28 Days Later Reviews and Ratings



  • November 29, 2009
    Boyle's glacial, nerve-wrecking apocalyptic freak-out owes much of its success to a sharp, intelligent script, which keeps the scare tactics and character development in equal parts. Surprisingly not grounded in typical Hollywood morals where good guys and bad guys are catalogued...( read more) as soon as they're onscreen, 28 Days Later puts our very own humanity in a position where anyone can turn into death itself in a matter of seconds-- can you imagine how fast our survival instincts kick in, and how feeble our civilized sympathy turns once confronted by it? Less preoccupied by jump scares than it is with generating feelings of desolation and despair (but still creepy as hell) and anchored by four flat-out excellent performances-- that would be Eccleston, Murphy, Harris and Gleeson-- 28 Days Later is nothing short of a hypnotic, memorable piece of work, and definitely an instant classic in the zombie genre.
  • November 27, 2009
    The only real problem I have with zombie movies (other than the idiots who film them for $25) is that, really, there is not much room for originality. 28 Days Later is one of the very, very, very few zombie-esque movies that deliver a fresh idea with the rage infection. How they ...( read more)got those actors and actresses who got infected to act the way they did gave me cold chills for days. Most zombie movies make me laugh out loud hard and I love the carnage, but this one was entirely gripping. A top-notch cast also helped make this movie good. Cillian Murphy, Brendan Gleeson, Christopher Eccelston and Naomi Harris are all very talented. I highly reccomend this one.
  • November 27, 2009
    A geniusly and subtile mix of standard and audacious ideas that created a movie that is much more superior than last George Romero's productions!!
  • November 27, 2009
    As a zombie movie fan, this is one of the few "new" movies that has made something different and cool in the genre, I love the soundtrack, the art, the snapshots, everything!!!!
  • November 26, 2009
    cool movie had me at edge of my seat loved it! usually hate zombie movies but this was so much different then any of the zombie movies i would hate.
  • November 23, 2009
    Okay, I love zombie flicks and zombie comics. Worse yet, my 11-year-old daughter LOVES the zombies, too. This was my all-time favorite zombie flick (just BARELY ahead of "Shaun of the Dead") until "Zombieland" came along. Now it's my second favorite.

    I know David Boyle (the d...( read more)irector) says it's NOT a zombie flick, but screw him, yes it is. And a very good one.
  • November 23, 2009
    Thought it was another stupid zombie movie but it was quite good! I was very surprised.
  • November 19, 2009
    Danny Boyle is a legend!
  • November 17, 2009
    I can honestly say this is one of the best horror movies ever. Real actors are included as opposed to the usual sludge that makes it into horror movies and a great rising director. The result is one of the most suspenseful cinematic adventures in a long time. Cillian Murphy gives...( read more) the most amazing performance in this, probably the best ever in a zombie movie.
  • November 13, 2009
    GOTTA rewatch it when im not so fucking baked
  • November 13, 2009
    Excellent zombie movie. Lots of gore though so if you can't stand that sort of thing beware.
  • November 12, 2009
    this is the older one, but still awesome
  • November 11, 2009
    Can you say... Birth of the "FAST" zombies? Well technically the toothy hordes in this aren't zombies. They are infected with the rage virus and thus attack everyone.

    Still the benchmark for the running fast zombie. Terrifying new twist. Adopted for Dawn of the Dead the remake....( read more) 28 weeks later was better!
  • November 7, 2009
    I think this is the same concept of mutated vampires. A good watch but somewhat predictable
  • November 3, 2009
    Esta buena... me gusto. Y es raro que una pelicula de este corte me guste.
  • November 2, 2009
    Not a bad movie. It's nice to see the extent of Brendan Gleeson's talent in the majority of different roles that he can play. The only thing I didn't care for in this movie was the fact that the zombies run, because I think we all know, that zombies don't run in real life. Other ...( read more)than that, good flick.
  • October 31, 2009
    This is one of the better horror films I've seen in the last few years or so. Truly a work of art.
  • October 29, 2009
    !Comercial or Stupid! :|
  • October 28, 2009
    now this was screay but it was a good movie
  • October 28, 2009
    this goreish movie has a tender side to it which makes it a better movie good job
  • October 27, 2009
    An exemplar in non-torture porn or slasher horror flicks, psychologically draining and highly engaging.
  • October 27, 2009
    Great movie with a great ending.
  • October 25, 2009
    Good movie the follow up was a little better i thought.
  • October 25, 2009
    i have seen but im still not interested
  • October 23, 2009
    Si esperas que esta sea una pelicula de terror, vas a terminar decepcionado Es mas bien un thriller de ciencia ficcion. La historia comienza con unas personas que entran ilegalmente a un laboratorio donde se estudian los primates, sin saber que estos estan infectados de un virus ...( read more)extraño. Al tratar de liberarlos equivocadamente esparcen el mortal virus. 28 dias despues, Jim despierta de un coma, no esta enterado que hubo una evacuacion masiva por el virus, y se encuentra totalmente solo hasta que conoce a otros dos sobrevivientes del virus. Si, durante toda la pelicula hay encuentros con "zombies" pero son mas bien personas infectadas del virus.
    Supongo que me esperaba otra cosa, no es que sea una mala película, mas bien esta increíblemente lograda, pero el final lo arruino para mi, rectifico, la ultima media hora. La parte de los militares me pareció anti climática, pero en general la premisa es excelente y Danny Boyle después de todo es un genio, solo que me esperaba otra cosa totalmente distinta.
  • October 23, 2009
    I made my obligatory post show trip to the urinals. A pair of my film critic brethren were already delivering their payload when I stepped up to the empty stall and joined in the evacuation, and like film critics will they were talking about the movie we'd just seen.

    Most criti...( read more)cs love to share their first impressions of a film to the melodic accompaniment of liquid on porcelain, and, occasionally, these jabber-fests over the pink cakes interest me, but, more often than not, they leave me in despair.

    This was one of those times.

    These fools, charged with the same task as I, were bemoaning the "unbelievability" of Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later. They whined about the survivors' "far fetched" avoidance of infection, they scoffed at the "unlikely" heroism of Jim (Cillian Murphy), the former bike courier turned warrior, and they repined the "predictability" of the plot.

    All I could think was, "Did you see the same movie?! Did you even watch what was on the screen?!?

    The answer is a resounding NO.

    28 Days Later should not be judged on the believability of science induced automatons (a more accurate description of the film's antagonists than their already entrenched classification as zombies). It shouldn't be judged on the likelihood of avoiding infection in a hyper-infectious situation, nor on a bike courier's unlikely martial abilities. And it absolutely should not be judged on its predictability.

    28 Days Later is not an Agatha Christie murder mystery where the audience is kept guessing until the last minute by an intentional withholding of important evidence. That's not how thrills and fear are created.

    The best way to scare an audience is to give them the important information that is withheld from the characters in the film. Show the audience the bomb under the hero's seat and let their imaginations ponder the possible outcomes. Will the hero disarm the bomb? How will he disarm the bomb? Will the bomb go off? Will he escape or will he die? That's what Danny Boyle does to great effect in 28 Days Later.

    Of course 28 Days Later is predictable. It's supposed to be predictable. Predictability is what makes it scary, and in this case, predictability is no basis for negative criticism. And anyone who is a film critic should know that.

    But here my fellow critics were, washing their hands, complaining about their disbelief, surface imperfections and non-issues.

    All I could do was shake my head. Their 28 Days Later was not mine.

    I saw a film where Danny Boyle and Alex Garland, the screenwriter, were criticizing the natural state of humanity. I saw a film where the supposed hero was as wrathful and frightening as the "Infected" creatures and would-be rapists he was killing. I saw a film where humanity's hubris found it's natural extension in humanity's intensified destructiveness. I saw a film where the consumer and entertainment distractions of our world were revealed as opiates that dull our senses and put us to sleep. I saw a film where our overpopulated cities were revealed as communities without community. I saw a film that embraced the dystopian traditions of science fiction, revealing the fragility of our culture, society and bodies. I saw a film where the apocalyptic future wasn't all that different from our present. I saw a film of depth, intelligence and terrifying probability.

    I entered the washroom with a maelstrom of ideas swirling in my head. The filmmakers had made me think about who I am, about my role as an inherently violent human being, about the minute choices I make on a daily basis that effect things I can't even see, about being alone in a city of one million people. Yet there I was drying my hands at an electric wind machine flanked by two men who'd been open to nothing beyond the surface.

    Beside me were two people who exemplify the terminal flaw in the art of filmmaking -- critical passivity. There is no healthy art without healthy criticism, and the active film critic is as endangered as the Pygmy Chimpanzee.

    Passive critics watch a film, they don't read it. They're distracted by action, dulled by fast cuts, paralyzed by special effects and inured by Hollywood indoctrination. They're totally incapable of seeing the potential flaw in 28 Days Later because they can't even read the cinematic information that makes the flaw possible.

    The final sequence of the film offers hope to the surviving heroes in the form of a military aircraft flying recognizance, combing the ravaged countryside in search of the "Uninfected." At first glance, this seemingly cheesy Hollywood ending is just another studio induced bungle or artistic dodge. But an active viewer will soon find that this ending is a clever reinforcement of the film's themes. If hope is in the machines of violence and death there can be no hope.

    But the passive critics, with their freshly empty bladders, had no time to consider the implications of 28 Days Later. As I followed them into the lobby I heard them talking about lunch and golf; they'd moved on.

    I'm still freaked out when I cross an empty parking lot. I'm still thinking. And I have no doubt that is precisely what the filmmakers were hoping for.
  • October 21, 2009
    Whatever. I'm starting to think there are no truly good horror movies anymore. Spastic/chaotic attack scenes (maybe a blessing in disguise), really not scary at all, and I felt the "rage virus" deserved something of an actual explanation. Where do all the infected hang out? How l...( read more)ong can they survive? Why do they feed on people? Why don't they attack each other? Or do they? Who even knows?
    I liked the scenes of a desolate London, and I thought overall this was a pretty cool idea for a movie even though I'm not a huge fan of zombie crap even though these aren't technically zombies even though they pretty much totally are.
    Not terrible by any means, but a total B movie.
  • October 21, 2009
    gotta love zombie movies
  • October 21, 2009
    The only thing scary in this moive was the main person naked...lol...jk
  • October 20, 2009
    sci fi zombie flick starring Cillian Murphy, Brendan Gleeson and Christopher Eccleston. written by Alex Garland. directed by Danny Boyle.

    I am not one for zombie-type flicks, so I didnt think that I would like this one. but I was quite happily wrong about that assumption. I foun...( read more)d myself getting into and really enjoying this film.

    great post-apocalyptic flick. wonderfully shot, well acted and just an overall good scare.
  • October 12, 2009
    It's everything you could want from a zombie movie.
  • October 8, 2009
    Danny Boyle is a very good director and I believe that he did an excellent job giving the Zombie genre his own little spin. I enjoy this movie alot but find it unfair because of the un-godly unnatural speed of the zombies. Some people say that this coupled with the Rage virus asp...( read more)ect of the film doesn't make it a Zombie movie, to that I call bullshit. When this film had its previews in the Theaters it said "Danny Boyle reinvents Zombie horror". A movie is what it is and if humans are being chased around by seemingly dead people, then its a Zombie movie. This is a Great Zombie movie that revitalized the then lagging horror sub-genre when it first came out.
  • October 6, 2009
    i thought it was intense.verry scary..i liked the part where they got recued at the end.=]
  • October 5, 2009
    scary film.. not your typical horror film. great film
  • October 5, 2009
    Mark: What's your name?
    Jim: Jim.
    Mark: I'm Mark. This is Selena. Ok, Jim. I've got some bad news.

    A modern day zombie movie...well they're not technically zombies, they're infected. A quality take on the genre, with stylish, digi cam direction from Danny Boyle and good cha...( read more)racters. Very watchable, although it doesn't shine so well in the third act.

    The beginning of this film is particularly interesting and well handled. Jim, played by Cillian Murphy, awakens from a coma in an abandoned hospital. He soon realizes he is completely alone. The film then gives us empty streets of London, subtle music queues slowly creeping in, and the use of digital camera to provide a great isolated feel for Jim.

    Jim eventually comes across others still living in London. While some are regular scared people, the rest are infected victims of a virus, causing them to attack with no purpose and kill anything in their path. The film eventually turns into a road film of sorts, as a group travels to find any sort of safe haven.

    Jim: No, no. No, see, this is a really shit idea. You know why? Because it's really obviously a shit idea.

    Like all good zombie movies, it's not about the zombies, but about its characters and the reactions to their situation and how to deal with it. The lack of a true social structure, how people arrive at their true nature, and testing the hopes that people have left are all the kind of factors that play into this film. It doesn't have Romero style social commentary, but the handling of isolation and despair works well.

    This movie introduced the new style of "sprinting zombies" where they run, they slide, they hit humans and take a bite. New rules to the genre are always welcome, if handled effectively, and here, ones involving how to kill or become one of the infected lead to good scenes of tension.

    Danny Boyle, tackling yet another completely different genre, does a good job at creating a look for this film. The dark atmosphere, chaotic editing style of infected attacks, and solid horror film pacing is handled well. The use of digital camera makes the situations presented more effective, as does the very good soundtrack, which is now being used quite a bit in various movie trailers.

    As is a constant problem with Boyle's screenwriting collaborator Alex Garland, the stories third act has issues. Although the film plays out well enough, especially after repeated viewings, one can't help but wish there were other possible resolutions or places to take this concept.

    It's a good movie overall, made better by a unique presentation from Danny Boyle's direction, and solid work from the lead actors.

    Selena: He was full of plans. Have you got any plans, Jim? Do you want us to find a cure and save the world or just fall in love and fuck? Plans are pointless. Staying alive is as good as it gets.
  • September 29, 2009
    Not as much of a thrill as I thought it would be. Kind of tedious.
  • September 27, 2009
    Great adaptation of "The Last Man On Earth", "The Omega Man", and "I Am Legend". Really well done.
  • September 25, 2009
    horror & action together.. tahst awsome m8
  • September 24, 2009
    I had no idea what to expect and it certainly didn't dissapoint me. Alot of people may not like it but i think it's original. period.
  • September 24, 2009
    Nice to have a zombie film set in London, went a bit rubbish at the end though. Early scenes are a total rip off of the comic 'Zenith' that was realised in the early 90's in 2000AD and also the Day of the Triffids.
  • September 23, 2009
    starts very well, but pace dies towards end.
  • September 22, 2009
    wow, a fairly original and actually thoughtful zombie movie. the sequel isn't horrible either.
  • September 18, 2009
    Finally a good horror film, again. Constantly mistaken with a zombie movie, I think it's ok to consider it like that, although it is not. Apocaliptic and desperate, depressing and lost. Mmm... This was so good when at the theaters...

    81/100
  • September 18, 2009
    its a good one
    but well i have some doubts
    u c in the beginning its said tat the chimps are infected wid rage
    and if some1 is infected wid rage dont they attack anything tat comes in their way???
    Y arent the infected attacking each other???
    i dont understand tat
    any way its a g...( read more)ood movie
  • September 17, 2009
    Best zombie-infected movie I've ever seen ! Maybe because It's more than a zombie movie! Long live Danny Boyle !
  • September 16, 2009
    One of my best zombie films

Summary


28 Days Later Summary