Rating: 
Summary: Best horror movie I've seen yet.
Review: "28 Days Later" scared the .... out of me the first time I saw it.It is definitely the eeriest movie I've ever watched. The plot is that a young man comes out of a coma to find that all of London has been wiped out by a deadly virus. Worse, those who have been infected with the virus have become ravenous zombies. The young man soon encounters others who have not yet been infected. After discovering an ominous radio transmission, the group heads north, toward Manchester, thinking they will find the answer to infection. It's not untill they reach their desination that the group realizes they've come across something far more dangerous than any virus. Don't be mislead by others, this is not your average zombie movie packed with gratuitous violence.(i.e. Resident Evil) "28 Days Later" offers a chilling, thought-provoking insight toward human nature. It's a suspenseful thriller that will captivate it's viewers. I highly recomend this movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Something New
Review: I've been an avid zombie fan since I was 5 years old. Besides the works of Romero and Fulci, us zombie fans have little else to go on, save for the release of Resident Evil which used digital effects to put a new spin on the walking dead. Though 28 Days Later hardly shows any zombies, what little is shown is quite effective. Again, it's a new spin (these zombies RUN and they run FAST, dammit!) but this time, without digital effects. Just good ol' gore, colored contacts and excellent build-up. These zombies are equally, if not more effective in frightening audiences because they are very much unlike zombies we're used to. No stretched moans and groans and no slow walking for them. They scream, they shreik, they give chase. And when they've got you on your back, you better move fast because their infected blood is going to go everywhere. All in all, highly effective. It's a case of what is frightening is what you DON'T see.
Rating:
Summary: DONT LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO DONT LIKE IT
Review: This movie is by far, kick.... it's pretty freaky as well. there are a few moments that make you jump as well. the zombies are really cool, and jim (cillian murphy) rocks! get it on dvd when it comes out!!!!!
Rating:
Summary: Psychologically scary
Review: No, "28 Days Later" isn't the sequel to that Sandra Bullock rehab movie. It's the newest film by British filmmaker Danny Boyle ("Trainspotting", "The Beach"). Released November 2002 in the U.K., the film became a sleeper hit, went to Sundance Film Festival, and enjoyed a degree of success in mainstream American theaters. "28 Days Later" opens with a team of animal activists who break into a clinic to release primates who are being used for testing a deadly virus. The apes are contagious, and any contact with their body fluids will pass along the infection, which reduces the infected to grotesque zombie-like creatures. Twenty-eight days after this event, Jim (Cillian Murphy) wakes up from a coma in an abandoned hospital. He can't find anyone and apparently doesn't know about the virus because he was asleep during the chaos. He walks along the deserted streets of London and is saved from the violent onslaught of infected zombies by two healthy people who have survived. Shot on digital video (apparently because it lends the movie a "realistic" feel), this film is eerie and asks things of an audience that few movies have done for 20 or 30 years. It is quiet and spare in the way that many 1970s sci-fi movies were. Instead of showcasing gratuitous gore and mind-numbing action, this movie has thinking characters who ask the audience to think. It builds gradually, engrossing the audience and getting them emotionally involved with the characters. When was the last time you actually cared if a character in a movie lived or died? I wouldn't call this movie scary exactly, although it is scary in the sense that you imagine yourself up on the screen in a desolate London after most of the country's population has been wiped out or turned into mindless zombies. What would you do? How would you survive? The scariness of this movie isn't really based on the fact that zombies are running around killing people, but more on that life is fragile and relationships with people are important, and anything that threatens life or the lives of people around you is frightening. Despite the fact that the movie was shot on digital video, it still has high production values and perfectly cast actors. We see shot after shot of a deserted London, deserted freeway streets and a world where electricity and running water are no longer part of life. The characters inhabit this world with a grave uncertainty, thrust from the world we live in to a world of loneliness, loss and wildness.
Rating:
Summary: You people don't know what you are talking about.
Review: Even when a person on a cell phone interrupted the movie, this was probably the second best movie I saw of the summer. You have to give the film makers some credit for how much money they had to make the film and how they desserted London. For the person who said how the zombies moved so fast. That was the best part of the movie. Like in all the other zombie movies I saw that they walked (yawn), and how the camera isn't on them when they run adds to the effect. Overall, this isn't a movie to buy, I think. But, it is definintly a movie to see.
Rating:
Summary: It will keep you suspended!
Review: I was, as I always am, very excited when I heard about 28 DAYS LATER. And yet I felt certain I was going to go home dissappointed just as I had after THE RING brought me to the theater in excited anticipation last year.
From the start, the story and the characters embrace you and keep you suspended as not many a film can do. Scary? That's a hard question for me. I don't think any story of fiction is actually going to "scare" me (or any of the other hard-core fans of the genre) but, based on the reactions of the woman seated nearby, to the less daring, yeah, it was scary!
As for me, I look for the elements of suspense, tension, suprise, character portrayal and dark simplicity that makes me forget I am merely a spectator. I found it here. I could have never guessed from one minute to the next what was going to happen. The characters were written true to the unbelievable but, I suppose, wildly possible circumstances they were faced with.
The movie is a gem! It also has a alternate ending to watch after all of the credits (and most of the audience) have passed.
Rating: 
Summary: NOT SCARY...!
Review: Ok, So I read all the press reviews about this being a great horror flick with a new twist on the "zombie" idea. On that premise I went to go see this movie; Boy was it the most boring movie I've ever seen. The media used to film the movie (digital) kind of took awhile to get over it on some sequences it "felt" right because it gave a sense that you where their with the character. That my friends is the only innovative thing about this movie. The characters where ok, what disappointed me was their wasn't a moment that made my heart beat, They ONLY SHOW THE "ZOMBIES" SCENES LIKE THREE TIMES!!! WTH!! And believe me there was nothing special about these zombies. Most of the movie was talking.. no real good dialog either. "JEEPERS CREEPERS", was a better movie then this junk, and we all know how GREAT "jeepers creepers" was.. "piece of junk!"
Rating:
Summary: so scary
Review: This movie is sure to make anybody ... their pants. Unlike the slasher films of the last decade, this is a whole new breed of horror film. 28DL takes in the thrill of the modern slasher films and mixes it with the errie chill of 50s and 60s suspense horror, heavy on the suspense side, making it a spectical for fans of either genre. You'll be on the edge of your seat. From the horrifying opening sceen to climatic strugle of who you can trust and through the ending, 28 Days will keep you wanting more.
Rating:
Summary: Not a zombie movie at all. Just a very good one.
Review: Not that I don't enjoy zombie movies. I do, but calling this movie a "zombie movie", as has been done WAY too much, does it a disservice. It is a drama set during a plague that has aparently caused the end of the world (at least for humans). Apocalypse is all that it has in common with films such as Dawn of the Dead. The victims are not dead, but sick, and the survivors have much more to deal with than the slow moving corpses that inhabit zombie stories. This movie has more in common with The Stand than any zombie film. As for the film, the characters are all believably written, well acted, and properly realized throughout the story. The film has a flow that scares the viewer with said apocalypse, and then calms the veiwer so that when the final horrific act comes about it is all the more disturbing, especially given the fact that the infected turn out to be the least of the protagonists worries. This film is the type that steps above it's so called genre and becomes a piece of cinema for all to enjoy, not just fans of horror or zombies. And it says something to the film makers abilities that even though this film has far less gore than even the most tame of zombie films, it is far more brutal and disturbing. Other reviews emphasizing the gore of this film didn't pick up on the fact that it wasn't an abundance of gore, but the actions of the characters, as realistic as they were portrayed, that caused the feelings. Those realistically portrayed actions of desperation, and survival, in such terrible situations, are far more horrifying than any special effects could be. I hope that the success of this film, and other horror dramas like The Ring, bring more intelligent, and truly scary films our way. Most likely they will come from elsewhere, i.e. outside the Hollywood system, or even the USA all together, as this one did.
Rating:
Summary: Like A Dream
Review: Why do some people love "28 Days Later" like no other movie? And yet some others despise "28 Days Later" like no other movie? What I consider to be the best film of 2003, "28 Days Later" is a genre movie -- and an intentional B-movie. And perhaps the concept of an "intentional B-movie" is why this film is so polarizing: some people believe Boyle & Garland have created a failure because it's not an A-movie. Other people "get it" but hate this "love of B-movies" idea. Yet others -- myself included -- "get it" and love this idea. Whether you will love or hate "28 Days Later" may depend upon your feelings about B-movies, and your instincts about the filmmakers' intentions. Which camp do you find yourself in? If you demand your films with big-budget stars, in crisp 35mm, with ever-more-gigantic spectacle, full of Terminator-style one-liners, then "28 Days" is not the movie for you. Look elsewhere. But if your preference is well-paced storytelling, interesting characters & acting, clever plotting & good-old-fashioned midnight-movie electricity, then stop here. You're missing the best film of 2003! Two more recommendations about the movie (which I saw a dozen times as well as saw the UK DVD of): First, this film affected me like no other movie. After seeing this movie once, I found myself thinking about the movie for days afterward, which has never happened to me before. I was both haunted and inspired and still fascinated. Much care went into the making of "28 Days Later," and it shows. I was also moved emotionally. The movie isn't totally flawless, and its third act (once the soldiers appear) belongs in a different film. But so much about "28 Days" is so great that it doesn't matter. Second, I've seen the UK DVD and it's packed with features like few DVDs I've ever seen: 8 deleted scenes (including a couple very memorable ones), an alternative ending (not the same one Fox Searchlight tacked-on in U.S. theatres), two different production photo galleries with commentary, Boyle-Garland optional commentaries for both the film and the extras, a music video, trailers including a rare animated internet-only trailer, and a "Radical Alternate Third-Act Storyboard" acted out by Boyle which plays like anime. When was the last time you saw a standard-edition DVD release with extras like this? In addition, the DV-transfer quality and sound are many times better than the theatrical release. Boyle & Garland have gone on record during the film's original UK (Oct. 31, 2002) premiere as stating a desire to create a type of movie which they grew up loving, yet which seems to have gone extinct: the popcorn genre/horror-flick "b-movie." A few of the scenes in this film (as Boyle & Garland indicate on the UK DVD commentary track) employ many of the shopworn cliches and irrational B-movie "code" of the genre -- and you will recognize these: "Why are those characters going into that dark tunnel? Why does one character endanger himself by separating from the group?" etc. The spirit of the film & the filmmakers' clear attitudes toward their characters and subject matter should signal to the B-movie afficionado exactly which type of filmmaking trait is on display during such sequences: disrespect for the audience & incompetence, or affectionate craft & shared homage. If this sounds like your type of movie so far, then you're in for a very special first viewing. This is the movie you've been waiting for.
|
