Home Rules Players CWL Stats Message Board Columns Record Book Contact Us Links FAQ Random Junk

28 DAYS LATER (2003) Director- Danny Boyle Cast- Cillian Murphy (Jim), Naomie Harris (Selena), Megan Burns (Hannah), Brendan Gleeson (Frank) Rated- R Runtime- 1 hour, 53 minutes Reviewed By- Josh Cartwright The Lowdown A mysterious virus known as "rage" has infected the human population causing them to become violent. A small group of survivors band together in search of shelter as the "infected" roam around tearing people to shreds. My Take Technically, I don't guess this is a zombie film because the "infected" humans were never dead in the first place but it's close enough. Actually, it's very close to several zombie movies. "28 Days Later" reminded me of several classic zombie films such as "Dawn of the Dead" and "Day of the Dead" (perhaps a little too much), but I was able to enjoy it on it's two feet for the most part. "28 Days Later" isn't a rip-off of past greats at all, it's more of an homage to the classics before it. "28 Days Later" is still a good flick regardless of the past films it bears resemblance to. I was impressed at what the majority of this film had to say. The theme was communicated well through the story. The theme, although closely related to "Day of the Dead", echoed throughout the movie and somewhat dominated the film. "28 Days Later" actually acts as less of a zombie film and more of a man vs. man social satire. I was surprised that that actual "infected" humans were not the overall focal point of the film. Obviously they are at times, but at other times the film takes us in a totally different direction. Have an open mind when you're watching this film, those looking for a straightforward zombie-munching fiesta may be disappointed. It ain't what you think. I do, however, wish the film would have used the "infected" more throughout the movie. I don't mind the social commentary on most occasions, but I do when it comes at the expense of the action. "Dawn of the Dead" (another social satire) balanced the elements well but "28 Days Later" doesn't succeed in the same area. That's not to say that I didn't have a good time watching this flick because I did, I had a blast with it. There's still a lot of action, it's just not the type of bang-bang action I was hoping for. The main problem I found in the film is easily the questionable transformation that happens to our lead character, Jim. You're telling me that this guy goes from a whiny wuss to a stone-cold, highly-skilled soldier in the blink of an eye? The guy is baffling trained soldiers, he's sneaking in highly-guarded complexes, he's killing guys that should be killing him. I wasn't buying it. That whole subplot rubbed me the wrong way and made me think twice about the film a few times. Like I said, it ain't a play-it-straight zombie film. You've gotta be on your toes with this one. Overall, "28 Days Later" is an excellent film that should satisfy most hardcore horror geeks. It's scary, emotional, violent and the theme hits the viewer hard and causes us to consider what we would do in the same situations. Yeah, I pondered on that question a few times. The film is also very slick, I don't care if it was shot on the cheap digital video or not, it's very impressive. Plus, the "infected" effects are top notch, how can you not love super-cool zombies? Stop comparing it to other films and enjoy it for what it's worth. Good zombie offerings don't come around too often so enjoy it. "28 Days Later" gets three and a half stars. Got any comments about this movie? Hit the message board and tell me.