Rating: 
Summary: Definitely not a top notch movie
Review: Ok, there are some good things about this movie and some really bad things as well.
First of all, the opening scene contains a fairly long clip showing full frontal nudity of a man. This nudity serves absolutely no purpose in the movie's story line in any way, shape, or form. So the director was probably just trying to shock the audience a little bit. If you have kids watching this movie, and you happen to be a parent, you are going to be VERY pissed off. Keep in mind that this is an R rated movie featuring male (but no female) nudity if you have kids present.
Now, the movie story line and concept all start off pretty good, and things are interesting up until about half way into the movie(despite the shortcomings in acting skills which can be pretty blatant from time to time). However, in the last half of the movie, things pretty much fall apart, and the story just doesn't make any sense any more to the point of being absurd. It's too bad, because the movie could have been much better if the last half of the movie was more logical and made any kind of sense whatsoever.
This movie is very similar to Resident Evil. If you have to choose between this and Resident Evil, I would have to say that Resident Evil is a FAR better movie (which is saying a lot, since Resident Evil really isn't that good of a movie, either). Both movies have the same concept, but the Resident Evil movie doesn't fall apart the way this movie does. And with the exception of a split second of female nudity, there isn't a whole lot of offensive nudity for kids. Both movies feature large amounts of gore, as would be expected for this kind of movie.
Movie had a lot of potential in terms of concept, but fails to deliver.
Rating: 
Summary: DONT BUY THIS-rent it if you must !
Review: My 11 year old son kept bugging me to see this movie. I belong to netflix, so told him it was in the line up. He just couldn't wait. Now, as a mom, I find it hard to keep up on ALL the movies "big boys" think they want to see. I am usually good at weeding them out. So, I figured, "well, if he doesn't like it, me & my husband might" NOT !! WRONG !! This was not only visually & emotionally disturbing, but looked like high school drama majors filmed it. Most of the time, movies dont show acts of violence aimed at children, being loaded with zombie viruses or not ! I wont give it away, some people go for this,but the opening scences were so dang creepy- I was like "Only the British could show that & not be offended "
Rating:
Summary: Boring at best!
Review: Supreme waste of my time. Was this supposed to be original?
Rating:
Summary: What if hate could be spread in twenty seconds or less?...
Review: 28 DAYS LATER continues the cinematic tradition of judgment day via zombies and, for the majority of the screen time, succeeds in the communication of its essential thesis: the momentum of society has been reset to a far earlier setting, and the instincts of the gut and the primordial parts of the brain have seized all functions of the unquestionably unlucky survivors. Director Danny Boyle presents a bleak and somber story of the aftereffects of a terrible plague which infects most of the population of Great Britain, peppering the gory Grand Guignol with surprisingly fascinating bouts of introspection into the human condition; at times, it seems like a spec script written by the Grim Reaper. Although uneven in tone and execution- and perhaps a bit of a deviation from what its marketing seemed to promise- the film does nevertheless invoke a few moments of intelligence and wit. We begin with a prologue as quick as an electron jumping into a higher orbital level; it seems as if a group of animal activists intend on righting the wrongs visited upon a collection of simians at a secret governmental laboratory. The chimps are imprisoned in squat, claustrophobic transparent chambers, and our hearts go out to them- we long for their release and a subsequent end to the torturous medical experiments that are most assuredly the source of their pain and suffering. Good deeds, however, are sometimes the source of inestimably hideous mistakes...these particular monkeys carry a plague whose particles probably serve as platelets for the Devil's bloodstream: the rage virus. In no time at all, one of the activists is infected, and the distribution of the killer disease begins, viciously efficient and hellishly unstoppable. Twenty-eight days later, a survivor- Jim- awakens in a deserted hospital, unaware of the apocalyptic chaos unleashed upon his country. In quick order, he learns that something terrible has happened when he is attacked by a priest in a corpse-saturated church. From there, he meets up with a couple of healthy people and begins a journey which will eventually take him and his party to a military sanctuary which may or may not hold the answer to the horrific plight. 28 Days is a visceral exercise, both in terms of visual realization and philosophical discourse. That's not to say that there any lectures of significant length contained within the scenes (although such indulgences wouldn't have been necessarily unwelcome); instead, bits and pieces of ideas and questions relating to countless aspects of the human condition shine through if one is so inclined. For instance, how would you react if you were thrust into such a Twilight-Zone scenario? Would any means of survival immediately justify itself? Would survival be worth pursuing at all? What is the true essence of a human being; do we find it when desperation has been substituted for comfort by removing most technological and bureaucratic amenities? And, most disturbingly: is the virus merely a remover of superficial masks? The film is also a template of allegory, especially relating to the concept of man versus the invisible armies of nature. Germs and their associated death-hastening effects are the true Jason Voorheeses/Freddy Kruegers that society has to deal with- not only is it immensely difficult to stop the more prodigious varieties, but everytime we do, still, they come back, more powerful than before, in sequel after sequel after sequel (or, maybe strain after strain might be better terminology). Lunatic pieces of nucleic acid called ebola test the fabric of human life...outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome fill us with fear and can cause financial markets to experience panic-attack selloffs. They may not be as fast as the rage disease, but they are nonetheless equally as scary. One interesting note should be made on the intrinsic historical influences exhibited by Boyle's project: without a doubt, the celluloid spirit of George A. Romero is standing off to the side in a majority of the frames, sort of a guardian ghost, a protector of the genre being sampled- a genre he pretty much created. Although the term "zombie" was used earlier, it would be careless not to acknowledge that, from a purely technical standpoint, the film featured not one member of the walking dead army- sick, afflicted personages who stay expired once put in such a state obviously do not qualify. That's the clinical, categorical analysis however; from a more symptomatic angle, there isn't much difference between Romero's radiation-poisoned nemeses and Boyle's bad-blooded victims (except for velocity, of course). Put another way, mass cannibalistic insanity boils down to the same thing. Another debt the film owes a mention to is "The Last Man On Earth", starring Vincent Price (which would see a second coming as The Omega Man, with Charlton Heston). In fact, both of these films were based on the book "I Am Legend", by Richard Matheson, which Romero has cited as inspiration for "Night Of The Living Dead". 28 DAYS LATER is about both life and death...but mostly death. It has the heart of an arthouse film and the skin of a major-studio release. It is not perfect; it is entertaining, but it did not invent any new wheels (or any new spokes, for that matter). It has a House-Of-1000-Corpses attitude but it achieves a richer plateau of plot and characterization. If you like your zombies famished and feral, take a look...
Rating: 
Summary: Most overhyped movie since the Blair Witch
Review: If you haven't seen Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead or Day of the Dead this movie might seem original. If you have seen one or more of the above classic horror movies, it will seem, because it is, totally derivative. Either way, the movie is awful. Insights should arise from the characters and story. The character and story should not be used to force insights down the audiences throat. We know that zombies aren't necessaily worse than people after we see 28 Days Later, because Danny Boyle has been jamming that idea down our throats for two hours.
I gave the movie two stars instead of zero mostly because of the way the movie was shot. The distorted frames, the views of an abandoned London were all visually interesting. Ultimately, though, the movie is a failure. A contrived plot with a corny, phony script contribute to a moviegoing experience that is not that scary and leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.
Rating:
Summary: This movie SUCKS
Review: I give this "1" star,if I could give it less I would, one of the most boring movies I've seen. And on top of that the DVD quality is very poor, I would compare it to watching a VHS tape.
Watching this movie was a waste of time.
Rating:
Summary: Good, not great
Review: This is a perfect example of style over substance in a motion picture. "28 Days Later" could have been the screen equivalent of Stephen King's "The Stand," or at least as suspenseful and scientifically relevant as any of Richard Preston's novels (The Hot Zone, The Cobra Event), but it kind of settles for cheap thrills. The movie just isn't very ambitious. There are some brilliant moments -- the opening sequence, with the lone survivor of the plague wandering forlorn through London -- and there are several suspenseful scenes. But it doesn't do much with the material, which is ripe for good cinematic treatment. The direction is for the most part solid but sort of calls too much attention to itself, as if Danny Boyle were saying, "Look at how cutting-edge I can be." I realize this is low-budget fare, but I'd rather have a cohesive story with characters that I care about than a lot of flash and a lot of mind-numbing quick-cuts. "28 Days Later" (you gotta use the whole title, otherwise you're refering to the Sandra Bullock movie) reminded me strongly of "Night of the Living Dead," "Dawn of the Dead," "I Am Legend," and the thriller novels I mentioned above. The movie is derivative of those other works, but lacks much of their depth. All in all, I was entertained for a couple of hours, but also disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: THIS MOVIE SUCKED!!!!
Review: OKAY, IF I COULD I'D GIVE THIS MOVIE 0 STARS! THIS MOVIE SUCKED, AND I HATED IT! The storyline was stupid, and the actors sucked. The movie was BORING with a capital B. Nothing made sense, and it was stupid.
Rating: 
Summary: Creepy Movie.
Review: I really enjoyed this movie until the very end (which is why I didn't rate it five stars.)But if you like "night of the living dead" type films this will be worth the purchase price. Be sure to check out the more realistic ending.
Rating: 
Summary: An amazingly scary film.
Review: Extremely well done, I think the ending was perfect. Don't think this is simply a zombie movie, that is all wrong, this is a film about the study of human nature and the evil that we can bring about and do to ourselves.
The scariest part is during the film when you realize the 'real' monsters in this film are the soldiers who were supposed to save the three in the film. They end up being more monsterous and horrible than the bloody infected people chasing them. You are left wondering who would be the worst to end up with!
Ending was great, shining a little hope on a terrible situation and letting you breathe a sigh of releif that our heros made it out of this mess alive.
A great film, I highly recommend it.
|
