Rating: 
Summary: Decent, but a wasted opurtunity of types
Review: When I was first going to see 28 Days Later, I got it mostly because I was in the mood a good old fashioned hour and a half gore fest involving zombies trying to destroy the human race for no apparent reason, a la Dawn of the Dead and Army of Darkness. Thought I didn't exactly find what I was looking for in 28 Days Later, I wasn't necissarily dissapointed, suprised best describes how I felt.the opening scene kicked off the movie on a good note, which features a group of radical enviromentalists attempting to release caged monkies in a lab, and accidently release a deadly virus that the monkies where infected with called the "RAGE" virus. The next scene features the main character waking up in a desolate hospital after a coma casued by a car accident. There are some great scenes of an "evacuated" London as the main character wanders around the city. Finnaly, he has a frightening encounter with some of the infected, and is saved by some of the few survivors in London. After this, lots of the scary zombie like hijinks I was expecting occured, and are the definant highlight of the movie. Soon they meet other survivors who are attempting to follow a radio signal sent from an army unit that is in hiding from the infected, hoping to find shelter and protection. After this, the film starts to take a bit of a turn, though things are generally still running smoothly. After a few more good zombie scares and such, the army shows up and unfortunatly, things really start to go downhill. There becomes less of a focus on the infected and other odd things occur that are hard to explain, though somehow not hard to understand. There are a lot of metaphores and observations about the human race and the appocaplypse, and things just start to get weird. They try to execute the main character for no apparent reason (or for something that wasn't reason enough to try to kill him). The main character escapes and then for some reason begins to release the zombies on all the soldiers to save his female freinds from being abused by the soldiers, who thinking it their duty to reproduce and save the human race. When he releases the infected, that's when the movie seems to hit a lowpoint. There's hardly any type of scares or suspense to be found, and it drags on for much to long, and all things add up to is a rather generic and unsatisfying ending (an alternative ending was created, but I havn't seen it, it was supposed to be a little better in the shocking or unexpected ending department though) . I may have named a few to many spoilers in my summary, but this movie isn't all that worth seeing. Another thing I must mention is the unique way this movie was shot. Judging by things like cammera work and such, you can tell this is an independently done film. The movie has a strange British feel to it, being that the whole cast is British and the setting takes place in both London and Manschester. The sound track is quite good, and features what are most likely British artists that are obscure to the US. I also like how this movie defies horror stereotypes. While it's really a horror movie at all and was just advertised as one, the characters don't fit into any of the sterotypes from other horror films. The cast (most noteably the females) are all mostly unatractive and unkown actors, which furthers the whole independant feel of the movie and shows that the director really was trying to do something different. Overall, 28 Days Later somewhat fails to deliver what I was wanting, but is still a decent film that's short and mildly satisfying enough that you really don't feel like wasted to much time or money. If the film really does sound interesting to you still, then chances are you'll enjoy it. But if you don't really find this movie to sound at all interesting or worthy of viewing, you'll probably hate it.
Rating: 
Summary: 28 Days Later
Review: This was a horrible zombie movie, and I love zombie movies. The remake of Dawn of the Dead is much better
Rating: 
Summary: training film
Review: From the time we are tots we memorize the mantra "it's only a movie". it's a horror movie and therefore by necessity somewhat schlocky. that said, this film scared the "holly bejesus" out of me. i don't know why. rationally it wasn't a scary movie but the mood and the weird speed-film effects made it a genuinely creepy experience. it is fun in that regard. and for all of the "night of the living dead" (romero) fans out there, bashing this film, ask yourself this question: when was the last time you actually saw that movie? i saw it in 10th grade. yeah, it was really scary then, but have you seen it lately? (i'm in my 30s now) sure, it's a classic i agree but it really isn't that scary when you watch it as an adult. there's plenty of room out there for films that entertain the concepts of a plague escaping laboratory containment; end of the world scenarios, etc. because guess what people? eventually it's going to happen for real. you don't think military grade anthrax just happened to be sent to journalists who had something critical to say about the bush admin post 9/11 do you? something is going to get out--maybe "rage", maybe some species-jumping hemorragic fever, maybe west nile virus will mutate into something we cannot even as yet imagine. at least films like this give the viewer both a moment to reflect on what he/she would do in a similar situation and also an opportunity to clutch gratutously onto the person next to them in real or mock fear. such groping possibilities should warrant any scary film at least 4 stars. salut!
Rating:
Summary: Somewhat superior horror movie
Review: The plot of the film is reasonably well known. A deadly virus is released accidently by some enviromental actavists. Its effect is to turn those infected into mindless killers. The film opens with a person in hospital waking to find that there is no one around. He wanders around an empty London before being attacked by some of the infected and then he is rescued by some other survivors. A radio message leads them to travel north to an Army facility and more problems emerge. The strength of the film is its atmosphere and its characters. A large number of American films have characters who are sterotypical. Handsome heroes, stoic love interests played by models who are clearly around 19 years of age with big brests. In this case the main characters are in no way Bruce Willis characters. The hero is a courier and one of the other main characters a taxi driver. The women are anything but shrinking violets. The main female lead in fact is tougher than any of the male characters. The DVD is quite interesting. It has a number of alternate endings which reflect different approaches. The end chosen for the film is a happy ending. The alternate endings are somewhat bleaker. There are also a number of deleted scences in which there is commentary by the director. All of it is interesting and explains the process of film making in a practical way. In conclusion a superior film of the genre and a DVD which is worth a look
Rating: 
Summary: Makes no sense
Review: I must say that this movie really stunk! It just didnt make sense at all.
First of all, how come when the city is evacuated at the start of the movie, the main character is left behind in his hospital bed??? And how come he was the only one left behind??? Was he a bad patient?? :-)
Secondly, if the RAGE virus takes less then 20 seconds to infect someone and send them into an uncontrolable rage, then how did the city have time to evacuate??
Thirdly, if the RAGE virus sends people into a frenzy, then why dont the infected attack each other?? These are just some of the things in this movie that dont make sense. This could've been a good movie, but in my opinion, it fails to deliver.
Rating:
Summary: 28 Days Later, What a disappointment!!!
Review: When I first heard about 28 Days Later, it was made out to be a zombie flick. IT IS NOT A ZOMBIE MOVIE!!! The so-called zombies are people infected with a virus known as RAGE... The "Zombies" run around screaming like idiots, kill their victims and run away screaming again... Most zombies eat their victims after killing them, they don't run away screaming! If you are looking for a zombie movie, this is the wrong place to start! A friend of mine seen that I was going to buy the movie and said don't do it and I wish that I listened to him!
Rating: 
Summary: Haunting, Entertaining Film
Review: Two words that don't go together normally. Haunting, particularly for the sequences relating to the loss of loved ones and and the emptiness of the world that is left behind after the plague. Entertaining because this doesnt slip into the usual zombie gore-fest, and because there is something about British stoicism that just is slightly amusing, especially in situations where there is (or there appears to be) truly no hope left. We just had to have a London Cab driver in there, didn't we. The portion of the film set in the military base does tend to let the plot unwind a little but there is enough of an undercurrent of madness to keep everything moving forward. The soundtrack scores highly as well. Some of the reviews here just don't seem to get what this film is about. Don't buy it if you are expecting Bruckheimer meets Romero. Do buy it if you fancy something a little more interesting.
Rating:
Summary: Worthless film
Review: Man, I'm having a rough streak lately! Another bomb. You would think that the director of "Trainspotting" would put out another original piece of work. You'd be wrong in this case. And then the box has the nerve to say this is the scariest film since the Exorcist? Please- it was neither scary or even comparable to that true classic. Last movie made that claim was "The Ring", and that box lied, too. That's it,no more buying movies with the word "Exorcist" on it. I should know better. Boring, overlong zombie film.
Rating:
Summary: title of review
Review: I watched this movie purely because of the hype. If I had seen as much as a preview, I expect that would have been enough to make me lose interest, but I rented it blindly, and hoped for the best.
I think this is probably the most overrated film I have ever seen. It gets off to a pretty bad start in terms of plausability, expecting us to just accept that one lone man was left unscathed in a hospital while everyone around him was attacked and infected. I don't understand how it didn't occur to the writers that this is something that requires an explanation. It's also pretty boring. So many scenes are so unneccessarily long and drawn out when nothing is happening. The five minute musical montage of the guy walking through the deserted city. Ok, we get it, the city is deserted, move on, something happen. Even the twenty seconds showing the stuff stuck on the fridge at his home was infuriating. Show it for two seconds, move on, something happen. I'm sure some people would say those excessively drawn out scenes were important in setting a mood, but a lot of the early part of the film just left me bored and annoyed, wishing something would happen.
Although it was seemingly promoted as a "zombie" movie, nothing interesting happened with the zombies, and fighting the zombies was a minor background plot, with the focus being placed more on human drama. So you've got the boring underdeveloped zombie plot, and the boring underdeveloped human drama plot, both fighting for their right to bore you. Other than a couple of violent scenes, which really aren't as bad as some people seem to want to make them out to be, the film starts to take on an almost wholesome family viewing tone.
The obligatory romantic entanglement is introduced, and handled rather badly, falling into the trite hollywood conventions this movie is supposedly distanced from. The cringeworthy culmination of this being when the girl is all oh you killed my captor now let me make out with you. The film is kind of separated into two parts, the second being after they enter the army base. The second part isn't as badly done as the first. It's just an ugly feel-bad thing, with the army guys proving to be more sinister badguys than the zombies. I don't find any major fault with the way that part of movie was executed, it was done well even, I guess, but it wasn't something I enjoyed watching or would have wanted to had I known what to expect. The editing does become a bit garbled towards the end though. There were a few parts when I was like who's this guy, who just shot at that guy, isn't that the other guy from before, why is he over there. It seemed like they did a really rushed editing job, and just took out random chunks of movie, leaving a fragmented narrative, where you have to fill in the dots way too much. I don't know what they were going for, because it is difficult to follow, and there's no reason it needed to be. And that's all I have to say about this travesty of a film. I hate it. It's not good.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing and not scary
Review: My expectation was big and what a disappointment. This movie is kind of mix between "Day of the Triffids" and "Dawn of the dead".In my opinion, they simply copy both films to make this one so for someone like Danny Boyle, the director, I will consider his work as a real disappointment, possibly a mistake. Why to make such a movie when you know that you won't make better anyway ? Romero made a masterpiece with Zombies longtime ago and nobody never challenged his work so far.
28 days later is first of all, not scary at all!!! Quickly, it becomes not very interesting and easy to imagine what will happen next. 2 stars for the scenes of the EMPTY LONDON, a real exploit in my opinion but what is the point ? This film doesn't deserve your time.
|
