Rating: 
Summary: Watchable but not great
Review: Some foolish animal rights activists pick the wrong chimps to liberate from the lab and unwittingly release into the world a new kind of super-rabies, a deadly highly contagious disease that renders those infected violent and mad. Our hero, Jim (Cillian Murphy), a bicycle courier who has slept through the whole unfolding catastrophe after an accident, wakes up in hospital to find London seeming empty of people. Then he stumbles on some mad infected people, and just in time to rescue him from the latter, a lone couple of fellow survivors, Selena and Mark (Naomie Harrris and Noah Huntly). Soon the personnel shift somewhat: Selena has to kill Mark when he becomes infected but they team up with father and daughter Frank and Hannah (Brendan Gleeson and Megan Burns). These four then head north to Lancashire in Frank's taxi to try to locate the army unit whose appeal for fellow survivors they have picked up by radio. Their hope is that finding these guys will make them safer. It turns out, for some somewhat unpleasant reasons, that it does not. This is an attempt to freshen up a rather well worn genre, the epidemiological disaster movie. It aims to be tough gritty and realistic and succeeds to some extent but in decidedly limited ways. The realism is harmed by a number of significant plausibility gaps. It may be true, for all I know, that there are scientists in Britain carrying out experiments with super-virulent new disease strains. But if there are they will be hanging out in government defence labs at Porton Down or some such place behind massive and impenetrable security, not, as here, with nothing much to keep intruders out except a rather weedy young chap in a white coat burning the midnight oil, just waiting to be effortlessly overwhelmed by a couple of stray hippies. And when Jim, very soon after waking up, is chased by some crazy infected types, he shows an impressive capacity for sprinting for someone who has just been unconscious in hospital for four weeks. More seriously, apart from a general upping of the usual levels of violence and general nastiness, the film doesn't really escape enough from the clichés of this particular sub-genre not to be just a bit too similar to the million or so other specimens of it one is likely to have encountered. It's by no means a waste of time. There are one or two interesting touches, such as the discomfiture of imagining a world where one must stand ready to kill one's best friends at a second's notice. And it's watchable enough, quite effectively directed with some genuine suspense. The acting too is generally pretty good especially from Harris who has perhaps the mosr interesting character to play. It's in a different league, then, from many of the weakest recent horror movies but not, I fear, in the same league as the strongest.
Rating: 
Summary: Weak retread of the "walking dead"
Review: A major, major disappointment derived from a clever but thin premise: A "virus" released from an animal lab destroys the world even faster than do lust-filled soldiers (kind of makes you wonder who the really bad guys are in this film). These two acts book end an interesting jaunt through an abandoned city of London (that solitude alone leaves a small moment of awe about the production) and a drive in the English countryside (mostly the M from London to Manchester). The negative reviews have made all the points: cliched if well-acted but empty, weak dialogue, points of illogic (like why do these virus-filled "ragers" only attack healthy people and seem to work together?) and social commentary (our hero first finds these rage-filled "zombies" sleeping in a church). Gratuitous nudity, gore and violence, overdone even for this type of film. Along the journey to salvation, the intrepid travelers enjoy the other cliched elements of any end-of-the-word, post apocalyptic saga: splurging in an abandoned grocery, running Christmas lights off a car battery (a sure way to attract attention from these walking dead!), trying to collect water in buckets on a roof top, siphoning gasoline from a tanker, frolicking in the ancient remains of another, earlier civilization, living in an abandoned country manor. You get the picture. There is no need to rent this one.
Rating: 
Summary: 28 Days Later
Review: I own this DVD movie, and I must say, I'm pretty darn impressed. The reason this review exists is to try and enlighten and encourage you to either: A. Rent this movie, or B. Buy this movie. Either way, you'll be seeing the movie, and that means I've done my job. So lets review the facts of why this movie is impressive to me. (remember, this is all my opinions) 1. Danny Boyle (the director) did an excellent job of showing a disturbing apocalyptic version of London. Not only is it disturbing, but its quite gory for a low budget movie, ensuring gore lovers will probabily enjoy this one. 2. The story was really interesting. Yes, yes, yes, I know. It may have been done quite a few times before, but "28 Days Later" was a pretty impressive version, and had its own way and style, not to mention being really creative, espically for a low budget film. 3. The DVD version includes 3 alternate endings. Each of them are different in their own way, and the "radical ending" is a pretty weird, odd, and different version of the film, showing what would have happened if there werent any soldiers involved in the story, and since there werent, the characters would have to face something different... 4. The acting for a low budget film was basically as good as it gets. Not only do they have pretty good acting, but also includes Brendan Gleeson (who has starred in the movie "Gangs of New York" and the new upcoming movie "Troy"). 5. The "zombies" werent zombies... They're not even zombies! They're infected people who are extremely strong, fast and agile. 6. The movie was overall great. Period. Anyways, besides my points of why this movie was impressive to me, the story is this. A virus called "Rage" is released. People can catch the virus by either being scratched by an infected, or else any blood particle from the infected entering the non infected's body by either an open wound, eye, mouth, ear, etc. When this is happened, most, if not all of London is taken over by the virus, and only a few survivors are left. Can the few survivors survive the infected and hope for the best in the end? Shoot, GO SEE THE MOVIE AND FIND OUT!!! There is 1 disc for the DVD edition and the bonus features include: Audio commentary by Director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland, 3 alternate endings, deleted scenes with optional audio commentary, "Pure Rage: the making of 28 Days Later", featurette Jacknife Lee Music Video, animated storyboards, still photo galleries, theatrical trailer and more! Rated R for strong violence and gore, language and nudity. I hope I have convinced you into seeing this movie, regardless if you rent the movie or buy it. I suggest you RENT the movie first, though, because everybody has their different tastes!
Rating:
Summary: Romero's "Day of The Dead", but with English accents !!!
Review: Hello, Hello, Hello.......It looks to me that Danny Boyle has been watching the work of US director George Romero, and has effectively remade Romero's 1985 zombie shocker "Day of the Dead", albeit with English accents & English locales. I'm actually a keen fan of two of Boyle's previous films, the film noir thriller "Shallow Grave", and the heroin fuelled, hell ride of "Trainspotting", so when I heard Boyle was behind the helm of an apocalyptic thriller about an escaped super virus decimating London, I was eager to view the end result. "28 Days Later", is quite interesting in many places, bleak & unsettling where it needs to be, and takes some new viewpoints on the "end of the world over run by flesh eating zombie" genre, however, it bears far too many similarities to the forementioned "Day of The Dead". Have a look at these comparisons ( WARNING : SPOILERS AHEAD ) : Both films fundamentally open with a key cast member wandering through a major metropolis shouting "hello, hello", and getting the wrong response by attracting zombies / infected lunatics. Both films feature a captured zombie / infected person being used for experimental purposes. Both films have the chained zombie / infected person eventually breaking free to wreak havoc on those who tormented him. ( Never, ever taunt caged zombies, they always get out and you will be first on their dinner menu !! ) Both films feature teams of soldiers holed up in a "well defended bunker" and yep, they've gone trigger / stir crazy in a lawless society. Both films see these unbalanced soldiers getting on each other's nerves more and more, until their unit falls apart, allowing the zombies / infected lunatics to enter the premises, and make a meal out of anyone wearing camouflage clothing. Both teams of soldiers in both films are led by psychotic officers ( Major West & Captain Rhodes ) who mentally unwind further as the film progresses. Both of these commanding officers in both films eventually get their comeuppance in rather grisly circumstances. Both films feature the female lead being sexually threatened by the teams of unbalanced soldiers. Both films finish in rather idyllic, serene surroundings which are totally removed from the maelstrom of the rest of the picture. So, there you have it.....quite a few similarities between Romero's 1985 zombie thriller & Boyle's 2002 apocalyptic virus epic. Having said all that, "28 Days Later" is still quite an enjoyable zombie film, and Boyle's highly aggressive, highly animated infected lunatics are an interesting departure from the usual ranks of living dead that stumble & shuffle around as if they've just woken up after a huge night on the booze.
Rating:
Summary: Different and Original, Not the same old horror flick.....
Review: "28 DAYS LATER", It is a very differEnt horror movie its not the same horror crap that stupid people go and see all the time.
Its very suspenseful and was done very well. So what if the zombies are not there the whole time its still a very good movie.
It is not predictable like all the other horror flicks out there,its worth every penny spent.BUY IT BUY IT BUY IT, dont listen to all the other reviews, there just used to all that stupid cheap horror that they dont know a good movie when they see it! Trust me!
Rating:
Summary: One of the Better "Scary" Movies
Review: Saying that the movie is in the horror genre is kind of leading people on, because it's not really - at least in my opinion - a scary movie, and if you want to see it as a scary movie, you'll be disappointed. It's tragic and beautiful in the way that if you really look at a scene, it makes your stomach drop. Such as a family sans a mother using Christmas lights in their window trying to get other people to come, while "Frosty the Snowman" plays in the background amidst this complete chaos where everything is dying and your own family could be the one to kill you. I didn't really have a problem with the dialogue, even though there are a few character cliches, but what isn't a character cliche? It's a prerequisite in an action/horror movie. If you find a flaw in something in this, just stop to THINK about it for a second. Someone asked how Jim could just light a candle with zombies running around. Well, he just woke up from a 28+ day coma in which his entire country was obliterated and he's now in a house that has his dead parents bodies upstairs with the note saying he shouldn't have woken up. Would you be of sound mind? Geez. Just think about it before you gripe and you'll probably get a reasonable bloody answer. In short, the movie isn't the best thing ever created, and no, I don't agree it's the scariest thing since the "Exorcist" (then again, I didn't think "Exorcist" was scary, either), but it's a damn fine movie.
Rating: 
Summary: BAAADDD MOVIE deserves NEGATIVE STARS for wasting my time
Review: i don't own the dvd but i saw the movie in theaters and let me just say DONT WASTE YOUR MONEY. if you haven't seen the movie then don't buy the DVD. it's a horrible incredibly stupid and NOT SCARY movie. if you saw the movie and liked it (all two of you out there) then by all means buy the DVD, but if not DON'T DO IT
Rating:
Summary: Write a movie review here
Review: Let me just get this out of the way and say that this movie was great.It has alot more going for it than most contemporary horror/ sci-fi films. I just don't get the negative feedback. Those who pan the movie or tear it apart have these long and boring criticisms. Come on this isn't the 2nd coming of Evil Dead but what f#@$ were these people expecting. Rent the movie then buy it.
Rating:
Summary: Plot? We don't need no stinkin' plot!
Review: Some critic out there called this "the scariest movie since 'The Exorcist'". That has to be one of the most idiotic statements in the history of humankind. There isn't even so much as a nanosecond of scariness anywhere to be found in this trash heap of a movie. It starts off vaguely interesting, what with all of London being deserted except for one incredibly ugly naked man who wakes up...you guessed it...28 days after the world is wiped out by a plague. He finally runs into some survivors who aren't "infected" and the rip off of "The Stand" continues. Then, in the middle of the film, with no warning whatsoever, we skip from a horror flick to a truly disgusting social commentary that makes you roll your eyes and ensures that, no matter what happens, you won't care. As it turns out, our "heroes" run into a miltary outpost full of soldiers concerned with nothing more than rape. And all of a sudden the zombies stop being the bad guys and the military takes over the job, because we all know that soldiers are far more dangerous than mass numbers of murderous zombies. Anyway, the film ends with ugly naked man (who by now is at least wearing pants) enlisting the support of one such zombie in order to kill the soldiers who are going to "rape" the other two, thus ensuring that the species will not procreate and therefore die off. Hooray!.. That's the gist of this amazingly bad movie. Don't even bother renting it.
Rating:
Summary: See Omega man instead.
Review: "28 days later" was a badley made movie. It contained no plot and you could never tell what was going on. Granted the Stars in the movie were fantastic. The overall movie not worth buying. It was a little too unrealistic. It is highly unlikely to even amagine a virus controlling people in a matter of 15 seconds. I personally thaught it was a terrible movie.
| 
