Learn more Download now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Amazon Music Unlimited for Family Learn more Shop now Learn more

on 28 January 2010
28 days later is a good film Naomie Harris shines in it as she does always. Its a pity she wasn't in the follow up 28 weeks later. As the graphic books concentrate on her. The follow up isn't nearly as good but is worth seeing.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
VINE VOICEon 9 May 2007
This is a superb film. If you like dystopian/apocalyptic thrillers then you'll love this. Quite gory in parts but nothing too bad. Really well scripted and acted, definitely worth watching.

This new edition is better than the original 1 disc edition but not so much better that you should replace your original version if you already own it.

Film: 5 stars

DVD set: 3 stars
0Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 26 May 2003
Okay, so it rips off both Dawn & Day of the Dead as well as Day Of The Triffids and has some rather gaping plot holes - it's still a good no brainer scare movie to put on when you get in from the pub.
The directors commentary on the DVD is excellent - well worth the price of the DVD alone.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 8 July 2003
I found this film dissapointing. The idea was really good, as was the first 20 minutes, right up to the point where the characters make their first mistake (going down the spooky tunnel) and I was left wondering "why would you do that?" "why would you go in there?" the quick answer is that you wouldn't. I was left feeling as though I was watching a remake of a scooby doo episode (let's go into the spooky barn etc.)
I wouldn't buy this film.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 6 June 2008
starts out good,drags in the middle and is rubbish at the end and that sums the film up for me
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 24 December 2003
Well, 28 Days Later is an improvement on the two prior Danny Boyle movies (A Life Less Ordinary, The Beach), which isn't saying much. As British films go, it's great- but remember we're dealing with an industry dominated by Richard Curtis! Essentially it's a sub-Dogme 95 exercise in remaking The Dawn of the Dead; Alex Garland (The Beach, The Tesseract, er, writer's block)seems to have come up with a rather cliched apocalyptic premise. The rage thing is a bit silly, but gives an excuse for a stylish foray into the territory of James Herbert's Domain & the worlds of JG Ballard.
What's great about this film is the sense it can go anywhere; what's sad about it, is it doesn't. The cinematography is excellent and who can quibble with a typically brilliant use of soundtrack, notably Godpseed You Black Emperor! ??? Though sometimes I found the soundtrack distracting & would have liked to have felt the silence and isolation of this post-apocalyptic world. The acting is great, notably Brendan Gleeson & lead Cillian Murphy (though the conventional love plot with Selena was quite pointless and a bit irritating). I'd have preferred this to have been a 10-hour TV-series instead- the characters could have been more developed and it could have been a lot more adventerous- the end section verges between the silly and the oblique (while the alternative ending is crap and flat- it would have been better if Jim had not died, but been hooked up to instruments as he had been in the beginning, waking up in exactly the same manner and going OTT with digicam in a Derek Jarman Queen is Dead manner!).
It borrows knowingly from the best Romero-Zombies film (Dawn of the Dead) with the infected priest, it's possible to make some interesting comments about the capitalism of the post-apocalyptic world (Jim chugging on a pepsi, the shopping scene to Grandaddy, that it's all essentially meaningless after the infection), but nothing Dawn of the Dead didn't do (& better twenty something years ago). The moment with the horses is almost transcendental, as is the plane scene- but this wasn't developed- I'd have liked to have seen the film SLOW DOWN. Instead, it gets silly with Christopher Eccleston, who has obviously heard of Dr Strangelove's plan to breed with some women after the apocalypse.
28 Days Later is good, well worth watching- but it's no classic...
11 Comment| 9 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 13 August 2003
To start off, I really should say that if anyone reading this has any plans for making a "serious" zombie movie, bin them. Change all references of 'zombies' into 'xenomorphs', send the script off to Fox and hope Ridley Scott or James Cameron picks it up for an Alien 5, because zombies are inherently unscary. Think about it. They're humans with all our physical shortcomings, except without our intelligence. What's left? Decomposing apes with sapiens pattern baldness. Congo's man-eating gorillas are positively terrifying by comparison. Zombies should be saved only for ultra-low-budget home movies made for getting laughs at parties.

So now I've got that out of the way, let's see what this film has to offer. It starts off well, the premise that a group of animal liberationists inadvertantly ended the world is one I find humourously ironic. You get the impression that the scriptwriter had some inspiration for this from certain parts of Twelve Monkeys, and as it's not a direct rip, it hits similar good notes without feeling too derivative. Skipping forward a bit, the scenes of an empty London are pretty evocative. So far so good.

Unfortunately however, the only chance this movie ever had was if it had stopped right there. The film is very dark, which is often a good thing. However, if the movie isn't trying to say anything profound or if there's not much entertainment/action value, all that's left is something miserable and oppressive. Plotwise there's nothing new here, the film is full of cliché but tries to pass itself off as original. Most of the story turns are rather predictable and you can see most things coming a long way off, although there are one or two unexpected elements. In terms of acting there's nothing here that stands out, and the lead character's constant sort-of-grin becomes incredibly annoying.

This movie came out at around the same time as Dog Soldiers, which follows similar themes: reinvention of a classic horror antagonist (Soldiers has werewolves, 28 Days has zombies), seemingly hopeless situations, action, suspense, being unmistakably British. 28 Days Later does *not* wear the comparison well - Dog Soldiers is very tense and often quite scary, a blood-pumping experience in a similar veign to Aliens. Although 28 Days obviously had a far higher budget, it trades genuine scares and entertainment for grim darkness and cold predictability. It's simply a nasty movie with few redeeming features.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
VINE VOICEon 15 May 2007
Obviously, interest in this film has increased following the release of 28 weeks later. Looking back at the film, I don't think it has aged at all, and still retains the atmosphere and character that it did when it was first released.

The one scene you will take away from this film will obviously be the opening scenes of a deserted London. This is very well done (through both CGI and the time of day), and is a sight to see much of London in a state of total abandonment. Ultimately however, this excellent start to the film also detracts from the rest of it, as none of the other scenes/locations can compete with this as such a memorable image.

Apart from Christopher Eccleston, most of the characters are played by relatively unknown actors at the time. This definitely adds to the film, as you don't go into it with pre-conceptions about how a character might end up. The zombie/rage-infected people are also well done, and are genuinely scary when compared to the classical, slow-shuffling zombie character.

It is a good film, not fantastic, but a good example of the kind of films that this country is capable of producing. Well worth a watch.
0Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 20 July 2003
This film is sort of a cross between 'Day Of the Triffids' and 'Twelve Monkeys'. A highly contagious virus turns most of the population of the world into vicious, brutal pack animals intent on killing everything else.
The film packs a heavy punch and doesn't gloss over the nastier side a 'survivalist' existence after a world wide disaster.
Careful use of 'Saving Private Ryan' battle sequence photography turns the infected populations violent behaviour into something pure animal. The style along with a cast of virtual unknowns, the backdrops of a deserted London and the unflinching ruthlessness of some of the survivors all gives the film a credibility and hard hitting impact that hollywood would struggle to produce. No wise cracking American comedy relief characters or Bruce Willis type hero who you just know will somehow prevail.
Not since I first watched Aliens in the eighties has a Science Fiction/Horror movie made me so twitchy. This is one you do not want to watch alone in the dark but if you want a film with guts, this is the one to watch this weekend.
0Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 26 August 2003
First... the virus doesn't happen 28 days later.... 28 days later means 28 days after first contact with the virus' host. So... first day, first contact; 6th day, dude wakes up; 28 days later........ It's as realistic as its premises allow it to be. And they allow it to go FAR. Excellent. Not for the extremely paranoid. What a ride. It's a must see. Specially if you're a "Dead" fan (Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead) You MUST go see it!!!!
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse