you that 2001 was 'boring', or that Memento was 'confusing'. Ignore them. Others didn't understand the purpose of the second half, or were confused by its change of pace, feeling that it distracted from the movie as a whole. However, I personally regard the second half as very important because, as another reviewer pointed out, it makes a very succinct point: What is scarier, the end of the world, or having the world repopulated by maniacs? That, I think, is where the real Horror of 28 Days Later lies.

28 Days Later, like the Romero zombie flicks of yore, is ultimately an allegory of the days we are living in, an age in which we are constantly confronted with violence by the media (much like the ape right at the start of the film), where violence begets violence, and humanity faces an uncertain future. I applaud Danny Boyle's bravery in making 28 Days Later because he undoubtedly took a big commercial risk when the majority of the cinema-going public might prefer escapism to words of caution. Remember, Rage is a human-made disease. Quite the allegory there.

Like most great masterpieces of their time, 28 Days Later has been misunderstood by a considerable amount of people. I have no doubt it will go down in history as a classic, the one movie which perfectly sums up the confused era we are living in. And even if you didn't like it, it would be advisable to give 28 Days Later another chance; it's a haunting experience when looked at from the right angle. Danny Boyle has many years left in him, I hope he'll continue making more movies like this.
440 out of 525 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What makes it different...
shanfloyd30 December 2004
This film is about a virus, 'Rage' virus that makes the infected person mad with extreme rage and hungry for blood. Within 28 days one outbreak in London caused entire Britain dead or evacuated leaving behind a blood-thirsty infected population and a handful of solitary normal persons. Civilization came to a halt, society got destroyed while those limited survivors fight for existence among frequent attack by the vicious victims.

Sounds familiar? Then what makes "28 Days Later..." a classic among a horde of zombie/biohazard movies? Simply a touch of art that Danny Boyle is able to bring what others could not. The others focus too much on extensive, special-effects-controlled, gory action sequences between infected and normals, with heavy background music. But here there's always a tinge of sadness, emptyness, helplessness. Consider that empty London scene with that background music. We found out there's much else to show than just electrifying action or gore to describe the picture of life in this condition that these movies talk about.

There are mistakes and loopholes in this movie. But that couldn't weaken the otherwise tight-gripping storyline. The greatest achievement of this movie is to make one viewer stay neutral throughout the film, without taking any side in the first place. Because the virus we talk about is simply used as a metaphor. 'Rage' is shown as a social disease. That makes it a 'serious' film, not a flick. Every person, even the harshest critic of zombie horror movies should watch this. 5 out of 5 stars.

Oh, did I mention Cillian Murphy was awesome?
324 out of 415 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Quite good
ljbad28 June 2004
I'm amazed there are so many negative reviews of this film; I thought it succeeded on every level. It's artistic and atmospheric, with a great pace, sympathetic characters, and a fantastic climax. The music is very nicely done, and, to me, the eerie opening scenes of the empty London streets are worth the price of admission all on their own. I'm a stubborn viewer, and, normally, when a film benefits from early critical buzz in the manner that this one did, I find some excuse not to like it. But not this time; I'm completely impressed. (Incidentally, I think it's interesting that while most horror films these days seem to have been inspired by knockoffs of knockoffs, "28 Days Later" apparently owes more to John Wyndham's classic disaster novel "The Day of the Triffids" than to anything else. And that's a good thing.) HIGHLY recommended.
133 out of 169 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An Existential Drama,with Horror woven in
S.R. Dipaling10 August 2005
The 2003 State-side release of Danny Boyle's "28 Days Later" was advertised as being a shockful scare-fest of a movie. I didn't get around to seeing it until a few days ago and I gotta feel like that was somewhat of an embellishment on the promoters' part.

When environmental terrorists attack a lab that contains diseased chimps who are infected with a "Rage" virus, they unwittingly let loose a plague that lays waste to England and(perhaps)the rest of society. The 28 Days later of the title cuts to a mostly abandoned London where a coma-tized bicycle courier named Jim(Cillian Murphy,effective) wakes from his stasis to find himself alone in a hospital. As he searches London for signs of life,he is rescued from raging zombies by a couple of survivalists(one of them,the lovely Naomie Harris)who he follows from place to place to keep alive. From there,he also meets a man and his daughter(Brendan Gleeson,terrific,and Megan Burns,good)and they try to find a refuge out of London-town. A recorded message of a "paradise" where "salvation" can be found is tracked by Frank(the man) on his shortwave radio.

This film feels more like a meditation on what happens to people when they are reduced to their lowest elements. A friend of mine told me that this movie's running zombies was what inspired the zombies in the remake of "Dawn of the Dead",but where "Dawn of..." was pretty much a full-throttle action/horror hybrid from about start to finish,this film plays more like a "What if..." movie,with less emphasis on the creatures themselves and more on the (lucky?) survivors. There are also disturbing lessons on the nature OF survival,too.

An very interesting and disturbing flick that probably sold itself wrong.
195 out of 260 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
one of the best European horror films this decade
MisterWhiplash16 August 2003
The key to keeping the sci-fi horror genre alive in the cinemas, as of late, is to make sure the material and techniques the filmmakers present is at least competent, at it's average creative, and at it's best something that we haven't seen before or haven't seen in such a style or form. George A. Romero did that back in prime 60s and 70s era of film-making, bringing forth one of the most memorable trilogies of all time for the genre. While many consider Romero to be on any given list one of the greatest horror directors (I included), it is important to know that he too had his sources for his little independent film in 1968, and after that was when he really got inventive, resulting in a masterpiece and a lackluster. Director Danny Boyle and author Alex Garland know that if they were to cook up a yarn all too similar to Romero it wouldn't be satisfying. So, they've done what is essential to the success of 28 Days Later- they take ideas that have been in practice for many years, turn them fresh, and as the audience we feel repelled, excited, terrified, nauseous (perhaps), and enthralled, but we won't leave feeling like we've seen complete hack work.

What does Boyle and his team set out to do to freshen up the zombie string? By making not in precise terms a "zombie" movie- you never hear "living-dead" uttered in this film, although you do hear "infected" and a new word for what these people have, "rage". Indeed, this is what the infected have in Britain, when a monkey virus gets let loose on the Island, and from the beginning of the infectious spread the film cuts to a man, Jim, lying in a hospital bed, who wanders abandoned streets and views torn fragments of society in front of him. That Boyle implements atmosphere as heavily as he does with the action/chase scenes gives an indication of his dedication to the detail. Jim soon finds a few other survivors, including Selena (Naomie Harris) and a father and his daughter (Brendan Gleeson and Megan Burns) who hear of salvation on a radio and decide to brave it out to find it. When they do, it's a military outpost that's without any true salvation, outside of the various military typos.

Like in Boyle and producer Andrew MacDonald's spellbinding (if that's the proper terminology) adaptation of Trainspotting, the craft is on par (or arguably topping) with the story and characters, and thus it has to captivate us all the more so to care about the plight of Jim and his companions. The photography by Anthony Dod Mantle is striking, not the least of which since it was done on digital photography (like in Blair Witch, the use of non-professional camera equipment adds the proper shading when needed), but also many of the shot compositions are different for such a film. The editing by Chris Gill goes quicker than expected in the attack scenes, going so fast between the infected throwing up blood, the screaming on-looker; the new infected transforming within seconds, and then the results that follow. Mark Tildesley's production design, as well as John Murphy's music, evokes haunting, evocative moods even in the more mundane scenes. And the acting, considering not many of the actors are well-known, is more than believable for such a script.

I'm not sure if 28 Days Later will be everyone's cup of tea. Some of the horror and science fiction fans out there will immediately hear of this film, see a preview or a TV ad, or even see it, and dismiss it as phooey rubble borrowed from the video-store. I can see their points of view, since I saw many similarities in Romero and some other films (the military scenes reminded me of Day of the Dead, though the chained up Zombie in this was done for more practical reasons, and the supermarket scene is a little unneeded considering the satirical reverence it had in Dawn of the Dead). But what they should understand is that Boyle isn't making a 100% original film, and no one could at this point of the genre's history. He has done, however, the most credible job he could in getting a different tone, a different setting in country, and of a different, enveloping view of the scene structures. Overall, 28 Days Later is constructed and executed like most sci-fi horror films you've ever seen, and like not many other sci-fi horror films you've ever seen combined, in a sense, for a modern audience: fascinating throughout.
210 out of 282 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Very Good In Places But Ultimately Unconvincing
Theo Robertson20 October 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Long before I watched 28 DAYS LATER I had an online conversation with a couple of my cyber friends Jeremy and Riquez . Jeremy praised the movie thinking it was one of the best film releases in several years . I did point out to him the ridiculous idea that a virus with an incubation period of 20 seconds wouldn't be able to cause the type of havoc as featured in the movie . Riquez contributed to the conversation by saying " Theo you have no problem with rabid zombies but you find a virus with an incubation period of 20 seconds ridiculous ! " After finally seeing 28 DAYS LATER ( Thanks for the video Robin ) my reservations were confirmed , the audience can quite happily accept the concept of raging psychos tearing up the country destroying all in their path but the thought put into small details spoils the film somewhat

!!!!! SPOILERS !!!!!

Most of the problems lie in Alex Garland's script , it lacks depth , logic and internal continuity . Take for example the line where Selena tells Jim that the apocalypse was caused by something in the blood . How would she know this ? This is an example of characters knowing what's happening because the screenwriter does which is a mistake on Alex Garland's part . The reverse is also very true with characters being unable to work out things the audience has . Before seeing the movie I did have online conversations on the message board that a virus that takes 20 seconds to turn people into zombies wouldn't be able to spread world wide , indeed this is central to the plot and Sgt Farrell does state that " How does the infection spread across the oceans , mountains and rivers ? " and yet he's the only character in the story to draw this very obvious conclusion that only mainland Britain has been struck by rage . It would have been far less obvious if Selena and others had been totally ignorant as to the mechanics of infection

As for the gaps in logic ask yourself this: If the soldiers want to keep Selena and Hannah as sex slaves why didn't they murder Jim as soon as they saw him ? I guess if they did we wouldn't have a story , but the screenplay is full of these niggling problems , like Jones and Mitchell getting into a fight so Jim can escape or West and Davies going to the barricade to kill Jim when they've got everything they need ( ie Selena and Hannah ) at the house . There's no reason for the soldiers to care about killing Jim

I also had a problem with the characterisation . Selena is shown as being tough as nails and totally ruthless at the start of the story and then needs rescuing by Jim at the end . Compare her to characters in say a John Christopher story where the protagonist starts off as middle class and mild mannered and ends up having to kill to survive . This is what happens to Jim but it seems a totally ridiculous character arc as he wipes out West's platoon . Jim has spent a month in a coma , has no military experience and manages to beat some squaddies who not only managed to survive mass attacks of the infected but had considerable battle experience before rage . I'm telling you Saddam must be kicking himself about not recruiting any bicycle couriers into the Iraqi army

I will absolve Garland of any blame for the bizarre upbeat ending where Jim survives a bullet wound to the stomach and lives happily ever after with Selena and Hannah since the studio demanded a happy ending for their audience . Let's be honest here , the only ending that would have made sense is Jim dying and the two girls facing an uncertain future with rage turning into a pandemic holocaust

I don't want to give the impression that I hated 28 DAYS LATER . I liked it a lot and will praise director Danny Boyle for making a tense and often very thrilling film . The use of digital video succeeds and the cinematography is breath taking especially the scenes set at the rain drenched roadblock where you can almost see every single raindrop falling pass the screen . The casting is somewhat uneven ( The French foreign legion isn't that cosmopolitan never mind the British army ) but mention must go to Ricci Harnett as Cpl Mitchell who plays one of cinema's most memorable thugs in a long time , Leo Bill might give an irritating performance as Jones but that's the way he's written , Naomie Harris is impressive where she's not let down by the script and the only real disappointment is Christopher Ecclestone as Major West who seems slightly miscast

I gave 28 DAYS LATER seven out of ten but to be honest this should have been so much better . One can't help thinking Boyle would have been better off filming an adaptation of John Christopher's THE DEATH OF GRASS . As it stands it's a very good example of if a film is good it's because of the director . If it's bad it's because of the screenwriter
67 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
the one thing
soymaid32716 July 2004
The one thing that made this movie effective... well, let me back up. Ever have a nightmare where you're being stalked, or otherwise threatened, and you could die, and it's scary as hell? I mean, the absolute worst? Now, think: have you ever had a nightmare where someone you love was already dead, and you knew it, you saw it?

It's infinitely worse.

This movie recognizes that. There is some action, yes, mostly towards the end, but what makes this movie one of the scariest I've seen is its method of accessing the deepest fears in all of us -- not fear for ourselves, of our own deaths, but for others, our families and loved ones, and the utter, complete loneliness if they were to simply be gone forever. This is a post-apocalyptic movie that really drives in the impact of the idea, to devastating effect. It makes everything more engaging: the characters feel more real (though this is also due to the excellent script), the danger more immediate. But this is not a things-pop-out-and-scare-you horror movie. It's a film that will haunt you.
105 out of 141 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Pint of Rage
tributarystu12 September 2003
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.
94 out of 127 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Cracking Zombie style horror, with substance
mjw230523 December 2006
28 Days Later successfully takes the zombie genre to a new level, this movie is far more than just a horror flick. There are some great characters, that you actually care about, some you'll like, some you'll be glad to see killed, but all solidly performed.

The story is well written and avoids the clichéd cheesy scripts that are too often attached to the horror genre. And I must add that the direction is exactly what you would expect from 'Danny Boyle' top class.

For me though the real difference between this movie and many others made in this genre is as follows - The infected (the zombie like folk) are more menacing, they turn instantly and they move fast, a combination that would instill fear in every one of us.

I don't mean to run down the zombie movie genre - I am a huge fan of most of these films, but lets be honest its been done to death, re-animated and done again, and this was the first movie to break the mould and transcend to a new level.

If you like your horror flicks, then this is certainly worthy of your attention.

119 out of 165 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An Emotion Infects a Nation.
nycritic9 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
A film that at time plays like a frenzied docudrama, 28 DAYS LATER... is unrelenting, grim, horrific, and completely nightmarish. Images of violence against humans dominates the screen for a few minutes, and we soon learn these are televisions mounted against a wall, broadcasting non-stop footage of the inhuman things people do to one another. A monkey lies strapped down, facing these images, helpless. There are others in cages nearby. A band of environmentalists break in, predictably to free these imprisoned monkeys, but a conflict ensues as a scientist barges in and warns them it would be completely insane to do so -- they're infected with Rage. However, since scientists normally equal evil corporations and dehumanized technology known for cruelty not only against animals but humans, they proceed to free one of the apes... and total pandemonium breaks loose as the monkey viciously attacks its freer, and in seconds we see her eyes have become red. She is an infected.

And this is the simple setup for a movie that in 100 minutes frightens the pants of even a jaded person. To see shots of a deserted London magnified by shots of abandoned vehicles, overturned equipment, and a haunting collage of missing persons that recalls the scores of photos of the missing that did not survive the 9 - 11 attacks, is extremely disturbing and unsettling and made me squirm in my seat as Cillian Murphy's character Jim walks around town, having awaken about a month later from a coma. It's not reassuring for him to know he may be the only surviving person in the city, and soon he learns there are others out there... but not reasonable, frightened people as much as ferocious predators who will rip the flesh right off you, and if mercy takes over, you may die right there and then, because it only takes 20 seconds for full infection to take over and turn you into a raving monster.

That he is saved at the last minute by others who have survived the madness is his saving grace. These are Naomi Harris as Selena and Noah Huntley as Mark, who brief Jim on what happened in haunting monologues, and that Danny Boyle stays focused on Huntley's face as he relates to Jim his own story is flashback enough: it only heightens the terror that swept London and that is still alive and well. This prompts Jim to go visit his parents, maybe hoping they are still alive, and after a near-fatal encounter with an infected there in which Mark does not survive (Selena, absolutely committed to survive this, hacks him to pieces after quickly noticing he's been infected), they barely manage to escape more infected before meeting two other people, a bearish man and his daughter (Brendan Gleeson and Megan Burns). They have been listening to scattered transmissions that are indicating Manchester holds a possible refuge for survivors.

Once they make the decision to leave to Manchester the movie takes a turn and becomes a road film and involved a harrowing if somewhat implausible escape from London through a tunnel, where even the rats are running away from the sheer horror these barely seen people have become. That they eventually meet this fort in an already destroyed Manchester gives them little reassurance, which proves to be true as a small band of military guys lead by Christopher Eccleston have dubious intentions with the women.

And here is where Danny Boyle cleverly turns an apocalyptic movie into a study of the human race: can the people who are supposedly meant to protect us be actually worse than the ones who have fallen to a devastating plague? The answer, quite simply, turns out to be yes. That this makes Jim do a much needed transition from dazed youth to fierce survivor drives the point even more home: Rage wiped out most of the population, as a virus, but in given circumstances, is found quite well within us, and Jim becomes so filled with it at one climactic sequence it takes Selena a second before reacting that he hasn't yet been infected.

This is a very tense film. There are moments of quietude in a field, where sleep comes uneasy, and even that moment to me was worse than any of the moments when the infected actually sped out and after any of the characters. Seen in stroboscopic images, they becomes even more frightening than if seen as lumbering idiots. If the ending seems a little too upbeat, maybe it's only the decision Boyle and the screenwriters took after having us gone through so much gut-wrenching tension and clear calls, that it was only fair to have Jim, Selena, and Hannah survive and see a glimmer of hope at the end. Other than that, 28 DAYS LATER compresses the battles with good and evil in a world gone wild instead of going all over the place with too many characters like THE STAND and many others do. Intelligent, repulsive at times, unbearable, this was one of the best films of 2003. The DVD release has some nice extras, like alternate endings, deleted scenes, for those into investigating further into Boyle's dark tale.
78 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Flawed but thrilling British horror movie
bob the moo30 October 2002
In England a group of animal rights activists break into a research facility to free monkeys. However the monkeys are infected with a new developed virus called rage which is contagious by blood or bodily fluid - at the same time Jim lies in a coma. 28 days later Jim awakens from his state to find London deserted and populated only by a group of those infected by rage. Jim is rescued by Selena and her friend who tell him what has happened and start a search for other survivors and a quest to find the cure, promised by a military unit stationed in the north.

I excitedly arrived at the preview for this looking forward to a tense British horror movie to make me jump with fear. I got pretty much what I wanted. The plot is simple and omits much detail but not to it's disservice. Details as to what the virus is or what it was created in the first place (by putting monkeys in front of TV's Clockwork Orange style?) but the detail is not important seconds into the film when we wake up with Jim. At this point his fear becomes ours and what is important to him is not the detail but the bigger picture of the infected and the chances of survival.

The plot is told in two parts. First the big picture in London and then the smaller battle north of Manchester. Both are well told but for different reasons. The bridging section of the journey north is good as it helps us know the characters better. Of course is it scary? Well, not scary but thrilling all the way. To me scary is things like Ringu - creepy stuff, but most will be freaked by 28 days later. The infected are not zombies in definition or in action - they move silently and fast and with pure blood lust. I was always more scared by zombie flicks than anything else becomes they keep coming - here they do the same but fast!

The direction is good for the most part. The opening scene in London just shows how badly Crowe did his bit in Vanilla Sky. Here it is clever and chilling to see much of London totally empty. The direction is better when it is fast cutting and handheld style. We see things like the characters would see them out of the corner of their eyes, a flicker, a shadow etc and it works to great effect. The only downside is that, at one or two points, the attacks were signalled by a preceding talking 5 minutes, but this is minor. The final rain soaked action is excellent - fast, gripping and paced. This film doesn't rely on gore or special effects (although it is there) instead it has genuine tension and fear.

The film is very British. It is very low-key and realistic. The survivors are not Mad Max style heroes but people clinging to life by a thread or setting up survivalist measures that simply don't work. The ending is not as good as I had hoped but it wasn't bad and it fitted with the tone of reality that Jim had realised when lying on his back in the woods towards the end. It's not without flaws but the film is a very good British horror film - Americans will wonder `where are all the teenager girls to scream' or `why don't they all have guns' or `why is there no real dah-dah music to tell us when something is going to happen' but that is because this is a British film and not Hollywood.

Most reviews have praised the `unknown' cast. Well I agree the cast did very well - but unknown? Murphy certainly is not unknown (and won't be from now on) and he does Jim very well, from when the truth is first real to him, to his decision that he must learn to kill through to his transformation near the end. Harris is excellent again, I say again as she did well in miniseries `white teeth'. Her accent is British and she plays a younger role but she is a good actress. Brendan Gleeson is good in a fatherly role but Eccleston seems clipped and at odds with his military role. In fact all the military guys were laddish caricatures and only just did the job - but I never believed in their characters as I did with the others.

Overall I was glad to see this early. I really enjoyed it, the pace at times may have been uneven but to me that added to the tension - an attack could come at any time. The eventual small scale focus helped the tension and pace of the story. Thrilling, scary, tense and well written - even more surprising is that it's home grown!
113 out of 163 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Lord of the Flies meets Outbreak
bodhisattva1330 June 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Danny Boyle is an exceptionally gifted filmmaker and I've been enamored with his work since the brilliant "Shallow Grave." "Trainspotting" only gets better every time you see it and "A Life Less Ordinary" has some bright moments. (The singing and dancing number is parfait.) Mr. Boyle hit a bump in the road when it came to "The Beach," but then he forsake us all by casting DiCaprio. He's back to redeem himself, as is Alex Garland, with "28 Days Later," a marvelous twist on the apocalyptic film.

IMDB's summary isn't completely accurate in that "nearly the entire planet has been wiped out." But that's a plot twist you'll have to uncover for yourself. What occurs - a la "12 Monkeys" - is while trying to expose the work taking place at a primate research center, a group of activists unwittingly release a virus called rage. The way it works is if a person is bitten by an infected person, he or she develops a murderous rage and desire to kill within 10 to 12 seconds. (Infection can also occur if the afflicted person's blood enters another person's body, through the nose, eye, mouth or open wound.)

Twenty-eight days after being hit by a car, Jim, a bike courier and our film's hero, wakes up to find London deserted. He eventually meets two other survivors and then encounters another two. After picking up a radio broadcast that calls all uninfected people to Manchester, the survivors fight off the infected and make their way to what seems like the promised land. Complications follow is all I'll say.

Some have compared this film to George Romero's "Night of the Living Dead," giving some people the wrong impression that this is the British take on the zombie flick. Wrong. The infected aren't zombies but they are terrifying. They can be killed and the director doesn't gross us out by showing the infected feasting on human flesh. (All in all, "28 Days" isn't visually disgusting. It's the thought of what's going on that bothers you.)

The acting in this film is really first rate, with Cillian Murphy giving an emotionally compelling performance. As in most Boyle films, the camera work also is exceptional and in the first part we are shown some phenomenal long shots of an evacuted London with a soundtrack devoid of sound. The effect is gooseflesh raising. Boyle also adds in other nice touches, like a bunch of goldfish swimming in about five inches of water. (Symbolism?) And a scene with wild horses is another fine moment.

The story too goes beyond what we might expect. We get the jumps associated with zombie films - they come out of no where and travel in packs - and yet the heroes don't come off too much better. One character suggests that the virus, by killing off humankind, returns things to normalcy. Christopher Eccleston, a terrific actor, retorts that before the virus man killed man and now he's still doing it. So what's changed? The film also suggests that to save yourself, you would have to kill anyone - child, adult; family member, stranger. And these characters do. But what's noteworthy is we see how having to make those sorts of decisions affects them, particularly Jim.

Like Lord of the Flies, the film strips away the civility we all think we possess and demonstrates that we, too, are bound by the laws of the animal kingdom - it's survival of the fittest and to have a future we need to reproduce.

Another reviewer said the film fell apart after the first 45 minutes when, in fact, I felt it only got stronger. The last half of the film proved to be very intense. Garland truly raised the stakes.

If you enjoy your scares with a bit more thought to them, "28 Days Later" won't disappoint. (And if you do, try these similar films - "12 Monkeys," "Quiet Earth" and "Lord of the Flies.")
57 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Wow! A horrifying, survivalist-type thriller that is GREAT
David Krasnow20 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This film was fantastic. I was expecting something along the lines of a combination of "Resident Evil" and "The Day After Tomorrow" but this is quite different from that description. Yes, it involves a terrible disease that leaves its infected victims as blood-sucking, mindless zombies who pray on the not-yet-infected and yes, it involves a group of survivors who are left together to fend for themselves. But it is quite different from Resident Evil (no comic-book or video-game type plot here and no explosives or automatic weapons) and is a much more thrilling "survivalist-type" film than "The Day After Tomorrow".

An awful virus is spreading through the streets and cities of Great Britain. Soon nearly everybody is affected by this deadly disease that turns its victims into zombies, who are quite noticeable and different from normal people due to their odd/rapid body movements, their blood red eyes, foaming at the mouth, and their inability to communicate with normal people unless they are trying to bite them. A small group of survivors manages to stay alive and uninfected, but not for long. Eventually, they one-by-one fall victim to the awful disease and the remaining survivors have sealed a pact that involves them instantly killing any member of their group that has become infected, not to endanger those who are still alive and not yet zombies. As the survivors count their time left, they attempt to make it to a British military base near Manchester where they believe they will be safe. They do eventually make it there, but what can stop zombies (who are mindless, blood-thirsty and have nothing to lose) from invading an army base? Are the survivors and British soldiers safe? Or will they soon become zombies themselves?

This film is quite scary and exciting and perhaps one of the best British films that I have seen from modern times... Please feel free to email me with any questions or comments...
60 out of 88 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
28 Days Later
movie_person12 March 2005
This, I have to say, was one of the better viral-zombie films I have seen. The plot was highly un-original, but extremely well made. The acting was powerfully preformed, the filming having many "diagonally tilted camera view" scenes, giving off more suspense, without the reliance on the overly used "scary music". Also, the addition of the alternate ending gave a strong closing to the film. This is the kind of movie that you end up feeling physically drained after seeing your first time. It will suck you in until the end, every time. I seriously recommend seeing this if you enjoy zombie films, you will not be disappointed.
124 out of 200 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Has more loop holes than an amusement park
razorpetti3722 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is mildly entertaining but there are a ridiculous amount of loop holes. In fact, there are so many that it becomes distracting while viewing the film. This is quite disappointing because the idea of the film has so much more potential, although it is an idea that has remarkable similarities to about 20 other zombie type flicks. First i'll start off with what i liked, then i will continue with a list of loopholes and other points that ruin this movie.

-The lab scene at the beginning is a decent introduction. I like this explanation of where the virus came from considering real life viruses such as AIDs supposedly came from chimps. I also found it a much more believable reason for a apocalypse type virus than in other movies, at least the virus didn't come in an asteroid or something. I found "Dawn of the Dead" to be quite similar to this movie in so many ways but in "Dawn of the Dead", they don't give you an explanation of where the virus came from. I also liked how there is a little more to the story than just fighting off zombies. Actually, most of the movie doesn't even involve fighting off zombies, most of it is them just talking (which makes the movie kind of boring at times).

*Now for the parts that make this movie horrible* -So he wakes up in the hospital and is the only one there? For one, why would there not be other patients who couldn't leave such as the disabled, secondly, if the hospital was evacuated, why would they just leave him there.

-If there was no one there to fill his feeding tubes and stuff, why wouldn't he have died in his sleep -If there is no power in the city, why is the grocery store all lit up inside, especially if there is no one to continue running the power plants.

-So your telling me that with a disaster such as an exodus from Britian, that there were no riots or panicking and nobody tried raiding stores. The food is perfectly stacked and nothing seems to be missing in the grocery store. I would think at least somebody would have gone in there to grab some supplies.

-If these infected people are so vicious and all they do is blood lust, then why do they not attack each other. That makes absolutely no sense.

-How come the infected are never seen unless the characters are vulnerable? They always show up in hordes yet while looking over the city, you never see them wandering in the streets. At least in "Dawn of the Dead" there were masses of zombies everywhere, which made sense if the population was supposed to be infected.

-Apparently a rickety piece of junk taxi can drive like a monster truck over wrecked cars in the tunnel. Why does that make sense? And all they get is a flat.

-Considering the city is supposed to be abandoned besides those who are infected, you would think there would be a lot more parked cars, wrecked cars, and other common city street objects.

-So if the infected are supposed to be vicious and killing machines, then why are there no corpses on the streets? Besides the loft in the church, there were a total of like 10 corpses in the whole movie.

-If the infected kill because they have "rage" and not for eating the people, then what do they eat to survive. You never see them eating anyone, so you'd think that after 28 days of not eating anything, they would have died. If they don't eat their victims, what are they eating since the grocery stores are intact.

-When they are filling up with gas, i find it very curious that even though they know not to go anywhere alone, Jim decides to go wandering into a dark shack by himself for absolutely no reason. Big surprise that there's an infected person in there...

-So these military guys have this secure base set up and apparently nobody but they survived the move from the previous base. At the barricade there were parked cars and stuff implying that there were civilians that came yet there are none with the leftover military men.

-You think that trained military men would be able able to find a slightly more secure place to make a base. If they planned on surviving there for a long time, i think it would make sense to find a place more easily defend-able.

-This is what really doesn't make sense: If these military guys have the radios to send out a strong broadcast, then why would they not be able to pick up transmissions from other countries that are not infected? -If there are other countries that are not infected, then why would none of them be concerned with finding survivors in Britain. If they do this at the end by flying over the country side with a jet, then why would the military guys never see a plane that would give them hope that the rest of the world is OK.

-Apparently a scrawny bike carrier can undermine 8 or 9 trained military personnel. He somehow gets back onto the property unnoticed (which nobody has been able to do yet), then he sneaks around the property like some sort of ninja, then moves throughout the house without running into any of the military guys or any of the infected military guys. Why is he so skilled all of a sudden.

That about covers all the loopholes i can think of. I'm sure there are many more but that just goes to show how ridiculous this movie is. I'm normally not so picky about movies but this one just bugs me.
51 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Uneven horror film, but with occasional flashes of sheer brilliance
Coventry3 February 2005
Back in good old Great Britain, Danny Boyle proves that he's still a gifted filmmaker even though his short Hollywood career wasn't as fruitful as initially hoped for. The opening sequences of this "28 Days Later…" are downright astonishing and – for a moment – you suspect that you're about to watch to most brilliant horror film in a long, long time. Especially the already classic sequence in which Jim (Cillian Murphy) wanders through the entirely deserted streets of the otherwise so lively and crowded London, guided by disturbing music, is efficiently creepy. The plot centers on an extremely aggressive virus that turns people into blood-crazed maniacs. It's only 28 days since the virus was unleashed and the entire population is wiped away already, while a few lonely survivors desperately prepare for the total apocalypse. Jim is one of them, as he just awoke from a coma, completely unaware of the vile events that took place the past 28 days… Even though the story isn't very original (Romero's "The Crazies" come to mind as well as "Last Man on Earth" and "The Omega Man"), Danny Boyle succeeds in portraying a gripping mix of drama, action, suspense and – oh yes – gore! Now, I really wished I could end my user comment here and conclude that "28 Days Later…" was a simply great new horror film but unfortunately the script takes a complete U-turn halfway and becomes a repetitive lesson in which Boyle and writer Alex Garland try to convince us that mankind still remains the biggest threat of all. The last survivors end up at a military post where their lives are even in bigger danger. The tension and carefully built up atmosphere disappears and is replaced by tedious macho speeches and gratuitous brutality. The acting performances in this film aren't very spectacular but that's understandable considering most cast-members are debuting here. The fact that this project was entirely filmed with digital cameras might be a nice trivia element, but I'm not too keen on this type of cinematography. Overall, Boyle's film is worthy viewing for horror fans but experienced fanatics won't be too impressed.
40 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The days are numbered for the British film industry...
Parallax-UK1 November 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I first saw this film at a test screening about 6 months ago. I decided not to post a review then, as I assumed that there was no way the film would be released as it was, considering the reaction of the test audience. However, it was.

The trailer actually makes the film appear to be quite promising. The audience is promised a tale of virus-ravaged UK, and one man's ordeal to survive. Upon seeing the film, the ordeal is suffered by the audience, who thankfully only have just short of two hours to get through.

The film does indeed begin with a virus being let loose upon the good citizens of Great Britain. After the brief set up, we join Jim (Murphy), a bicycle courier who was locked in a hospital room during the initial 28 days, waking from a coma. After the much publicised scenes of Jim staggering around a deserted London, he hooks up with love interest Selena, and a father and daughter. The quintuplet then embark upon a mostly tedious journey to Manchester, where Major West (Ecclestone) resides over a military base.

The problems with this film are numerous. The script is abysmal, and is not helped along by the performances of the leads. The dull lines are droned out by Murphy in a whinge-like monotone, whilst the usually excellent Christopher Ecclestone delivers his lines like he's in the school play. Thankfully, single-father Frank (Brendan Gleeson) is performed thoughtfully and with warmth. It is a great credit to Gleeson that he turns in such a performance when given such a disgraceful script.

The film is also not helped by the story. It is so ludicrous in places that Jim could have hopped on the London bus at the beginning of the film and driven it through many of the holes. For a capital that has been ravaged by a virus, and evacuated, there is remarkably little evidence left behind. Where are all the vehicles? Why have the shops not been looted?

**********SPOILER PARAGRAPH**************** To top the lot, we are expected to believe that an entire army unit has a) managed to do what apparently only four other people have achieved by staying alive, and b) have gone mad. Have they gone mad because of the virus? No. They've just gone mad. That's it. **********END OF SPOILER*******************

The film looks cheap. Not in a stylish, atmospheric way - it just looks cheap. To give credit where it's due, the zombie attack scenes are reasonably effective. They are powerful and violent enough to ramp up the tension, but this only contrasts to make the rest of the film feel even lamer.

Perhaps the must heinous crime this film commits is that it is excruciatingly boring. A number of people at the test screening actually got up and left. Considering test screenings are free, that goes some way towards explaining just how dull the film is.

I think I've made my point. Two minutes of genuinely scary zombie attacks do not constitute a sufficient payoff for sitting through what is, in summary, a very poor, dull, cheap-looking, boring film. Avoid like the Rage virus - if you go in to this film, it will feel like you're leaving it 28 days later.
60 out of 99 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Massively Overrated
cogleone25 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I originally saw this in the Cinema and left un-entertained. I thought it was a good idea that was shoddily executed. Some acting was appalling especially the daughter, can't remember her name.

Also, Danny Boyle isn't a good director, he's meant to be making a horror film here and he puts a stupid supermarket scene in. It starts with trolleys being ridiculously choreographed through the checkouts and the 2 girls having great fun helping themselves to the chocolate, forget 5 minutes before, when they were nearly savaged by the sprinting zombies.

And the ending?! What a joke. Cillian Murphy is suddenly an action hero. Nowhere before in the movie did it reveal that he had such stealth skills and the nerve to take out trained army personnel.

28 Weeks Later was by far a superior film. So when 28 Days Later was on TV last night, I thought maybe I was being a bit harsh with it, so I watched it again. After two hours, I realised I wasn't being harsh enough.
40 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Shockingly stupid film. Here's why... (SPOILERS)
RazziDazzi6 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Bad horror films tend to hit bottom when their characters make idiotic choices and leave the audience scratching their head wondering, `why the hell he do that?' By this standard, 28 DAYS LATER. plummets to bottom of the bad movie barrel. Rarely have film characters made such consistently, stupefying decisions. Skip this flick unless you're meeting with friends, have a couple of beers, and want an impromptu session of Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Okay, how dumb are the characters? Let's start. (SPOILER ALERT AGAIN)

-- Our lead Female finds a guy who just woke up from a coma, so at night when the Infected roam, she goes to sleep and lets him stand guard. without telling him not to light candles as they will attracted the Infected.

-- So he lights the candle, not being bright enough himself to see the danger. Then he starts watching video tapes!!! (Where the hell is the electricity coming from!!!??) The Infected see the light and attack. What a surprise. As a result, she has to murder her partner. By this point, you wish she was dead too.

-- Next, they find the Father and his Daughter. The Father is extremely cautious guarding his child, wears goggles and layered clothing to protect against accidental infection (as did our two initially survivors). But protective clothing is too intelligent a response so our characters promptly abandon the idea and go on a road trip sans any protective gear. And what do you know.Father gets infected when accidentally blood drops into his eyes. He's killed. Boy, I didn't see that twist coming. Guess, if he wore protective gear like he did in the beginning of the film, we wouldn't have this `twist'.

But I'm getting ahead of myself as more idiocy abounds prior to Father's death.

-- Our merry crew of four has to get to Manchester, and keep in mind that the Infected tend to roam in the darkness. So what do they do.. Take a dark tunnel short cut! Who's idea is this idiocy.. The father, who before was so cautious with his daughter's safely, but now's he's feeling. I guess. lucky. Well, the decision almost costs them their lives when the get a flat tire in the tunnel (guess you did see that `twist' coming either).

-- Next comes the stop at the supermarket. Are our foursome quick in restocking their supplies and moving on. Nope, they play, quibble about alcohol.. It's not like the sun is setting because next, they.

-- have a picnic!!!! Out in the open! How dumb can you get?!?! Then instead of racing to the refuge in Manchester, they have a leisurely walk! Guess it helps the digestion.

-- Now these amateur idiots go for pro status by spending the night. out in the OPEN WITH A CAMPFIRE ABLAZE!! (didn't some one get killed when the infected were attracted by a candle!)

This idiocy continues. People in the theater are starting to laugh by now. I'll spare you more of this mirth, but I got to mention one supremely, idiotic move by our hero. How does he rescue the two girls from the mansion??? BY UNLEASHING AN INFECTED SOLDIER INTO THE BUILDING!!!!!!!!! Well, the infection spreads and nearly kills our gals!!! I'm ready to throw popcorn at the screen by this point. What a moron this guy is! And every assault gun he finds. he leaves behind, cause using his thumbs ( I kid you not) is so much more effective.

AHHHHHH!!!!! And the damn story moves at a snail's pace!
44 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Excellent end-of-the-world scenario with a flawed ending
isenberg-e6 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Although the plot is very unoriginal, I especially liked this version of the story because of the leisurely pace that sets the mood without letting you get bored. The Director didn't mind relatively long sequences without dialog when it was called for; I'm not sure a Hollywood-made film (this one was made in the U.K. by a U.K. company) would have been willing to do this. Ever since Star Wars the reigning action-movie concept in Hollywood seems to be action every 7 minutes max.

I also liked the cinematography. There were great shots (extremely wide, taken from an unusual angle, etc.) that were unorthodox and in another film would have gotten in the way, but here they helped set the mood of a few people isolated in a huge city.

I imagine it would be an even better experience in the theater, where the larger format and viewer being in the dark would have enhanced the feeling of isolation.

**** SPOILER *** The one flaw is the ending, and unfortunately it is a bid problem. In the penultimate scene, the male protagonist (Jim) is shot in the stomach. Now, even in a modern big city, stomach wounds are very often fatal, and virtually always so without prompt surgery. Not only will the victim bleed to death, but even if the bleeding can somehow be stopped, peritonitis will almost always set in. Nevertheless, without anyone having more than a pharmacist's knowledge of medicine, with no surgical tools, and after a car ride where he would certainly have bled out, Jim survives. The last scene shows him hale and hearty, running over a meadow. I suppose there could be some explanation, but none was given, and it broke me out of my "willing suspension of disbelief."

Nevertheless, I give the film a "9". Definitely worth watching and re-watching.
19 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Laugh or scram
coirulez27 October 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I'm surprised this movie has such a respectable IMDB score (7 or something like that), because it is actually A_VERY_BAD_MOVIE(TM).

I kinda had some good time watching it, but for the wrong reasons: me and my friend could not stop laughing :'-D

There's no way to spoil the movie any more, but *SPOILERS AHEAD*!

I mean, even from the start the whole thing goes downward. It opens with a chimp who is been "tortured" by watching like 8 television sets portraying human crowds on strike. As if the thing was scary or something (?). Think cheap "Clockwork Orange for Monkeys" and you are there.

Then some ecologist jerks go and free the monkeys-- to end their endless TV suffering I presume. But, regrettably, one of them (of the monkeys) seems to be infected with a virus or something and transmits it to the jerks. The virus makes you go nuts and byte everyone around, be they people, monkeys or whatever.

The infection process takes like 1 second (?) and when you get it you are displayed on screen as if you were being recorded with a fast-shutter camera (like in "Saving Private Ryan"). I keep wondering if that is supposed to be scary or is it just that they bought the camera and had to use it to justify the purchase :-)

Anyway, if you don't find that stupid opening scene funny enough, wait until the main character opens his mouth. He is such a lame actor you won't believe he got to play the main part. Its performance is even more ridiculous if you happen to see the dubbed Spanish version of the movie, in which the voice of this guy sounds as if he is retarded. I can't believe this wasn't done on purpose =:'-D

Well, then there are lots of stupid situations, but I won't bother commenting on them. Just your average standard-substandard "scary" moments and those oh-no-don't-do-that "thrilling" set-ups.

So, in summary, if you enjoy cheap b-movies and have nothing better to do, you can give it a try and have some bored laughs.
31 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
One of the best of infected movies..
Onur Gül17 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Firstly when you try to watch with a constantly controversial community with the film, if you evaluate this 28-day adventure with blank glances like the British excavation that has eaten the virus since the minute of the end, you will see that the movie is directly virus-infected. In other words, the movie is infected, it's processed from beginning to end. It is a film that can be described as a classic among the infected movies. The fact that it is not possible to leave the island in the film, what is attributed to the fictional, may be considered a reference to both empty London streets and perhaps Hollywood cinema, the UK is the center of the world. It is possible to search for mistakes in the film, to sort out the parties who are not suitable for the real life. However, in my opinion, a film that features more fictional items alongside these real icons, should not be considered too much. All kinds of material used as classical zombie movie stereotypes virus, red eyes, rapid change, aggression and protection, this is a metaphor. If Boyle is trying to get the viewer into the film, he has done it a lot, I do not think that Boyle try to overlap and confront the reality in a movie with such fantastic content. The film begins with a classical zombie movie and then shows the war that people turn into psychological tension and what they can do to survive and what they can do. The soundtracks in the movie are tremendous. Nowadays these soundtracks are still available in many places. The film has great views because it is captured with a digital camera. This visuality is even better, especially since the shoots are usually in the morning. Through Danny Boyle, this film has been interpreted differently by many people. Because you can get many questions in the movie. These questions are almost always an answer, but audience comments can be joined very clearly. Because there is not always a definite answer in the film. So it makes a good movie to think about the events to the audience. In the film you feel the difference of using a basic camera very clearly. Even though it is fantastic in terms of content, this basic camera makes the film very realistic. In summary, despite the fact that the film is fantasy-based, the basic camera shots can give you a fear. Only in the last scene was a movie camera. It allows you to feel as though you were in that adventure, as if you had taken an event that you experienced.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Give me back my £5.30!
jamesashberry18 December 2002
For the first time EVER, I came out of the cinema feeling like I had wasted my money. I will give any film its dues and would never leave before the end of a film no matter how disgraceful it is but I honestly found my legs twitching before this film was even half over.

I want my £5.30 back and I want that 112 minutes of my life back.

I support British film and have enjoyed many recent British releases but this film is dire. It is one step down from a very poor 80s American B movie. The plot was predictable yet tiresome, the cast were mainly ineffective and dull and compared to his roles in both "Gone in 60 Seconds" and "Othello", Christopher Eccleston is a huge, huge disappointment. I truly hope he is sat at home now regretting his involvement in such a poor piece of cinema. Don't do it again, Christopher.

The only saving grace of this film is some the aesthetics of the camera work which uses a similar technique to battle scenes in Gladiator. Frames are removed in the filming process leading to a slightly jerky playback which offsets nicely against the rain falling.

However, I also believe this is one of those films like Blair Which Project. It will either be loved or hated. In this case, I hated it. But you must watch it make your own decision. Just try and get someone else to pay for you so you don't waste your hard earned money!
32 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
So very very dull.
michelleeb13 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Now, I love Zombie movies - Romero, Raimi, even Shaun of the Dead are classics. But this ... this is just boring. (And in response to a previous reviewer who implied that those who didn't like this are too thick for 2001 and Memento - I both loved and understood those movies). There is no sense of impending terror, apart from one all-too-brief sequence in a tunnel (although you have to wonder why they were stupid enough to go in there). The characters are very one-dimensional, and the female lead goes from being a machete-wielding tough girl to a screaming, cringing little girl waiting for the big brave man to rescue her (Apparently falling in love makes men murderous and women weak). The much vaunted opening sequence of an empty London has been done before, and better, in Day of the Triffids. There were a couple of 'make-you-jump' moments - but not many. The final battle sequence is so disjointed and awkward it's difficult to know what's going on.

I understand this meant to be a zombie movie for the intelligentsia, as Cloverfield is a monster movie for the intelligentsia, but it lacks the latter's sense of danger, sense of devastation, and real, in depth characters. In fact, I hated these characters so much, that by the end, I was hoping the zombies would get them.

Shaun of the Dead has horror, death, gore and is actually scary enough to keep me glued to the screen - and that's a parody. This is supposed to be a proper, intelligent zombie movie - and it was so very very dull.
25 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The short British version of "The Stand"
Kristine28 November 2003
Warning: Spoilers
28 Days Later, I had heard about this movie a little bit when it was first released here in the US. I wasn't sure what to expect, but people were saying that it was extremely scary and one of the best horror films they had seen in a while. So my mother bought it on DVD and we watched it together, I would say it's not just one of the best horror films in years, but it was also one of the more brilliant one's. We all know the ultimate fear of maybe waking up to a different world and the main character just doesn't wake up to a different world, but a very nightmarish one where people have gone from eating food to eating human flesh! This is not very pretty.

Late one night, British animal rights activists break into a research facility to free chimpanzees being used for medical research. The local scientist warns the activists that the chimps are infected with something he only calls "Rage," but the activists disregard him and set a chimp free. It immediately attacks and infects the activists and scientist. 28 days later, a bicycle courier named Jim awakens from a coma in a deserted hospital. As he leaves the hospital, he discovers London is completely deserted and rife with signs of catastrophe. Jim is soon discovered and chased through the streets by infected people before being rescued by two survivors, Selena and Mark, who rush him to their hideout in the London Underground. They reveal that while Jim was comatose, the virus spread uncontrollably among the populace, turning most people into vicious monsters and resulting in societal collapse, possibly on a global scale. That night, two of the Infected attack the survivors, and when the fight ends they discover that Mark is bleeding and is likely infected. Selena kills him, explaining to Jim that infection is spread through the blood and overwhelms its victims in seconds, rendering them deadly to others. They discover two more survivors, Frank and his teenage daughter Hannah, holed up in an abandoned block of flats. The next morning, Frank informs Jim and Selena that supplies, particularly water, are dwindling, and shows them a prerecorded radio broadcast loop transmitted by soldiers near Manchester who claim to have "the answer to infection." But this is the government, we know how this always goes.

This is a great horror film that I'm sure will not disappoint you, this has one of the most intense scenes of all time in it. When the gang is in the tunnel trying to get to the sunlight as quick as they can before the "virus" attacks them as well, but they accidentally make a noise and it awakens the dead people and it becomes the ultimate chase for life. Plus these are not George A. Romaro's walking zombies that you can for the most part outrun, this is zombies on speed and they are terrifying. So I do highly recommend this movie if you get the chance to see it, it's a great horror movie, has good actors, and a terrifying story that will probably give you some really scary nightmares. Not to scare you off, but that's an effective horror film and believe me I have seen them all, so 28 Days Later is a new treasure of mine.

14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed