Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining if derivative viral apocalypse story
Review: Sunday, March 28, 2004 / 3 of 5 / Entertaining if derivative viral apocalypse story. Borrowing liberally from Day of the Triffids, Night of the Comet [remember that one?] and Omega Man, this erstwhile zombie-ish flick takes place in England and surrounding parts. When radical do-gooder animal rights activists release test monkeys full of 'rage' potion they do more harm than good as usual. The virus quickly infects everything and turns humans into slavering, red-eyed rage-a-holics. The token survivor, a bicycle courier, wakes up in a hospital and wanders around the desolate London before things start getting better. Chased by mobs of the infected he joins up with a few more survivors as they make their way to the requisite military stronghold. Once there, of course, we see the soldiers have already started breaking down in Lord of the Flies fashion, and boy are they happy to have some chicks show up. Cinematically impressive, with some gritty effects and angles it's a slightly above average entry into this genre which I'll revisit when the new Dawn of the Dead comes out.
Rating:
Summary: good to a degree
Review: i bought this dvd right after finishing alex garland's wonderful book 'the beach' and watching the dvd of the movie it was based on, hoping for another wonderful collaboration between the director danny boyle and garland who wrote the script for 28 days later. it is a nice zombie movie and incredibly well shot (needless to say the deserted london sequence is breathtaking) but then again not much separates this zombie film from the george romero ones or any other zombie flicks of recent times. the fact that the story is set in england and that the actors are mainly unknown does add a bit more panache, though personally i think the movie does have certain problems, most noteworthy for me is the incredibly silly exposition of how the virus causing the zombie epidemic spread into the wide world.the dvd is full of underwhelming features including a commentary track by boyle and garland who sound kind of tedious after a while (maybe it's those british accents), the alternate endings are nice but silly and only go to show yet another problem in the screenwriting process of an unperfect script, the featurette is incredibly stupid, sort of like a british 60-minutes segment about how a zombie epidemic is inevitable, the music video is horrible and the storyboards dull. nevertheless there are good reasons to get this movie, most notably the wonderful soundtrack and score (though you can probably get that separately) and from a purely educational point of view, to see the film and then the deleted scenes (especially the alternate endings, which are not 'killer' endings as stated on the cover) to see how this movie could have been a lot worse.
Rating:
Summary: good, not great, but pretty good
Review: I was hoping for a lot from this Movie, Danny Boyle is behind a few gems, Trainspotting and Shallow Grave are classics. But like so many directors, he fell flat once gaining acceptance in the mainstream USA audience, big budgets hindering him more than anything. This movie wasn't as good as I had hoped, but it was still entertaining and fun to watch. Most interesting is the beginning before you know what is really happening, some people get infected, a scientist freaks out about it, and the opening credits roll. Then you are brought to the main character, who has been in a coma from a bicycle crash. He wakes up in an empty hospital, and walks out into a seeminly deserted london. When he discovers that a plague has decimated or changed most of the town. One thing to note, this isn't as much a zombie movie as it was hyped up to be. The infected weren't dead, they got the disease and became like rabid animals. Second, you don't see them as much as you would expect. This is nice since it keeps them fresh and you don't see a lot of them till later in the movie. They are also really fast, appearing sometimes out of nowhere and charging like mad for those who haven't been infected. This is more like the earlier Romereo flicks, more about how people react to the desolation of their society and danger of their surroundings; the hardened survivalist that will kill you without blinking if you show signs of infection, the kind father who wants to get his daughter to safety and seems to be almost unaffected by events around him, or the degenerated soldiers. It could have been better, but I think that it was better than a lot of horror movies of late, and hope for future movies from Danny Boyle. Hopefully a sign that he will return to the former caliber of his early films.
Rating: 
Summary: Bad remake of a bad movie...
Review: This is simply a nonsensical and unneeded remake of "Day of the Triffids" with zombie humans replacing alien plants. What else is there to say but: If you start off with a bad movie and remake it into an even worse one, how good can it possibly be? At least "Day of the Triffids" can fall back on it's release date (1962) as an excuse for it's quality.
Rating:
Summary: Good but not Great
Review: When I first saw the previews for this movie, I actually thought it was going to be the new movie adaptation of Richard Matheson's "I Am Legend". I think that was the unofficial intention of the film, as it closely resembles the storyline (One man existing in an extinct world where all living inhabitants have been transformed into bloodthirsty monsters). I am a huge fan of zombie flicks, so I was thrilled to hear that there was finally a new one coming out. But upon seeing the film I was both satisfied and disappointed. First off, the storyline is awesome, but this is certainly not a horror movie. 28 Days Later is definetly Drama (which is not necessarily a bad thing if you're a horror fan). Horror movies co-exist with the theme of humor and have a lot of fun, which is why many horror movies are so cheasy and corny. This movie had little relief from its miserable atmosphere, one of its down points in my opinion. Now, I know horror fans (myself included) are always begging for more and more zombie movies despite the fact that they're all the same, but this movie definetly lacked in originality (again, maybe not such a bad thing). Just about every frame of the film was taken from another movie. Fans of the Romero trilogy will recognize several scenes as tributes to his zombie films. The films biggest innovation was its style of zombies, which were truly original. Classic zombies were slow moving with no intelligence, and well... dead. The infections spread slowly and gave people a chance to at least say good bye. These zombies are quick and intelligent, and very much alive.(The more "believable" approach also taken in "The Omega Man"). An infected person is gone within seconds, giving no time for people to get a safe distance away, let alone listen to their last requests. And shame on you if you say they aren't zombies. No one ever sat down and said "Okay, this is what zombies have to be". Just because George Romero took a different approach on what zombies traditionally were doesn't mean everyone else has to copy off of him. In fact, since 28 Days Later, all zombie movies feature "running zombies", including the remake of Romero's classic "Dawn of the Dead". Some of the infection scenes of the film were truly disturbing and scary, which was one of the things I loved about the film. But I beleive this is where the good stuff ends. The rest of the movies is a bunch of mumbling in british accents, you can't tell what in God's name people are saying half the movie (no offense meant to the British). And I honestly don't think an infection so fast would ever be able to make it overseas. I mean, once by accident, okay, but to seven continents? I mean, if someone wanted to transport the infection, they'de have to round up a bunch of zombies into a plane, fly them without getting killed, and drop them off in another country. And another thing, the zombies find it necessary to hide during the day? (This is where the film was an obvious rip off of "I Am Legend") A man runs around the streets for hours during the day screaming for help with no response, and at nightfall a hundred zombies all of a sudden appear? The movie also spent a bit too much time on moral humanitary issues and not enough on fiction, spoiling the science fiction effect. And one last thing, maybe they shouldn't have wasted such a good story in a place where guns are illegal.
Rating: 
Summary: scary stuff....a real horror film
Review: this movie was the real thing as far as horror movies go. i say this because through out the whole i literally had a knot in my stomach the whole time i was watching. i cannot recall a movie that has done that to me. there is a part of me that knows that something like this ever happening is not very likely, however i would not rule it totally out of the question, and that is what is really scary about the movie. i can only imagine waking up and finding the whole world has literally gone mad. this is the story of true survival and testing the limits of human endurance. the whole movie is full of heartbreaking moments and to me that added a real element of humanity to the story, especially with regards to the father and daughter aspect of the movie. and also in the movie once you think that the main characters have found salvation it turns out that their salvation comes at the hands of another type of madness, something similar to cabin fever. i am referring to the army that have created a stronghold, and believe that rape is the only way for the human race to survive. in the end they all get what they deserve. i did like the hopeful ending with all the main characters making it out alive, and eventually being rescued. i do have to say that the director did an excellent job in creating an atmosphere. the whole movie is very dark and very creepy, i really did not know where the next rage zombie was going to come from. the tunnel scene was especially suspenseful to me. there is much to be taken away from this movie, and to me the most important thing is to realize that people need each other. no matter how tough you are on your own, everything can be made better if you are not by yourself.
Rating: 
Summary: British BOMB!!!
Review: Horror buffs need to take "28 Days Later" into muchly needed inconsideration. This had to be the slowest moving horror flick on the planet. While this British box-office smash was commended for chills and thrills..it is truly a fiasco. It had two moments of terror...222 moments of predictable JELLO. I spent $20 on this DVD. It's worth maybe $5.99. The soundtrack completely sucks...the acting is average...and the editing is the highlight. Unfortunately, when you edit one bad scene to the next, you simply can't win. This British loser must have been made by someone who ventured through WW2. It has the nauseating military twist to it that simply doesn't fit today. Why is it the British always want to embellish their hatred for the Germans? Move on!!!! Get a life!!!! Make a horror film and get away from those silly military fatigues. This one is simply billed as a horror film. That's right...it is simply horrible!!! It gets a 2!!! And that's being nice.
Rating: 
Summary: An amazing film!
Review: First of all I must say that Danny Boyle's directing in this film is really good. I want to clear up the myths about this film. This is not a zombie horror flick. While it does have horror elements, it is a more realistic view on what would be the whole zombie genre. Zombies are the living dead. This movie is about infection. A virus has spread throughout Britain as a result of animal testing. And most of the population has been infected. This movie has a very political message to it. The basic storyline is set 28 days after the initial infection outbreak. It shows the remnants of the chaos that was created by showing empty silent streets. This movie is about a whole country that is virtually whiped out because of their own government trying to be powerful, and as a result becoming powerless. It is about total chaos and survival. This has to be one of the top films of 2003. While the whole idea of being infected by rage might seem a little unrealistic, the very essence of the story is almost too realistic. And that is disease and infection spreading. This story is real, because it can in fact happen. The devesteting effects on a country as a result of a fast killing disease or virus outbreak would be similar to what you will be watching in this film. So those who were dissapointed because it wasn't "scary enough". Well when you watch it for what it is, it is down right horrifying.
Rating:
Summary: A real horror movie, the way horror was meant to be made
Review: 28 Days Later is a really good zombie flick. [...] Despite all those distractions, I STILL thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It combines elements of Night of the Living Dead, but it does them better. Like in the remake of Night of the Living Dead, the director makes a statement about mn killing man -- is it okay to have fun shooting people when they're zombies? They're not really zombies, of course. They're victims of a disease called "Rage" that turns you into a murderous killing machine. These are still people though -- they can be shot, set on fire, and starved to death. Cool Device #1: Main character wakes up from a coma. We're as clueless as he is.
Cool Device #2: It takes place in deserted London. It's a plague that spreads fast. I imagine it spread to all of England, actually. Sort of like Vanilla Sky in NYC. It's probably not even as creepy for Americans, as we don't live or visit there very often.
Cool Device #3: Rage can be transmitted by any bodily fluid exchange, blood being the most likely.
Cool Device #4: Rage takes 20 seconds to take effect. Whenever you think a character gets infected, you subconsciously being counting to 20. This keeps the audience perpetually on edge.
Eventually, the protagonist and his companions find a military base and we expect the movie to end. Only the message here is that being with the military (the supposed savior of the people) is actually WORSE than being with the zombies. This movie was done before, and the parallels between the two are quite amazing. The movie: Resident Evil! Of all things, Resident Evil -- a true-blue zombie flick -- didn't pull off horror nearly as well as 28 Days Later. But they have the same elements: 28 Days Later/Resident Evil
Protagonist wakes up in hospital with no idea what happened/Protagonist wakes up in a deserted house with no idea what happened
Movie begins with protagonist in a completely deserted city (London)/Movie ends with protagonist in a completely deserted city (Raccoon City)
Movie begins with protagonist naked in hospital/Movie ends with protagonist naked in hospital
Zombies get shot by a military agency (UK military) sent to eliminate them /Zombies get shot by a military agency (Umbrella, if I remember correctly) to eliminate them
Zombie disease spread by infection (20 seconds)/Zombie disease spread by infection (uh, more than 20 seconds)
Two females end up running around in red dresses/Female protagonist runs around entire movie in red dress (thank you Mila!) So what did 28 Days Later do right as a horror movie? Well, it's a horror movie for one. To clarify, it focuses on horror. Zombies are scary enough, but they alone do not a good horror flick make. There needs to be more. And the director (the same one who made Trainspotting) has no problems going "there." "There" is watching a father figure turn into a zombie and being forced to kill him. "There" is bashing a zombie child's head in with a bat. "There" is being attacked by a priest who's a zombie. "There" is having one of your friends turn zombie and -- instead of the old, "I refuse to kill my friend" -- brutally hacking him to bits. 28 Days Later succeeds because it ignores horror conventions. There is none of the angst associated with a person turning into a zombie. Hell, even Night of the Creeps had that. No, 28 Days Later succeeds because the director isn't a horror filmmaker. He knows that collapse of basic human decency is what's horrifying, not zombies. Don't get me wrong, Resident Evil kicks ass. But it's a science fiction action movie. This is real horror, the way it was meant to be made. See it, you won't be sorry.
Rating:
Summary: Sucks so bad, you've got to see it
Review: ... I've never watched a movie and actually felt that it was soooooo bad that I wasted an hour and 45 minutes until this one! I sat there waiting for a movie to break out, but it never did. This has to be THE worst movie I've ever seen. It is SO bad that to tell you not to see it would be a mistake. You've GOT TO SEE THIS MOVIE to appeciate how bad it is. But, watch it on cable or watch someone else's copy... don't waste your money on it. ... P.S. I recently picked this up for $4.00 because it was packaged with another movie I was already going to buy. It's still a rip off, but now I can show people how bad this movie was (yes, it was that bad).
| 
