This film
doesn’t officially open in the U.S. until late June but I got a chance to see
it before it opened and holy COW was I pleasantly surprised. Director Danny
Boyle (Trainspotting), not a director known for churning out horror
films, has created one of the most satisfying and creepy zombie films ever
made, and with any luck, it is a sign that perhaps horror films are going to be
taken more seriously in the near future.
Set
twenty-eight days after a highly contagious virus is leaked into the public,
Great Britain is brought to its knees. One man, not even certain what has
happened and what is happening since he had been in the hospital at the
time of the virus’ leak, finds himself alone in the middle of the city, and
with no explanation as to what has happened to everyone. While scavenging for
food Jim, our coma patient, stumbles upon a church filled with dead bodies,
unable to reason out what is going on, Jim pleads with a priest at the church
to help him but instead finds the holy man is mad and flees as the priest and
several others give chase. Jim runs from his assailants but cannot outrun them
and just as he is about to be overtaken two people in paramilitary gear kill
the madmen pursuing him and then tell Jim to follow them to safety. Jim follows
and the three of them hold up in a small convenience store as they wait for
daylight and a chance to escape, filling Jim in on the news that the world has
gone mad, that the virus, which can be spread by any secreted contact with the
carrier (a nod to AIDS), and which turns the carrier, essentially into a rage
filled zombie. Jim, unwilling to believe this demands the three seek out his
parents so he can see how they are, but what he finds is that all hope may
indeed be lost and, with a sudden zombie attack, there are now only two left of
the three and Jim and Selena must find a way out of the city and to safety
before it’s too late. Along the way they pick up a father and his daughter and
the four of them decide to seek out a military instillation that is
broadcasting that it has a rescue center near them. What they find instead of
help though is a small ragtag military group more interested in Selena and the
now orphaned fourteen-year-old Hannah. Now, with zombies and paramilitary
to contend with, Jim must find a way to save Hannah and Selena before it’s too
late for all of them.
Not at all
the sort of zombie film we are used to, Boyle takes the well-worn genre and
tweaks it in ways few have tried before. Making the virus an allegory for AIDS,
the film takes on a deeper, darker undertone, helped by the fact that these
zombies are ravening fiends you can’t easily outrun. These are rabid animals
bent only on spreading the contagion. My guess is that the disease makes them
made for blood and that spilling more of the same only sates the madness. Filled
with a sense of dread throughout, Boyle never pulls any punches in the film,
letting the movie play out naturally without feeling the need to inject humor
or hope into a world stripped of both. The message too is something to ponder
since as bad as the virus and its carriers are, it becomes readily apparent
that the remaining humans pose more of a danger to themselves than even the
zombies can.
And no,
this film is not ground-breakingly original. There are many homages to past zombie
films and some moments in the film will feel a bit like a re-tread. But Boyle,
unlike many before him, never once tries to make his more than what it is, and
that’s a very dark horror film. Yes, there is a subtext, and there are
interesting social commentaries, but it is a zombie movie and it gleefully acts
like one. The acting is very good as is the filming, though the DVD I saw was a
bit dark, but heck, it was a bootleg, so that doesn’t mean a lot. The biggest
knock I have is that Boyle was limited to filming with a film stock that doesn’t
lend itself well to video geekdom, this stock does actually help the movie by
giving it a grittier feel that makes everything really feel as if the world has
ended to a degree. And having just read a quick ‘fan’ review, no, this isn’t a
rip-off of Resident Evil. What it is is a re-invention of the zombie
film, and god-bless Boyle for it.
While I am
a horror fan, and am pretty forgiving as one, I do know a good horror film when
I see it, and while 28 Days Later isn’t good, it is great. There are
very few truly great zombie films, and of those, few that manage to have an interesting
thing to say about Man, society, or what it is to survive, but this film has
all three. Not perfect in any way, and not as original as any of us might hope
(though by now it’s awful hard to manage a really original zombie movie), this
truly is a horror film that deserves to find an audience and I urge you to see
it when it makes its American debut. This is the stuff us horror fans get all drooly
and sweaty for, and you should too.
…c…
|
The Grim Ringler Rating: 9
Similar reviews: Cabin Fever by The Grim Ringler - 8 out of 10. (Same theme)
Millions by Cinema Guru Boy - 6 out of 10. (Same director)
VISITOR REVIEWS Average User Rating is a 7 |
| New viewer | 4 | April 19th, 2004 |
| I never got a chance to see this movie in theatres and just recently saw it on DVD a couple days ago. Towards the beginning of the film I was very interested, but I soon lost interest as I found that the film lacked a sense of direction that closer linked it to the virus. I really wanted to know more about the virus that they made a point to make a big deal of in the beginning. And for those who keep mentioning zombies, the infected in this movie aren't zombies, they are very much alive humans that have been infected with this terrible virus. If you rent the DVD, look in the speacial features area under alternate endings, in that menu you can view a radical alternate ending. Had the movie gone this direction I think it would have been much better. Even the reason that they didn't use the radical ending could have easily been resolved. The virus in this movie was made up, so the cure could have been easily tweaked to be more beleivable and you would have had a better overall movie. |
| the weasel | 7 | August 8th, 2003 |
pretty good overall.
not too heavy on the general zombie theme, none of the 'zombie horror' conventions are overused (most skipped entirely).
the story was fairly consistant, and i can think of only 2 scenes offhand that were ridiculous (tunnel being one, ending being the other).
the character transformation near the end stretched plausibility quite a bit, but overall the movie was worth the $8. |
| Guy | 7 | July 14th, 2003 |
well i'm not big into campy horror movies, i avoid them at all costs - but this one isn't campy at all, in fact, it's pretty solid overall. particularly for the genre.
survival in a postapocalyptic world was presented well. simple details shined in this film, from water collection, to food scavenging, to siphoning gas when possible.
i appreciated a nice update from moaning groaning inexorably slow zombies to these nice new feral beasties. i initially had some reservations about the reported spread of the disease, particularly considering the 28 second incubation time and complete lack of greater goals in the 'infected' mind. but that was clarified later to a nearly acceptable level, though still not wholly plausible.
i even found it interesting when the characters began to discuss and understand what -really- mattered in their continued life. normally these kinds of topics signal horrid direction for the plot; but this didn't feel preachy, and wasn't overly dwelled-upon.
however, there are some big holes that keep this from being more than 'pretty good'. the main character is sold as being joe-anyone. and yet near the end he morphs into cunning, brutal, and nearly unstoppable. sure, sure - he was forced to that path to endure, to survive. but how in the name of baby jesus is a bike messenger going to consistantly outmaneuver trained, organized killers?
i also -really- didn't enjoy the end resolution for defeating the infection. what sort of 'infected' creature ignores subsistance?
i'm also disgusted with the magical taxi cab in the tunnel sequence. wholly unnecessary. pure detraction
there were other minor issues - but they are easily overshadowed by the excellent execution. i wasn't bothered by the film quality - it lent an 'immediate' feeling to the film.
this isn't the post-apocalyptic flick that Gets It All Right(tm), but it certainly is the most plausible and internally consistant zombie film to date. solidly redeeming the entire genre and concept for me, a person who had written it off entirely. |
| Matt Fuerst | 9 | June 30th, 2003 |
I'm a changed man after my 28 Days Later experience. Let's see where to begin...
The Digital Video aspect: Initially, it's irritating. The film starts with our protagonist in an abandoned London. While there is some real amazing circumstances with Jim walking around London that would make Cruise and Crowe (Vanilla Sky) envious, the quality of the video is so poor that it really ruins it, especially on the big screen. But that's OK, because Jim pretty quickly finds 'the infected'.
The story is simplistic, and that is how the best Survivor/Zombie type flicks work. Jim is amongst the few survivors after an outbreak of some time. They travel throughout London and try to survive. There is little long term hope, but there isn't much to do other than survive minute to minute.
There is a lot of film in here, from Jim starting out in the empty city, to finding survivors, to learning about the outbreak, to attempting to find salvation, to finding salvation, to the trouble with salvation, etc... really excellent stuff.
It lives up the hype, one of the best horror films to hit the big screens ever genuinely. I'd recommend you check it out, but if you are really finniky about the quality of the picture on the big screen, then you may want to wait for the DVD (I know I'll be buying it). Overall, 28 Days Later, the film that most importantly, is not the sequel to 28 Days, gives Dawn of the Dead a good run for it's money./ |
| VISITOR COMMENTS |
| Matt Fuerst | May 18th, 2003 | Reply |
How was Sandra Bullock in this?
Oh wait, this isn't the much anticipated sequel to the Viggo-Sandra vehicle? Damn! |
| anthony | June 26th, 2003 | Reply |
| can't wait to see it!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| Matt Fuerst | June 28th, 2003 | Reply |
| I'm so glad this is getting a wide release here in the States. I know I am planning on seeing it in the theatre. I wonder how the DV quality will translate onto a big screen in 35mm. |
| IRAN HERRERA | June 29th, 2003 | Reply |
| I cant wait to see this movie because they told me that is going to be great.I hope that this movie is already out so i could go and buy it.these are my comments.SEE YOU GUYS LATER THANKS FOR LETTING ME WRITE MY COMMENTS. |
| Tammy Walhbern | July 1st, 2003 | Reply |
| I went to see 28 day because I was told that it was really scary. I shouldn't have wasted my money on it. The movie was horrible, boring, and a waste of film. The movie had no plot nor were the scary scenes scary. Heck, you can not even see the zombies attacking the characters because it was not even clear. Honestly, I thought that Resident Evil was alot better. I almost walked out of the theatre! Don't see it because it is a waste of money. If you want to see it , wait until it gets out on dvd or tape so you don't have to waste alot of money. |
| roc | July 9th, 2003 | Reply |
i saw this a bit ago and i'm still not sure what to make of it.
i didn't mind the grainy low quality film - it fit, if anything it added to the movie. gave it a 'real' and 'immediate' flavour.
there did seem to be quite a few whippersnappers fresh outta school for summer break that were vocally disappointed with it. they also made comparisons to it being not as good as resident evil (which i thought was worth the rent, but not a 'good' movie by any stretch.). i guess it's ironic that resident evil is the only reference point for zombie flicks in contemporary pop culture.
but the movie is odd. it's intriguing, and yet in parts, ridiculous. tense, yet absurd. |
| Ýstanbul is burning | July 12th, 2003 | Reply |
| great atmosphere with the post rock music. but the last 20 minutes of the film was boring. dark and rainy inside sequence wat too long. and final, yess it was really comic. but see it. |
| Ultima9999 | July 12th, 2003 | Reply |
| I've always been a fan of horror movies, but I was kind of unimpressed with 28 Days Later. The zombies are a point to be congratulated upon, and I found the filmwork impressive whenever the infected graced the screen. I enjoyed the first thirty minutes of the movie, but I felt that 28 Days Later went on a tangent as the crew reached the military base. Although the length of time spent in the stronghold is not as offending as Day of the Dead, it becomes almost a chore to care about the survival of our characters in an impregnable fortress. It falls in much the same way as the mall did in the former. |
| Guy | July 21st, 2003 | Reply |
rumors abound of a 4 and a half minute 'Alternate Ending' to accompany 28 days later showings starting 7/25.
after the credits they're purported to pop a 'what if?' tag, and then show the 'original' ending.
in a confusing twist, as far as i could gather, the new alternate ending is the original -film- ending but not the original -script- ending. the original -film- ending tested poorly - so they put the original -script- ending back in, which is what you see in the released film. |
| Grim | August 8th, 2003 | Reply |
saw 28 Days in the theater.
such a brilliant film for a theater. i wish i would have seen it on the screen sooner.
the ending is after the last credits have rolled and is indeed a much darker version of the ending we have seen.
i still prefer the theatrical ending because it plays better, feels better, but both are very well done and if nothing else it's neat to see how the movie was intended to end.
c |
| lee nicholson | August 16th, 2003 | Reply |
I felt it had a good first half, with it's almost documentary approach, yet it got a bit absurd near the end, with the same old tired cliche, that all military are raving rapists with psychological problems.
And there wasn't much on-screen violence in it, the people who got attacked just rolled over on their backs and gave out 'bitch-screams'
And the hero (another tommy hilfiger model lookalike) turned all JOHN J RAMBO at the end.
But the movie is certainly better than (the terrible) RESIDENT EVIL. |
| P. Bob | September 13th, 2003 | Reply |
| This review sucks. It gives away so many plot points. I'm glad I watched the film before I read this. |
| Mike Brooks | September 22nd, 2003 | Reply |
| I hated this plagerized tasteless trash. 28 Days Later is a shameless amalgamation of Dawn and Day of The Dead "repackaged' and set in London. If you wanted to see true horror. I suggest you watch those movies rather than waste any money on this one. The producer should have put his time and money into getting Dawn of the Dead re-released on DVD rather than bore us with this rehash. |
| ms. critic | November 8th, 2003 | Reply |
| ONE WORD SUMS UP THE WHOLE MOVIE....BOOOOORRRINNNNG!! |
| Ashley | November 11th, 2003 | Reply |
| Fucking rad! So well directed it continued to amaze me through and through. Not quite 'scary as hell' but scary enough to keep your attention and the story doesn't go as it seems it would. Not boring at all. |
| Troy Lowe | January 5th, 2004 | Reply |
| Unfortunately, ROC's comments(July 9) on Resident Evil being the only point of reference to todays generation of horror film fans on zombie flicks is true. As a time killer, Resident Evil is alright if you're in a non-demanding mood. 28 Days Later, though, does'nt share any of the feel of Resident Evil(thank God). While not the most original Zombie film, it at least brings back some of the dread atmosphere of George Romero's Dead films without the campy feel of most zombie films. Even though some scenes are reminiscent of Romero's films, they don't come off as bad as you would think. According to Fangoria, the director hadn't seen Romero's films, only the screenwriter. Maybe(just maybe) that could be a good template for future horror films; get a good dramatic director paired with a good horror screenwriter and see what comes out of it. Too many horror films are being made by horror fans, and while their hearts are in the right place, they tend to lose the general audience. Back to 28 Days Later, I feel it's a shame that the storyboarded alternative ending wasn't the used ending. I felt like a good little zombie apocalypse film switched to a film about rape midsteam. Overall though, much better than most films of this kind, and thankfully different enough to warrant sequels(but only if done right. Yeah, like that's possible). |
| Gracie | April 12th, 2004 | Reply |
| I was really impressed. I love most trashy horror flicks (hell, I enjoyed the Ring) and Im scared easily (yes, the Blair Witch freaked me out) but this one made me think. I enjoyed it even after a complete summary and a reinaction of some important scenes by a friend. I particulary enjoyed the London scenes, most of the film was similar to the book Day of the Triffids by John Windam, apart from the zombies and the triffids obviously, but they were similar in the detail. Definatly worth watching, I will have to add it to my dvd collection! |
| Grim | April 12th, 2004 | Reply |
Gracie - great call on the TRIFFIDS there. it is a LOT like Triffids, book and film. i would love to see 1. an re-mastering of the original Triffids film and a 2. true adaptation of that book.
ok, sidebar closed
c |
| Roxy(not the clothing company) | April 20th, 2005 | Reply |
| I really enjoyed this one. Great plot. It kept my attention which is hard to do since I sometimes have a bit of an ADHD problem. But anywho, I encourage this for anyone whom likes wet panties. |
|
|
|