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.