User reviews

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Got this movie on a recommendation that it was "My favorite movie of all time"........ Impressed with the start and it reminded me of a 70/80's series i think called survivor....The London scenes worked well and i for a time thought i might be in for a chiller about what you would do if a handful of people were left.... The music gave the clue that all was not well and what was promising fell apart when they contacted the Army north of Manchester...In the face of attacks by the infected would an army unit act in such a way...i don't think they would...add an unresolved ending and it was a mess. As a zombie movie fine..but after such a good start a waste of a subject that hasn't been taken to a conclusion of what you would do if you were left alone...that would be more spooky.

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.

28 Days Later is clearly composed of two distinctive parts. The first part deals, in a very dynamic and effective way, of the survival itself after the catastrophe, and one gets easily carried away by the journey of the group. Then, as soon as they get to the military "base", the scenario takes a turn, the rhythm, the tension drop, and the atmosphere of the movie shifts completely, not necessarily in a good way, with this storyline of a chaotic society capable of the worst atrocities.

While the first part seems rather better than the second, the brutal transition between the two is what stands out, so much that it seems like two different movies. The outcome also turns out to be a bit abrupt and would have deserved a lit more thinking and a better integration with the rest of the plot. It is a shame because there certainly was a more subtle way of associating these elements to create a more logical, fluid and homogeneous movie.

Finally, it should be noted that this feature was shot using DV cameras (except for the last few minutes at the cottage) which explains the roughness of the image and its lack of detail.

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.