Rating: 
Summary: Flawed but interesteing
Review: 28 days later is defnately worth viewing. Unfortunately, the plot is severely flawed. Firstly, some good points. The post-apocolyptic , panaramic scenes of central london are fantastic, almost like a character initself. This might have something to do with the fact that ive lived in London for 22 years and seeing it as such was quite disturbing. The concept that Danny Boyle is trying to put across has been the subject of much debate on this site, however, I found it quite meaningful [in places]. The plot has resonances of a Hobbesian/Darwinian animalistic state of nature where mankind is set against itself.
What is interesting is how all the brand names have outlasted society (witness the billboard adverts, the soft drink discussion on the staicase, the lottery tickets and choclates etc), moreover how mankind's creations outlive mankind. Also, the scene where the taxi driver gets infected is heart rendering. The moment when he tells his daughter (sorry, im terrible at remembering names) that he loves her just as the rage sets in was chilling. Unfortunately, it is hard to take this film seriously at times. The tire changing scene was technically impossible, you'd be in the guiness book of records if u did it in that time.
The discussion about the soft drinks is quite frankly absurd; the whole country is consumed with zombies and you're worried about whether its lilt or tango or pepsi or whatever.
Why the taxi driver and the daughter send out bright signals from their appartment is beyond me. Surely thats just asking for it.
While the idea with the army was a nice twist it is somewhat unlikely within such a time scale. Self consumed rapists with 2 years, yes possibly. but after 2 weeks, surely not.
If the soft drink discussion was absurd, the picnic scene is beyond description. I mean come on who do they thnk they're kidding. And the scene with the horses where everyone just stops and sentimentalises was pathetic and insulting.
Characterization is immensely poor. The're dialogue in particular is dreadful. It severely detracts from the films overall impact.
Also, surely the most productive idea would be to get a rowing boat and sail to somewhere off shore?? Just find a copy of the yellow pages.... You'll be munching on camamberre within a week.
Having said that, almost every film or peice of work has its own flaws. And 28 days later is no different. Overlook these and you're in for an okay movie.
thanks 4 reading
Rating: 
Summary: "28 Days Later" is Crazy
Review: A blasted monkey undergoing biological enhancement testing was the source of deterioration. "28 Days Later" may be mistaken as a zombie film, but it's more about the social commentary of learned violence. In my opinion, survival of the fittest was developed early during human evolution as the lonely survivors (Cillian Murphy and Naomie Harris) killed the plagued victims of RAGE and they had to build a new trust. Overall, the movie is creepy especially when Jim woke up from his coma to a deserted London and when he discovered bodies in the church. It's a great movie up to the point where Jim and his friends stumbled upon the military base to be saved. Even the military had become savages and had vile intentions for the women. Violence comes from humans as society is the order of their compulsions. Everything falls apart and the heroes are left stranded once again in seclusion from the world and the feeling of despair never enters their minds. This isn't a scary movie like the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or one of those diabolical slashers, but it's a good movie with a surprising, meaningful message. If you're looking for watermelons or cherries falling out of people's necks or swarms of monsters chasing people all over the place, this isn't your movie. People will be disappointed. The moments of silence in the movie are really the most frightening. Then I realized that I actually live in the mountains and I became afraid of where I'm living. What if a bunch of insane monsters with bad breath and a crazed look in their eyes came running toward my house and crashed through my house just to spit on me? Then I wanted to hide my food. Wow, that's scary man. "28 Days Later" is a good movie.
Rating:
Summary: Pretty good for Indie
Review: I haven't seen these kind of films where the world ends. I loved Omega Man, this is sort of like that. Definitely worth a rental.
Rating: 
Summary: Big disappointment
Review: This movie was extremely overrated. It didnt make me jump once and I actually started to fall asleep while I was watching this. I wonder how much of the actual movie wound up on the chopping block. ONe of my acquaintances, David Schow wrote the screenplay for a movie called Leatherface which got cut to shreds on the preproduction floor so I realize how that can happen. If you want to see a really disturbing and truly scary movie see Cabin Fever its much better.
Rating:
Summary: Just visual; it is, indeed, another zombie movie
Review: Before watching "28 days later", everybody told me it was a different movie, much more than the usual horror/vampire/monster/zombie movies already existent. They told me the plot was good, the acting was good, the movie had a cynic social commentary, the direction was different, etc. So, I put the disc in my DVD player and waiting for something different to happen. When I watched the time display, it was almost 60 minutes into the movie, and I had not seen anything that different, and certainly no social commentary. Then I began suspecting something was wrong. OK, "28 days later" is an above average ZOMBIE MOVIE. It's much better, for an example, than that heinous John Carpenter thing about vampires. But it's still a zombie movie. Social commentary? I couldn't find any. Really, if you have noticed something social about this movie, tell me, please. What is it? That society binds humankind togheter? That man is fundamentally isolacionist and evil? Sincerely, these debates have gone on for more than 4000 years, and answers vary 180 degrees. What's more, Alex Garland, the writer of the screenplay, had already toyed with the notion of "rebuilding humanity from a small nucleus" in his previous work - "The beach" a so-so movie (also directed by Danny Boyle) but a great book - and in that story I already though the beach community was ridiculous. To try to find a different answer to the problems of humankind in a zombie movie is too much. "28 days later" has thousands of plot-holes (all listed on previous reviews) and idiotic situations; the dialogue... ridiculous; the characters... I don't remember their names, and that thing with the army, that's totally unbelieving. The good thing about this movie is really Boyle's direction, frantyc, scary, full of movement and very thrilling. Excellent for a ZOMBIE MOVIE. If you take this movie seriously, it deserves one star. It is not revolutionary, not different, not with a social commentary (sigh), and certainly has many problems. It is a ZOMBIE MOVIE and, as such, it deserves 3 stars, the top-most rating a ZOMBIE MOVIE should get. Grade 6.3/10
Rating:
Summary: Gets off to a good start, but falls apart after that
Review: A virus that causes its victims to fly into a murderous rage is released in London. The country is devastated and a small band of uninfected survivors is left to struggle for their lives. This film is most effective early on, but problems with the story swiftly accumulate to rob it of its power. The cast is very good and scenes of star Cillan Murphy wandering through a deserted London and piecing together the truth from available evidence are very effective. I was enjoying the movie a great deal at this point, but then the problems kept mounting. Where were all the corpses? How did a virus that claims its victim within seconds manage to spread throughout the whole country at all, much less within a month? If the infected are so irrationally angry, why do they run in packs without attacking each other? The last act of the film has our heroes seeking refuge with a group of soldiers who have descended to the level of murderous rapists. Director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland may have some interesting ideas about the fragility of our social contract but, I'm sorry, 28 days is just not enough time for people to sink that far. If their point is that the military mindset is particularly susceptible to this avenue of degradation, then their viewpoint is not just overly pessimistic, it's downright offensive. It's not an interesting choice dramatically, either. The film's climax is just a lot of running and shooting in which the zombies are entirely beside the point. Besides, George Romero did the whole embattled-military-outpost-coming-apart-at-the-seams-while-under-siege-by-zombies thing much more believably and effectively about twenty years ago in "Day of the Dead."
Rating:
Summary: Unto Every Generation an Apocalypse is Made - A Movie One
Review: I was filled with anticipation for a science fiction movie not based on super heroes but ideas. 28 DAYS LATER, however, while being a good film, is largely derivative. A plague is set loose in modern day England. It is an infection, which causes people to become extremely violent - a not too subtle commentary on our times. In fact, nothing is too subtle in this film.
What did I like about the film? The actors were very good. They gave it realism. I got the creeps seeing London deserted and still. I enjoyed the visual look, which was accomplished by digital video.
What didn't I like? The ending. (Actually there are several endings, but I mean the least depressing one.) There is an ending, but no solution. Is there a cure? There is a lot of plot, but a lot of confusion as to whether the infection jumped the ocean or not. Fuzzy plot points.
Maybe it's because I'm older and I'm feeling nostalgic, but this movie made me want to see THE OMEGA MAN (1971) and THE LAST MAN ON EARTH (1964), both based on the novel I AM LEGEND by Richard Matheson. This movie also made me think of DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS (1962) and NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968), except DEAD is a lot scarier. If you haven't had your fill of apocalypses by now, read WHITE PLAGUE by Frank Herbert (the author of DUNE.).
So my overall assessment is that although I wanted to really like this film, I think the movie ends not with a bang but a whimper.
Rating: 
Summary: Get infected
Review: What if you woke up from a coma to discover you were the last man alive? And what if you then realized you weren't alone, but instead were surrounded by zombified, blood-spewing plague victims and the last scattered remnants of the uninfected? That's exactly the situation faced by Jim (Cillian Murphy), a young English bike messenger, in Danny Boyle's "28 Days Later." A horror movie for people who don't like horror movies, it's a genre-busting exercise that adds to its scares with an actual plot, plenty of suspense, a bit of drama, and even a few moments of mordant humor. For the first fifteen minutes or so, the movie is a powerhouse. The opening scene, where a monkey bite spreads the infection (aka "rage") to a group of unwitting animal-rights types, is frenetic and frightening in the extreme, augmented by director Danny Boyle's innovative camera work. In contrast, the next scene is plenty horrifying, but in a vastly different way. When we see protagonist Jim wake up from a coma in his hospital room and wander the streets of London looking for all the people, the desolation of the city is perfectly captured by some stunning cinematography, and augmented by the tense, sweeping music of Godspeed You! Black Emperor (shameless plug: check 'em out if you haven't already). The horror here comes from the vastness of the abandoned landscape and the bewilderment in Jim's face as his predicament gradually dawns on him, and only escalates when he finds a pile of corpses in a church in what is surely among the most eerie sights ever put to film. Of course, all that changes when the infected come on the scene, staggering, throwing up blood, and generally looking scary and ominous. There eyes are red, their movements herky-jerky, and their speech reduced to a venomous rasp. Indeed, the very fact of their humanity makes them scarier than any monster Hollywood could dream up. It's only after their first appearance that we're filled in on the back story from a couple of survivors, and a harrowing story it is. One survivor's description of the scene at an airport where he and his family went in an effort to escape was chilling enough to give me goosebumps, with no need to resort to the typical horror-movie schlock. When Jim discovers the bodies of his parents in their house and reads the note they left him before committing suicide, it's even moving, not a description that can often be applied to films of this ilk. The movie quickly becomes a Darwinian struggle to survive, with Jim trying to adapt to the new reality as he and three others try to stay alive long enough to reach a bastion of humanity that they've heard broadcasting over the radio. Not your typical road trip to be sure, but along the way the viewer actually gets a chance to become invested in the characters and care what happens to them, which occurs all too rarely in any genre. There are plenty more scares along the way as well: Jim and Co. have to change a tire in time to avoid an onrushing pack of the infected; Jim finds himself forced to kill a young boy with a baseball bat; and perhaps worst of all, we're subjected to the sight of the good-natured Frank (played by Brendan Gleeson, aka Hamish from "Braveheart") catching the rage right before the eyes of his teenage daughter. It's all frightening stuff, especially since it tends to come out of nowhere. Eventually Jim and two female companions find their way to a military installation where a few soldiers are holding out under the leadership of the philosophical Major Henry West. The soldiers are a pretty jolly bunch considering their circumstances, and they certainly mount a spirited defense of their base. In what may well be the highlight of the movie, they shoot up (and blow up) an onrushing mob of infected, with bullets and body parts flying around liberally. For a brief moment, "28 Days Later" becomes an action flick, and a very entertaining one at that. I don't want to get into the plot any more than I already have (that would sort of defeat the purpose of seeing the movie), but suffice to say that it culminates in an all-hell-breaks-loose finale that's mildly disappointing but still extremely exciting. It's a rather fitting conclusion to a movie that's simultaneously intelligent, uncoventional, unpredictable, and suspenseful. Since I'm not typically into horror movies I was hesitant to give this one a try, but my decision turned out to be more than vindicated. So check it out, horror fan or not.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderfully made, One of best movies.
Review: I don't know how anyone can say anything but great things about this movie. This is in my opinion one of the best science fiction movie ever made.
I tend to always only like American movies, but this movie, which I believe is english stands out, way up there with the biggest masterpieces for its gender.
If I could I would give it more stars.
Rating:
Summary: Excessive plot problems rob the film of its effectiveness
Review: I had reasonably high hopes for this movie going in, even though I never really got a true feel for what the story was all about from the previews I had seen. I had heard good things about 28 Days Later, so I expected to enjoy a thrilling movie experience. What I discovered was a movie with a lot of problems. There was potential here, and the first half of the movie seemed to be following the right track to some sort of dark and memorable destination, but then everything changed; I felt as if I were watching a completely different movie, and gradually my patience wore out to the point that I could no longer deny the fact that 28 Days Later really is, to some degree, a bad movie. The alternate endings and the plot issues they raised only reinforced my conviction that Danny Boyle was a great explorer who lost his map once he got into this cinematic jungle. Basically, what you have here is a virus unwittingly released in England; the virus itself is "rage," the hows and wherefores of which are never really explained. One drop of infected blood in your system, and you almost immediately turn into a maniacal killer with red eyes and a penchant for spouting out liters of blood on anything and everything. The protagonist Jim (Cillian Murphy) wakes up in the hospital to find the place deserted; as he wanders outside, he finds London itself deserted. These scenes are rather effective, as the complete absence of musical accompaniment really reinforces the stark loneliness of Jim's environment. Before long, Jim meets up with a couple of fellow survivors, finds out all about the infection and its apocalyptic effects, and starts dealing with a brand new future. He and a lady named Selena meet up with a father and daughter, and the four of them eventually set off to find the "salvation" spoken of in an obscure radio broadcast. Here is where the movie takes a dive. The whole storyline involving a set of soldiers led by Major Henry West (Christopher Eccleston) - who is a few clips short of a full ammo belt - is a big mistake. Sure, you get most of the movie's bloodier moments in the second half of the film, but the whole thing has become rather ridiculous by the end. A lot of little things annoyed me as the story played out. First of all, it took over half an hour for anyone to figure out that perhaps they should take a car rather than just walk everywhere. The entire population is either dead, infected, or gone, so it's not as if finding a car and the keys to go in it is an impossible task. In addition, there really didn't seem to be nearly enough dead bodies and traffic jams in evidence in the middle of this once-thriving and now decimated metropolis; the bodies I did see looked as fake as they actually were. Even the heavy rains that come down later look incredibly fake. Then you have heavy-duty military rifles that sound like a child's cap gun when fired. One character, gun in hand, watches an enemy run directly toward him down a long hallway and then turns his head at the worst possible moment for no reason whatsoever. And speaking of guns, our heroes never even get their hands on any firearms; their entire arsenal is a big knife and a baseball bat. I was also disappointed to see that the elaborate setup in which the nature of the infection is presented to the audience at the beginning is never addressed again. I wanted to know more about this virus; one of the alternate endings included on the DVD makes it pretty clear that the filmmakers really knew nothing about the virus either, and that explains why that part of the story is essentially dropped. 28 Days Later does come with a bundle of extra features, including a commentary, a number of deleted scenes, three alternate endings, and a making-of featurette. The alternate endings really aren't that special, though; two of them differ from the actual ending in only one important regard, and the third one is just an idea expressed through some dialogue and a series of storyboards. As the filmmakers say on the commentary, they started thinking about the "radical alternate ending" late into production and ran up against a roadblock that highlights their lack of development of the entire infection concept (and implies that they were most likely not completely satisfied with the original and second endings). Needless to say, I was really quite disappointed by 28 Days Later. To me, the whole concept of the film needed to be explored and developed more deeply. Some of the shots are very effective and somewhat surreal, but it seems to me that the filmmakers were depending on this radical sort of cinematography to patch over the problems with the dialogue and plot. No matter how impressive the scenery, it's hard not to notice all the potholes in the road.
|
