Rating: 
Summary: ...
Review: This is not a zombie movie for those of you that think it is. It is about a monkey infected with rage being set free by some green peace type activists. First of all, if there is nudity in a movie it should not be a man! Through out this entire movie people ran from infected people who can now run faster than a speeding train, and leap small buildings in a single bound. The killings where awefull! It was that type of stobe light type death. I actually walked out of this movie. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. THIS IS NOT A ZOMBIE MOVIE! subtract one star from my rating.
Rating: 
Summary: Good, but could have been better
Review: This movie was good. It had a very deep rooted lesson on humanity and how we are destroying each other everyday. But I think the movie could have been made better. For starters, we hardly ever saw the "infected" zombies. When we did see them, the camera angles were so fast that it was hard to get a real good look at them. And what was with the computer generated flowers, (if you have not seen the movie, you'll know what Im talking about when you do.)And certain things just dont add up. (Spoilers below)
For starters, When Jim was shot at the end and their car crashed through the gate, the next shot we see is the hero characters in a cabin in the country. How did they get there? And when Jim wakes up in the hospital in the beginning, with the hospital in shambles and no one around, how is it that he was untouched by the infected? Anyway, the movie was enjoyable to watch, but those who are comparing it with the greatness of Romero's films....it ain't true!
Rating: 
Summary: good, bad, and very ugly
Review: This is a good film...but only a good film. The first two acts raise some interesting questions about the nature of violence (nothing new about these themes mind you), the cinematography was very well done (great usage of digital film), and the overall story is quite interesting...but, by the third act it just gets kind of silly and very contrived. It's almost as if the writer couldn't find the proper direction to take the final bit of the film (even though they were on a role) and relied on cliché elements to keep the story from sinking. I recommend this film for anyone looking for some unease and a quick scare...but for anyone who can't get around loose ends in a picture (like the previously stated) I would say...wait for the dvd.
Rating:
Summary: Great concept and cinematography, but cherry on top missing
Review: Just got home from 28 days later. I have mixed feelings about the movie as a whole, but the concept and cinematography push my rating to 4 stars. The concept of a "rage virus" decimating the population of England and leaving only a few surviors is borderline realistic. What makes it scary is that this world experienced something like this in the boubonic plague. Eventhough it has been centuries and our medical advancements are great, it could still happen. The cinematography reminded me of Jennifer 8. The whole movie was shot with a night/dark setting and the camera lenses/digital recordings were altered to make them a touch blurry, unclear and raw. This greatly added to the mood of the movie, much like Jennifer 8's dismal settings. This could be a contender for an Oscar due to purposely raw filming style. The acting was very believable, very. The story itself was the weakest part. The "shock value" was not up to par with the pre-reviews and I was not terrified like I thought I would be. I left the theater in more of a pensive mode, but that's not all bad, is it?
Rating: 
Summary: Stylish Homage to '70s Flicks
Review: 28 Days Later is stylish, lonely, bloody, desperate, wet, violent, frantic, thoughtful, scary and, ultimately, hopeful. Danny Boyle artfully directs Alex Garland's script while paying homage to movies like the Omega Man and George Romero's Dead trilogy. As hard as it is for me to say, 28 Days is a much better film than any of the films mentioned above. The movie focuses on the people who have not been infected with a virus that turns humans into rage filled zombies. In fact, the zombies only make a few screen appearances, the fear factor of the movie coming mainly from the reactions of the uninfected people to their situation. The main characters are well acted and I cared about what happened to them. Visually the movie is a masterpiece and the scenes in an empty London are incredible. I recommend 28 Days Later to fans of the other movies mentioned above or anybody looking for a thoughtful, scary zombie film. People looking to pull their brain out for a few hours or for non-stop gore and zombies will most likely be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: More than I expected
Review: I love Zombie movies no matter how bad I will never get tired of them but this one was better than most I've seen for a few reasons. The zombies were not your average slow moving things but really fast ...zombies and I liked that twist but the thing I like most about this movie was the feeling of isolation and it's how it affects you. also this was shot on a digital camera so it makes for some really good work. Danw of the Dead is still my favorite but this one ranks right up there with the best of them.
Rating:
Summary: 28 Days Later: Dark Movie Darker Vision
Review: 28 DAYS LATER is one of the most unsettling post-apocalypse film of this or any other year. Director Danny Boyle tells an end of humanity tale that pays clear homage to a wide range of similar such films like THE OMEGA MAN, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, and THE WORLD, THE FLESH, AND THE DEVIL. Though the material has been done before, what stamps this film as noteworthy is Boyle's use of lighting and camera. There is not a single scene that is brightly lit. Even in those scenes that take place in the full light of day, the audience never gets a clear look at either the background shots or the actors. And when the camera does pause long enough to show one locale or one face, that shot is blurringly made, almost as if the camera did not want to reveal too much. Further, much of the dialogue is whispered, so I had to strain to catch the dialogue. Normally, this low level of sound is annoying, but I had to believe that the dimness of the sound was simply an acoustic variation of a visual deconstruction of both cast and scene. Claustrophobic shots have been done before, most notably in ALIENS 3 and BELOW, but in 28 DAYS LATER, it is this weird combination of a shutdown in both sight and sound that keeps the audience on edge. The plot opens with a trio of animal loving activists who seek to free what they consider to be mistreated chimpanzees at the hands of soulless researchers. Of course, when one of the scientists warns them that these simians carry a fatal virus that causes homicidal mania, you would think that these activists would say 'Whoa' and back off. They do not and suffer predictable consequences. The movie then shifts gears in a way that reminds you of THE DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS when Howard Keel wakes up in a deserted London hospital to find that the world has gone sightlessly mad. Here, Cilliam Murphy is Jim, who also wakes up in a London hospital to find a very nearly deserted city. The only inhabitants are raging zombies who seek only to bite the unconverted and a small group of humans who seek the supposed safety of a far distant army base. Frank (Brendan Gleeson) is a bear of an Irishman who lives only to protect his teenage daughter (Megan Burns). Naomie Harris is Selena, a lovely but lethal black woman who will kill in a heartbeat anyone who becomes infected. As they travel to seek what is probably the last effective military unit in England, movie goers with long memories will recall a similar scene in NO BLADE OF GRASS in which hapless civilians find temporary sanctuary with soldiers of crumbling discipline. It was difficult for me to center on the morally good uninfected humans since for most of the film, their distinct personalities were deliberately obscured by low sound and dark shadows. However, the last third reveals the paradoxical truism that both muffled sound and sight merely hinted at: the real monsters were not the howling zombies but rather the unconverted and opportunistic humans who sought to prey on their fellow kind in a way that showcases the horror of the greater damage wrought by them in comparison to the less horrible rendings of the mindless zombies. By the time the closing credits roll, there is a slight hint that all may yet end on an optimistic note, but the combined savagery of zombie and 'normal' human lingers so strongly that the concluding note of optimism can suggest only that the gap between order and anarchy is a lot closer than we might like to think.
Rating:
Summary: A welcomed breath of fresh air to an usually stale genre
Review: From the critically acclaimed director of Trainspotting and Shallow Grave, comes a terrifying experience in which many have called a revolutionary to the horror genre. While I do not agree with that assessment wholeheartedly, but I must admit that I had one thrilling ride sitting through 28 Days Later. That's saying a lot, since truth be told, watching scary movies is not exactly my idea of a good time. Set in modern day England, a group of animal rights activists breaks into a laboratory that uses chimps as test subjects. Believing they are doing the right thing in freeing these helpless creatures, their act results in the release of a deadly virus called "rage" into the world. Fastforward to four weeks after that pivotal event, a comatose patient name Jim suddenly wakes up in a deserted hospital. Not sure of what has transpired since his accident, he roams the eeriely empty streets of London looking for any signs of life. As daylight turns into dusk, Jim stumbles upon two individuals, Selena and Mark. It is then he finally discovers that the whole country has been evacuated due to an outbreak of the virus. With no outside information coming in, they have no way of knowing if the same thing is happening around the globe. Thus begins the journey of this ragtag band of normals trying to stay alive and uninfected, but to what end? That was one question I kept asking myself as the movie progressed, since there was no cure and for all they knew they could be the last people left with no chance of being rescued, wouldn't survival be meaningless without a goal? Fortunately, the film does eventually address this concern in the final act, better late than never I suppose, however, the damage is already done and the pointlessness of the whole first part is only alleviated partially. Although many are dubbing 28 Days Later as a zombie movie, but do not let that mislead you or your expectations. Granted I am no expert on the subject, but I failed to see any similarities. The infected people are neither mindless drones craving for human brains, nor are they the living dead. In actuality, their purpose of existence is very simple, and that is to pass on the virus to others. This is where one of my main concerns for 28 Days Later comes in. I realized that "rage" is most likely just a means to an end, to put this group in a seemingly hopeless situation. Yet for a movie to used a device so prominently in the telling of its story, the writer has a responsibility to explain the scenarios he introduced. For example, why in the world would someone have the need to research a virus like this, what possible good can come out of it? Furthermore, if the effects of the infection manifest themselves almost instantaneously with no antidote available, why would it be kept in such a low security place? These unresolved issues do not necessarily ruin one's experience while watching the movie, but they certainly do not help to make it better to just gloss over them. Director Boyle's choice to shoot 28 Days Later with a digital video camera is probably more of an economic decision rather than an artistic one due to the low budget. Whether it was intentional or not, the resulting effects were quite significant. The washed-out and grainy look of the movie contributed to an already creepy atmosphere, the sense of dread and despair was almost oppressive at times. The beginning scenes showing an abandoned London was quite a sight to take in, even though it was kind of illogical to not encounter a single dead body when you think about it, nevertheless, the sequence was effective in drawing the audiences into the plot. Another noteworthy aspect is the score, especially the absence of it during a few key moments, sometimes the silence is more desirable than contrived loud noises aimed at scaring the viewers. There were a couple of cliched elements common to many horror films present as well, such as a person would enter a darkened building for no apparent reason at all. Character developments in 28 Days Later is a mixed bag. Cillian Murphy gave a good performance for most of the movie as Jim, but somewhere in the middle someone decided to turn him into a killing machine. This complete one hundred eighty degrees change in his personality may be necessary to resolve the situation he found himself in, but it felt completely unconceivable when you compare it to his earlier behavior. He was out of shape, still recovering from his injuries, and for all we knew had never taken another human life before, but now we were expected to accept that he can outsmart and outmaneuver a group of trained military soldiers. My suspension of disbelief can only go so far. Naomie Harris's portrayal of the strong-willed Selena was decent but forgettable, but her character also suffered from inconsistencies. We were led to believe that she was supposed to be this tough fighter who can make all the difficult decisions without a second thought, but towards the end she was reduced to a damsel in distress needing Jim to rescue her. It is a shame to see these personas ruined by careless writing. Despite of all the problems I have with 28 Days Later, I still think it plays very well as a horror film on many levels, I am just a bit disappointed that it is not as polished as I hoped it would be. Danny Boyle did an excellent job filling the audiences with angst and anticipation, the experience is so intense that you cannot let your guard down even during moments of respite, because you can never be sure if the director will have something sinister planned behind those light hearted scenes. As I have mentioned before, I am not a big fan of scary movies, and if I managed to find something enjoyable about 28 Days Later, I can imagine you will as well.
Rating:
Summary: Brit Proto-Zombies Sure Are Lively
Review: I watched the movie twice in two days, just so I could be fair
when I'm talking about it.
I have seen almost every zombie/madman/epidemic film made since 1970, ranging from 'The Andromeda Strain' to 'Zombie'. Does that make me some sort of expert? No. It means I like this genre. Take my review in that spirit.
'28 Days Later' quickly jumps into its main storyline; the survival of Jim, a twenty-something bike messenger who had been in a coma since immediately before the outbreak (caused by animal activists who simply wouldn't listen to reason I'm afraid).
He manages, after a pretty hairy escape from a church, to hook up with two other survivors: Serena and the character I like to call "he who dies to drive the seriousness of the situation home". Later, they hook up with a father and daughter holding up in an apartment building which they have to abandon due to the plumbing giving out.
Following a radio recording promising salvation, they head for an army barricade hoping for protection.
Up to now, I haven't said anything about the movie that hasn't been in previews or magazine articles. To finish my review, I might have to use some spoilers:
Danny Boyle is still growing as a filmmaker, but at least it's in the right direction. Jim has very little time to adjust to his new reality, and his reluctance is palpable. He sees what simply surviving has done to the others. He also learns from an unexpected source an astonishing bit of information that turns the despair you feel slightly around. Jim finally does embrace the 'kill or be killed' mentality, but not in the way you expect or against the obvious enemy.
Now a lot of folks have commented on the ending not being so good, but I have to wonder: were they disappointed that it wasn't action-packed, or were they disappointed that it held out more hope than any Romero film ever did (or Luchi or Cronenberg or Craven for that matter)?
I personally enjoyed the ending, which shows things aren't always going to go to Hell forever.
Having seen 'Trainspotting' I'm surprised Boyle was capable of, what in his eyes, was a happy ending. Maybe not for his country, but for humanity. And maybe that was his point. Humanity goes on, just not certain peoples way of life.
I'm watching it again this weekend.
Rating:
Summary: And you thought "road rage" was bad...
Review: This film, about the plight of four people struggling to escape an entire nation that has been wiped out or infected by a disease called "Rage," will not only keep your stomach in knots for the entire 2 hours, but will provoke you to think about issues such as the will to survive, the evils of human nature and the so-called "herd mentality." This is a must see for anyone who is sick of the usual sappy Hollywood blockbuster films--it is a quality picture that will stimulate your mind and invoke interesting dialogue and thought.
|
