Rating: 
Summary: A Bad Imitation of Resident Evil !
Review: It was not good nor palatable.It's something to be disregarded.Watch the original "Resident Evil" instead.
Rating: 
Summary: An Intelligent Horror/Action Movie
Review: First of all, this movie is not a horror movie, so stop branding it as one. If you weren't scared, then get over it! That's not the true point of this film. So, a virus breaks out, infects a bunch of people, which infect a bunch more people, and chaos breaks loose. It may sound like a Resident Evil game, but there's a key difference that many people overlook. The virus doesn't kill people, it drives them psychologically insane. There's really 3 parts to this movie. The first deals with discovery and survival. People are fighting for their lives against the infected. Part two deals with salvation. Not to give away too much, but our main characters do find help along the way...and a lot of it. The third part is more of a social commentary that should leave you thinking. This is the part that a lot of people tend to miss. Stop fixating on not being scared, and think about what the movie is trying to say about human nature. That's where the strength of this movie is. It's that which seperates it from other films in this genre. Aside from the story, the movie is packed with action, and sprinkled with dark humor. It blew me away both times that I saw it in theaters, and the DVD release has a lot of great extras. Watch the alternate endings! Overall, the film is exceptional and a perfect image of how horror films should be.
Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating, but flawed
Review: Plenty of other reviewers have provided concise plot summaries here, so I'll focus on what I liked, and what I didn't like, about this film.28 Days Later is an interesting hybrid of post-apocalyptic horror thriller and sociological commentary on the human condition. What's admirable about the film is that it leaves it up to the viewer's discretion to take away from it what one wants. If a variation of the classic zombie sub-genre is all you crave (I am aware that they're not actually zombies, but that's effectively their function), that's here for you, with little more asked of the viewer. On that front alone the film succeeds. Refreshingly, the zombie sub-genre is recast in a more modern and more plausible plot-vehicle - viral research gone awry (horror buffs can further delight here in another classic horror theme: science turning on its creator - see reviews for "Frankenstein"). Gone are the hackneyed means of bringing the zombies into the picture, such as the supernatural or the radiation-getting-into-the-crypt. Those wanting an exciting combination of the post-apocalyptic, zombie, science-gone-haywire horror film will get it here, no questions asked. What makes 28 Days Later really stand out, however, is that it offers more than that, without force-feeding its theme to the viewer (exactly how Oliver Stone would NOT have handled it). How do people behave under stress? What psychological defenses does one employ to deal with nigh unthinkable devastation? In the absence of law to circumscribe one's actions, is one's behavior guided more by morality or by what one can get away with? The film is clearly grappling with these questions, and the viewer can't help but ask himself how he would behave under these circumstances. The most compelling question asked - and the central question of the film, I think - is whether humanity is self-governed by force or by morality. And, at the micro level, which of these governs an individual's choices. Enter "Lord of the Flies." These are the questions I found myself ruminating on weeks after I saw the film, and what, in my opinion, makes it so enjoyable. Unfortunately, the flaws of 28 Days Later prevent it from being a great film. The second half seems to lose focus. I simply could not accept that people would behave in the manner they do here. I understand that the attempt was to juxtapose the enraged with the even more monstrous uninfected, but the effort abandoned all attempts at the subtlety that would have made it effective. Also, why don't the enraged attack each other? I will gladly accept an answer, but please at least offer one. Worst of all, the film ends with hope, despite all signs pointing the other way up to that point. The ending makes me strongly suspect that artistic control was preempted by the studio's desire to satisfy audiences with a "feel good" ending. A shame.... All things considered, however, 28 Days Later is a provocative, multi-layered thriller with plenty to offer.
Rating:
Summary: One of The Better "Horror" Movies of 2003
Review: I consider myself a horror-movie buff and while others may not consider this a horror movie...I would. It's not your typical "zombie" movie (in fact, there are no real zombies - rather the "monsters" are people who have been infected by a virus) nor is it your typical blood and gore fest. No, what you have here is more of a psychological horror. Sure, there are a few "graphic" scenes but the real horror lies in the question: "What If?" I really enjoyed this movie and have recommended it many times over.
Rating:
Summary: Starts good but crashes and burns.....
Review: Shot on video (DV) and transferred to film, this INDEPENDENT post-apocalyptic horror film should be treated as a low-budget exercise with a reasonable cast and a hot director. So how does it pan out? The truth is that the director strives hard for realism and nearly gets there only to blow it completely with a dud and stupid second half. Essentially this is a revamp of the horror novel "I am Legend" by Richard Matheson crossed with "Day of the Trifids" with more than a touch of George A. Romeros "Night of the Living Dead". The story starts well - man wakes up from a coma only to discover that London is deserted with a plague of zombies (called the Infected.. and yes they do just act like zombies except that they run) on the loose, starts to violently come to grips with this new reality and meets up with survivors who are trying to stay alive. The realism in the first half is shocking. It does reach right on down in there and makes you feel very uncomfortable about what you are seeing. There are scenes of animal abuse, child murders and friends chopping each other up once they have become infected. Nasty stuff, but this is how you would expect things to be in the type of scenario that Danny Boyle brings so well to the screen. Then it all goes downhill as the survivors end up going to Manchester to hook up with another group of survivors who turn out to be the army corp. Wait until you get this.... the army corp have not had any women and so .... they go completely mad and try to rape the survivors. Realism goes out the window and sadly the film crashes into total and utter absurdity. Overall the only reason you should watch this is for the (1)Gore, (2)To see how a Digital Video Transfer looks and (3)For the first half. Not very good, but not all that bad either. There a lot of better zombie (*cough*cough* - are we allowed to say Zombie here??) films out there and certainly better post-apocalyptic ones. This movie just tried to get a more realistic edge but the burning plot holes make Swiss-cheese of things in no time.
Rating:
Summary: Really is a movie for the more educated
Review: I want to go out and say that 28 days later is a great film. Although, I do want to state a warning that is movie is not for all people. Some people come into this movie expecting some dumb cheap horror movie like cabin fever. This is definitely more of a psychological thriller than a zombie movie. First off, for the morons that get on here and call the "infected" (which is what they are referred to the ENTIRE movie) zombies, they are not. No where in this movie does anyone call them zombies. For those scoring at home, Movie 1, Morons 0. Now, as for the stupid people that get on here and complain about how there are not guns around... well for those who know nothing of England, guns are illegal. Notice, the only people with guns are military personel. Movie 2, Morons 0. Then there are people who get on here saying that the monkeys get rage from watching tv. FALSE. The scientist clearly states that the monkeys were given inhibitors. I must have seen another movie, or the sound must have just been on.... Movie 3 Morons 0. People...pay attention to the movie. In all seriousness, this movie does have similairities to the Omega Man... but it still seperates itself. This movie is more dark and also is more psychological. I dont want to give a lot about the movie away, but this movie has a lot more to it than so called "zombies." It also shows how man would react to an apocalyptic scenario such as an outbreak of this magnitude. It just isnt man vs. the infected, but it turns into man vs. man.... something I did not expect going into the movie. I dont know about most moviegoers, but I want to be suprised and see the unexpected. I also want to see a movie that is going to make me think. While I love this moive and encourage people to see it, I would not recommend it to people how do not like psychological thrillers or to the younger audience, 17 and below. Not because of the violence, but honestly, they would not get it. Hopefully if you see this movie you will see it for what its worth, a very good thriller, not some stupid zombie movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Most aweful
Review: This movie was so pathetic I left the theatre after half the movie. It's about monkey's infected with "rage" by watching violence on television. Are we going to see a violent barney movie next??
Rating:
Summary: Been there, done that...
Review: I enjoyed this movie. It was fun, scary, and very morbidly depressing -- if you like grim, dark stories of the "Gee, isn't it terrible what's happening to earth" genre, you'll eat it up. BUT: this is a just another rip off of John Wyndham's masterpiece "Day of the Triffids". A few people in London are left after some disaster, they leave town, hole up in some remote estate, fight each other, etc. Same story, different monster. But this is very creepy and effective. The picture quality is deliberately "bad": like TV documentaries. Add it to your collection!
Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable
Review: A horror film it's not, and Oscar-worthy it's not, but I watched it and enjoyed it and will own it. I just read over the one-star reviews, and I just don't get it - why do they keep calling the infected people zombies? And flesh-eating zombies, no less? Where did they even get the word "zombies"? The movie only calls them "the infected". I think it's pretty amusing that all the people calling the movie dumb didn't even understand it... what does that make them then, exactly? :-)
Rating:
Summary: Perfect
Review: Just what the Zombie film afficianados of today needed. While in the technical sense this film is not a zombie film, it contains many of the typical paradigms of one. What this amounts to, is a refreshing take on the genre. There are definite similarities to Omega Man, but the film is still all it's own. May we all hope and pray that this film brings zombie horror into a new golden age.
|
