28 Days Later (2002) User Reviews

A modern classic.

[desh79 · 9/10 · 19 October 2003]

Perhaps I'm a little biased. After all, this is set in the city I live and work in, and seeing Oxford Street and Piccadilly Circus, which I pass by every morning and which are usually teeming with crowds of people, completely empty was enough to send shivers down my spine. Usually when you watch a movie like this it's located in some nondescript Midwestern village, which makes it easy to detach yourself from the events unfolding on screen. But seeing them occur in the place you call home is something that gives it an entirely new sense of reality, and one I was previously unaccustomed to.

Still, judging 28 Days Later entirely on its merit as a film, it's easy to arrive at the conclusion that it's a fantastic achievement, as well as a coming-of-age of sorts for director Danny Boyle; I can't say the MTV-inspired vanity of The Beach, or the self-consciously trendy posturing of Trainspotting appealed to me, and to my shame I initially expected 28 Days Later to be given a similar treatment. Thankfully, my fears proved unfounded, discarded straight after a opening sequence which is at once effortless and fearsome. The rest of the movie was a joy. A terrifying joy, but a joy nonetheless.

It's true that sometimes minimalism can be more effective than overblown bravado, and it's definitely true for this movie. It's the scenes of complete silence which get to you the most; an entire metropolis empty. The grainy picture serves to add a documentary-style quality to the film, which makes the whole situation seem almost too real to bear. Definitely a wise choice to film this on digital video.

You will occasionally meet people who thought 28 Days Later wasn't 'scary' or 'gory' enough. These are the same people who will tell you that 2001 was 'boring', or that Memento was 'confusing'. Ignore them. Others didn't understand the purpose of the second half, or were confused by its change of pace, feeling that it distracted from the movie as a whole. However, I personally regard the second half as very important because, as another reviewer pointed out, it makes a very succinct point: What is scarier, the end of the world, or having the world repopulated by maniacs? That, I think, is where the real Horror of 28 Days Later lies.

28 Days Later, like the Romero zombie flicks of yore, is ultimately an allegory of the days we are living in, an age in which we are constantly confronted with violence by the media (much like the ape right at the start of the film), where violence begets violence, and humanity faces an uncertain future. I applaud Danny Boyle's bravery in making 28 Days Later because he undoubtedly took a big commercial risk when the majority of the cinema-going public might prefer escapism to words of caution. Remember, Rage is a human-made disease. Quite the allegory there.

Like most great masterpieces of their time, 28 Days Later has been misunderstood by a considerable amount of people. I have no doubt it will go down in history as a classic, the one movie which perfectly sums up the confused era we are living in. And even if you didn't like it, it would be advisable to give 28 Days Later another chance; it's a haunting experience when looked at from the right angle. Danny Boyle has many years left in him, I hope he'll continue making more movies like this.

What makes it different...

[shanfloyd · 8/10 · 30 December 2004]

This film is about a virus, 'Rage' virus that makes the infected person mad with extreme rage and hungry for blood. Within 28 days one outbreak in London caused entire Britain dead or evacuated leaving behind a blood-thirsty infected population and a handful of solitary normal persons. Civilization came to a halt, society got destroyed while those limited survivors fight for existence among frequent attack by the vicious victims.

Sounds familiar? Then what makes "28 Days Later..." a classic among a horde of zombie/biohazard movies? Simply a touch of art that Danny Boyle is able to bring what others could not. The others focus too much on extensive, special-effects-controlled, gory action sequences between infected and normals, with heavy background music. But here there's always a tinge of sadness, emptyness, helplessness. Consider that empty London scene with that background music. We found out there's much else to show than just electrifying action or gore to describe the picture of life in this condition that these movies talk about.

There are mistakes and loopholes in this movie. But that couldn't weaken the otherwise tight-gripping storyline. The greatest achievement of this movie is to make one viewer stay neutral throughout the film, without taking any side in the first place. Because the virus we talk about is simply used as a metaphor. 'Rage' is shown as a social disease. That makes it a 'serious' film, not a flick. Every person, even the harshest critic of zombie horror movies should watch this. 5 out of 5 stars.

Oh, did I mention Cillian Murphy was awesome?

An Existential Drama,with Horror woven in

[KUAlum26 · 8/10 · 10 August 2005]

The 2003 State-side release of Danny Boyle's "28 Days Later" was advertised as being a shockful scare-fest of a movie. I didn't get around to seeing it until a few days ago and I gotta feel like that was somewhat of an embellishment on the promoters' part.

When environmental terrorists attack a lab that contains diseased chimps who are infected with a "Rage" virus, they unwittingly let loose a plague that lays waste to England and(perhaps)the rest of society. The 28 Days later of the title cuts to a mostly abandoned London where a coma-tized bicycle courier named Jim(Cillian Murphy,effective) wakes from his stasis to find himself alone in a hospital. As he searches London for signs of life,he is rescued from raging zombies by a couple of survivalists(one of them,the lovely Naomie Harris)who he follows from place to place to keep alive. From there,he also meets a man and his daughter(Brendan Gleeson,terrific,and Megan Burns,good)and they try to find a refuge out of London-town. A recorded message of a "paradise" where "salvation" can be found is tracked by Frank(the man) on his shortwave radio.

This film feels more like a meditation on what happens to people when they are reduced to their lowest elements. A friend of mine told me that this movie's running zombies was what inspired the zombies in the remake of "Dawn of the Dead",but where "Dawn of..." was pretty much a full-throttle action/horror hybrid from about start to finish,this film plays more like a "What if..." movie,with less emphasis on the creatures themselves and more on the (lucky?) survivors. There are also disturbing lessons on the nature OF survival,too.

An very interesting and disturbing flick that probably sold itself wrong.

this movie broke my thumb!!

[terpsfan89 · 30 June 2004]

No, I'm not kidding. I've been a horror fan for years, but few movies scared me, until one of my friends told me about this one. I rented it, wondering if it was any good, and I watched it. Well, I was very impressed...so impressed that I freaked out during one of the scenes and reached for a pillow, and my thumb snapped back, breaking the bone. Sad, isn't it? This movie is that good. If you can find a movie that can cause you to react and break a bone, then you've found a movie worth watching. 28 Days Later had an amazing plot, great actors, a great director, and most of all, it wasn't like all of the other horror movies. It's now one of my favorites, and one of the best horror type films I have seen.

one of the best European horror films this decade

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 16 August 2003]

The key to keeping the sci-fi horror genre alive in the cinemas, as of late, is to make sure the material and techniques the filmmakers present is at least competent, at it's average creative, and at it's best something that we haven't seen before or haven't seen in such a style or form. George A. Romero did that back in prime 60s and 70s era of film-making, bringing forth one of the most memorable trilogies of all time for the genre. While many consider Romero to be on any given list one of the greatest horror directors (I included), it is important to know that he too had his sources for his little independent film in 1968, and after that was when he really got inventive, resulting in a masterpiece and a lackluster. Director Danny Boyle and author Alex Garland know that if they were to cook up a yarn all too similar to Romero it wouldn't be satisfying. So, they've done what is essential to the success of 28 Days Later- they take ideas that have been in practice for many years, turn them fresh, and as the audience we feel repelled, excited, terrified, nauseous (perhaps), and enthralled, but we won't leave feeling like we've seen complete hack work.

What does Boyle and his team set out to do to freshen up the zombie string? By making not in precise terms a "zombie" movie- you never hear "living-dead" uttered in this film, although you do hear "infected" and a new word for what these people have, "rage". Indeed, this is what the infected have in Britain, when a monkey virus gets let loose on the Island, and from the beginning of the infectious spread the film cuts to a man, Jim, lying in a hospital bed, who wanders abandoned streets and views torn fragments of society in front of him. That Boyle implements atmosphere as heavily as he does with the action/chase scenes gives an indication of his dedication to the detail. Jim soon finds a few other survivors, including Selena (Naomie Harris) and a father and his daughter (Brendan Gleeson and Megan Burns) who hear of salvation on a radio and decide to brave it out to find it. When they do, it's a military outpost that's without any true salvation, outside of the various military typos.

Like in Boyle and producer Andrew MacDonald's spellbinding (if that's the proper terminology) adaptation of Trainspotting, the craft is on par (or arguably topping) with the story and characters, and thus it has to captivate us all the more so to care about the plight of Jim and his companions. The photography by Anthony Dod Mantle is striking, not the least of which since it was done on digital photography (like in Blair Witch, the use of non-professional camera equipment adds the proper shading when needed), but also many of the shot compositions are different for such a film. The editing by Chris Gill goes quicker than expected in the attack scenes, going so fast between the infected throwing up blood, the screaming on-looker; the new infected transforming within seconds, and then the results that follow. Mark Tildesley's production design, as well as John Murphy's music, evokes haunting, evocative moods even in the more mundane scenes. And the acting, considering not many of the actors are well-known, is more than believable for such a script.

I'm not sure if 28 Days Later will be everyone's cup of tea. Some of the horror and science fiction fans out there will immediately hear of this film, see a preview or a TV ad, or even see it, and dismiss it as phooey rubble borrowed from the video-store. I can see their points of view, since I saw many similarities in Romero and some other films (the military scenes reminded me of Day of the Dead, though the chained up Zombie in this was done for more practical reasons, and the supermarket scene is a little unneeded considering the satirical reverence it had in Dawn of the Dead). But what they should understand is that Boyle isn't making a 100% original film, and no one could at this point of the genre's history. He has done, however, the most credible job he could in getting a different tone, a different setting in country, and of a different, enveloping view of the scene structures. Overall, 28 Days Later is constructed and executed like most sci-fi horror films you've ever seen, and like not many other sci-fi horror films you've ever seen combined, in a sense, for a modern audience: fascinating throughout.

A Cracking Zombie style horror, with substance

[mjw2305 · 9/10 · 23 December 2006]

28 Days Later successfully takes the zombie genre to a new level, this movie is far more than just a horror flick. There are some great characters, that you actually care about, some you'll like, some you'll be glad to see killed, but all solidly performed.

The story is well written and avoids the clichéd cheesy scripts that are too often attached to the horror genre. And I must add that the direction is exactly what you would expect from 'Danny Boyle' top class.

For me though the real difference between this movie and many others made in this genre is as follows - The infected (the zombie like folk) are more menacing, they turn instantly and they move fast, a combination that would instill fear in every one of us.

I don't mean to run down the zombie movie genre - I am a huge fan of most of these films, but lets be honest its been done to death, re-animated and done again, and this was the first movie to break the mould and transcend to a new level.

If you like your horror flicks, then this is certainly worthy of your attention.

9/10

Very Good In Places But Ultimately Unconvincing

[Theo Robertson · 7/10 · 20 October 2004]

Long before I watched 28 DAYS LATER I had an online conversation with a couple of my cyber friends Jeremy and Riquez . Jeremy praised the movie thinking it was one of the best film releases in several years . I did point out to him the ridiculous idea that a virus with an incubation period of 20 seconds wouldn't be able to cause the type of havoc as featured in the movie . Riquez contributed to the conversation by saying " Theo you have no problem with rabid zombies but you find a virus with an incubation period of 20 seconds ridiculous ! " After finally seeing 28 DAYS LATER ( Thanks for the video Robin ) my reservations were confirmed , the audience can quite happily accept the concept of raging psychos tearing up the country destroying all in their path but the thought put into small details spoils the film somewhat

!!!!! SPOILERS !!!!!

Most of the problems lie in Alex Garland's script , it lacks depth , logic and internal continuity . Take for example the line where Selena tells Jim that the apocalypse was caused by something in the blood . How would she know this ? This is an example of characters knowing what's happening because the screenwriter does which is a mistake on Alex Garland's part . The reverse is also very true with characters being unable to work out things the audience has . Before seeing the movie I did have online conversations on the message board that a virus that takes 20 seconds to turn people into zombies wouldn't be able to spread world wide , indeed this is central to the plot and Sgt Farrell does state that " How does the infection spread across the oceans , mountains and rivers ? " and yet he's the only character in the story to draw this very obvious conclusion that only mainland Britain has been struck by rage . It would have been far less obvious if Selena and others had been totally ignorant as to the mechanics of infection

As for the gaps in logic ask yourself this: If the soldiers want to keep Selena and Hannah as sex slaves why didn't they murder Jim as soon as they saw him ? I guess if they did we wouldn't have a story , but the screenplay is full of these niggling problems , like Jones and Mitchell getting into a fight so Jim can escape or West and Davies going to the barricade to kill Jim when they've got everything they need ( ie Selena and Hannah ) at the house . There's no reason for the soldiers to care about killing Jim

I also had a problem with the characterisation . Selena is shown as being tough as nails and totally ruthless at the start of the story and then needs rescuing by Jim at the end . Compare her to characters in say a John Christopher story where the protagonist starts off as middle class and mild mannered and ends up having to kill to survive . This is what happens to Jim but it seems a totally ridiculous character arc as he wipes out West's platoon . Jim has spent a month in a coma , has no military experience and manages to beat some squaddies who not only managed to survive mass attacks of the infected but had considerable battle experience before rage . I'm telling you Saddam must be kicking himself about not recruiting any bicycle couriers into the Iraqi army

I will absolve Garland of any blame for the bizarre upbeat ending where Jim survives a bullet wound to the stomach and lives happily ever after with Selena and Hannah since the studio demanded a happy ending for their audience . Let's be honest here , the only ending that would have made sense is Jim dying and the two girls facing an uncertain future with rage turning into a pandemic holocaust

I don't want to give the impression that I hated 28 DAYS LATER . I liked it a lot and will praise director Danny Boyle for making a tense and often very thrilling film . The use of digital video succeeds and the cinematography is breath taking especially the scenes set at the rain drenched roadblock where you can almost see every single raindrop falling pass the screen . The casting is somewhat uneven ( The French foreign legion isn't that cosmopolitan never mind the British army ) but mention must go to Ricci Harnett as Cpl Mitchell who plays one of cinema's most memorable thugs in a long time , Leo Bill might give an irritating performance as Jones but that's the way he's written , Naomie Harris is impressive where she's not let down by the script and the only real disappointment is Christopher Ecclestone as Major West who seems slightly miscast

I gave 28 DAYS LATER seven out of ten but to be honest this should have been so much better . One can't help thinking Boyle would have been better off filming an adaptation of John Christopher's THE DEATH OF GRASS . As it stands it's a very good example of if a film is good it's because of the director . If it's bad it's because of the screenwriter

A Pint of Rage

[tributarystu · 8/10 · 12 September 2003]

As it so happens, 28 Days Later is the best zombie movie in the last few decades. Probably since Romero's classics, if I recall accurately. It stands up on its own in a genre which is frequently plagued by a sort of innate stupidity, a consequence of one too many dead people. Otherwise how could one explain the fact that the most acclaimed zombie films are parodies of the genre?

28 Days Later shares a striking resemblance with Resident Evil, in that it kind of starts where RE left off: after one of the most exciting intro sequences I have ever witnessed (!), a lonely average-Joe, (Jim in this particular case) wakes up in a deserted London and takes a jolly good walk through the intimidatingly empty streets. Man-kind seems to have been wiped out by a contagious virus which induces a sort of blind rage upon those who fall prey to it. As may have guessed by now, this will be a story of survival.

While most horror films will offer a relatively exciting ride with little more than sparse scares, Danny Boyle's movie sheds a new light on the survival instinct of human beings which can damned well spook the living hell out of you - even if not in the traditional sense. Looking at Children of Men might offer some insight into what it feels like to have no future and this itself may clear the way to appreciating 28 Days Later.

I guess it's one of those rare horror films which not only enlighten the viewer with nice, gory slaughters but also with a share of psychological goodies. 28 Days Later doesn't forget "the Master" either and offers an obvious and unobtrusive tribute to Dawn of the Dead. All around the movie keeps you going because it is an immersive experience and not just a "poke-your-finger" kind of experience.

28 Days Later

[movie_person · 7/10 · 12 March 2005]

This, I have to say, was one of the better viral-zombie films I have seen. The plot was highly un-original, but extremely well made. The acting was powerfully preformed, the filming having many "diagonally tilted camera view" scenes, giving off more suspense, without the reliance on the overly used "scary music". Also, the addition of the alternate ending gave a strong closing to the film. This is the kind of movie that you end up feeling physically drained after seeing your first time. It will suck you in until the end, every time. I seriously recommend seeing this if you enjoy zombie films, you will not be disappointed.

An Emotion Infects a Nation.

[nycritic · 9/10 · 9 May 2005]

A film that at time plays like a frenzied docudrama, 28 DAYS LATER... is unrelenting, grim, horrific, and completely nightmarish. Images of violence against humans dominates the screen for a few minutes, and we soon learn these are televisions mounted against a wall, broadcasting non-stop footage of the inhuman things people do to one another. A monkey lies strapped down, facing these images, helpless. There are others in cages nearby. A band of environmentalists break in, predictably to free these imprisoned monkeys, but a conflict ensues as a scientist barges in and warns them it would be completely insane to do so -- they're infected with Rage. However, since scientists normally equal evil corporations and dehumanized technology known for cruelty not only against animals but humans, they proceed to free one of the apes... and total pandemonium breaks loose as the monkey viciously attacks its freer, and in seconds we see her eyes have become red. She is an infected.

And this is the simple setup for a movie that in 100 minutes frightens the pants of even a jaded person. To see shots of a deserted London magnified by shots of abandoned vehicles, overturned equipment, and a haunting collage of missing persons that recalls the scores of photos of the missing that did not survive the 9 - 11 attacks, is extremely disturbing and unsettling and made me squirm in my seat as Cillian Murphy's character Jim walks around town, having awaken about a month later from a coma. It's not reassuring for him to know he may be the only surviving person in the city, and soon he learns there are others out there... but not reasonable, frightened people as much as ferocious predators who will rip the flesh right off you, and if mercy takes over, you may die right there and then, because it only takes 20 seconds for full infection to take over and turn you into a raving monster.

That he is saved at the last minute by others who have survived the madness is his saving grace. These are Naomi Harris as Selena and Noah Huntley as Mark, who brief Jim on what happened in haunting monologues, and that Danny Boyle stays focused on Huntley's face as he relates to Jim his own story is flashback enough: it only heightens the terror that swept London and that is still alive and well. This prompts Jim to go visit his parents, maybe hoping they are still alive, and after a near-fatal encounter with an infected there in which Mark does not survive (Selena, absolutely committed to survive this, hacks him to pieces after quickly noticing he's been infected), they barely manage to escape more infected before meeting two other people, a bearish man and his daughter (Brendan Gleeson and Megan Burns). They have been listening to scattered transmissions that are indicating Manchester holds a possible refuge for survivors.

Once they make the decision to leave to Manchester the movie takes a turn and becomes a road film and involved a harrowing if somewhat implausible escape from London through a tunnel, where even the rats are running away from the sheer horror these barely seen people have become. That they eventually meet this fort in an already destroyed Manchester gives them little reassurance, which proves to be true as a small band of military guys lead by Christopher Eccleston have dubious intentions with the women.

And here is where Danny Boyle cleverly turns an apocalyptic movie into a study of the human race: can the people who are supposedly meant to protect us be actually worse than the ones who have fallen to a devastating plague? The answer, quite simply, turns out to be yes. That this makes Jim do a much needed transition from dazed youth to fierce survivor drives the point even more home: Rage wiped out most of the population, as a virus, but in given circumstances, is found quite well within us, and Jim becomes so filled with it at one climactic sequence it takes Selena a second before reacting that he hasn't yet been infected.

This is a very tense film. There are moments of quietude in a field, where sleep comes uneasy, and even that moment to me was worse than any of the moments when the infected actually sped out and after any of the characters. Seen in stroboscopic images, they becomes even more frightening than if seen as lumbering idiots. If the ending seems a little too upbeat, maybe it's only the decision Boyle and the screenwriters took after having us gone through so much gut-wrenching tension and clear calls, that it was only fair to have Jim, Selena, and Hannah survive and see a glimmer of hope at the end. Other than that, 28 DAYS LATER compresses the battles with good and evil in a world gone wild instead of going all over the place with too many characters like THE STAND and many others do. Intelligent, repulsive at times, unbearable, this was one of the best films of 2003. The DVD release has some nice extras, like alternate endings, deleted scenes, for those into investigating further into Boyle's dark tale.

Boyle's best by far

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 20 January 2013]

Despite the clichés, this is a fairly effective and gripping thriller from TRAINSPOTTING's Danny Boyle, an edgy film with enough ambiance and shocks to make it worthwhile. Although working on a noticeable low budget (the scene with the car driving past those superimposed air turbines is laughable), Boyle creates an authentic and gritty post-apocalyptic vision which follows through with the shocks in many places that Hollywood wouldn't dare. The opening sequence, in which Cillian Murphy's sole survivor aimlessly wanders through an evacuated London, is especially noteworthy and one of the eeriest moments in a film I've seen in a long time. Although we all know that Boyle achieved his aim by filming early and closing off areas of the city, it works perfectly and nicely sets up the following events which take place in darker, cheaper sets and locations. Shooting on digital video gives the film an added edge of gritty realism especially during the in-your-face zombie attacks.

I say zombie because this film is, by all accounts, a straightforward zombie film. The survivors may still be alive but any thought processes are dead and they still attack as ferociously as any of Romero's creations. Boyle gives us some very dark and graphic violence in such attacks, full of sickening spraying blood and chopped limbs shown in quick disturbing flashes. For once the camera doesn't cut away and we're left feeling pretty queasy about it all. But things get worse before they get better, with a climax involving gouged eyes and even worse things happening. One of the problems that this film has is that its extremely bleak and heavy going (at least until the tacked-on ending) and thus may well be off-putting to many viewers who can't stand the too-realistic narrative, which has no time for Hollywood sentimentality.

The acting ranges from the solid to the less than impressive, the latter in the case of Megan Burns as the young Hannah. Young child actors are always unwise decisions in adult-orientated films such as this and Burns doesn't quite gel in her role as the unlucky youth. On the other hand, there are some nicely dependable supporting performances, including Naomie Harris as the self-sufficient ex-chemist now turned survivalist, who has brutal ways of dealing with the infected. Brendan Gleeson steals the film with his performance as the warm-hearted father but unfortunately he gets all too little screen time. I have mixed feelings about Cillian Murphy, the relative Irish newcomer who takes the lead. His performance is definitely spot on in places but not at all charismatic, therefore we are unable to identify with him throughout the movie and especially during the gruesome climax.

The latter half of the film turns into an open reworking of Romero's classic DAY OF THE DEAD, complete with a chained-up zombie a la Bub and an isolated bunch of soldiers led by a madman – this time played by Christopher Eccleston, giving some gravitas to the proceedings. Although the playout is fairly predictable, there are plenty of scary things going on in the climatic thunderstorm, making for uncomfortable viewing and a fair few jump-in-your-seat shocks for nervous audience goers. As the film generally works as a whole (despite the abundance of ups and downs) I consider it to be a success, although as I mentioned before definitely not to everybody's taste.

Lord of the Flies meets Outbreak

[bodhisattva13 · 8/10 · 30 June 2003]

Danny Boyle is an exceptionally gifted filmmaker and I've been enamored with his work since the brilliant "Shallow Grave." "Trainspotting" only gets better every time you see it and "A Life Less Ordinary" has some bright moments. (The singing and dancing number is parfait.) Mr. Boyle hit a bump in the road when it came to "The Beach," but then he forsake us all by casting DiCaprio. He's back to redeem himself, as is Alex Garland, with "28 Days Later," a marvelous twist on the apocalyptic film.

IMDB's summary isn't completely accurate in that "nearly the entire planet has been wiped out." But that's a plot twist you'll have to uncover for yourself. What occurs - a la "12 Monkeys" - is while trying to expose the work taking place at a primate research center, a group of activists unwittingly release a virus called rage. The way it works is if a person is bitten by an infected person, he or she develops a murderous rage and desire to kill within 10 to 12 seconds. (Infection can also occur if the afflicted person's blood enters another person's body, through the nose, eye, mouth or open wound.)

Twenty-eight days after being hit by a car, Jim, a bike courier and our film's hero, wakes up to find London deserted. He eventually meets two other survivors and then encounters another two. After picking up a radio broadcast that calls all uninfected people to Manchester, the survivors fight off the infected and make their way to what seems like the promised land. Complications follow is all I'll say.

Some have compared this film to George Romero's "Night of the Living Dead," giving some people the wrong impression that this is the British take on the zombie flick. Wrong. The infected aren't zombies but they are terrifying. They can be killed and the director doesn't gross us out by showing the infected feasting on human flesh. (All in all, "28 Days" isn't visually disgusting. It's the thought of what's going on that bothers you.)

The acting in this film is really first rate, with Cillian Murphy giving an emotionally compelling performance. As in most Boyle films, the camera work also is exceptional and in the first part we are shown some phenomenal long shots of an evacuted London with a soundtrack devoid of sound. The effect is gooseflesh raising. Boyle also adds in other nice touches, like a bunch of goldfish swimming in about five inches of water. (Symbolism?) And a scene with wild horses is another fine moment.

The story too goes beyond what we might expect. We get the jumps associated with zombie films - they come out of no where and travel in packs - and yet the heroes don't come off too much better. One character suggests that the virus, by killing off humankind, returns things to normalcy. Christopher Eccleston, a terrific actor, retorts that before the virus man killed man and now he's still doing it. So what's changed? The film also suggests that to save yourself, you would have to kill anyone - child, adult; family member, stranger. And these characters do. But what's noteworthy is we see how having to make those sorts of decisions affects them, particularly Jim.

Like Lord of the Flies, the film strips away the civility we all think we possess and demonstrates that we, too, are bound by the laws of the animal kingdom - it's survival of the fittest and to have a future we need to reproduce.

Another reviewer said the film fell apart after the first 45 minutes when, in fact, I felt it only got stronger. The last half of the film proved to be very intense. Garland truly raised the stakes.

If you enjoy your scares with a bit more thought to them, "28 Days Later" won't disappoint. (And if you do, try these similar films - "12 Monkeys," "Quiet Earth" and "Lord of the Flies.")

A rude awakening...

[paul_haakonsen · 6/10 · 20 January 2016]

"28 Days Later" does deviate somewhat from the stereotypical zombie movie genre. And whether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing is, of course, a matter of personal preference. I did, however, find it to be a refreshing approach to the genre. I liked some parts of the movie, and I disliked others.

Director Danny Boyle took a bold approach to the genre when he came up with this zombie movie or viral infection movie, call it what you will. And it was an approach that resulted in a fairly entertaining movie, which did bring some new and interesting things to the genre.

What works in favor of "28 Days Later" is the storyline and the way that director Danny Boyle told the story. It is a fast paced story that is driven by a solid story, good characters and equally good acting performances.

However, I am not personally a big fan of having fast, agile and running zombies. But since these aren't zombies as such, then I guess as an infected person it is alright. But for the genre, then I would classify them as zombies, and as such running is a no go.

I mentioned that the storyline is good, and it is the heart of the story, and the writers did put together a good story which is thrilling and entertaining. It was a thrill ride to follow Jim (played by Cillian Murphy) from waking up in the hospital and throughout the movie right up to the end.

The effects in "28 Days Later" are quite good, and that is something which also helps the movie quite a lot. You can't really have a zombie movie, infected people movie, or whatever this was, and not have proper effects. So thumbs up to the special effects team for their work on "28 Days Later".

Usually I am not one who pays much attention to music in a movie, unless it is awfully bad and overshadows everything else. But the music they opted for in this movie was actually good and did help to supplement the movie quite well.

If you enjoy zombie movies and want something fast paced that deviates from the stereotypical how-to-make-a-zombie-movie recipe, then give "28 Days" a chance.

A promisingly eerie surge of doom... but falls apart in second half.

[ozjeppe · 5/10 · 18 February 2007]

"Dawn of the dead" sort of meets "12 monkeys" in this intense, impressively produced cult mash of zombie horror flick and dystopian sci-fi: England is ravaged by a rabid-like virus outbreak, and survivors team up to cope in deserted London... and to fight infected people-turned-monsters.

A top first half, with a really promising, eerie surge of doom... but then it falls apart in the second. As the survivors reach the military camp front, it goes from functioning violent unpleasantness to non- functioning such, as it clumsily lashes out in all directions, tossing needful credibility in the garbage can. Oh well, it still remains a noteworthy memorable grabber in the genre...

Best scene: when Cillian Murphy finds his dead parents- extremely moving!

5 out of 10 from Ozjeppe

Quite good

[ljbad · 28 June 2004]

I'm amazed there are so many negative reviews of this film; I thought it succeeded on every level. It's artistic and atmospheric, with a great pace, sympathetic characters, and a fantastic climax. The music is very nicely done, and, to me, the eerie opening scenes of the empty London streets are worth the price of admission all on their own. I'm a stubborn viewer, and, normally, when a film benefits from early critical buzz in the manner that this one did, I find some excuse not to like it. But not this time; I'm completely impressed. (Incidentally, I think it's interesting that while most horror films these days seem to have been inspired by knockoffs of knockoffs, "28 Days Later" apparently owes more to John Wyndham's classic disaster novel "The Day of the Triffids" than to anything else. And that's a good thing.) HIGHLY recommended.

Wow! A horrifying, survivalist-type thriller that is GREAT

[dave_472 · 8/10 · 20 June 2005]

This film was fantastic. I was expecting something along the lines of a combination of "Resident Evil" and "The Day After Tomorrow" but this is quite different from that description. Yes, it involves a terrible disease that leaves its infected victims as blood-sucking, mindless zombies who pray on the not-yet-infected and yes, it involves a group of survivors who are left together to fend for themselves. But it is quite different from Resident Evil (no comic-book or video-game type plot here and no explosives or automatic weapons) and is a much more thrilling "survivalist-type" film than "The Day After Tomorrow".

An awful virus is spreading through the streets and cities of Great Britain. Soon nearly everybody is affected by this deadly disease that turns its victims into zombies, who are quite noticeable and different from normal people due to their odd/rapid body movements, their blood red eyes, foaming at the mouth, and their inability to communicate with normal people unless they are trying to bite them. A small group of survivors manages to stay alive and uninfected, but not for long. Eventually, they one-by-one fall victim to the awful disease and the remaining survivors have sealed a pact that involves them instantly killing any member of their group that has become infected, not to endanger those who are still alive and not yet zombies. As the survivors count their time left, they attempt to make it to a British military base near Manchester where they believe they will be safe. They do eventually make it there, but what can stop zombies (who are mindless, blood-thirsty and have nothing to lose) from invading an army base? Are the survivors and British soldiers safe? Or will they soon become zombies themselves?

This film is quite scary and exciting and perhaps one of the best British films that I have seen from modern times... Please feel free to email me with any questions or comments...

Truly Something Special.

[MDaviesReview · 10/10 · 12 December 2022]

From the music to the atmosphere that is built, this film is in my opinion an influential and perfect film with the acting being just close to beginner level, which would usually throw the film in a lower rating but it adds to the charm here. They feel like real people who are as scared and as lost as we are.

The shots throughout london are spooky as it feels so empty and gives this sense of dread. The ending being one of the more sensible and honestly realistic ones to come out of a zombie or "infected" films during that time and even now.

I watched it again recently and found that the shots being done on a more handheld feeling really drove the sense of panic and supsense home.

I will always look back at this film with love and if someone ever says to me, my favourite zombie film. It would have to be this one.

It truly sparked the uprise of zombie films and i love it.

10/10.

Makes the very best of a small budget.

[Stevieheuge · 7/10 · 6 October 2004]

*review contains spoilers*

Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later it without a doubt the best British horror film of recent times. It has some genuinely chilling moments, some great subtle humour, and best (and most importantly) of all, its a pretty original piece of work.

'Jim', played by up and coming Irish actor Cillian Murphy emerges from a coma in a London hospital. he is alone. He goes out into the corridor - he is still alone, and the place is trashed. He goes out into the street, and by jove, the whole of London is completely deserted... And its great! Immediately the audience is asking "what the hell is going on here?" Its something we're just not used to - never before have we been struck with such scenes in a British setting, and it is truly startling.

Unfortunately for Jim, the answer to the current state of his country, is that it has been obliterated by a virus that infects and overcomes its victims in seconds with 'rage', turning them into almost unstoppable violent monsters...

The first hour of the film is great, and Boyle uses every second of his deserted London footage perfectly, building an incredibly creepy atmosphere, but its even in these early scenes that we see that the lack of budget is apparent - there are no bodies in the streets, it all seems just a little too TOO empty. However, this does add to the isolated theme even more.

The film slows a little as it makes its way through the second act. The whole movie was shot on digital film, which has been tweaked to give the film a grainy, moody look, and as much as this works, it does not disguise the fact that the film begins to lose its way a bit. As the characters trudge on in search of hope, the continued isolation of the two main characters becomes steadily more uneventful, rather than unnervingly lonesome. Although thats not to say it doesn't have its moments - Boyle gives us a few little set pieces in the moments to follow, but they just don't seem to do the premise justice - if all of Great Britain has been decimated by this virus, there should be rampaging hoards of infected crashing at them at every turn - but no-one, NO-ONE is around!

Its a shame though, because everything that could have made the last half of this film great, would cost lots of money. If you don't have it, you cant make it. Due to this, and a bad turn in story, the last third of the film descends into the unwanted, the unbelievable, and it just seems like such a waste.

Let me explain:

The infected humans in this film are just that - people who are overcome with a virus. They are not undead, thay are not zombies, as the director has stressed on many occasions. This means they sprint after you, not hobble like a pensioner with typhoid. One adversary is as dangerous as many. Most of the chills come from this fact, because as isolated as the survivors seem, what may be around the next corner could devastate everything. Whenever a few of the infected are on the screen, the tension is cranked up to breaking point - its edge of the seat stuff.

So why, why, WHY in the last third of the film are these brutal, scary enemies replaced by a much more idle threat? A few cockney soldiers! NOOOO! We almost completely forget about the infected masses, and are tossed into a completely new world where the bad guys are soldiers who all seem to have lost their minds, and have decided the only useful thing left to do is to rape a woman and a 13 year old girl. Useless. But wait, this shows us people we don't like! Baddies! I wonder what will happen to those guys...

Thankfully however, the final segment of the film makes up for it, all hell breaks loose before your eyes, people get mauled, blood is spilled, and it seems like a fitting payoff that leaves you satisfied with what has gone before.

One more gripe however. The acting throughout is very solid. From everyone. Except Megan Burns, who plays Hannah. She is young, fair enough, but her performance is so incredibly bad, she almost wrecks every single scene she is in, its ridiculous. There is no way Danny Boyle could have been satisfied with her acting, and there simply MUST have been something preventing him from replacing her.

Still though, all in all, the film works. Its unique, its scary, and it raises the bar significantly for bigger budget British films. Lets hope we get more of the same in the future, only without Megan Burns.

7/10. SP

Last Of The "Real" Zombie Movies

[AW_McGOWAN · 8/10 · 28 November 2020]

Upon its release in 2002, "28 Days Later" made lots of noise as critics called it the scariest film since "The Exorcist." Indeed, the movie is quite terrifying. While zombie movies have since edged further towards the action-adventure genre, "28 Days" remains unambiguous horror.

Director Danny Boyle creates this horrific energy through practical effects that strengthen a suspenseful atmosphere. One of the main ways that zombie movies have transitioned from horror to action in the 21st Century is the increased use of CGI. Nowadays, most on-screen zombies are depicted in massified, computer generated armies. "28 Days Later" might be the last time that such infected antagonists look truly real - simply because they are actual actors dressed in decrepit makeup and dowsed in fake blood, moving jerkily against shaky frames for an unnerving effect.

The movie furthers this authentic energy through its sets. Like the zombies themselves, the deserted worlds in today's post-apocalyptic movies usually appear digital. "28 Days Later," however, was clearly shot on actual locations. The crew even emptied out massive parts of London to create a post-exodus city. This faithful depiction of a humanless planet makes it all the more believable and therefore eerie.

In other instances, the practical sets take the story to more intimate places. Dark hallways, abandoned buildings, and creepy hideouts all render the characters and viewers claustrophobic. Although the story's zombie-creating virus is a global phenomenon (as emphasized in the vacant London sequences) these small-scale settings reinforce the fact that there is nowhere to run.

Furthermore, the zombies are not of an overly high or low mimetic. They retain their human mortality, but are unconsciously resilient in their efforts to infect. Because of this, the movie doesn't overdo its zombies, making their selected appearances of greater significance and intensity.

Boyle really does offer a master-class in how to create a zombie movie here. "28 Days" is enthrallingly scary, visually compelling, and offers all the philosophical muses of post-apocalyptic survival without jamming them down the audience's throat. While the characters could use a little more development, they are all believable enough, and each actor pulls his or her own weight.

A couple cherries on top of this movie are John Murphy's music ("In The House¬ - In A Heartbeat" is a superb score) and its distinct Britishness. Like Robin Hardy's "The Wicker Man," "28 Days Later" would be somehow less effective if it weren't an English production. Watching a place as developed and orderly as the UK fall into disarray is uniquely uncanny, thus adding to the fear factor.

If only more films in this genre could've followed "28 Days Later's" lead in the past couple decades. Then, we'd have more quietly brilliant zombie movies rather than unremarkable videogame imitations that prefer action-packed extremity to subtle cinematic thrills.

Original first half is followed by a good, but by the numbers second

[dbborroughs · 7/10 · 16 April 2005]

The story of a plague that has turned most of the population in to crazed "zombies" is for the most part a great new twist on the now well worn tale. Danny Boyle has created a wonderful horror classic that takes you into new territory just when you've begun to think you've seen it all before.

The first half of this film is some of the best horror film making of the last twenty years or so. Simply put a man wakes up from a coma to find the world in ruins and most of the world now blood thirsty monsters. Staggering around England he ends up with a group of people who try to get out of the city to a safe place in the country. Filled with great set pieces this part of the film raises your expectations for a bang up second half and the genre itself.

Unfortunately the military arrive and things shift gears as the movie becomes something else. Its not a totally bad change, what happens is quite good, but after a first half t which effectively rewrites the rules of the genre we get a tale that seems like we've been there and done that. The flight to the countryside becomes literally housebound and it stagnates in ideas that are good but which we've already seen.

That said, see this movie. Its a great kick in the pants, even if the second half isn't on the classic level of the first.

Excellent end-of-the-world scenario with a flawed ending

[isenberg-e · 9/10 · 6 March 2005]

Although the plot is very unoriginal, I especially liked this version of the story because of the leisurely pace that sets the mood without letting you get bored. The Director didn't mind relatively long sequences without dialog when it was called for; I'm not sure a Hollywood-made film (this one was made in the U.K. by a U.K. company) would have been willing to do this. Ever since Star Wars the reigning action-movie concept in Hollywood seems to be action every 7 minutes max.

I also liked the cinematography. There were great shots (extremely wide, taken from an unusual angle, etc.) that were unorthodox and in another film would have gotten in the way, but here they helped set the mood of a few people isolated in a huge city.

I imagine it would be an even better experience in the theater, where the larger format and viewer being in the dark would have enhanced the feeling of isolation.

**** SPOILER *** The one flaw is the ending, and unfortunately it is a bid problem. In the penultimate scene, the male protagonist (Jim) is shot in the stomach. Now, even in a modern big city, stomach wounds are very often fatal, and virtually always so without prompt surgery. Not only will the victim bleed to death, but even if the bleeding can somehow be stopped, peritonitis will almost always set in. Nevertheless, without anyone having more than a pharmacist's knowledge of medicine, with no surgical tools, and after a car ride where he would certainly have bled out, Jim survives. The last scene shows him hale and hearty, running over a meadow. I suppose there could be some explanation, but none was given, and it broke me out of my "willing suspension of disbelief."

Nevertheless, I give the film a "9". Definitely worth watching and re-watching.

Creepy and eerie return to bloody zombies

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 7 April 2004]

This is a good horror film . It's made by means of videotape , the cinematography , musical score by John Murphy and direction by Danny Boyle are nice . The movie begins with a spooky images , a city without people , totally uninhabited . Later on , it continues with fights between starring Clian Murphy and the zombies helped by Naomy Harris . After that, they meet Brendan Gleeson and his daughter.

The misfit group go out from London, looking for some people .The trip is very dangerous, they hold too many risks , Zombies attack anywhere. They arrive a place which they believe it is sure but the surprise will be that the shelter is much worst that they have thought.

This moving film contains chills, thrills, horror and lots of blood and gore . The flesh-eating mutants appearance deliver the goods plenty of screams, shocks and tension . The horror moments are compactly made and fast moving . The make-up assistants create a truly frightening zombies . Terrifying and astonishing frames about apocalyptic events with deserted streets , and creepy mood at London without people totally uninhabited , similarly to classics movies, such as ¨Quatermas and pit¨, ¨Omega man¨ and ¨Lifeforce¨.

It packs an atmospheric as well as evocative cinematography by Anthony Mantle and a thrilling score by John Murphy . The film well written by Alex Garland was compellingly directed by Danny Boyle and followed by a pretty good sequel titled '28 weeks later' by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo.

The Zombie Reinvention.

[destiny_west · 10/10 · 29 January 2023]

Oh Danny BOYle - you did it. Sorry for the terrible pun.

But we have a lot to thank Danny for.

He is responsible for breathing new life into the zombie genre, which had at this stage fallen complete dead.

28 Days later is a zombie masterpiece. Visually spectacular. This film is flawless in every way, it can not be faulted.

The story is so well written, and Boyle's direction is top class.

The zombies are absolutely terrifying, fast, angry and brutal beyond belief.

You are completely attached to the main characters.

You feel like you are part of their circle and you feel for them, like you are with them at every turn.

28 Weeks Later is good, but it will never compare to 28 Days Later, as for the next installment, we keep getting rumbles of it, but nothing every happens, which is such a shame.

Great potential - not developed

[userofthewheel · 6/10 · 23 November 2003]

I've always been a fan of this genre of movie so was really looking forward to this. My review may contain SPOILERS.

I was quite disappointed however for a number of reasons. The film had great potential and a good story line but became unbelievable as soon as the characters reached Manchester. Upon reaching Manchester they met a bunch of "soldiers" who represented a modern day English version of the Dirty Dozen with a typically eccentric CO. Very stereotypical. From here the film descended into farce. The CO, played by Eccleston, had apparently lured our intrepid survivors to Manchester as he had promised his men "some women". We are now supposed to believe that British soldiers become sex crazed maniacs after about a month apparently.

To add insult to this, the central characters had spent the first half of the film being extremely careful regarding catching the infection as a single drop of any bodily fluid can apparently infect. In the finale however they are all running through a complete (infected) bloodbath of a house, in the dark, and yet none of them become infected. Incredible.

Plot aside, other complaints I have are regarding the lack of music in the film. The film had the set pieces and the plot premise for great atmosphere yet they didn't capitalise on it with any music (think opening credits of Omega Man or Soylent Green for instance) One of the characters who gets bumped off early on talks about the chaos at the rail station as people are trying to escape London yet we see no reconstruction or flashback of this or any of the other chaos associated with the virus. A 5 minute montage of what actually happened after the lab break in would have been good.

Also whenever there was an action scene involving the infected you couldn't actually see what was going on as it was all shot in a fast, flashy sort of camerawork which was really irritating - presume this is the digital some other reviewers have commented on.

Uneven horror film, but with occasional flashes of sheer brilliance

[Coventry · 5/10 · 3 February 2005]

Back in good old Great Britain, Danny Boyle proves that he's still a gifted filmmaker even though his short Hollywood career wasn't as fruitful as initially hoped for. The opening sequences of this "28 Days Later…" are downright astonishing and – for a moment – you suspect that you're about to watch to most brilliant horror film in a long, long time. Especially the already classic sequence in which Jim (Cillian Murphy) wanders through the entirely deserted streets of the otherwise so lively and crowded London, guided by disturbing music, is efficiently creepy. The plot centers on an extremely aggressive virus that turns people into blood-crazed maniacs. It's only 28 days since the virus was unleashed and the entire population is wiped away already, while a few lonely survivors desperately prepare for the total apocalypse. Jim is one of them, as he just awoke from a coma, completely unaware of the vile events that took place the past 28 days… Even though the story isn't very original (Romero's "The Crazies" come to mind as well as "Last Man on Earth" and "The Omega Man"), Danny Boyle succeeds in portraying a gripping mix of drama, action, suspense and – oh yes – gore! Now, I really wished I could end my user comment here and conclude that "28 Days Later…" was a simply great new horror film but unfortunately the script takes a complete U-turn halfway and becomes a repetitive lesson in which Boyle and writer Alex Garland try to convince us that mankind still remains the biggest threat of all. The last survivors end up at a military post where their lives are even in bigger danger. The tension and carefully built up atmosphere disappears and is replaced by tedious macho speeches and gratuitous brutality. The acting performances in this film aren't very spectacular but that's understandable considering most cast-members are debuting here. The fact that this project was entirely filmed with digital cameras might be a nice trivia element, but I'm not too keen on this type of cinematography. Overall, Boyle's film is worthy viewing for horror fans but experienced fanatics won't be too impressed.