A very well made, thinking person's zombie movie. This avoids most of
the silliest elements of the genre, adds some very clever twists, and
interesting complex characters. It still doesn't quite rise to being a
great movie, through a combination of not really exploring the many
political and social themes it hints at (George Romero takes that further), and
pushing its internal logic pretty far at times. But it's always
entertaining, has a lot of genuine suspense, and isn't over- reliant on
easy scares and shocks. Interestingly photographed on video.
I would have rated this even higher if it had one of the darker, more
emotional and complex endings included on the DVD special features.
That would have brought it to 'classic' status.
on October 2, 2011
Bought this on blu ray. The video quality is not up to blu ray standards because of the way the movie was shot. The movie is awesome just not worth it on blu ray. If you have it on DVD, stick with that, if you don't this is a good purchase.
on June 26, 2011
Movie = 5/5. Video quality = 3/5. Sadly, it's the best way to see it other than in the theatre. They really need to re-release this with a better digital transfer. Fantastic movie though.
on November 22, 2007
28 days later is a well made film.it has good performances from its
main actors,it is suspenseful,and there are some scary moments.the
director maintains tension throughout the movie.the make up effects in
the film are very well done,so that the infected look much less than
human,quite horrifying in fact.the action sequences are well done as
are the dramatic moments.this a not a zombie movie per Se,but a movie
about human relations and interaction in the face of what seems like
hopelessness.the most horrifying thing in the movie is its
premise,which is: plague has spread throughout the land,infecting
people and turning them into animalistic creatures,not quite
zombies,but not human either and having no thought other than attacking
and infecting the uninfected.it shows the desperation that some people
are willing to go through to survive.i won't give away any specifics of
the plot.anyway,for me,this is a well crafted movie all around.it is a
deep movie with a message and it asks some very scary questions.highly
on May 16, 2004
I just watched this film and am quite perplexed as to how it garnered good reviews and so much attention when it was theatrically released. Shot on digital video, this is an extremely cheap, visually ugly film which rips off George Romero's zombie trilogy, especially elements of Day of the Dead (the weakest of the Romero trilogy) and also adds in what are now hoary cliches from other post-apocalypse films. The film's one inventive touch is that the virally infected don't lumber around aimlesly but are infused with an almost superhuman strength and speed. Other than that, I won't belabor you with my litany of complaints about this film, since there's already a surfeit of negative reviews posted. However, I was particularly offended by the deliberate stupidity of some the plot, such as the infected soldier who is chained up, who you just KNOW is going to get loose to wreak havoc, and the putative hero Jim's act of setting him free, and the whole last act of the film.
on June 6, 2009
This one was quite influential in the "zombie" horror movie\game genre. Not zombies per say but so close to it, the "infected" were actually fast and agile instead of slow and lumbering. It makes a world of difference in how menacing and scary they are. 28 days later sports a very good suspenseful story that makes you want to see what's next. It has some quite intense moments and some brilliant memorable shots: the deserted streets of London in particular. The acting was quite good from a cast of relative unknowns (at the time). Special mentions must go to the evocative music and how the rain was filmed. It looked amazing and contributed strongly to the atmosphere. Overall, it's one of the best serious horror movies of the start of the 21st century. The only arguable weakness would be the original ending.
Rating: 4 1/2 stars out of 5
on April 23, 2004
When I was first going to see 28 Days Later, I got it mostly because I was in the mood a good old fashioned hour and a half gore fest involving zombies trying to destroy the human race for no apparent reason, a la Dawn of the Dead and Army of Darkness. Thought I didn't exactly find what I was looking for in 28 Days Later, I wasn't necissarily dissapointed, suprised best describes how I felt.
the opening scene kicked off the movie on a good note, which features a group of radical enviromentalists attempting to release caged monkies in a lab, and accidently release a deadly virus that the monkies where infected with called the "RAGE" virus. The next scene features the main character waking up in a desolate hospital after a coma casued by a car accident. There are some great scenes of an "evacuated" London as the main character wanders around the city. Finnaly, he has a frightening encounter with some of the infected, and is saved by some of the few survivors in London. After this, lots of the scary zombie like hijinks I was expecting occured, and are the definant highlight of the movie. Soon they meet other survivors who are attempting to follow a radio signal sent from an army unit that is in hiding from the infected, hoping to find shelter and protection. After this, the film starts to take a bit of a turn, though things are generally still running smoothly. After a few more good zombie scares and such, the army shows up and unfortunatly, things really start to go downhill. There becomes less of a focus on the infected and other odd things occur that are hard to explain, though somehow not hard to understand. There are a lot of metaphores and observations about the human race and the appocaplypse, and things just start to get weird. They try to execute the main character for no apparent reason (or for something that wasn't reason enough to try to kill him). The main character escapes and then for some reason begins to release the zombies on all the soldiers to save his female freinds from being abused by the soldiers, who thinking it their duty to reproduce and save the human race. When he releases the infected, that's when the movie seems to hit a lowpoint. There's hardly any type of scares or suspense to be found, and it drags on for much to long, and all things add up to is a rather generic and unsatisfying ending (an alternative ending was created, but I havn't seen it, it was supposed to be a little better in the shocking or unexpected ending department though) .
I may have named a few to many spoilers in my summary, but this movie isn't all that worth seeing.
Another thing I must mention is the unique way this movie was shot. Judging by things like cammera work and such, you can tell this is an independently done film. The movie has a strange British feel to it, being that the whole cast is British and the setting takes place in both London and Manschester. The sound track is quite good, and features what are most likely British artists that are obscure to the US. I also like how this movie defies horror stereotypes. While it's really a horror movie at all and was just advertised as one, the characters don't fit into any of the sterotypes from other horror films. The cast (most noteably the females) are all mostly unatractive and unkown actors, which furthers the whole independant feel of the movie and shows that the director really was trying to do something different.
Overall, 28 Days Later somewhat fails to deliver what I was wanting, but is still a decent film that's short and mildly satisfying enough that you really don't feel like wasted to much time or money. If the film really does sound interesting to you still, then chances are you'll enjoy it. But if you don't really find this movie to sound at all interesting or worthy of viewing, you'll probably hate it.
on April 7, 2004
I watched this movie purely because of the hype. If I had seen as much as a preview, I expect that would have been enough to make me lose interest, but I rented it blindly, and hoped for the best.
I think this is probably the most overrated film I have ever seen. It gets off to a pretty bad start in terms of plausability, expecting us to just accept that one lone man was left unscathed in a hospital while everyone around him was attacked and infected. I don't understand how it didn't occur to the writers that this is something that requires an explanation. It's also pretty boring. So many scenes are so unneccessarily long and drawn out when nothing is happening. The five minute musical montage of the guy walking through the deserted city. Ok, we get it, the city is deserted, move on, something happen. Even the twenty seconds showing the stuff stuck on the fridge at his home was infuriating. Show it for two seconds, move on, something happen. I'm sure some people would say those excessively drawn out scenes were important in setting a mood, but a lot of the early part of the film just left me bored and annoyed, wishing something would happen.
Although it was seemingly promoted as a "zombie" movie, nothing interesting happened with the zombies, and fighting the zombies was a minor background plot, with the focus being placed more on human drama. So you've got the boring underdeveloped zombie plot, and the boring underdeveloped human drama plot, both fighting for their right to bore you. Other than a couple of violent scenes, which really aren't as bad as some people seem to want to make them out to be, the film starts to take on an almost wholesome family viewing tone.
The obligatory romantic entanglement is introduced, and handled rather badly, falling into the trite hollywood conventions this movie is supposedly distanced from. The cringeworthy culmination of this being when the girl is all oh you killed my captor now let me make out with you.
The film is kind of separated into two parts, the second being after they enter the army base. The second part isn't as badly done as the first. It's just an ugly feel-bad thing, with the army guys proving to be more sinister badguys than the zombies. I don't find any major fault with the way that part of movie was executed, it was done well even, I guess, but it wasn't something I enjoyed watching or would have wanted to had I known what to expect. The editing does become a bit garbled towards the end though. There were a few parts when I was like who's this guy, who just shot at that guy, isn't that the other guy from before, why is he over there. It seemed like they did a really rushed editing job, and just took out random chunks of movie, leaving a fragmented narrative, where you have to fill in the dots way too much. I don't know what they were going for, because it is difficult to follow, and there's no reason it needed to be. And that's all I have to say about this travesty of a film. I hate it. It's not good.
on January 12, 2004
I may have enjoyed this movie better if I had not already seen two other versions before this. The first version was called The last man on Earth with Vincent Price-he was left alone to survive when a virius wiped out the population changing them to zombies. The second version was called The Omega Man- he was left alone when a virius wiped out the population changing them to vampires. In 28 Days the hero is left alone(almost) to survive when a virus wipes out the populatiion and changes them to zombie/vampires. It starts out pretty bad when some animal rights people break in to a highly secure building of secret experiments without any trouble at all. They get inside and blindly release some chimps carring the Disease called "Rage" of course the chimps attack the animal rights people and rage spreads from there. 28 days later a guy in a coma wakes up to a empty London and he connects with a few survivers and they try to survive. The ending is bad , like they just threw it together becaus they were running out of disc space or somthing. be prepared for a lot of throwing up by the zombies too. Could have been a good re-make with todays special effects but it crashes and burns leaving the viewer feeling drained,bored and weak.
on November 23, 2003
I really liked this movie; Boyle knows what an audience likes albeit in extremely different genres of movie-making so I guess he thought he'd try his hand at a horror flick. They're not the easiest type of movie to make but I feel he got the balance right.
Jim, played by the up-and-coming Irishman Cillian Murphy is the initially bewildered lead in this 'Omega Man' meets 'Outbreak' film depicting a dishevelled and disintegrated Britain where most people are either dead or have contracted 'Rage', a disease that turns you into an extremely unpleasant zombie.
Jim falls in with a small group that seek shelter in a Mancunian stronghold containing the remnants of a British Army platoon. All is not what it seems and things very quickly turn pear-shaped.
Boyle stirs the pot and comes up with a blend of the old guard from previous movies (Trainspotting, Shallow Grave)whilst giving the lead goes to a somewhat unknown actor. Works well.
The DVD release has plenty of extras (including all the alternate endings if, like me, you left the movie theater as the credits rolled- D'oh!). This would not look outplaced in your collection.
Honorable mention must go to the soundtrack from the incidentals to the rousing AM180 by Grandaddy.