Home :: DVD :: Science Fiction & Fantasy :: Futuristic  

Alien Invasion
Aliens
Animation
Classic Sci-Fi
Comedy
Cult Classics
Fantasy
Futuristic

General
Kids & Family
Monsters & Mutants
Robots & Androids
Sci-Fi Action
Series & Sequels
Space Adventure
Star Trek
Television
28 Days Later (Widescreen Edition)

28 Days Later (Widescreen Edition)

List Price: $27.98
Your Price: $25.18
Product Info Reviews

<< 1 .. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .. 55 >>

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: 28 Minutes Later...
Review: Where is the plot in the movie?!? HELLOOO!!!?

I watched this movie because a friend told me it was really good and besides, in all the advertisements, it said "SCARY AS HELL" so of course, I was looking forward to a horror flick that would make me not want to go to sleep alone at night.

The first few minutes of the movie grabbed my attention due tot he horrific images in the videos, but after going through 15 minutes of Jim walking around London yelling "HELLO!!", it went downhill from there. It was not "Scary as hell", not even a bit. In fact, I felt [silly] because many people started leaving within 30-45 minutes of the film and someone sitting two seats away from me started talking on her cell phone, left and never came back. Bored, perhaps? There was nothing scary about this movie. Sure there were a few jumps here and there, but nothing to scream about. The rape scene was ridiculous, sure we have to start civilization again, but through rape? Um no. Then at the end, a jetplane flies through, but where did it come from if supposedly all of society has been wiped out with "Rage"? The "zombies" were scary-looking but not scary at all, considering that you can kill them by whacking them on the head with a baseball bat.

I have to give credit for the soundtrack and the cinematography. Very artsy-fartsy. For an independent film, I enjoyed the shots and the music that went along with the scenes. If anything, I should've gone and looked for the soundtrack instead of watching the movie. The actors weren't bad at all, although they could have had a better script. The movie does somewhat make you think about how you would survive if such a threat to mankind did occur---and what would you do if you were one of the few left?...

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: ACH! ZOMBIES!
Review: Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later fits firmly in the tradition of "zombie" films like Night of the Living Dead. Since this is in fact one of my favorite genres, I welcome any offering. In this film the zombies aren't called "zombies" but "infected". We see in a prologue that a fanatical animal rights group has let out monkeys contaminated with a deadly virus that turns humans into mindless, carnivorous, zombies.

CUT TO:

28 DAYS LATER

Jim awakens naked in a hospital bed. He has been in a coma for a month and has no idea what happened. Although the movie was shot on video (probably to save money) the movie has some incredible effects - the most moving of which is the sight of a nearly empty England. Jim starts to put things together when he sees heaps of the dead. "Hello?" he asks. BIG MISTAKE. Friends and neighbors, if you ever wake up to an empty world, no matter WHAT your beliefs are, ALWAYS ASSUME THAT ZOMBIES ARE TO BLAME.

Of course, Jim hooks up with other survivors, as usually happens in this kind of a movie. What sets this movie apart is the level of artistry with which the subject matter is handled. It is well-written, well-acted, and well-directed. We sort-of know what is going to happen, but we don't care because that's what we're there for. 28 Days Later is basically an art film for those of us who love horror movies. It is, in fact, the best new horror movie I've seen in a while. Boyle and Garland (who collaborated together on The Beach, a failed realization of Garland's novel) know, along with Stephen King, that the secret of horror lies in characterization. There are only so many ways to kill a man, and movie audiences have seen them. If, however, you get the audience to CARE about the characters, then they will be afraid for them.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: a good gripping, not scary film
Review: First a couple of clarifications of other peoples reviews, first those comparing it to the Resident Evil film. Wow, hate to break it to you but there were doznes of zombie films before Resident Evil.
Secondly those complaining about product placement, the filmmakers have claimed they didn't get any money for product placement. they used brand names because they wanted verisimilitude. Not sure if i beleive it but that's what i read.

Now, the film. The film really isn't a horror film as such, but I found it a very gripping film. It borrows from other films, but it does it so well that I forgive it. It is a genre film and genres have formulas.
Certainly it is not without problem. A tough character ends up needing to be rescued, and one of the last deaths was totally unbelievable. However, I can overlook that and I enjoyed it completely.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: **SPOILERS** Fantastic Movie
Review: This movie combines elements of several horror movies of the past in such a way as to create a unique and thoroughly frightening film. The predecessor with which this film probably shares the most is Dawn of the Dead. Both are apocalyptic in nature, and both offer characters who are more than capable of taking care of themselves (granted, the main characters in 28 Days are not SWAT team members, but they are also far from being the hapless, helpless drones who populate traditional slasher flicks, and even legitimate horror movies like Blair Witch). Unlike Dawn, however, this movie does not offer legions of shuffling zombies, one of whom is no match for a human, but whom en masse are inescapable. Rather 28 Days offers sprinting, screaming, bloodthirsty, infected humans who, though far lesser in number than the denizens of the Dead are far more formidable on their own. And (spoiler) while 28 Days starts out with an apocalyptic slant, we eventually, and logically, learn that the carnage is not worldwide. It offers a much brighter ending that anything found in a Romero script.

As for the flaws which have been brought up, some are legitimate while others are baseless criticisms. I do feel that many of the characters actions were questionable. Upon awaking, Jim wanders around London obviously confused and perturbed by the absence of, well, everyone. Yet when he comes across a newspaper, he seems to quickly scan the 'EVACUATION' headline, before dropping the paper back on the ground without bothering to find out exactly why the city was evacuated. Apparently he felt better answers would be forthcoming by wandering and shouting 'hello.' I also feel that the characters, who at times went to great lenghts to take precautions against the infecteds, at other times failed to take some of the most obvious ones. Not in any way reinforcing the cab windows or acquiring better weapons (than one bat and one admittedly very effective knife), driving through the tunnel (one character goes as far as to point out how stupid this is, and yet they still do it), and when forced (arguably) to spend a night outside, lighting a fire and talking- knowing that the infecteds were attracted by moving light and voices.

As for the infecteds unexplained dislike for daylight- so what? I don't think they're afraid of daylight, but they simply are largely inactive during daylight hours. In the instances where they do come out- when they come into the tunnel and when they emerge from the woods, there were certainly noises loud enough to draw them. Otherwise I think they spend the daylight hours indoors in the somewhat comatose state that the church zombies were in before Jim spoke, or the the child was in, again, before Jim spoke. As for the stupidity of Frank flashing the Christmas lights, I don't think that's a major flaw. First of all, he turned them off right after dusk, apparently when the zombies first come out. While leaving them on even that late may attract infecteds, the lights are also more easily seen at night. And as he later explains, he needed to draw other people. He knew he couldn't stay where he was, and he knew he couldn't be the only one there for his daughter. Plus the infecteds, while physically fast, weren't that quick mentally. For one to see the lights and then deduce from inside the stairwell both the floor and apartment from which they hung- I don't think that would be a big worry. The argument that the virus wouldn't spread all over the island is also flawed. This happened quickly, and without anyone having an awareness of it. It's not like the minute it happened the military and every law enforcement agency knew what was happening. This thing would spread, fast, and by the time the seriousness of it was recognized and lethal force employed, it would be too late. Too many would be infected. By the same token, I don't think the virus would spread beyond the island. The incubation period is so short that nobody could travel 20 feet, let alone to the mainland, before the effects of the virus took over rendering that person nothing more than a maniac incapable of operating any sort of boat or plane. The only footpath would be the chunnel, and I think it unlikely that any infected would make it in there, let alone all the way through it. And even if the chunnel weren't blasted shut when things started going funny in Britain, I'm pretty sure the military would be waiting on the other side for anything that got through. And as for the issue of the infecteds sitting in the daylight at the end, I think that's meant to show that they are finally starving to death. From what I could tell, the infecteds didn't eat anything. They killed or infected others- those were their only instincts. And despite the implied rescue- it was almost unnecessary by the end. The infecteds were dead or dying, and Britain itself would soon be safe. As for the plane itself, I think once things hit the fan, alot of the land based RAF would have made their way over to France.

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: meaningless as hell
Review: "Scary as Hell" is what the ads said. This is false advertising. The movie was not scary, probably because Danny Boyle fancied it to be more serious and weighty than your typical zombie flick. The problem is that it ends up being neither scary nor serious (when there's no real reason why it couldn't be both). The word that comes to mind is "pretentious." The movie's about 60 IQ points short of being able to pull off what it hopes to pull off. It's that same too-hip not-exactly-nihilistic pseudo-punk thing that's apparently the rage in England right now and is getting just way too tiresome. "Trainspotting" was great; this is BORING. It ISN'T meaningful or interesting, let alone exciting. What a waste of time - seriously. It's as profound as an eighth-grade creative-writing assignment.

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: Dissapointing to say the least!
Review: If you are like me, and you are wondering what all the hype is about, I have some money and time saving advice for you. Skip this film at all costs. If you are looking for something original and scary, watch "The Ring", and "Signs". Now those are brilliant films. "28 days later", however, is a heaping pile of .... I didn't think this film was scary in the least, mainly because the "zombies" (humans infected by the rage virus) are sad looking, and were easily killed off. This movie also lacks any kind of plot or character development. It seemed more like a documentary. With the exception of the young girl and her father, are we actually supposed to care about the other characters? Then there is that awful frenetic camera movement, reminiscent of "the blair witch project", whenever something violent happens...particularly when the "zombies" attack. Take my word for it, this gets very irritating after a while.

I know that it may sound like I'm really bashing this movie (which I am LOL), but I'm only telling you the truth behind my initial reaction to it (I saw it yesterday). This is yet another movie that was blatantly mis-marketed by the producers. Most people, like I did, went into this movie expecting a brilliant horror film, as the deceitful trailers and critics hinted it to be. Instead it turned out to be an agonizingly boring, time and money wasting mess!!!

Rating: 2 stars
Summary: Too Many Questions Left Unanswered, 2.5 stars
Review: For the most part, I love a zombie movie. I also like horror movies. However, something made me leave the theatre unsatisfied with this movie. Although 28 Days Later tries to be a movie with both a conscience and gore, it seems to fall flat with little explanation of it's own plot.

For one thing, we do not really get much in way of the background. Within the first 5 minutes of the film, the virus and everything are just kind of thrown at us without being explained in the way of a violent attack at some sort of laboratory for testing. Perhaps the makers of this movie could have just spent a little time not rushing this part; for one thing, the "rage" virus that people suffer from is the main premise of the movie. The next thing is, of course, the caption that says 28 days later and some guy is naked in a hospital...

28 Days Later should be credited for doing several things well. This is at least a movie that takes itself seriously; the characters are not your average horror movie stereotypes and there is some build up of character development. There is a sense of eeriness about the city when the main character is walking about trying to find out what has happened.

However, very little is explained, which leads to more questions than answers. Where are the people in other cities, countries, etc? What is exactly "rage"? Why are the zombies constantly vomiting? Why do the zombies "sleep"? Why in the world did they use that ending for the movie?

The movie was a tad on the violent side, which, I suppose, should be expected. But it wasn't really a "violent" type of violent, but more of a "loud" violent. For instance, when someone is about to be attacked then they crank up this loud music from the soundtrack and keep getting it louder and louder until the attack scene is over. There are also many times when the camera shakes around and you rarely can tell what is actually happening.

It seemed as though they spent too much time dragging out things and not making clear connections as to what exactly these people were suppose to be doing to survive from the breed of zombies. I think they could have cut some of the scenes to fit in a little more background. Overall, not bad, but I wouldn't watch it again for the price of a show.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Has even more blood-vomiting than BASIC... Thumbs up!!!
Review: Oy! Here's a zombie flick for anyone who was annoyed and/or disappointed by last year's sterile, unamusing RESIDENT EVIL.<28 DAYS LATER blows that out of the water.

>This movie is more subdued and shot in gritty, drab tones. The horror scenes are done through dizzying camera-work but not with the typical hollywood blitz and flash. Some shots are done with frenzied editing of incoherent horrors, but its with purpose and style, and used quite sparingly, which heightens its impact.

The agent responsibile for turning ordinary humans into zombies is quite vague. It has something to do with captive primates and how bombardment of images on modern urban warfare somehow became an agent in their blood that could be transmitted by the good old-fashioned tecniques like biting and bloodspill. It's never really explained though, which might be a screenwriting copout, but I feel it rather adds the sense of confusion and terrified awe of the main character, who wakes up in a hospital bed to find the world around him infested solely by the undead in lurking corners.

There's some moral poking and prodding at the dinner table scene that deals with the presence and purpose of man on earth, and whether or not the outbreak was natures way of returning the planet to the status quo the way it was before man got here just a few years ago

It's quite bloody and ditrubing, and mainstream movie-goers will be driven away by it's overall bleakness and frank British filmmaking, but those who appreciate well crafted thrillers will dig this film, although it could have benefitted from a few more scares.

Unlike conventional horror movies, however, the gore and frenzy seems only incidental. Boyle doesn't seem to be filming these shots with the intention of only showing some gore.

Oh yeah, and Brendan Gleeson provides a familiar face amidst the competent British unknowns.

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: One word describes this movie...HORRIBLE
Review: I have seen a lot of movies this year and this one is by far he worst. Horrible special effects. Horrible acting. Horrible quality. Horrible originality. Horrible parts (there was a rape scene....which made me sick). JUST A BAD MOVIE. The fact that they stole ideas from Resident Evil made it even worse......i.e. someone waking up on a hospital bed after being there for a long time...then goes outside to see everything abandoned and wrecked. Just like in Resident Evil. And also stealing the idea of a "virus" which turns people into zombies (which i might add look more fake than anything I have ever seen before)...which also came from Resident Evil.

Seriously the zombies in this fantastic movie, 28 Days Later, walked like the had just had too much sugar or caffeine. They walked to fast and so jittery...which was actually kind of funny.

If you really feel the need to see this movie, wait until it comes out on HBO so you don't have to put any money into it. Going to see this movie was the biggest waste of money ever. If you saw this and liked this movie, then my friend....you don't go to the movies enough.

P.S. when i said this movie was fantastic, that was something I like to call sarcasm.

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: Didn't do it for me...
Review: I'm not exactly sure what lead me to plunk down $9.50 this see this movie, but I think it had something to do with the fact that I had a desire to see a movie, but no desire to see a movie that was a sequel, a blockbuster, or a movie based on an existing cartoon or TV character. In other words, there wasn't much selection. I didn't hate "28 Days Later," but I did find myself irritated with the critics who steered me toward it. The movie has the distinction of having two of the least charismatic leads I have ever seen. I didn't commit either name to memory, but they looked vaguely like a poor man's Thandie Newton and Glen Fitzgerald, if such a title can even be bestowed. I guess in a movie such as this, the leads are less important than the adrenaline pumping thrills, and there are a few in this. The general concept is scary, and there are a few sequences of the heroes fleeing in terror that had my heart racing. But mostly it is a mishmash of sci fi themes and brief attempts to morph itself into a horror movie.


<< 1 .. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .. 55 >>

© 2004, ReviewFocus or its affiliates