28 Days Later...

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?

In England a group of animal rights activists break into a research facility to free monkeys. However the monkeys are infected with a new developed virus called rage which is contagious by blood or bodily fluid - at the same time Jim lies in a coma. 28 days later Jim awakens from his state to find London deserted and populated only by a group of those infected by rage. Jim is rescued by Selena and her friend who tell him what has happened and start a search for other survivors and a quest to find the cure, promised by a military unit stationed in the north.

I excitedly arrived at the preview for this looking forward to a tense British horror movie to make me jump with fear. I got pretty much what I wanted. The plot is simple and omits much detail but not to it's disservice. Details as to what the virus is or what it was created in the first place (by putting monkeys in front of TV's Clockwork Orange style?) but the detail is not important seconds into the film when we wake up with Jim. At this point his fear becomes ours and what is important to him is not the detail but the bigger picture of the infected and the chances of survival.

The plot is told in two parts. First the big picture in London and then the smaller battle north of Manchester. Both are well told but for different reasons. The bridging section of the journey north is good as it helps us know the characters better. Of course is it scary? Well, not scary but thrilling all the way. To me scary is things like Ringu - creepy stuff, but most will be freaked by 28 days later. The infected are not zombies in definition or in action - they move silently and fast and with pure blood lust. I was always more scared by zombie flicks than anything else becomes they keep coming - here they do the same but fast!

The direction is good for the most part. The opening scene in London just shows how badly Crowe did his bit in Vanilla Sky. Here it is clever and chilling to see much of London totally empty. The direction is better when it is fast cutting and handheld style. We see things like the characters would see them out of the corner of their eyes, a flicker, a shadow etc and it works to great effect. The only downside is that, at one or two points, the attacks were signalled by a preceding talking 5 minutes, but this is minor. The final rain soaked action is excellent - fast, gripping and paced. This film doesn't rely on gore or special effects (although it is there) instead it has genuine tension and fear.

The film is very British. It is very low-key and realistic. The survivors are not Mad Max style heroes but people clinging to life by a thread or setting up survivalist measures that simply don't work. The ending is not as good as I had hoped but it wasn't bad and it fitted with the tone of reality that Jim had realised when lying on his back in the woods towards the end. It's not without flaws but the film is a very good British horror film - Americans will wonder `where are all the teenager girls to scream' or `why don't they all have guns' or `why is there no real dah-dah music to tell us when something is going to happen' but that is because this is a British film and not Hollywood.

Most reviews have praised the `unknown' cast. Well I agree the cast did very well - but unknown? Murphy certainly is not unknown (and won't be from now on) and he does Jim very well, from when the truth is first real to him, to his decision that he must learn to kill through to his transformation near the end. Harris is excellent again, I say again as she did well in miniseries `white teeth'. Her accent is British and she plays a younger role but she is a good actress. Brendan Gleeson is good in a fatherly role but Eccleston seems clipped and at odds with his military role. In fact all the military guys were laddish caricatures and only just did the job - but I never believed in their characters as I did with the others.

Overall I was glad to see this early. I really enjoyed it, the pace at times may have been uneven but to me that added to the tension - an attack could come at any time. The eventual small scale focus helped the tension and pace of the story. Thrilling, scary, tense and well written - even more surprising is that it's home grown!

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.

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.