UHM - Review - 28 Days Later

There have been a lot of positive buzz about this UK horror film. I got a chance to check it out myself and I really enjoyed it. Good plot and gets you hooked from the beginning. The plot obviously isn't too original, but it's still good. It's pretty much about a new virus that breaks out in London and in a matter of weeks the city is forced to evacuate. 28 days after the virus breaks out a man named Jim awakens to find himself in a hospital room. He roams around the city to find that there is no one in sight. He learns from reading newspapers that the city had to evacuate because of a virus.

He ends up meeting some survivors, which isn't a very good thing. The survivors are people who are infected with the virus. Jim is then forced to fend for his life and find any normal survivors within the city. The virus can be transmitted through bodily fluids like saliva or blood and it only takes 10 to 20 seconds before an infected person turns. That's how the virus spread so fast. I've seen a lot of critics call this movie a "zombie" film, but the infected people are clearly NOT zombies. They aren't even dead. The virus causes them to be filled with rage, which makes them lash out against others in a very violent manner. They have no zombie qualities. Obviously those critics don't know their horror.

The best comparison for this film would be Omega Man, where a man has to fend off against all those twisted deformed people after a post-apocalyptic biological war. I've always been partial to post-apocalyptic films like this, so it was natural for me to enjoy it. The acting is well done and the directing was excellent. I liked a lot of the shots for the film involving a deserted London. Very cool. There weren't any good scares except for the occasional pop-up-type scare we see a lot in horror films. It has some tense moments, but nothing that will keep you on the edge of your seat. At least for me anyway. It has some gore and blood, but nothing like I expected.

I would have given the movie a higher-rating, but it did have a few plot-holes like the fact it was never really explained as to how the virus came about, but I suppose it's not really necessary to explain everything. I was also slightly let down towards the end, because I was hoping for a bit more to it, but I still liked it none-the-less. It would have been nice to see more of the infected people in groups, then it would have reminded me of zombies. Either way it's a good watch.

OVERALL

A very well done British horror film. Don't be fooled by other critics, this isn't a zombie movie. Interesting story and characters. Check this out whenever you can.

Comments Page 1 of 1:

CLICK HERE TO COMMENT

wesmason

Posted 473 days ago

I was pissed when *SPOILER REMOVED*... the scene where you saw his face--- GREAT scene! EXCELLENT casting!
-w.a.m.woodfin

been there done that

Posted 644 days ago

The movie smartly gives you a cause and 28 days later the aftermath
thus leaving the budget busty middle to the imagination of the viewer.
The action sequences are plausible and realistic. The films only weaknes is the theatrical release ending. Check out the alternative endings.

Daniel

Posted 726 days ago

I GIVE 28 DAYS LATER 6/10

Robin

Posted 733 days ago

A must see for true horror fans!

Dave

Posted 748 days ago

Very good UK film. It really does gets you hooked from the beginning. However, it took me 3 times to fully appreciate this movie.

J Roark

Posted 756 days ago

This is one of 2 movies it finally took me to like. At first I thought it was crap, but after a seventh time watching it, I really liked it. But the things in it aren't zombies DAMNIT! They are people infected with a virus.

<1>