Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
This low budget horror film from acclaimed Academy-Award winning director Danny Boyle
was a surprise, cult-like hit when it was released in November of 2002: grossing nearly
10x it's eight million dollar budget. One of the biggest "Fox Searchlight Productions"
success stories, this R-rated adventure is credited with reinvigorating the zombie film-genre:
it's fast and realistic application of the tired formula is a welcome sight that kicked
off a decade of enjoyable films, even if - technically speaking - the monsters here are infected
humans, not undead zombies. Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, and Brendan Gleeson are survivors
of a vicious, fast-moving "rage virus" which has turned the entire population of Britain
into zombie-like flesh eaters. These strangers must work out their differences together to
stay alive, as the move from place to place looking for answers and other survivors. Opening
with a predictable prologue, and generic riot footage, the title card doubles as a plot
device, as we pick up the story of a dying, and desolate society four weeks after a diseased
monkey escapes from a medical facility and infects all of England. Static, and wide shots
of Murphy exploring a completely empty downtown London are striking and quietly ominous, incredibly
reminiscent of 1985's "The Quiet Earth". The usually versatile actor leads this picture
with little more to do than desperate shouting, and angry mourning: but is certainly convincing
doing so. Harris is lovely as the feisty female who pledges not to let anyone tell her what
to do, and Gleeson has an undeniable fatherly charm about him that makes this trio easy
to root for against the most bizarre and threatening of circumstances. Their bleak existence is
showcased in a claustrophobic-style that somehow remains hopeful despite the blood, gore, and
carnage. Boyle is to be commended for crafting such a rich and detailed environment for his
characters to explore... the alternative rock soundtrack meshes well with the burned out
and forgotten environments - impressively shot with gritty, standard definition Canon
XL1 cameras. The imagery in this picture is beautifully tragic, like an aerial shot of
Gleeson's roof: littered with hundreds of colored pales for collecting a few meager
drops of rain water - representing his slim, and only hope of survival. A few tense scenes
offer momentary scares, but true horror fans will likely be disappointed, as this film
rarely frightens with any consistency. Only the concept itself is actually scary, a psychologically
terrifying what-if scenario. Poorly paced, a third-act development has our characters
running from rapists, instead of zombies, in an unnecessary and unbelievable development.
As does a disrespectfully up-beat epilogue that is far removed from the grim tone of
the entire picture preceding it. Unfortunately not as impressive or as memorable on repeat
viewings, this gruesome picture still delivers some thrills, surprises, and genuine emotion:
but it falls short of its lofty premise. Luckily, the sequel "28 Weeks Later" picks up the slack
here, and is a better feature because of it. "28 Days Later..."Chilling interpretation,
with sporadic scares." Now lets hear your thoughts from the YouTube comments.
The rate-o-matic for "28 Days Later..." an EIGHT and a SIX. Some mixed opinions on this,
while many applauded the fast movie zombies for being scary, you found fault with the
poor pacing, and less-than-stellar performances, but with several others citing as the best
zombie film ever? Your scores averaged to a GREAT. I remember really liking this picture
the first time I saw it, but upon recently re-watching it with a critical eye, I was
less than impressed: Drastically slow at parts, unexplained character motivations, and an
out-of-place ending results in my rating this just above average, with a GOOD.