bob4kate

Unlike most of the other reviewers here I actually enjoyed this movie. Tony Shaloub and Mathew Lillard were excellent but the main reasons I enjoyed it were as follows- 1. It was unlike most modern horror films in that it wasn't aimed exclusively at teenagers or sci-fi/horror anoraks. 2. It had a decent cast 3. It wasn't a slasher movie 4. It had a definate conclusion with no room for half a dozen mindless, trashy sequels. 5. It had humour 6. It had its share of gore but didn't rely on it. 7. The house was an unusual and original setting. Of course it wasn't perfect - this genre is meant to be tacky and trashy. If you wanted to be picky as many of the other reviewers want to be you could ask why no one got even the tiniest cut from all that flying glass. However all in all I found the movie very enjoyable

Critics often get it wrong and this movie is proof of that. If you watch this movie in the cold and analytical way that critics often do you will see its countless flaws. But if you do this you will also miss its warmth,charm the masterly performances of its cast and a super sixties Bacharach theme song. I urge people to see it and make up their own mind. My guess is you won't fail to be touched.

It's truly amazing what the right marketing can do for a movie. That together with the involvement of trendy Danny Boyle as Director and Alex Garland (Script) then it's no surprise that this movie topped the UK box office charts. The trouble is it's not very good! The direction has been praised for its realistic and unsettling qualities when all it really seemed to me was an arty-farty way of covering for poor special effects. There were also far too many flaws in the story which made it totally unbelieveable. For me it failed in every way. As a horror it failed because it substituted gore for shocks (i jumped once and that was right at the beginning. As Sci-fi it failed because of the poor effects and by the way it isn't that hard to film a desserted London (See the Boulting Bros movie 7 Days to Noon -they did it far more effectively). Finally it failed because it failed to draw parralells between the rage of the infected and the uninfected. The acting wasn't bad especially Christopher Eccleston as the army commander. The difference between this and another low budget UK movie "Dog Soldiers" is that the latter does its job within it's limits. Its's much scarier, the direction is tighter, humour inserted at the right moments and the script is better. Ultimately it doesn't pretend to be something it isn't.