Rating: 
Summary: That's why they stayed after the end credits!
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: the reviews of the pseudo intellects are laughable at least
Review: "i went into this movie to have my pants scared off" etc, etc, etc. "& all i got was some cliche movie about....blah blah blah." cliche? i'm sorry, no. & the fact that anyone would compare this film to a movie the cailber of Psycho, well, that just proves your overall idiocy. this movie, although labeled as horror, is more of a subliminal psychological thriller. "subliminal" you say? how so? think about it, when the "new wave" general & joe were restrained in their refined quarters, the general went on to say that the entire world was going on about their normal business while the entire island, the entire country of the UK was totally ignored & disregarded. this goes to show just how much the world does infact NOT care about each others well being. people now a days are so used to movies like the fast & the furious( or that atrocious piece of film Amelie....or however that TERRIBLE movie's title is spelled.) that they're null & void to the ability to dig deeper into the meaning of the movie. & well, the soldiers claiming salvation who turn out to be sex-starved near raving lunatics are simply a display of how humanity may claim to have come some ways since the days of the cave men, when infact, instinctively certaintly have not. the ONLY complaint i have about the film is this: & quite honestly it doesn't have much to do with the film itself as it does the soundtrack, i was quite displeased that upon purchasing the OST that the Godspeed! You Black Emperor song wasn't on it. no worries though. a fine film.......for the thinking man or woman.
Rating: 
Summary: Where did it go wrong?
Review: Lets just start the review here. These monkeys in a research lab are being tested and some animal activists break in. The researcher warns them but they let the monkeys out anyway. Then the movie starts with a guy naked. Kinda weird, but alright. Anyways, the creepiness starts when noone is around except him. We know why, he doesn't. Anyways, once Jim meets the other 2 survivors, they go to this house. The house lets Jim remember things, and then BOOYAKA the jump point comes. Yea, you probably will jump because the sound kicks up alot when this zombie comes! Thats it. The movie had a great thing going. I was getting ready to jump whenever I saw bodies and such, but never. The movie could of had you jumping at every turn, but it doesn't. The characters are nice, but again... This movie isn't scary at all. I jumped once at the beggining. We basically see these few people travel far to a military compound where these soldiers are apparently saying. Of course, the main character kicks some ...(against 1 zombie in the whole film and like 10 guys), but its almost as if the director forgot about the zombies, because they become useless. I am going to be honest... You will probably completely forget about the zombies and such about 30 minutes into this 1 hour 40 minute film, and you should. Theres like 1 or 2 zombies after that. Honestly, it turns into an action movie. Mostly because Jim kills these guys, and doesn't care about the zombies as you will see(neither will you). There is no vicious killer, and the movie isn't scary. I hate to say it, but the alternate endings are worthless. I watched 2 of them(there are like 3) and I was done. They are retarted. Then there is the actual ending. The movie basically starts creepy, then for about 45 minutes(im not exaggerating) you will witness no zombies(except a little mob of them but you know they are coming a mile away) but they won't matter. Honestly, the movie has you kinda creeped for 15 minutes, then it's 45 minutes of no action except shopping in a supermarket and replacing a tire.... Not scary, and if this movie won so many awards in another country, I don't know what kind of movies they are watching over there.
Rating: 
Summary: A Horror Film?
Review: I saw "28 Days Later" in the theaters and enjoyed it, then bought the DVD and enjoyed it much less, some of its flaws becoming more obvious to me. But it's still an okay movie, very unique in a world of look-alike Hollywood thrillers. I read some of the reviews on Amazon.com to get a feel for what others thought of the movie and I'm a little confused. I guess there are two different ways to view the film - first as a horror film. This seems to be how most viewers received the movie and in that light I'm amazed anyone liked it at all. This isn't a horror film, and I don't think director Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, The Beach) *tried* to make a horror film. Certainly there are scary and disturbing moments in it (although I don't remember any "15-second close-ups of rotten dead babies" as one melodramatic reviewer commented), but taken as an overall picture, I just don't consider it a horror film, which leads us to the second lens through which to view it, as a psychological thriller. It is in this mode that the movie succeeds - and fails. Mostly fails. But at least in that context it becomes watchable, maybe even likeable. Yeah, yeah, Danny, we get your little point. In a post apocalyptic world where there is disease to fight, as well as monstrous creatures to avoid, we as humans will just fight amongst ourselves. What a profoundly average statement to make. It's clichéd, boring, solipsistic and self-righteous (yes! I've been trying to work "solipsistic" in somewhere). Not only is it all those things, "28 Days Later" had the potential to be so much more than that. It was filmed in a fresh way, had interesting characters we cared about, had legitimate character growth and an enthralling concept. It's almost as if Boyle didn't understand what was great about his movie and chose the conventional, boring way out. And that's the main emotion I was left with, it could have been far better than it was. Good effort, better than most of the mundane trash put out in the last year or so, but only a shadow of what it could've been. Some examples? Thought you'd never ask. 1. Why did we need the first scene with the animal rights activists breaking into the research facility? Imagine how much cooler it would've been to just start the movie with Jim (the main character) waking up in a hospital - and everyone in London is dead. He doesn't know why, neither do we. Then he would spend half the movie discovering what happened, along with the audience. Much better, much more suspenseful, much more unique. 2. The disease is just incredibly stupid. Forcing apes to watch horrific scenes of violence is not going to spawn a virus, or make a virus worse. Showing the apes watch human aggression only reinforces Boyle's little "can't we all just get along" statement. Why not think up a realistic virus? Why do we need some scientifically impossible infection? It hurt the movie and in many ways set the pace for the audience - this movie was not really about the virus at all. (And a minor point here - even if we had to have the ape scene with the "horrific clips," it's ridiculous to assume the scientists would've used rioting incidents you might see on CNN. They would've used clips that are far more violent and sickening than foreigners throwing bottles at cops.) 3. The soldiers should not have even been in the movie. Here Boyle has a great film in the making, he's created characters we care about and a fictional world which we are sucked into - and then he takes us right out of it. We don't need an apocalyptic disease ridden world for Boyle to tell the story of the soldiers - this could've been told anywhere in a hundred different situations. About an hour into this movie, it stops being about a plague and it starts being about disagreeable humans. We have enough of those movies! Why, Danny? 4. Even if you had to include the soldiers, it seemed unrealistic they would've been that desperate not even a month after the infection. Remember, only 28 days has gone by. Would these trained men really be at the point of raping a fifteen year old? Of surrendering to the plague, not even trying to get to America or somewhere else? It's hard to believe they would. Then there's the DVD itself. There are some good features on it, more than most DVDs have, but nothing making it worth buying. The alternate endings are completely lame, identical with the exception of a character living or dying. The "radical" alternate ending shows how little in control of his idea Boyle actually was, and we can only be thankful they let this idea die before it was fully realized. He actually had the idea of using a blood transfusion to cure the disease. A blood transfusion. Granted, they realized how stupid it was, but the fact that it was even entertained for a split second speaks volumes. Lastly, the one positive thing. The music was great. But don't get the movie for that, get the soundtrack.
Rating:
Summary: Great idea, inconsistent implementation
Review: Warning!! If you are the type of person who cares about movies being consistent, cohesive, logical and sensible from beginning to end, don't even consider watching this particular one, it will only make you mad! There is a lot of hacking, slashing, biting, shooting, fountains of blood, and 15-second closeups of rotten dead babies in this movie, plus buck naked guys and child rape attempts, so it is definitely not for kids.
If this kind of issues don't bother you, read on.
The basic plot of the movie is:
A virus breaks out that turns people into raging maniacs that keep biting uninfected people and spreading the infection this way. The Infected are depicted quite well and can be rather scary on occasion. Fast-forward 28 days, the main character wakes up and finds himself in deserted London. Here we see some pretty great scenes, the abandoned city looks quite impressive. He meets with some other survivors and they try to find a way out of this mess. They head to an army holdout near Manchester where the plot gets kinda strange as the few weeks of disaster have not been easy on the soldiers and all they have on their minds is raping their female visitors. After that there is a lot more slashing, biting and blood to almost the very end. The end itself is a cliffhanger and might be disappointing as it is unclear of what really happened. I spent a long time thinking how to classify this movie or its intended audience, here are some theories:
1) Philosophical apocalypse drama, intended to make people think about human nature and other serious things. There are lots of "symbolic" details in the movie pointing in this direction, and don't get me wrong, some of them are actually quite interesting. This idea is however greatly weakened by countless inconsistencies, logic flaws and needless violence. Not that I have a weak stomach but some of the gore just didn't help conveying any deeper meaning here.
2) Simple horror flick, intended to scare people. The problem with this idea is that a horror movie should be at least a little bit believable in order to be effective. However, there are so many silly things that keep interrupting the suspense that some situations get laughable instead of scary. Also, the main characters keep behaving in annoying and mindbogglingly stupid ways, so that it gets hard to sympathize with them. This kind of behavior is common in horror movies but got a bit overboard here.
3) Something oddly perverse that I can't find a proper name for, intended for people who need something "unusual" to get them excited. There are many details that indicate the moviemakers think in some twisted way. For example, we are introduced to the protagonist when he lies in a hospital bed, totally naked. I don't mind naked people but it just doesn't make sense in the context of the movie, it just seems that someone badly wanted to stick a naked guy in there somewhere. All in all, I have mixed feelings about it. I would definitely not buy it myself but it was OK for a one-time viewing.
Rating:
Summary: The best horror film to come along in years
Review: Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, The Beach) directs this horror film, which is everything that is proclaimed by the review tagline on the back of the DVD package. 28 Days Later is the most visionary horror film to come along in years, thanks in part to some excellent performances from everyone involved, a super creepy atmosphere that is more than believable, and a refreshing take on the zombie genre. When Jim (Cillian Murphy) wakes out of a coma, he finds the hospital, along with just about all of England, deserted and abandoned. Soon enough, he finds out why, and with the help of a few survivors, struggles to survive the onslaught of rage infected virus carriers. The word zombie is never mentioned once during the film, but it's pretty apparent what this rage virus does to people, and the film never slows down from the time of its' opening sequence on. 28 Days Later is the scariest zombie film to come along since the original Dawn of the Dead, and with it's share of twists and turns, is always full of surprises, and this is clearly Boyle's best directorial effort since Trainspotting. Anyone who calls this film boring obviously considers Scream a classic, and older horror fans who were raised on horror films like Romero's Dead trilogy and Halloween will find plenty to admire with this modern day classic. The DVD extras here are great as well, including the commentary by Boyle and writer Alex Garland, plus 3 alternate endings.
Rating: 
Summary: BAD BAD BAD
Review: It was the worst movle that I have ever seen. The movle never went anywere, Just the movle veiwers leaving the theater place have through.
Rating:
Summary: Terrifying psychological thriller...
Review: Extremely terrifying psychological thriller with a basis not that far from reality. What if one day entire populations were wiped out by a highly contagious disease? Before anyone rolls their eyes at the pretext of the situation the movie is based on, consider Ebola, West Nile virus, etc. Could something like this really be that far from happening? The story begins with confusion as the protagonist tries to piece together what has happened over the last few weeks while he has been in a coma. Then from the non-stop thrills and scares of trying to escape from the "infecteds", to the highly intense conclusion of having to escape from a group even more sinister than those who are diseased, the viewer is kept of the edge of his or her seat. Fun for scares and thrills, but also thought-provoking in premise, this is one film that will grab hold of you and not let go until after the credits have rolled. See it today if think you can handle it...
Rating:
Summary: Unrealized comedic potential
Review: "28 Days Later" is a madcap romp through a post-apocalyptic world where the men are men and the women are scared. It features fine performances by a cast of relative unknowns (Brendan Gleeson probably is the only actor in this movie that you have heard of), but the direction lacks comedic focus. The movie delivers more scares than laughs. In fact, I don't recall even chuckling one time -- a serious indictment of a film that professes to be a black comedy of manners set in the near future. Perhaps if the characters infected by "rage" didn't move spastically and develop glowing red eyes, the comedic potential would be realized. The movie is redeemed by its social message: that liberals, environmentalists and animal-rights activists are responsible for the world's ills, and if only corporations and scientists were allowed to irradiate produce, perform cruel experiments upon primates, and choose technology's direction without the interference of bleeding-heart do-gooders, all the world's peoples would be united and happy amid a cornucopia of flawless consumer goods. If you are under the misapprehension that corporations are responsible for social disintegration and environmental degradation, this film will set you straight: Our problems are all the fault of those damned dirty environmentalists and animal-rights activists and consumer advocates.
Rating:
Summary: A derivative, muddled, bloody mess
Review: My partner was very curious to see "28 Days Later", which, as the ballyhoo went, was this "ultra-scary" film that critics and audiences were praising to the skies. Doubting Thomas that I am, was skeptical. So, off we went and rented the DVD. And were we surprised! What would you get if you took "On the Beach", "The World, the Flesh and the Devil", all of George Romero's "Dead" films, "Rambo", and even "The Crying Game", threw them all together in an editing room, and what would you come up with? This film! The film did hold our interest about halfway through the film, though we felt the "music video"-style music extremely distracting and annoying, reminding us that we were "watching a movie". We did express interest in the characters, though they were, of course, "horror/action" movie characters, i.e. 2-dimensional. And yes, characters that we began to identify with were brutally killed off well into the film, ala Hitchcock's "Psycho", but then the film just went berserk and fell apart. A maniac British army officer and his goons in a mansion-turned military compound begin to brutalize the (now 3) survivors of a deadly rage-inducing plague to sexist views of womanhood and such. Dressing a "strong" black woman and a 14 year old white girl in red prom dresses with the intention of using them for "man's pleasure", now really! And the soft-spoken, sensitive hero turns into an avenging Rambo to save them! And the ending? Don't ask! My partner and I both felt like we'd been "had". But, courageous souls that we were, watched the extra features on the DVD. The alternative ending (which isn't an ending, really, it's more like the second half of the film) shown in story-board with voice-overs, would certainly have been a much more interesting choice than the wayward direction that this film took. And director Boyle and company's pontificating about the "threat of deadly viruses and their possibility" is all fine and lofty stuff, but that doesn't excuse nor validate this misbegotten, bloody mess. The end product should speak for itself. Alfred Hitchcock didn't film presumptuous, preachy explanations following the endings of "Psycho" or "The Birds", did he? Have audiences forgotten the criteria that justify a "well-made" and "entertaining" film, such as structure, character development, and coherency? "28 Days Later" is yet another example of "The Emperor's New Clothes", ladled out to a very complacent, naive, uneducated audience. If you are 20 years old and have been raised solely on MTV, then this is a "great" film. To quote a friend's mother, "They didn't have ME in mind when they made this". Bleccchhhhhhh!
|
